A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

AG: Aunt Granny's Advice, or How to become an elderly cyclist:



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #921  
Old February 2nd 19, 12:20 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 11:26:51 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 09:58:12 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 30/01/2019 6:16 p.m., John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 11:23:19 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 20:30:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/29/2019 7:00 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 14:05:11 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/28/2019 3:21 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 23:17:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/27/2019 8:09 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 19:07:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/27/2019 6:53 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 06:16:36 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

a great deal deleted


And every state that I have lived in, some ten states, has had a law
that "thou shall not impede" which is enforced to the extent that very
wide truck loads can often only be moved late at night with a police
escort.

The argument that "the cyclist can move left if the lane is too
narrow to safely share" just isn't logical in cases where motor
traffic is traveling at, say 60 - 70mph and the bicycle is traveling
at 12 - 18 mph. Particularly in dense traffic where there may be long
lines of cars traveling, say 25 - 50 yards apart. And, yes, those
conditions exist here, particularly on weekends.

I'm sure there are roads that are, practically speaking, unrideable. I
know that because I've ridden some of them. That road along a river I
mentioned was one.

You're saying that taking the lane just isn't logical if the traffic is
doing 60 mph. But if the lane is ten feet wide (which was about the
width of the road I mentioned) what would you do? Ride skimming the
concrete wall at your right and hope that all the motorists are going to
be super-careful and pass you with at least a foot or two of clearance,
AND that magically all the potholes will disappear as you approach them,
AND that the broken glass and gravel will float away before you?

It was a terrible road. Had I known, I would not have gotten onto it.
But once I was in that situation, my only hope was to take the lane, and
I did. Some drivers honked horns, but most did not. I was able to steer
around the potholes and ride away from the accumulated edge debris. I
survived until I could exit and find a better route.

What would you have done?

As for the "famous" 3 foot rule, I find it ridicules. Can you judge
distance accurately by eye? Three feet is 36 inches and I doubt that
anyone can accurately determine the difference between a 36 inch
(legal) distance and a 35 inch (illegal) distance. Yet another
unenforceable law passed to appease a special interest group.

Why stop at one inch resolution? Three feet is 914.4 mm. Obviously every
motorist passing at 914.3 will get a ticket, just like every motorist
driving 35.05 in a 35 zone. That's how it works, right? Um... not.

Like almost every law, police will not bother trying to perfectly
enforce it. Hopefully, they will enforce it more diligently from time to
time, partly as an education effort. And the law does give an opening
for education, which our bike club and others in our state have done.
There's a sign in my front yard right now, with a graphic image showing
a car passing a bike, and the words "3 FEET - IT'S THE LAW."

My point is "how will they measure the 3 feet?" By eye? Will they have
a special radar device? Will bicycles soon mount "whiskers sticking
out 3 feet on each side?

Or will the courts simply believe the testimony of the cyclist when he
says "He passed too close"?

Actually I doubt that as in the California trial about the guy that
attacked the MTB cyclists with a saw the court threw out the first
trial because the cyclists story weren't true.

There have been a few cities where bike cops mounted radar units to
measure passing clearance. I don't think that's going to be common, but
again, the publicity helps.
https://www.wvlt.tv/content/news/KPD...493831211.html

That is a device mounted on the bicycle. Who will pay for that? The
individual? Or the city/state? Will there be another ruling that "ALL
BICYCLES WILL HAVE A RADAR DEVICE INSTALLED"?

All traffic laws have been derided as silly at one time or other. All
are ignored at one time or other. But most of them do improve driver
behavior. Hopefully this one will do it, too.

The point wasn't that the law was silly. It was whether it could be
enforced and frankly I don't believe that it can be under present
conditions.


Cheers,
John B.




One thing that it does is establish liability when the car hits the
cyclist. It?s less difficult to get your damages covered if the motorist
gets a ticket.

Well, yes! But isn't the mere fact that a car runs into a bicycle,
unless of course the bicycle was at fault, a crime? It is here
(although that isn't a real argument :-)


No. It's a crime if the motorist violates a law. Otherwise it's an
accident. In an accident liability can be shared.

Interesting. Here is you hit a bicycle and kill the rider it is
considered a crime.


Unfortunately, thats not always the case here. I doubt its even usually
the case.


I'm not sure what the exact terminology is, perhaps "causing a death",
but it isn't the same as murder although the penalty is a prison
sentence.

--
Cheers,
John B.


Ads
  #922  
Old February 2nd 19, 12:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 11:26:53 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 10:06:20 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 30/01/2019 6:21 p.m., John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:00:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/30/2019 6:23 AM, Duane wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 20:30:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/29/2019 7:00 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 14:05:11 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/28/2019 3:21 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 23:17:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/27/2019 8:09 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 19:07:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/27/2019 6:53 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 06:16:36 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

a great deal deleted


And every state that I have lived in, some ten states, has had a law
that "thou shall not impede" which is enforced to the extent that very
wide truck loads can often only be moved late at night with a police
escort.

The argument that "the cyclist can move left if the lane is too
narrow to safely share" just isn't logical in cases where motor
traffic is traveling at, say 60 - 70mph and the bicycle is traveling
at 12 - 18 mph. Particularly in dense traffic where there may be long
lines of cars traveling, say 25 - 50 yards apart. And, yes, those
conditions exist here, particularly on weekends.

I'm sure there are roads that are, practically speaking, unrideable. I
know that because I've ridden some of them. That road along a river I
mentioned was one.

You're saying that taking the lane just isn't logical if the traffic is
doing 60 mph. But if the lane is ten feet wide (which was about the
width of the road I mentioned) what would you do? Ride skimming the
concrete wall at your right and hope that all the motorists are going to
be super-careful and pass you with at least a foot or two of clearance,
AND that magically all the potholes will disappear as you approach them,
AND that the broken glass and gravel will float away before you?

