|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#901
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Lit Crit wanted
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: On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 11:48:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/27/2019 12:36 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 20:54:54 -0500, Joy Beeson wrote: I'm particularly interested in words that I can leave out without impairing clarity. This essay is way too long. It also needs a definite exit line. Any ideas for change-of-topic marks with a chance of surviving a typesetter who regularly ends stories in the middle of a sentence, and sometimes in the middle of a word? The essay is intended as a letter to an American newspaper, so I haven't mentioned driving on the left. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are thinking about riding a bike, you need to learn the rules of the road. If you have a car-driver's license, you already know the rules: bikes follow the same rules as cars because two vehicles operating by different rules on the same facility insure conflict. Where the rules for different classes of vehicles differ, there will be signs saying "no non-motorized vehicles", "no trucks except for local delivery", "slow vehicles keep right", and so forth. Most differences between cars and bikes are statistical. For example, cars are noisy, so bike riders need to make noise on purpose much more often than a car driver needs to sound the horn. You should never overtake a pedestrian or another bike rider without letting him know that you are there. A simple "Hi!" will do, but I often choose to give more information -- when I saw a photographer leaning over the edge of the boardwalk, for example, I said "I am passing behind you." # There are a few rules that are different for bikes. A car driver can make hand signals only through the driver's-side window, so he signals a right turn by bending his left elbow at a right angle and pointing up. When I give this signal on a bike, people wave back. A bike rider signals a right turn by pointing with his right arm, a mirror image of the left-turn signal. Bike riders also have the option of signalling "I intend to go straight" -- just point straight ahead with either arm. It is a good idea, after giving this signal, to raise your arm a little so that people behind you can see it. The law gives bicycles explicit permission to operate on a usable shoulder -- most of the reasons for banning traffic on shoulders don't apply to a vehicle that the operator can pick up and walk off with. But note the word "usable". You don't have permission to ride on shoulders that are intermittent, narrow, covered with sharp or slippery debris, or otherwise not safe to ride on. Also note that when you ride on a shoulder, you are not in the roadway and therefore have sole responsibility for avoiding collisions. Whenever you approach an intersection, you should suspect every driver of intending to turn into the side road, and you should expect every driver on the side road to creep forward for a better view of the traffic lanes. Another difference between cars and bikes is lane position. Most vehicles have no option but "in the middle of your share", but bicycles can also ride in the left wheel track or the right wheel track, and on some rare occasions, your share isn't the entire lane. Lane position is a complex subject best studied under the supervision of an experienced cyclist, but I've posted an over-simplified explanation at http://www.wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/CENT2018/LANE.HTM", and you can read chapter 2 of "Street Smarts" at http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm. An even-more simplified version: when in doubt, ride in the middle of the lane. Always leave yourself room to dodge to the right. Never weave in and out of traffic. Give a wide berth to things that can knock you off your bike, such as parked cars, curbs, lengthwise grooves, and drop-offs. When riding in a bike lane, allow a good four feet between your left elbow and the motor lane. Always signal your intentions. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments on the Web page are also solicited. I'm seriously considering breaking the letter at the # and ending "There are a few rules that are different for bikes, but I've taken up too much space already, so I will write a another letter." This is a desperate measure, because the local nutcases write multi-part letters. The first letter would be e-mailed with the subject line, perhaps repeated in the body to increase the odds it will be used as a headline, "Time to start dusting off the bike" The second with the subject line "Three ways bikes are not like cars". I read both the above and your reference http://www.wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/CENT2018/LANE.HTM" and while I haven't ridden in the U.S. in many years and maybe conditions are different there, but here one is quite often (I might almost say "normally") riding on streets or roads where the vehicle traffic is traveling at 100 KPH or faster and the bicycle is traveling at, perhaps, 1/4 or 1/3 of that speed. In that instance "taking the lane" can be hazardous unless done carefully as veering out in front of a vehicle traveling at speed assumes that the vehicle can stop and if the assumption is incorrect then what? Nobody with any sense recommends veering out suddenly in front of a fast vehicle. The relevant books, pamphlets, classes, videos and websites all make it clear (or should make it clear) that you check behind you, signal, and negotiate if necessary when you need to move left. Signaling before you move into a lane(s) where all the traffic is traveling at speeds of 60+mph is a good move? Or perhaps more to the point, moving into a lane where all the traffic is traveling at three, or more, times the speed of the bicycle is a good idea, signal or no signal. I wondered if that's what you really meant. So it leads to the usual question: 10 foot lane. 9 foot truck. No shoulder. Traffic using the next lane, whether same-direction or oncoming. What are you going to do? I've been in that situation countless times. I've taken the lane by moving leftward in plenty of time. The trucks, cars, whatever have never run me over. In almost all cases, they've slowed and waited until they could pass in the next lane. And please don't say "Never ride that road." If that were the requirement, I could never get out of my neighborhood. I can only assume that you ride on very different roads then I do. For example, last Tuesday we drove from Bangkok to Pak Chung, a small town about 200 km N.E. of Bangkok. Disregarding the first 20 or so km of toll road we were on modern 6 lane highways where traffic was in excess of 100 kph and the distance