3ft passing requirement revisited

On Aug 21, 11:41 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:

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.

There already are laws dealing with unsafe overtaking.
They're not enforced until after the fact of an incident.

More such laws aren't the answer. Traffic law is all about
judges deciding who's at fault when stuff happens, not
keeping stuff from happening in the first place.

Even if a 3-foot passing law was enacted, drivers still
wouldn't know that law existed (until they learn the
hard way.)

I always thought the same way. When NH recently passed a bill for
bicyclists, including a 3 foot passing rule, my thoughts were this:
“Good. A step in the right direction, anyway. Still, it’ll be a
miracle if anyone other than the local cyclists have any idea about
it. I wonder if local LEO will even know? They’ve been rather
clueless in the past.”

Then, I started hearing commercials on the radio, and PSAs from the
actual DJs, talking about the new laws, the 3 foot passing rule and
general respect for bicycles on the roads. I was thrilled. I still
don’t expect it to make an enormous difference, but I’m sure at least
a few people will here about the new rules that otherwise wouldn’t
have. Caring and adhering, however, is a completely separate ball
game.

On Aug 21, 8:23*pm, "Pat" wrote:
"Mike Jacoubowsky" 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 think part of the problem is that the car drivers are trying vainly to
stay in the same lane with us! I worry more about getting hit in the back of
the head by a rear-view mirror. That said, I think the closest call I've had
was a guy in a pickup truck pulling a long and empty trailer--the kind with
no sides. *Although his truck changed lanes to pass us, when he pulled back
in the lane in front of us, the blankety blank trailer nearly wiped us out!
I don't think he was trying to hit us, but if there had been a 3-foot law,
maybe he would have thought of the trailer as well as his pickup truck. BTW.
our legislator who nixed the proposed 3 foot law, Kim Brimer, has a
challenger this year in Wendy Davis, a cyclist no less!

Pat in TX

I'm glad you posted this, Pat.

Here is a link about Brimer and the 3 foot law:-

http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com...showtopic=2374

Lewis.

*****

What I envision, probably some version of cycling utopia that would
never exist, are not only signs that say "Share the Road" but also
"Minimum 3ft clearance when passing bikes" or words to that effect.


I ride many thousands of miles/year, and this stretch of road at least
100 times/year. The line of sight isn't bad, and the pavement
predictable and decent. We don't need cars to deviate 10 feet from the
right to pass us; doing so would require much more sudden movement on
their part and increase the difficulty of getting back into the lane
after passing us. It serves no purpose for us to ride that far out in
the road in that particular location. Other places, it makes sense to
do so. Not just to decrease the likelihood of being "buzzed" but, more
importantly, to increase the likelihood of being SEEN. Cars are
looking forward, basically for other cars. Move out into their direct
line of sight, and you're much more likely to be seen.


John Forrester basically believes that bikes should behave pretty much
the same as cars, and to a large extent, I agree with him. But what
about those who aren't, in a literal sense, up to speed? Higher speeds
improve your maneuverability in traffic, and self-assurance improves
the manner in which you exercise your skills. Perhaps 10% of the
cyclists on the road are capable of duking it out with cars. That
leaves the other 90% who aren't comfortable taking the lane or riding
on crowded urban streets. Me? I think it's both my right and it's fun.
I don't pretend to be a car when I'm riding on Mission Street in San
Francisco. I'm better! But it's not for everyone.

The thought of a bike "duking it out with cars" makes me hope you've got
your will up-to-date. That's one of the most irresponsible statements
I've read in a long time.


I'm one of those evil guys that goes to DC each year, lobbying for
more funds for bike-oriented improvements to our roadways and, gasp,
bike paths. Frequently paths I'd never consider riding myself, but
desired by a recreational cyclist who would rather be on a dedicated
(non-car) route. John Forrester would suggest that doing anything like
that is allowing the car folk to say that that's where we belong (on
the bike path, not on the street), and that separate is inferior, not
equal. I think we need, and can have, both. I will fight tooth & nail
to maintain my rights to ride on high-speed conventional roads, with
cars at my side, while at the same time lobby for recreational bike
paths & routes.

You may want the right to ride your bike on high-speed roads, but if you
can't maintain a reasonable minimum speed, you shouldn't be on that
particular section of road. I don't know what a reasonable minimum
speed is, but something around 70% of the maximum seems to be what the
road designers look for -- minimum speed of 45 in a 65 zone. This says
that if you can maintain at least 31 you can "take the lane" in a 45
zone, although you will still be very far below what most drivers drive.

A few final comments.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

Barry Harmon



--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

It's 5 feet here. 3 is much too close, imho.
Where's your "here", r? Boston?

New Mexico

rms

On Aug 21, 11:41*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:

It's been shown time and time again the cyclists riding
so close to the edge of the road /invites/ drivers to
buzz them.

Absolutely correct. And I'm astonished at Mike's admission that he
and his buddies were riding "just a couple inches (really) of pavement
to the right of our wheels." And in a paceline! What would you do if
a car passed exactly three feet away, and a broken bottle, big
pothole, or groundhog suddenly appeared in your path? You need to be
much more than a couple inches from the edge.

I've posted this before, but to repeat: Our best friends did a tandem
tour of the Finger Lakes area in New York. They were on one of the 2-
lane highways paralleling a lake, and there was a fair amount of
traffic. And they were terrified. They were riding the fog line (or
further right) and cars repeatedly brushed by them.

My friend told his wife "Frank says we should be taking the lane,
because there's not enough space to pass safely. Do you want to try
it?" His wife nervously agreed. And the next car came up behind
them...