It was a terrible road. Had I known, I would not have gotten onto it.
But once I was in that situation, my only hope was to take the lane, and
I did. Some drivers honked horns, but most did not. I was able to steer
around the potholes and ride away from the accumulated edge debris. I
survived until I could exit and find a better route.

What would you have done?

As for the "famous" 3 foot rule, I find it ridicules. Can you judge
distance accurately by eye? Three feet is 36 inches and I doubt that
anyone can accurately determine the difference between a 36 inch
(legal) distance and a 35 inch (illegal) distance. Yet another
unenforceable law passed to appease a special interest group.

Why stop at one inch resolution? Three feet is 914.4 mm. Obviously every
motorist passing at 914.3 will get a ticket, just like every motorist
driving 35.05 in a 35 zone. That's how it works, right? Um... not.

Like almost every law, police will not bother trying to perfectly
enforce it. Hopefully, they will enforce it more diligently from time to
time, partly as an education effort. And the law does give an opening
for education, which our bike club and others in our state have done.
There's a sign in my front yard right now, with a graphic image showing
a car passing a bike, and the words "3 FEET - IT'S THE LAW."

My point is "how will they measure the 3 feet?" By eye? Will they have
a special radar device? Will bicycles soon mount "whiskers sticking
out 3 feet on each side?

Or will the courts simply believe the testimony of the cyclist when he
says "He passed too close"?

Actually I doubt that as in the California trial about the guy that
attacked the MTB cyclists with a saw the court threw out the first
trial because the cyclists story weren't true.

There have been a few cities where bike cops mounted radar units to
measure passing clearance. I don't think that's going to be common, but
again, the publicity helps.
https://www.wvlt.tv/content/news/KPD...493831211.html

That is a device mounted on the bicycle. Who will pay for that? The
individual? Or the city/state? Will there be another ruling that "ALL
BICYCLES WILL HAVE A RADAR DEVICE INSTALLED"?

All traffic laws have been derided as silly at one time or other. All
are ignored at one time or other. But most of them do improve driver
behavior. Hopefully this one will do it, too.

The point wasn't that the law was silly. It was whether it could be
enforced and frankly I don't believe that it can be under present
conditions.


Cheers,
John B.




One thing that it does is establish liability when the car hits the
cyclist. It?s less difficult to get your damages covered if the motorist
gets a ticket.

As far as enforcing it generally I don?t think I?ve ever heard of anyone
being ticketed for that when it didn?t result in an accident.

But the signs on the road advertising it may do something to help increase
awareness and reduce accidents.

Exactly.

You are implying that simply running into someone is meaningless,
aren't you? That you need to have yet another law to penalize the
vehicle that runs into another?


You aren't understanding the meaning of the word "accident" with respect
to this. Maybe where you are it's an automatic thing that the larger
vehicle is liable but it's not here. Even hit's from behind. Some
asshole fell asleep and ran over some women out training in Rougemont
Quebec near Montreal. He killed 3 and put 2 in the hospital. It was
ruled an accident and there was no penalty.

The law here is that in a road crash the larger vehicle is initially
deemed at fault. However, subsequent investigation may well show that
the other party, being in violation of some rule or another, is the
primary cause of the crash and thus is the faulty party.

And, if it is illegal to pass a bicycle at less then 3 feet isn't it
equally illegal for the bicycle to pass another vehicle closer then 3
feet?


It is.


If so then is a bicycle violating the law when he squirms his way
through a line of cars that are stopped, to be first at the stoplight?
Providing, of course that the space between cars is narrow?


Yes.

Or are bicycles somehow exempt from all rules and regulations and can
do anything that they want on the public highways?


They are not and cannot. Not sure what your point is...


Sarcasm :-) Quite frequently messages posted here appear to imply that
no matter what happened the bicycle was not at fault.


Thats why laws such as the safe passing law are useful to establish fault.


Which was one of my original comments. How do you determine that the
car passes too close? Jay can probably explain it but my understanding
is that if one is charged with passing too close that the law has to
prove that the vehicle passed closer then a 36 inch distance. Not
"about 36" or "it looked like that to me".

How is this done?


--
Cheers,
John B.


  #923  
Old February 2nd 19, 01:26 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,546
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 11:26:53 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 10:06:20 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 30/01/2019 6:21 p.m., John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:00:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/30/2019 6:23 AM, Duane wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 20:30:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/29/2019 7:00 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 14:05:11 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/28/2019 3:21 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 23:17:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/27/2019 8:09 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 19:07:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/27/2019 6:53 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 06:16:36 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

a great deal deleted


And every state that I have lived in, some ten states, has had a law
that "thou shall not impede" which is enforced to the extent that very
wide truck loads can often only be moved late at night with a police
escort.

The argument that "the cyclist can move left if the lane is too
narrow to safely share" just isn't logical in cases where motor
traffic is traveling at, say 60 - 70mph and the bicycle is traveling
at 12 - 18 mph. Particularly in dense traffic where there may be long
lines of cars traveling, say 25 - 50 yards apart. And, yes, those
conditions exist here, particularly on weekends.

I'm sure there are roads that are, practically speaking, unrideable. I
know that because I've ridden some of them. That road along a river I
mentioned was one.

You're saying that taking the lane just isn't logical if the traffic is
doing 60 mph. But if the lane is ten feet wide (which was about the
width of the road I mentioned) what would you do? Ride skimming the
concrete wall at your right and hope that all the motorists are going to
be super-careful and pass you with at least a foot or two of clearance,
AND that magically all the potholes will disappear as you approach them,
AND that the broken glass and gravel will float away before you?