between vehicles was, perhaps 25 - 50 meters, all the way. At 100 kph the time to travel 50 meters is a bit less then two seconds. "taken the lane by moving leftward in plenty of time" would require nearly super sonic speed. As for "don't ride that road", over the past 50 years or so Thailand has been improving their roads and today about the only way to travel between cities is on this type of road. Then I assume you're riding on the shoulder, right? Roads I ride on: Residential streets 18 feet wide or less, of course. And residential collectors, a bit wider, but with more traffic, 35 mph limits and curbs. Both of those are "take the lane" streets for sure. Present or former country lanes, about the same width but with no shoulders. Again, taking the lane is a must. Minor state routes. Sometimes wider, but rarely wide enough to safely share. Speed limits from 45 to 55 mph. Take the lane unless it's got a really nice shoulder. Very frequently, a four lane suburban stroad with 30,000 to 40,000 cars per day. 12 foot lanes. That's a tough one, because it's sort of sharable with a tiny car (Fiat 500, VW Beetle) if the driver is careful. But anyone else will be passing too close. Speed limit 40 mph. Decades ago, I tried to share it a lot. Now I almost always ride at lane center. Old city arterials, four lanes, probably 10 feet wide. Those can be ugly at quitting time. I ride them if I have to, but I prefer the parallel residential collectors. Oh yeah, one street that's one lane each way plus a center bi-directional turning lane. This is through an old but still active commercial area. Again, too narrow to share. Motorists use the turning lane to pass. It may be illegal, but nobody would ever care or complain. Finally, some old industrial roads that once carried tons of traffic, but the steel mills closed and the traffic is gone. Some of those actually have lanes about 15 feet wide. Those I easily share. In the past, there have been a couple times I got onto really hellish roads and could not get off - for example, one parallel to a major river. It had very high traffic, four narrow lanes, no shoulders, everybody in a bad mood and a real hurry, and terrible pavement. I did get off of it as soon as I could, but what did I do until I could leave it? I rode at lane center. Drivers were displeased, but anything else would have been suicidal. The law here states that bicycles and motorcycles - meaning small 100 - 125cc motorcycles - must ride on the side of the road. The meaning is that bicycles and motorcycles should not impede faster traffic. This is a big issue in American bike advocacy right now, at least among those that want to ride in the present day real world, before the utopian fantasy of completely separate bike facilities everywhere. Traffic laws are state laws, not national laws. Almost all state laws say something about riding "as far right as practicable." But most also make it clear that the cyclist does have a right to the lane, and may move left if the right is not "practicable" - as in, has potholes, drain grates, door zones or whatever. Many states specify that the cyclist can move left if the lane is too narrow to safely share. And many (perhaps most) states have minimum passing clearance laws, with three feet being the most common minimum. 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." 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 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. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#902
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Lit Crit wanted
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. |
#903
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Lit Crit wanted
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. -- duane |
#904
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Lit Crit wanted
On 1/29/2019 8:56 PM, 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. First, let's be realistic. Cops are a tiny percentage of drivers. The odds a cop will see a given incident of too-close passing are slim. But that same shortcoming applies to people rolling through stop signs, passing stopped school buses, driving after drinking and much else. It's not a good argument for repealing those laws. So what happens with those laws? Typical enforcement is by periodic "sting" programs - hidden cop cars near stop signs, hidden cop cars near school buses, "safety checks" where every car is stopped. (Those happen around here a couple times per year.) And it's not that each "sting" takes a significant number of offenders off the streets. Instead, it's the publicity that plants the message "they may be watching, I'd better be careful." There have been sting operations regarding minimum passing clearance laws. I suspect they happen where there are one or more avid cyclists, or at least bike cops, on the police force. Another enforcement mechanism is "after the fact." Someone hits something or someone with their car, and is breath tested for alcohol and prosecuted. Someone runs a stop sign in front of another driver and gets the stop sign ticket, etc. So another hope that's been mentioned regarding these laws goes like this: Some sideswiping motorists have gotten acquitted by saying "The guy on the bike swerved into the side of my car." Well, it's pretty unrealistic for a straight-ahead bike to suddenly swerve more than three feet. Hopefully this will toss that false excuse out. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#905
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Lit Crit wanted
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. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#906
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Lit Crit wanted
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 :-) 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. Maybe. I would tend to think that if one passes a sign saying "anything" on the way to work every morning it would sort of become meaningless as time went by. Cheers, John B. |
#907
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Lit Crit wanted
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? 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? Or are bicycles somehow exempt from all rules and regulations and can do anything that they want on the public highways? Cheers, John B. |
#908
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Lit Crit wanted
