3ft passing requirement revisited

Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
the perfect time to write:

There is no excuse for cyclists to block/hinder traffic. It just
causes road rage

The thing that causes road rage is attempted murder under the guise of
impatience.

You are the person that U locks were invented for.

This is "little jimmy" we are dealing with here.

The top posting should be a clue.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

John Kane wrote:
On Aug 22, 6:55 am, wrote:
You werent hit so get over it. The driver might simply have been
"brushing you back" which is necessary when cyclists are not as far
right as possible or riding two abreast.

You just flunked reading comprehension 101. Go back and reread Mike's
original post.

Do they hold Reading Comprehension 101 classes under bridges?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
I've wondered whether cyclists really need a law that requires cars to pass
us no closer than 3 feet. I generally don't have too many issues out on the
road, and it would seem that common sense and courtesy go a long way towards
making the world a reasonable place to drive and bike.

Until today.

I didn't even really know what happened until I played it back in mind mind
immediately afterward. Karl, Kevin and I were on the return leg of our usual
Tuesday/Thursday morning ride, heading north on 84 in Woodside, approaching
Tripp Road. We were not only single file, but single file on the very edge
of the road... I mean riding in tight formation, with maybe just a couple
inches (really) of pavement to the right of our wheels. If there was a "good
citizen" award for cyclists sharing the road, we would have gotten it. No
reason for us to impede cars if we don't have to (the shoulder's in pretty
good shape there, and being the first day of school for many, there was more
traffic than usual).

And then the black SUV went past us.

It didn't blast its horn. It didn't swerve. It simply didn't deviate from
its course. And it passed each of us by maybe, what, 6 inches? Could have
even been a bit less. It was RIGHT THERE.

If one of us had had to swerve for an obstacle, it would have been game
over. If the car had had to move over just a little bit to let a wide car
pass in the other direction, game over. If one of us had chosen that exact
time to look back and check traffic, and moved out into the road just a
little bit (as often happens when you look back), it might have been game
over.

That is exactly why I do not right on the very edge of the road. I give
myself a couple of feet of hedge room.

I like the idea of a three foot passing distance. Not so much that I
need three feet as much as if a driver gives much less than that, it's
obvious that they didn't give three feet.

Glad y'all're okay.

TJ Saunders wrote:
In ba.bicycles Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
It didn't blast its horn. It didn't swerve. It simply didn't deviate from
its course. And it passed each of us by maybe, what, 6 inches? Could have
even been a bit less. It was RIGHT THERE.

Finally hoisted by your own petar eh Mike? Even after all these years
of of defending the San Mateo County Sheriffs (thanks to a few deputies
who happen to shop at your store).

If one of us had had to swerve for an obstacle, it would have been game
over.

And you got the license plate right? And called it in, to the SMCS,
right? Did the officer chuckle or laugh outright when asked to enforce
the law for the benefit of a bicyclist?

Those of us who do ride a lot in the mid-San Francisco peninsula get
passed too closely all too often. Sometimes we record and report the
car license plate. When we do it's as plain as day, from response of
SMCS deputy, how much of San Mateo County's unusually hateful motorist
behavior is a direct result of the policies of said law enforcement
agency, and one Captain Schumaker in particular.

Can you get a creditable challenger for the current sheriff (a Greg
Munks who ran unopposed in the last election according to a Google
search) who would make this a campaign issue? Maybe something along the
line of "Sheriff Munks refuses to protect our children from road rage
drivers!"

Spending department funds at a brothel is not exactly re-election material.

So I'm changing my tune, and not just asking for a 3 foot passing law for
cyclists, but demanding it. A relatively-narrow two-lane road (like 84 near
Tripp, specifically right near the "singing gas pipes" on the west side of
the road) is no place for 3 bikes & two cars to share the same strip of
road. The car should have waited until it could pass us with reasonable
clearance, and there obviously needs to be a law defining what "reasonable
clearance" is because I doubt that particular driver thought he or she was
doing something reckless.

Good luck with that. Problem is there are more pre-SUV Mike Jacoubowsky's
who don't understand the problem and blame the victim than there post-SUV
Jacoubowsky's who finally get what the rest of us have been talking
about all these years.

Hey, we must stay out of the way of people driving expensive SUVs, since
they are more important than we are! [end sarcasm]

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Ever notice how comforting it is to hear the sound a car's tires make as
they cross the bots dots in the middle of the road as they move out to
give you some room? One of the best sounds a cyclist can hear!

--Mike Jacoubowsky

Well, the first time it happened, it nearly gave me a heart attack! It was
then I discovered that Missouri uses the "rumble strips" or whatever they're
called, in the middle of the road as well as on the shoulders. You see,
Texas only has the audible cuts in the road's surface on the white lines at
the edge of the road. When I heard a car making that "burrup burrup" noise
behind me, I instantly thought he was traveling straight down the white line
towards my back!

Pat in TX

John Kane wrote in news:057ea8a5-6699-4000-bda0-
:

On Aug 22, 10:23*am, Barry Harmon wrote:


1. *A large difference in relative speed makes for accidents,

I've heard this before but I've never seen anything to support it. Do
you have a decent cite for this?

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

Among others, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speed_manage/docs/hicks2.pdf

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in
:

1. A large difference in relative speed makes for accidents,and
there is a lot of difference in speed between a car moseying along
and a bike moseying along. If you can't keep up with the traffic
flow, stay out of the road.

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've read on rbm, and I've
read some pretty silly stuff. Roads should be designed for all
vehicular traffic, not just cars. If not keeping up with traffic is
causing problems, that's an issue with road design.