It was a terrible road. Had I known, I would not have gotten onto it.
But once I was in that situation, my only hope was to take the lane, and
I did. Some drivers honked horns, but most did not. I was able to steer
around the potholes and ride away from the accumulated edge debris. I
survived until I could exit and find a better route.

What would you have done?

As for the "famous" 3 foot rule, I find it ridicules. Can you judge
distance accurately by eye? Three feet is 36 inches and I doubt that
anyone can accurately determine the difference between a 36 inch
(legal) distance and a 35 inch (illegal) distance. Yet another
unenforceable law passed to appease a special interest group.

Why stop at one inch resolution? Three feet is 914.4 mm. Obviously every
motorist passing at 914.3 will get a ticket, just like every motorist
driving 35.05 in a 35 zone. That's how it works, right? Um... not.

Like almost every law, police will not bother trying to perfectly
enforce it. Hopefully, they will enforce it more diligently from time to
time, partly as an education effort. And the law does give an opening
for education, which our bike club and others in our state have done.
There's a sign in my front yard right now, with a graphic image showing
a car passing a bike, and the words "3 FEET - IT'S THE LAW."

My point is "how will they measure the 3 feet?" By eye? Will they have
a special radar device? Will bicycles soon mount "whiskers sticking
out 3 feet on each side?

Or will the courts simply believe the testimony of the cyclist when he
says "He passed too close"?

Actually I doubt that as in the California trial about the guy that
attacked the MTB cyclists with a saw the court threw out the first
trial because the cyclists story weren't true.

There have been a few cities where bike cops mounted radar units to
measure passing clearance. I don't think that's going to be common, but
again, the publicity helps.
https://www.wvlt.tv/content/news/KPD...493831211.html

That is a device mounted on the bicycle. Who will pay for that? The
individual? Or the city/state? Will there be another ruling that "ALL
BICYCLES WILL HAVE A RADAR DEVICE INSTALLED"?

All traffic laws have been derided as silly at one time or other. All
are ignored at one time or other. But most of them do improve driver
behavior. Hopefully this one will do it, too.

The point wasn't that the law was silly. It was whether it could be
enforced and frankly I don't believe that it can be under present
conditions.


Cheers,
John B.




One thing that it does is establish liability when the car hits the
cyclist. It?s less difficult to get your damages covered if the motorist
gets a ticket.

As far as enforcing it generally I don?t think I?ve ever heard of anyone
being ticketed for that when it didn?t result in an accident.

But the signs on the road advertising it may do something to help increase
awareness and reduce accidents.

Exactly.

You are implying that simply running into someone is meaningless,
aren't you? That you need to have yet another law to penalize the
vehicle that runs into another?


You aren't understanding the meaning of the word "accident" with respect
to this. Maybe where you are it's an automatic thing that the larger
vehicle is liable but it's not here. Even hit's from behind. Some
asshole fell asleep and ran over some women out training in Rougemont
Quebec near Montreal. He killed 3 and put 2 in the hospital. It was
ruled an accident and there was no penalty.

The law here is that in a road crash the larger vehicle is initially
deemed at fault. However, subsequent investigation may well show that
the other party, being in violation of some rule or another, is the
primary cause of the crash and thus is the faulty party.

And, if it is illegal to pass a bicycle at less then 3 feet isn't it
equally illegal for the bicycle to pass another vehicle closer then 3
feet?


It is.

If so then is a bicycle violating the law when he squirms his way
through a line of cars that are stopped, to be first at the stoplight?
Providing, of course that the space between cars is narrow?


Yes.

Or are bicycles somehow exempt from all rules and regulations and can
do anything that they want on the public highways?


They are not and cannot. Not sure what your point is...

Sarcasm :-) Quite frequently messages posted here appear to imply that
no matter what happened the bicycle was not at fault.


That’s why laws such as the safe passing law are useful to establish fault.


Which was one of my original comments. How do you determine that the
car passes too close? Jay can probably explain it but my understanding
is that if one is charged with passing too close that the law has to
prove that the vehicle passed closer then a 36 inch distance. Not
"about 36" or "it looked like that to me".

How is this done?


The car hits the bike. I’m saying that the law helps establish fault in
event of an accident.



--
Cheers,
John B.






--
duane
  #924  
Old February 2nd 19, 01:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 00:26:21 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 11:26:53 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 10:06:20 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 30/01/2019 6:21 p.m., John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:00:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/30/2019 6:23 AM, Duane wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 20:30:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/29/2019 7:00 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 14:05:11 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/28/2019 3:21 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 23:17:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/27/2019 8:09 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 19:07:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/27/2019 6:53 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 06:16:36 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

a great deal deleted


And every state that I have lived in, some ten states, has had a law
that "thou shall not impede" which is enforced to the extent that very
wide truck loads can often only be moved late at night with a police
escort.

The argument that "the cyclist can move left if the lane is too
narrow to safely share" just isn't logical in cases where motor
traffic is traveling at, say 60 - 70mph and the bicycle is traveling
at 12 - 18 mph. Particularly in dense traffic where there may be long
lines of cars traveling, say 25 - 50 yards apart. And, yes, those
conditions exist here, particularly on weekends.

I'm sure there are roads that are, practically speaking, unrideable. I
know that because I've ridden some of them. That road along a river I
mentioned was one.

You're saying that taking the lane just isn't logical if the traffic is
doing 60 mph. But if the lane is ten feet wide (which was about the
width of the road I mentioned) what would you do? Ride skimming the
concrete wall at your right and hope that all the motorists are going to
be super-careful and pass you with at least a foot or two of clearance,
AND that magically all the potholes will disappear as you approach them,
AND that the broken glass and gravel will float away before you?

It was a terrible road. Had I known, I would not have gotten onto it.
But once I was in that situation, my only hope was to take the lane, and
I did. Some drivers honked horns, but most did not. I was able to steer
around the potholes and ride away from the accumulated edge debris. I
survived until I could exit and find a better route.