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 11:59:33 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 1/29/2019 8:56 PM, 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. First, let's be realistic. Cops are a tiny percentage of drivers. The odds a cop will see a given incident of too-close passing are slim. But that same shortcoming applies to people rolling through stop signs, passing stopped school buses, driving after drinking and much else. It's not a good argument for repealing those laws. You seem to be avoiding the question. How will a cop determine that the car passed closer then 3 feet? Does he have a calibrated eyeball? Way back when radar guns were first used, a cop, in Long Island, N.Y. I think it was, "shot" a guy with his radar gun and the individual, instead of passively paying his fine elected a trial and proved that the method of calibrating the radar gun was faulty and was found not guilty. I would suspect that if the 3 foot passing law was invoked that eventually someone would demand a trial and likely prove that the Cop couldn't actually determine how far 3 feet is, when seen at say 25 yards. So what happens with those laws? Typical enforcement is by periodic "sting" programs - hidden cop cars near stop signs, hidden cop cars near school buses, "safety checks" where every car is stopped. (Those happen around here a couple times per year.) And it's not that each "sting" takes a significant number of offenders off the streets. Instead, it's the publicity that plants the message "they may be watching, I'd better be careful." There have been sting operations regarding minimum passing clearance laws. I suspect they happen where there are one or more avid cyclists, or at least bike cops, on the police force. Another enforcement mechanism is "after the fact." Someone hits something or someone with their car, and is breath tested for alcohol and prosecuted. Someone runs a stop sign in front of another driver and gets the stop sign ticket, etc. So another hope that's been mentioned regarding these laws goes like this: Some sideswiping motorists have gotten acquitted by saying "The guy on the bike swerved into the side of my car." Well, it's pretty unrealistic for a straight-ahead bike to suddenly swerve more than three feet. Hopefully this will toss that false excuse out. I think that you are grasping at straws with the defense of the 3 foot law. How many bicycle accidents concern "side swiping" a bicycle? From what I read the most common problem is three vehicle running into a bicycle from behind, usually because the bicycle is not riding on the side of the road. Cheers, John B. |
#909
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Lit Crit wanted
On 1/30/2019 6:21 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
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? 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? Or are bicycles somehow exempt from all rules and regulations and can do anything that they want on the public highways? Regrettably, in our car-dominated culture, there are many instances where motorists have hit cyclists and gotten off with the flimsiest of excuses; or with no excuse at all. The police who arrive on the scene are often prejudiced against cyclists. (We can discuss that prejudice in another thread.) One intent of the three foot law was to reduce the effects of that prejudice. Regarding bicyclists passing vehicles with less than three feet clearance: That legality depends on the precise wording of each state's laws. In my view, a well-written law should make that clear. Ohio's law states "When a motor vehicle or trackless trolley overtakes and passes a bicycle, three feet or greater is considered a safe passing distance." That means it doesn't apply when a bicycle passes another vehicle. And I think that's reasonable. Most often when a bicycle passes another vehicle, that vehicle is stopped or practically stopped, and the bicycle is slowly squeezing by. Regarding your last paragraph, there are not many problems generated by bicycles doing whatever they want. Bicycles are devoid of free will. _Bicyclists_ are another matter - but they are governed by traffic law. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#910
|
|||
|
|||
AG: Lit Crit wanted
On 1/30/2019 6:39 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 11:59:33 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/29/2019 8:56 PM, 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. First, let's be realistic. Cops are a tiny percentage of drivers. The odds a cop will see a given incident of too-close passing are slim. But that same shortcoming applies to people rolling through stop signs, passing stopped school buses, driving after drinking and much else. It's not a good argument for repealing those laws. You seem to be avoiding the question. How will a cop determine that the car passed closer then 3 feet? Does he have a calibrated eyeball? Way back when radar guns were first used, a cop, in Long Island, N.Y. I think it was, "shot" a guy with his radar gun and the individual, instead of passively paying his fine elected a trial and proved that the method of calibrating the radar gun was faulty and was found not guilty. I would suspect that if the 3 foot passing law was invoked that eventually someone would demand a trial and likely prove that the Cop couldn't actually determine how far 3 feet is, when seen at say 25 yards. So what happens with those laws? Typical enforcement is by periodic "sting" programs - hidden cop cars near stop signs, hidden cop cars near school buses, "safety checks" where every car is stopped. (Those happen around here a couple times per year.) And it's not that each "sting" takes a significant number of offenders off the streets. Instead, it's the publicity that plants the message "they may be watching, I'd better be careful." There have been sting operations regarding minimum passing clearance laws. I suspect they happen where there are one or more avid cyclists, or at least bike cops, on the police force. Another enforcement mechanism is "after the fact." Someone hits something or someone with their car, and is breath tested for alcohol and prosecuted. Someone runs a stop sign in front of another driver and gets the stop sign ticket, etc. So another hope that's been mentioned regarding these laws goes like this: Some sideswiping motorists have gotten acquitted by saying "The guy on the bike swerved into the side of my car." Well, it's pretty unrealistic for a straight-ahead bike to suddenly swerve more than three feet. Hopefully this will toss that false excuse out. I think that you are grasping at straws with the defense of the 3 foot law. How many bicycle accidents concern "side swiping" a bicycle? From what I read the most common problem is three vehicle running into a bicycle from behind, usually because the bicycle is not riding on the side of the road. "... the most common problem is ... running into a bicycle from behind..."??? Where on earth did you get that idea? -- - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Speeding cyclist mows down elderly jogger | Mrcheerful | UK | 10 | February 13th 14 10:43 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 10:44 AM |