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
  #911  
Old January 31st 19, 10:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

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. Itís 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.

We have no fault insurance here. Typically in an accident between cars
both damages are paid by the person's insurance. Most people don't have
coverage on their bikes but the vehicle insurance includes a mandatory
liability coverage that covers pedestrians and cyclists specifically.
But to collect damages you have to go to court. I'm not a lawyer but
Jay can probably explain to you about shared liability etc. If the
motorist receives a ticket it's easier to win the claim to repair the
bike.

As far as enforcing it generally I donít think Iíve ever heard of anyone
being ticketed for that when it didnít 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.



When I lived in Boston I had to take Storrow drive home from work and
there was a sign on some condos that said "If you lived here you would
be home by now." I saw that sign 5 days a weeks and never didn't notice
it. lol


--
Cheers,
John B.


Ads
  #912  
Old January 31st 19, 11:02 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

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. Itís less difficult to get your damages covered if the motorist
gets a ticket.

As far as enforcing it generally I donít think Iíve ever heard of anyone
being ticketed for that when it didnít 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?

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.

Cheers,
John B.



--
Cheers,
John B.


  #913  
Old January 31st 19, 11:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:42:02 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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.


In a study made by the California Highway Patrol in Los Angeles county
it was found that in the accidents in which blame could be determined
that bicycles were at fault in more then half of the accidents.

Other studies have shown that in cases of bicycle deaths a substantial
number of the dead cyclists had blood alcohol levels above the legal
limit. New York City and San Francisco, I believe, were two studies I
read.

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.

I remember someone posting a reference to an accident that happened
during a bicycle race. Three bicycles rode into the rear of an auto
legally parked in a designated parking area. The impression that I
perceived was that "the car shouldn't have been there".

While I do understand that this and the other bicycle sites are by and
for bicyclists the seeming attitude that no matter what happened it is
the other guy's fault and "we ought to have a law" is a bit
disconcerting. One might even say a denial of reality.


--
Cheers,
John B.


  #914  
Old January 31st 19, 11:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:43:39 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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?


See among others:
https://www.missourilawyers.com/bicy...common-causes/
"the rear end collision is the most common way that drunk drivers hurt
or kill cyclists"


--
Cheers,
John B.


  #915  
Old February 1st 19, 12:24 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,700
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

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

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #916  
Old February 1st 19, 01:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,700
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On 1/31/2019 6:39 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:43:39 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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?


See among others:
https://www.missourilawyers.com/bicy...common-causes/
"the rear end collision is the most common way that drunk drivers hurt
or kill cyclists"


That isn't what you said. You're talking about "the most common
problem." But in that sentence, he's talking specifically about _drunk_
drivers. That omits all the drivers who are not drunk.

Here's a link (I hope it works) to a fairly prominent traffic engineer's
presentation at a national conference.
https://doc-0o-9g-docs.googleusercon...SxR?e=download

He begins by giving percentages for causes of bike crashes. First, 70%
don't involve a car at all. Of the 30% that do, 73% come from crossing
movements (turns or other movements at intersections). That means about
8% are hits from behind or sideswipes. (I don't know if he's including
doorings in his totals - I'd have to re-read it all.)

I've seen similar data elsewhere- for example, the first Cross-Fisher study
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm
that had an even smaller percentage of car bike crashes being hit from
behind.

There's been propaganda from the useless League of American Bicyclists
claiming that those studies downplay the "hit from behind" problem, but
LAB's methodology was absolute nonsense. They gathered their "data" by
having interns read, count and try to interpret news reports of bike
crashes! It was the kind of thing that would get a "D" grade in any
legitimate college course.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #917  
Old February 1st 19, 05:12 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

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.

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"


--
Cheers,
John B.


  #918  
Old February 1st 19, 11:26 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,546
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On 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, that’s not always the case here. I doubt it’s even usually
the case.

We have no fault insurance here. Typically in an accident between cars
both damages are paid by the person's insurance. Most people don't have
coverage on their bikes but the vehicle insurance includes a mandatory
liability coverage that covers pedestrians and cyclists specifically.
But to collect damages you have to go to court. I'm not a lawyer but
Jay can probably explain to you about shared liability etc. If the
motorist receives a ticket it's easier to win the claim to repair the
bike.

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.



When I lived in Boston I had to take Storrow drive home from work and
there was a sign on some condos that said "If you lived here you would
be home by now." I saw that sign 5 days a weeks and never didn't notice
it. lol


--
Cheers,
John B.






--
duane
  #919  
Old February 1st 19, 11:26 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,546
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On 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.



Cheers,
John B.



--
Cheers,
John B.






--
duane
  #920  
Old February 1st 19, 05:45 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,700
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

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?

Please keep in mind that most ex-DUI bike riders probably don't sit in
bars reading bike advocacy websites.

--
- Frank Krygowski
 




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 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:10 AM.


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.