What would you have done?

As for the "famous" 3 foot rule, I find it ridicules. Can you judge
distance accurately by eye? Three feet is 36 inches and I doubt that
anyone can accurately determine the difference between a 36 inch
(legal) distance and a 35 inch (illegal) distance. Yet another
unenforceable law passed to appease a special interest group.

Why stop at one inch resolution? Three feet is 914.4 mm. Obviously every
motorist passing at 914.3 will get a ticket, just like every motorist
driving 35.05 in a 35 zone. That's how it works, right? Um... not.

Like almost every law, police will not bother trying to perfectly
enforce it. Hopefully, they will enforce it more diligently from time to
time, partly as an education effort. And the law does give an opening
for education, which our bike club and others in our state have done.
There's a sign in my front yard right now, with a graphic image showing
a car passing a bike, and the words "3 FEET - IT'S THE LAW."

My point is "how will they measure the 3 feet?" By eye? Will they have
a special radar device? Will bicycles soon mount "whiskers sticking
out 3 feet on each side?

Or will the courts simply believe the testimony of the cyclist when he
says "He passed too close"?

Actually I doubt that as in the California trial about the guy that
attacked the MTB cyclists with a saw the court threw out the first
trial because the cyclists story weren't true.

There have been a few cities where bike cops mounted radar units to
measure passing clearance. I don't think that's going to be common, but
again, the publicity helps.
https://www.wvlt.tv/content/news/KPD...493831211.html

That is a device mounted on the bicycle. Who will pay for that? The
individual? Or the city/state? Will there be another ruling that "ALL
BICYCLES WILL HAVE A RADAR DEVICE INSTALLED"?

All traffic laws have been derided as silly at one time or other. All
are ignored at one time or other. But most of them do improve driver
behavior. Hopefully this one will do it, too.

The point wasn't that the law was silly. It was whether it could be
enforced and frankly I don't believe that it can be under present
conditions.


Cheers,
John B.




One thing that it does is establish liability when the car hits the
cyclist. It?s less difficult to get your damages covered if the motorist
gets a ticket.

As far as enforcing it generally I don?t think I?ve ever heard of anyone
being ticketed for that when it didn?t result in an accident.

But the signs on the road advertising it may do something to help increase
awareness and reduce accidents.

Exactly.

You are implying that simply running into someone is meaningless,
aren't you? That you need to have yet another law to penalize the
vehicle that runs into another?


You aren't understanding the meaning of the word "accident" with respect
to this. Maybe where you are it's an automatic thing that the larger
vehicle is liable but it's not here. Even hit's from behind. Some
asshole fell asleep and ran over some women out training in Rougemont
Quebec near Montreal. He killed 3 and put 2 in the hospital. It was
ruled an accident and there was no penalty.

The law here is that in a road crash the larger vehicle is initially
deemed at fault. However, subsequent investigation may well show that
the other party, being in violation of some rule or another, is the
primary cause of the crash and thus is the faulty party.

And, if it is illegal to pass a bicycle at less then 3 feet isn't it
equally illegal for the bicycle to pass another vehicle closer then 3
feet?


It is.

If so then is a bicycle violating the law when he squirms his way
through a line of cars that are stopped, to be first at the stoplight?
Providing, of course that the space between cars is narrow?


Yes.

Or are bicycles somehow exempt from all rules and regulations and can
do anything that they want on the public highways?


They are not and cannot. Not sure what your point is...

Sarcasm :-) Quite frequently messages posted here appear to imply that
no matter what happened the bicycle was not at fault.


That?s why laws such as the safe passing law are useful to establish fault.


Which was one of my original comments. How do you determine that the
car passes too close? Jay can probably explain it but my understanding
is that if one is charged with passing too close that the law has to
prove that the vehicle passed closer then a 36 inch distance. Not
"about 36" or "it looked like that to me".

How is this done?


The car hits the bike. Im saying that the law helps establish fault in
event of an accident.


But if a car hits a bike isn't that a violation in itself? I would
think that if a car hits a bike it would be a bit redundant to say
that he violated the 3 foot law in doing so?

--
Cheers,
John B.


  #925  
Old February 2nd 19, 03:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,546
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 00:26:21 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 11:26:53 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 10:06:20 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 30/01/2019 6:21 p.m., John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:00:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/30/2019 6:23 AM, Duane wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 20:30:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/29/2019 7:00 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 14:05:11 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/28/2019 3:21 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 23:17:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/27/2019 8:09 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 19:07:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/27/2019 6:53 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 06:16:36 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

a great deal deleted


And every state that I have lived in, some ten states, has had a law
that "thou shall not impede" which is enforced to the extent that very
wide truck loads can often only be moved late at night with a police
escort.

The argument that "the cyclist can move left if the lane is too
narrow to safely share" just isn't logical in cases where motor
traffic is traveling at, say 60 - 70mph and the bicycle is traveling
at 12 - 18 mph. Particularly in dense traffic where there may be long
lines of cars traveling, say 25 - 50 yards apart. And, yes, those
conditions exist here, particularly on weekends.

I'm sure there are roads that are, practically speaking, unrideable. I
know that because I've ridden some of them. That road along a river I
mentioned was one.

You're saying that taking the lane just isn't logical if the traffic is
doing 60 mph. But if the lane is ten feet wide (which was about the
width of the road I mentioned) what would you do? Ride skimming the
concrete wall at your right and hope that all the motorists are going to
be super-careful and pass you with at least a foot or two of clearance,
AND that magically all the potholes will disappear as you approach them,
AND that the broken glass and gravel will float away before you?