At least some traffic engineers and police departments agree with me
regarding the hazards of large differences in relative speed. Note that
I said stay out of the road, not the roadway. If the speed limit is 45
and you are in the traffic lane doing 15 or 20, you are holding up
traffic and are endangering yourself. If you don't agree with that,
then you are probably a candidate for a Darwin Award.

Ridiculous? I find your attitude regarding road design amusing and
highly unrealistic.

2. Roads are designed for cars. There, I said it. Get over it.

Nice thinking there. Goes back to your point #1. We cyclists (are you
a cyclist?) should know our place. Some of us are just too uppity and
trouble-causing. Especially those who know the vehicle code.

Yes, I'm a cyclist, and have been since 1947.

It's not the uppity and trouble-causing that bothers me, it's the pseudo
machissimo that gets me. You can engage in all the dangerous acts you
want, but at least accept the consequences of your actions without
blaming others for them. (See a point below regarding influencing
others.)


3. Riding bikes on a busy, higher-speed road is dangerous.

Nonsense. It's not the speed that's dangerous, it's opportunities for
conflict. You are far more likely to be killed by either you or a car
running an intersection at moderate speed than being run down from
behind on an expressway.

Huh? Just because running a stop sign happens more often than getting
blown off a high-speed road doesn't make it more dangerous. These are
not mutually exclusive outcomes. For some reason, many states have seen
fit to preclude bicycles and some other classes of things from their
high-speed roads. I wonder why? Maybe you should enlighten them.


4. Cars can survive an accident with a bike far better than
vice-versa.

No question.

5. US roads are not, and never will be, as bike friendly as European
roads. There is a world of difference between Denmark and the US,
like it or not, and we can't change that, at least not over the next
few years.

Change has to start somewhere. I believe it has started already. We're
making progress in DC at the annual Bike Summit. Road manuals are
being re-written to include the needs of cyclists by default. We're
already seeing the results, as new roadways are build and old ones
redesigned for better traffic flow. The world will become a better
place for bikes only if cyclists assert their rights to use the roads
and tell people in Washington that we're legit taxpayers.

I agree that change should start somewhere, but the thought that
cyclists should "take the lane to show the cagers who's in charge" won't
get it done.

Maybe I'm spoiled by riding in my part of Northern New Jersey. Some of
the roads where I live have a lot of 6-8 foot wide bike lanes, which
makes my daily 25-40 mile exercise ride very safe and serene -- as
serene as anything can be in New Jersey.

Unfortunately for your agrument, the change won't come from Washington,
It'll come at the state and lower level, since that's where state and
local codes are written and enforced. You should spend your time in
Sacramento, not Washington.


6. John Forrester is delusional. Following his path will be
dangerous to some people's health.

Some of what John says is true, but it's far too idyllic to be
practical for most.

My concern regarding this whole discussion is that some impressionable
sort will read about taking the lane, showing the cagers, etc., and
actually do it and get hurt doing it. The whole macho mantra displayed
here is akin to the person who gets his first 400hp car and becomes
Andretti for a day on the public roads. Machissimo may have its place,
but it's inappropriate while riding a bike in traffic. But maybe I'm a
throw-back to the days when a thing called Defensive Driving was
popular.


Barry Harmon

On Aug 23, 11:50*am, Barry Harmon wrote:
John Kane wrote in news:057ea8a5-6699-4000-bda0-
:

On Aug 22, 10:23*am, Barry Harmon wrote:

1. *A large difference in relative speed makes for accidents,

I've heard this before but I've never seen anything to support it. Do
you have a decent cite for this?

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

Among others, *http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speed_manage/docs/hicks2.pdf

Thanks but that is just as restatement of assertion. It does not give
any evidence that would make m believe or disbelieve it. The
presenter does not give any source for it.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

On Aug 23, 2:43*pm, Barry Harmon wrote:
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote :

1. *A large difference in relative speed makes for accidents,and
there is a lot of difference in speed between a car moseying along
and a bike moseying along. *If you can't keep up with the traffic
flow, stay out of the road.

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've read on rbm, and I've
read some pretty silly stuff. Roads should be designed for all
vehicular traffic, not just cars. If not keeping up with traffic is
causing problems, that's an issue with road design.

At least some traffic engineers and police departments agree with me
regarding the hazards of large differences in relative speed. *

I have heard at least one engineer ( constuction not traffic) and
cyclist say the same thing but so far it seems to me to be no more
than received wisdom which may or may not be based on any decent
research.

I may not be understanding the traffic dynamics but it would seem to
me that speed differentials would lead to cyclists being hit from the
rear but the accident figures I have read suggest that this is
extremely rare.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

On Aug 22, 4:58*pm, "John Michaels" wrote:
When I participated in Paris Brest Paris last year, the French must have
some sort of law or it was the custom to give every bike about a meter
cushion. *It was one of the best things that I experienced.

If I remember correctly not only does France have more of a cycling
culture, that is, cycling is considered a respectable and important
sport but the law tends to assume that the automobile driver is at
fault (in the civil not criminal meaning) and so the driver is more
likely to be charged and it will be his/her insurance that pays for
any damages whether he is at fault or not. The situation is quite
different than in English Common law countries.

A quote from a paper about FRENCH LAW ON COMPENSATION FOR ROAD TRAFFIC
ACCIDENTS

"When bodily harm is concerned, faults on the part of non-driving
victims (passengers, pedestrians and cyclists) do not deprive them of
their right to redress, except where the fault is particularly
serious. However, a fault on the part of a driver reduces or
extinguishes his right to compensation."
www.fga.fr/Guide%20anglaisF%20081104.doc