... and waited patiently until opposing traffic cleared, so he could
pass in the opposite lane. In my friend's words, riding out in the
lane "completely transformed the ride." Nobody hassled them at all.
Their pleasure and safety both increased tremendously.




In this regard, John Forsester's approach is IMO right:
to first determine whether you're in a wide/shareable
lane, or a narrow, unshareable lane. *Then place yourself
according to the right-side tire track of where the
motorized traffic goes. *If the lane is wide enough to
share, keep comfortably to the right of the right-side
tire track, and share the lane. *If the lane is narrower,
ride on or somewhat within the track, and take the lane
until you can again share it. *Forester suggests
disregarding the outer edges of the road itself, and
instead considering and positioning one's self according
to where the adjacent motorized traffic stream goes on
the road in question. *Even on wider boulevards, he
suggests not riding further to the right of the motorized
traffic stream than necessary. *This makes sense and
works for me. *

Absolutely true.

Lest anyone get the wrong impression, I'm perfectly willing to share a
lane that's wide enough for sharing. (In fact, a friend of mine has
ridden with Forester, and reports that he shares willingly, too,
including some lanes my friend thought a bit narrow.) But I will NOT
share a lane I judge to be too narrow for the passing vehicle and me.

And unlike Forester, I do use an eyeglass mirror. I use it to move
_left_ if I see something wide like a tractor-trailer coming up behind
me.

(Good post, Tom!)

- Frank Krygowski

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


On Aug 22, 11:38*am, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote:
considered Fri, 22 Aug 2008 03:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
the perfect time to write:

The driver might simply have been
"brushing you back" which is necessary

Assault with a deadly weapon is necessary?
Or do you just mean threatening behaviour?

The ONLY thing that is necessary is for drivers to respect other road
users and WAIT to pass until it is SAFE.

I think your post is a good demonstration of why it is NECESSARY to
criminalise any driver passing closer than 1 ft per 10mph of vehicle
speed.
--

There are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't!

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


You may want the right to ride your bike on high-speed roads, but if you
can't maintain a reasonable minimum speed, you shouldn't be on that
particular section of road.

Well, that's true in the mind of certain selfish and ignorant
motorists. Fortunately, the laws say otherwise.

- Frank Krygowski

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.



And if you were capable of any degree of reading comprehension at all
you would have known that your assumptions are incorrect in this situation.

Damn, and I told myself that I would never respond to any more trolling
attempts.





On Aug 21, 10:02 pm, Bob wrote:
On Aug 21, 7:04 pm, "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.
As it was, there was this immediate sense of marvel at the
precision with which the car passed us, the three of us riding
perfectly straight, with the car just inches away from our left
hands. It was an almost unbelievable experience. But within
seconds that amazement was replaced with one of those "What just
happened?" feelings, and the more I play it back in my mind, the
more upset and annoyed I become. That car should not have passed
us in that manner, which means it should have waited until it was
clear in the other direction so it could give us a bit more room,
instead of assuming that "Share the road" means making
assumptions of a perfect world at 24 miles per hour. 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. --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain
Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos,
CA USA
If I had to guess, I'd say you were doubly lucky because IME: no
horn blast + no deviation in steering = unconscious driver. A 3
foot clearance while passing cyclists law won't affect drivers that
are simply zoned out at the wheel. Such a law certainly couldn't
*hurt* though. Glad your close call was just that- close.

Regards, Bob Hunt- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Barry Harmon" wrote in message
. 15.254...

.... deleted stuff ...

A few final comments.

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.

I think it's more complicated than Barry suggests.

I would consider that a car driving 45 on Interstate 5 is dangerous because
of the relative speed difference between it and the 70-80 mph traffic flow.

I would also consider diamond lane traffic moving at 50 mph next to cars at
15 mph in the regular lanes pretty dangerous, primarily because of cars
exiting or entering the diamond lane.

I don't think 50 mph traffic on Foothill Expwy (Los Altos, CA) adjacent to
15 mph bicycles in the shoulder is dangerous to drivers or cyclists.


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

I agree that roads are designed for cars. Barry seems to imply that roads
are designed exclusively for cars, which clearly is not the case. Road (but
not freeway) design must consider pedestrians, emergency vehicles, and even
bicycles.

I just rode to work via Charleston Rd in Palo Alto, CA. Seems to me that it
was pretty well designed for bikes and cars.


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

I think riding on Foothill Expwy is not dangerous, but Barry is entitled to
his opinion.

.... deleted stuff...


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


Wow, he's not just wrong, he is delusional. I'll be sure to cross to the
other side of the street if I see him walking towards me.

--
Carl

Frank Krygowski wrote in news:6ed6a699-d3a6-45c1-b6bb-
:

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


You may want the right to ride your bike on high-speed roads, but if you
can't maintain a reasonable minimum speed, you shouldn't be on that
particular section of road.

Well, that's true in the mind of certain selfish and ignorant
motorists. Fortunately, the laws say otherwise.

- Frank Krygowski



Actually, Frank, there are minimum speed provisions on most interstates.

There are also provisions in the motor vehicle codes of some states that
state that if there are a certain number of cars backed-up behind a
motorist, then said motorist must pull over and allow the cars to pass.

You may be right about what the law says, but in actual practice, a bike in
the middle of the lane going 20 miles an hour in a 45 mph zone is a bike
asking for a citation for obstructing traffic or worse.

Finally, there are prohibitions against bikes on most limited-access
highways. There must be something going on that you don't know about, eh?

Seems to me that there are as many agressive, ignorant, selfish, suicidal
bike riders as there are selfish and ignorant motorists.

Barry Hamron