It was a terrible road. Had I known, I would not have gotten onto it.
But once I was in that situation, my only hope was to take the lane, and
I did. Some drivers honked horns, but most did not. I was able to steer
around the potholes and ride away from the accumulated edge debris. I
survived until I could exit and find a better route.

What would you have done?

As for the "famous" 3 foot rule, I find it ridicules. Can you judge
distance accurately by eye? Three feet is 36 inches and I doubt that
anyone can accurately determine the difference between a 36 inch
(legal) distance and a 35 inch (illegal) distance. Yet another
unenforceable law passed to appease a special interest group.

Why stop at one inch resolution? Three feet is 914.4 mm. Obviously every
motorist passing at 914.3 will get a ticket, just like every motorist
driving 35.05 in a 35 zone. That's how it works, right? Um... not.

Like almost every law, police will not bother trying to perfectly
enforce it. Hopefully, they will enforce it more diligently from time to
time, partly as an education effort. And the law does give an opening
for education, which our bike club and others in our state have done.
There's a sign in my front yard right now, with a graphic image showing
a car passing a bike, and the words "3 FEET - IT'S THE LAW."

My point is "how will they measure the 3 feet?" By eye? Will they have
a special radar device? Will bicycles soon mount "whiskers sticking
out 3 feet on each side?

Or will the courts simply believe the testimony of the cyclist when he
says "He passed too close"?

Actually I doubt that as in the California trial about the guy that
attacked the MTB cyclists with a saw the court threw out the first
trial because the cyclists story weren't true.

There have been a few cities where bike cops mounted radar units to
measure passing clearance. I don't think that's going to be common, but
again, the publicity helps.
https://www.wvlt.tv/content/news/KPD...493831211.html

That is a device mounted on the bicycle. Who will pay for that? The
individual? Or the city/state? Will there be another ruling that "ALL
BICYCLES WILL HAVE A RADAR DEVICE INSTALLED"?

All traffic laws have been derided as silly at one time or other. All
are ignored at one time or other. But most of them do improve driver
behavior. Hopefully this one will do it, too.

The point wasn't that the law was silly. It was whether it could be
enforced and frankly I don't believe that it can be under present
conditions.


Cheers,
John B.




One thing that it does is establish liability when the car hits the
cyclist. It?s less difficult to get your damages covered if the motorist
gets a ticket.

As far as enforcing it generally I don?t think I?ve ever heard of anyone
being ticketed for that when it didn?t result in an accident.

But the signs on the road advertising it may do something to help increase
awareness and reduce accidents.

Exactly.

You are implying that simply running into someone is meaningless,
aren't you? That you need to have yet another law to penalize the
vehicle that runs into another?


You aren't understanding the meaning of the word "accident" with respect
to this. Maybe where you are it's an automatic thing that the larger
vehicle is liable but it's not here. Even hit's from behind. Some
asshole fell asleep and ran over some women out training in Rougemont
Quebec near Montreal. He killed 3 and put 2 in the hospital. It was
ruled an accident and there was no penalty.

The law here is that in a road crash the larger vehicle is initially
deemed at fault. However, subsequent investigation may well show that
the other party, being in violation of some rule or another, is the
primary cause of the crash and thus is the faulty party.

And, if it is illegal to pass a bicycle at less then 3 feet isn't it
equally illegal for the bicycle to pass another vehicle closer then 3
feet?


It is.

If so then is a bicycle violating the law when he squirms his way
through a line of cars that are stopped, to be first at the stoplight?
Providing, of course that the space between cars is narrow?


Yes.

Or are bicycles somehow exempt from all rules and regulations and can
do anything that they want on the public highways?


They are not and cannot. Not sure what your point is...

Sarcasm :-) Quite frequently messages posted here appear to imply that
no matter what happened the bicycle was not at fault.


That?s why laws such as the safe passing law are useful to establish fault.


Which was one of my original comments. How do you determine that the
car passes too close? Jay can probably explain it but my understanding
is that if one is charged with passing too close that the law has to
prove that the vehicle passed closer then a 36 inch distance. Not
"about 36" or "it looked like that to me".

How is this done?


The car hits the bike. I’m saying that the law helps establish fault in
event of an accident.


But if a car hits a bike isn't that a violation in itself? I would
think that if a car hits a bike it would be a bit redundant to say
that he violated the 3 foot law in doing so?

--
Cheers,
John B.




Not if he doesn’t get a ticket. In that case the no fault kicks in and each
is responsible for their own damages.

Again, you are conflating responsibility with liability.

--
duane
  #926  
Old February 2nd 19, 06:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,893
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On 2/1/2019 6:56 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 12:45:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/1/2019 12:12 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 19:24:38 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/31/2019 6:34 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Yet, strangely, I've never heard a bicycle advocate emphasize that it
might be preferable to obey traffic laws and not be drunk when riding
a bicycle. In honesty I have read mention in various "how to" bicycle
articles that casually mention, usually after several lurid paragraphs
about bikes being hit from the rear and the dangers of right turns,
the casual mention that bicyclists should obey the law, with no
emphasis what so ever that riding a bicycle in violation of the
traffic laws may result in the cyclist being killed.

There are _plenty_ of sources of information that tell cyclists to obey
the rules of the road. I'm sure there aren't as many that say "Don't
ride while drunk" - but then, do you think such advice would make a
difference? Maybe I'm stereotyping, but I think the typical guy who lost
his license by DUI isn't going to read safety information before biking
home from the bar.

Maybe you'll like Frank & Fred. See
http://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/index.html

Here's the first one:
http://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred001.htm

And the second starts talking about laws:
http://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred002.htm

Right. That reference says:
"First, riding to the left of center. Second, crashing stop signs or
traffic lights. Third, shooting into a lane of traffic without
checking to see if it's clear."

Apparently any other act is permitted.


?? Why did you stop reading before the next sentence or two?

"There are other mistakes, of course, but my main idea this month is: If
you wouldn't do something driving a car, you probably shouldn't do it
riding a bike."

For a bit more detail see:

https://tinyurl.com/y99znkzw
There were 5,090 collisions between a bicycle and a motor vehicle in
L.A. county in 2012, of which 2,759 were the fault of the bicycle.
That is 54%.

https://tinyurl.com/y7lsx4y4
"19% of bicyclists killed in 2014 had blood alcohol levels of 0.08 or
higher"

https://tinyurl.com/yc2emabq
"Some 21 percent of autopsies for New York City bicyclists who died
within three hours of their accidents detected alcohol in the body"


I've seen that data, John. I'm not arguing against it. I'm arguing
against your pretense that bicycling advocates don't promote obedience
to traffic laws.

You're right that more attention should be paid to discouraging drunk
cycling. I'd like to hear your ideas on how that should be done. What do
you suggest? Maybe signs next to the bike racks outside of bars?


Quite simple. You enforce the existing laws.

I can't comment on what actually happens in the U.S. as, to paraphrase
Will Rogers, the only thing I know is what I read here, but when I see
things like "Jez Cri! I was only doing 10 miles over the limit when
the Sum Btch stopped me", I get the impression that the general U.S.
public is made up of scofflaws.

I'll give you an example of how enforcing laws actually works. In
Singapore the law says that "you shall not talk on a hand phone while
driving". The penalty is something like a $1,000 fine - about a week's
salary for a working man. And guess what, they enforce the law and
people don't talk on hand phones while driving.


I certainly won't deny differences in culture between different
countries. But solving the problem of riding bikes while drunk by
"simple, you enforce existing laws" is kind of naive, at least in the
U.S.. Here's how it would probably go down:

First, some local mayor or police chief would have to declare that this
is going to be a major goal. Now even in some ideal world where that
goal were achieved ("Drunk bicycling is down 80% in East Podunk!") it
would probably make no difference across the city line in West Podunk.
Jurisdiction limits are real. And the effort would probably end in a
year even in East Podunk.

But more realistically: As soon as the Podunk Courier's headline said
"Cops to crack down on drunk pedalers," the call-in talk show would be
buried in "What a waste of money!" and "Can't they fight REAL crime?"
and "When they're waiting outside bars, who will protect my
neighborhood?" and "They can't stop a biker without probable cause!!!
I'm writing to the ACLU!!" The political fallout would be quick.

And there wont' be huge federal grant to hire enough extra cops to put
the sting on drunks biking away from bars. Saving the lives of 200
drunks, nationwide, per year just won't be a high priority. (Of those,
far less than one per year would happen in East Podunk anyway.) Plus,
grant givers will correctly say "It's better that they risk their lives
on bikes, instead of risking others' lives by driving cars."

So because of politics and practicalities, enforcement at a level to
seriously restrict drunk bicycling seems impossible to me, at least in
the U.S. I think the problem just isn't big enough, and the solution is
too difficult. (200 fatalities per year is fewer than almost all other
causes of death.)

Speaking of differences between societies: What's the annual drunk
bicyclist death count in, say, Singapore? How does it compare with
pedestrian and motorist death counts? And what does ultra-strict
Singapore do to prevent drunk bicycling?


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #927  
Old February 2nd 19, 06:14 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,893
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On 2/1/2019 7:41 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

But if a car hits a bike isn't that a violation in itself? I would
think that if a car hits a bike it would be a bit redundant to say
that he violated the 3 foot law in doing so?


To illustrate the problem: Maybe 75 miles from here a couple of years
ago, a northbound driver in a pickup truck tried turning left into
another road. He ran head-on into a pack of road cyclists on a downhill.
Two cyclists died.

His defense: The sun was glaring in his eyes, so he didn't see them.

He was acquitted.

https://www.cleveland.com/brecksvill..._not_guil.html



--
- Frank Krygowski
  #928  
Old February 3rd 19, 12:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 14:26:51 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 00:26:21 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 11:26:53 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 10:06:20 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 30/01/2019 6:21 p.m., John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:00:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/30/2019 6:23 AM, Duane wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 20:30:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/29/2019 7:00 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 14:05:11 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/28/2019 3:21 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 23:17:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/27/2019 8:09 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 19:07:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/27/2019 6:53 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 06:16:36 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

a great deal deleted


And every state that I have lived in, some ten states, has had a law
that "thou shall not impede" which is enforced to the extent that very
wide truck loads can often only be moved late at night with a police
escort.

The argument that "the cyclist can move left if the lane is too
narrow to safely share" just isn't logical in cases where motor
traffic is traveling at, say 60 - 70mph and the bicycle is traveling
at 12 - 18 mph. Particularly in dense traffic where there may be long
lines of cars traveling, say 25 - 50 yards apart. And, yes, those
conditions exist here, particularly on weekends.

I'm sure there are roads that are, practically speaking, unrideable. I
know that because I've ridden some of them. That road along a river I
mentioned was one.

You're saying that taking the lane just isn't logical if the traffic is
doing 60 mph. But if the lane is ten feet wide (which was about the
width of the road I mentioned) what would you do? Ride skimming the
concrete wall at your right and hope that all the motorists are going to
be super-careful and pass you with at least a foot or two of clearance,
AND that magically all the potholes will disappear as you approach them,
AND that the broken glass and gravel will float away before you?

It was a terrible road. Had I known, I would not have gotten onto it.
But once I was in that situation, my only hope was to take the lane, and
I did. Some drivers honked horns, but most did not. I was able to steer
around the potholes and ride away from the accumulated edge debris. I
survived until I could exit and find a better route.

What would you have done?

As for the "famous" 3 foot rule, I find it ridicules. Can you judge
distance accurately by eye? Three feet is 36 inches and I doubt that
anyone can accurately determine the difference between a 36 inch
(legal) distance and a 35 inch (illegal) distance. Yet another
unenforceable law passed to appease a special interest group.

Why stop at one inch resolution? Three feet is 914.4 mm. Obviously every
motorist passing at 914.3 will get a ticket, just like every motorist
driving 35.05 in a 35 zone. That's how it works, right? Um... not.

Like almost every law, police will not bother trying to perfectly
enforce it. Hopefully, they will enforce it more diligently from time to
time, partly as an education effort. And the law does give an opening
for education, which our bike club and others in our state have done.
There's a sign in my front yard right now, with a graphic image showing
a car passing a bike, and the words "3 FEET - IT'S THE LAW."

My point is "how will they measure the 3 feet?" By eye? Will they have
a special radar device? Will bicycles soon mount "whiskers sticking
out 3 feet on each side?

Or will the courts simply believe the testimony of the cyclist when he
says "He passed too close"?

Actually I doubt that as in the California trial about the guy that
attacked the MTB cyclists with a saw the court threw out the first
trial because the cyclists story weren't true.

There have been a few cities where bike cops mounted radar units to
measure passing clearance. I don't think that's going to be common, but
again, the publicity helps.
https://www.wvlt.tv/content/news/KPD...493831211.html

That is a device mounted on the bicycle. Who will pay for that? The
individual? Or the city/state? Will there be another ruling that "ALL
BICYCLES WILL HAVE A RADAR DEVICE INSTALLED"?

All traffic laws have been derided as silly at one time or other. All
are ignored at one time or other. But most of them do improve driver
behavior. Hopefully this one will do it, too.

The point wasn't that the law was silly. It was whether it could be
enforced and frankly I don't believe that it can be under present
conditions.


Cheers,
John B.




One thing that it does is establish liability when the car hits the
cyclist. It?s less difficult to get your damages covered if the motorist
gets a ticket.

As far as enforcing it generally I don?t think I?ve ever heard of anyone
being ticketed for that when it didn?t result in an accident.

But the signs on the road advertising it may do something to help increase
awareness and reduce accidents.

Exactly.

You are implying that simply running into someone is meaningless,
aren't you? That you need to have yet another law to penalize the
vehicle that runs into another?


You aren't understanding the meaning of the word "accident" with respect
to this. Maybe where you are it's an automatic thing that the larger
vehicle is liable but it's not here. Even hit's from behind. Some
asshole fell asleep and ran over some women out training in Rougemont
Quebec near Montreal. He killed 3 and put 2 in the hospital. It was
ruled an accident and there was no penalty.

The law here is that in a road crash the larger vehicle is initially
deemed at fault. However, subsequent investigation may well show that
the other party, being in violation of some rule or another, is the
primary cause of the crash and thus is the faulty party.

And, if it is illegal to pass a bicycle at less then 3 feet isn't it
equally illegal for the bicycle to pass another vehicle closer then 3
feet?


It is.

If so then is a bicycle violating the law when he squirms his way
through a line of cars that are stopped, to be first at the stoplight?
Providing, of course that the space between cars is narrow?


Yes.

Or are bicycles somehow exempt from all rules and regulations and can
do anything that they want on the public highways?


They are not and cannot. Not sure what your point is...

Sarcasm :-) Quite frequently messages posted here appear to imply that
no matter what happened the bicycle was not at fault.


That?s why laws such as the safe passing law are useful to establish fault.


Which was one of my original comments. How do you determine that the
car passes too close? Jay can probably explain it but my understanding
is that if one is charged with passing too close that the law has to
prove that the vehicle passed closer then a 36 inch distance. Not
"about 36" or "it looked like that to me".

How is this done?


The car hits the bike. I?m saying that the law helps establish fault in
event of an accident.


But if a car hits a bike isn't that a violation in itself? I would
think that if a car hits a bike it would be a bit redundant to say
that he violated the 3 foot law in doing so?

--
Cheers,
John B.




Not if he doesnt get a ticket. In that case the no fault kicks in and each
is responsible for their own damages.


You mean that you can sideswipe a bicycle and not be thought to be
responsible?

Oh well, I suppose that the bicycle could swerve into the motor
vehicles path thus making the vehicle not responsible. Tell me. can
the motor vehicle operator make up any story that he/she wishes and
the court believes them. Ah well, I suppose when the cyclist is laying
there stone cold dead in the mortuary there is no one to depute it.

Again, you are conflating responsibility with liability/


Not really. I'm assuming that responsibility and liability are the
same thing. How could one be liable and not responsible?

--
Cheers,
John B.


  #929  
Old February 3rd 19, 12:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 12:08:09 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/1/2019 6:56 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 12:45:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/1/2019 12:12 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 19:24:38 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/31/2019 6:34 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Yet, strangely, I've never heard a bicycle advocate emphasize that it
might be preferable to obey traffic laws and not be drunk when riding
a bicycle. In honesty I have read mention in various "how to" bicycle
articles that casually mention, usually after several lurid paragraphs
about bikes being hit from the rear and the dangers of right turns,
the casual mention that bicyclists should obey the law, with no
emphasis what so ever that riding a bicycle in violation of the
traffic laws may result in the cyclist being killed.

There are _plenty_ of sources of information that tell cyclists to obey
the rules of the road. I'm sure there aren't as many that say "Don't
ride while drunk" - but then, do you think such advice would make a
difference? Maybe I'm stereotyping, but I think the typical guy who lost
his license by DUI isn't going to read safety information before biking
home from the bar.

Maybe you'll like Frank & Fred. See
http://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/index.html

Here's the first one:
http://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred001.htm

And the second starts talking about laws:
http://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/FrankNFred002.htm

Right. That reference says:
"First, riding to the left of center. Second, crashing stop signs or
traffic lights. Third, shooting into a lane of traffic without
checking to see if it's clear."

Apparently any other act is permitted.

?? Why did you stop reading before the next sentence or two?

"There are other mistakes, of course, but my main idea this month is: If
you wouldn't do something driving a car, you probably shouldn't do it
riding a bike."

For a bit more detail see:

https://tinyurl.com/y99znkzw
There were 5,090 collisions between a bicycle and a motor vehicle in
L.A. county in 2012, of which 2,759 were the fault of the bicycle.
That is 54%.

https://tinyurl.com/y7lsx4y4
"19% of bicyclists killed in 2014 had blood alcohol levels of 0.08 or
higher"

https://tinyurl.com/yc2emabq
"Some 21 percent of autopsies for New York City bicyclists who died
within three hours of their accidents detected alcohol in the body"

I've seen that data, John. I'm not arguing against it. I'm arguing
against your pretense that bicycling advocates don't promote obedience
to traffic laws.

You're right that more attention should be paid to discouraging drunk
cycling. I'd like to hear your ideas on how that should be done. What do
you suggest? Maybe signs next to the bike racks outside of bars?


Quite simple. You enforce the existing laws.

I can't comment on what actually happens in the U.S. as, to paraphrase
Will Rogers, the only thing I know is what I read here, but when I see
things like "Jez Cri! I was only doing 10 miles over the limit when
the Sum Btch stopped me", I get the impression that the general U.S.
public is made up of scofflaws.

I'll give you an example of how enforcing laws actually works. In
Singapore the law says that "you shall not talk on a hand phone while
driving". The penalty is something like a $1,000 fine - about a week's
salary for a working man. And guess what, they enforce the law and
people don't talk on hand phones while driving.


I certainly won't deny differences in culture between different
countries. But solving the problem of riding bikes while drunk by
"simple, you enforce existing laws" is kind of naive, at least in the
U.S.. Here's how it would probably go down:

The fact that laws aren't enforced in the U.S. is simply another
example of how ridiculous the country is becoming. "Oh yes, we'll pass
this new law, but don't worry we won't enforce it".

First, some local mayor or police chief would have to declare that this
is going to be a major goal. Now even in some ideal world where that
goal were achieved ("Drunk bicycling is down 80% in East Podunk!") it
would probably make no difference across the city line in West Podunk.
Jurisdiction limits are real. And the effort would probably end in a
year even in East Podunk.

But more realistically: As soon as the Podunk Courier's headline said
"Cops to crack down on drunk pedalers," the call-in talk show would be
buried in "What a waste of money!" and "Can't they fight REAL crime?"
and "When they're waiting outside bars, who will protect my
neighborhood?" and "They can't stop a biker without probable cause!!!
I'm writing to the ACLU!!" The political fallout would be quick.

The why have a law at all, if you have no intention of enforcing it?

And there wont' be huge federal grant to hire enough extra cops to put
the sting on drunks biking away from bars. Saving the lives of 200
drunks, nationwide, per year just won't be a high priority. (Of those,
far less than one per year would happen in East Podunk anyway.) Plus,
grant givers will correctly say "It's better that they risk their lives
on bikes, instead of risking others' lives by driving cars."

So because of politics and practicalities, enforcement at a level to
seriously restrict drunk bicycling seems impossible to me, at least in
the U.S. I think the problem just isn't big enough, and the solution is
too difficult. (200 fatalities per year is fewer than almost all other
causes of death.)

Speaking of differences between societies: What's the annual drunk
bicyclist death count in, say, Singapore? How does it compare with
pedestrian and motorist death counts? And what does ultra-strict
Singapore do to prevent drunk bicycling?


I can't find specific figures for "bicycle deaths" in Singapore but
the annual "road fatalities" in Singapore is 3.6/100,000 population
while the U.S. is 10.9/100,000.

The penalty for drunk driving in Singapore is:
https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law...ing-singapore/
If you are convicted of drink-driving, you are liable to fines of up
to $5,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 6 months's jail. Repeat
offenders face fines of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 12
months' jail.
See also:
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...nts-related-to

As an aside, the number of annual drug related offences in Singapore
is 46.8/100,000 and the U.S. is 560.1/100,000.

--
Cheers,
John B.


  #930  
Old February 3rd 19, 01:03 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 12:14:10 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/1/2019 7:41 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

But if a car hits a bike isn't that a violation in itself? I would
think that if a car hits a bike it would be a bit redundant to say
that he violated the 3 foot law in doing so?


To illustrate the problem: Maybe 75 miles from here a couple of years
ago, a northbound driver in a pickup truck tried turning left into
another road. He ran head-on into a pack of road cyclists on a downhill.
Two cyclists died.

His defense: The sun was glaring in his eyes, so he didn't see them.

He was acquitted.

https://www.cleveland.com/brecksvill..._not_guil.html


The fact that the U.S. (or States therein) fails to treat malfeasance
as a crime is simply one more example of what one might say a lack of
moral fiber. In another message you comment on the possibility of an
office not being re-elected if he were to enforce a law. What's next?
A ten dollar fine for murder?

--
Cheers,
John B.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Speeding cyclist mows down elderly jogger Mrcheerful UK 10 February 13th 14 11:43 PM
Cyclist:0 Disabled granny:1 Mrcheerful[_3_] UK 1 June 13th 13 09:15 PM
Hit & run cyclist injures elderly woman on pavement John Benn UK 25 August 19th 12 09:33 AM
cyclist says injured granny should not be on pavement! Mrcheerful[_2_] UK 5 June 13th 10 07:37 PM
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton [email protected] UK 167 February 1st 09 11:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.