3ft passing requirement revisited

I thought the law required bicyclists to ride as close to the right edge
as is safe. As long as there are no obstacles or debris, riding near the
right edge is the law. This does not mean that cars should give cyclists
no more room on the left. That's just inconsiderate.

/dave a

That is the general idea, BUT it is the cyclist who makes the determination
as to "how close to the right edge" is safe in any situation. And, that does
not mean "riding near the right edge". No way.

Pat in TX

I've found the Flash Flag amazingly effective in eliminating those close
encounters. I think it's partly psychological, partly a fear of the driver
messing up their vehicle. Like you said, that driver probably didn't even
think they were doing anything wrong.


I may get one of these. I can already see myself filing it down to a sharp
point.

Pat in TX

In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:
| 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.)
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.

That might work, and I like the idea. But I'm old enough to
recall a time when "information overload" was a catch phrase.
After that time, people got so information overloaded that we
forgot about it. Adroit & knowledgable road users don't need
so much signage, and the rest don't read it.

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

I respect your intimate knowledge of this particular road.

As a regular user of certain routes myself, I'm also well
acquainted of where the potholes, surface roughness and
other considerations are. So I realize you know what
you're talking about, while I acknowledge I don't share
your local experiences & knowledge.

| I nevertheless have to concede I think John Forester is
| right when he suggests thinking in terms of where the
| cars go, instead of where the road pavement & markings
| are. And that's part & parcel of the Art of lane-taking.

[I re-line-broke the following; please forgive me]

John Forrester basically believes that bikes should behave pretty
much the same as cars,

No, he believes riders should follow the same basic rules
as drivers in terms of 5 principles or tenets which really
boil down to Common Law Right Of Way traditions.

That's not the same as behaving pretty much the same as cars.
And I think JF gets a bad rap for so much general
misinterpretation, exascerbated by a bunch of officious,
literalist Foresterite prudes who strictly take his tome
as yet another Book of Leviticus, and cherry-pick the parts
they like, while disregarding the parts that are less
advantageous. Same as any other endeavour in life. If it
suits you, it's a good thing. If it doesn't, you're a jaded
Conservative who cheers-on Andy Rooney with much gusto.
Or a jaded Liberal who cheers on Ralph Nadir.


As one of my favourite Arts teachers once said: "You've
gotta know what the rules /are/, before you can
intelligently break 'em."

and to a large extent, I agree with him.
But what about those who aren't, in a literal sense, up to speed?

We have to do their thinking for them. That's where the stuff
described by Robert Haston (The Art of Urban Cycling) kicks-in
as an antidote for Foresterian overdoses.

[snip]

Perhaps 10% of the cyclists on the road are capable of duking it
out with cars.

I think John Forester really wanted to convey to other cyclists
how to /avoid/ duking it out with cars.

That leaves the other 90% who aren't comfortable
taking the lane or riding on crowded urban streets.

Those are the ones who want (need?) bike lanes.
I'm still thinking about that. There's a certain
paper available online, by a guy named Jeffery Hiles,
called "Listening to Bike Lanes." It's really quite
an intelligent treatise on the subject. If I was online
right now, I could provide you with the link. But Google
would cough it up soon enough if you're interested.
I really do recommend perusing it, if you haven't already
done so.

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.

What do you pretend to be when riding up Lombard St?

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.

Newbie (especially adult newbie) riders need comfortable
places to practice on. I'm all for your efforts.

Mike, I do know that you know what you're doing, and that
you know what you're talking about. Except the John Forester
thing. But that's understandable. He so obfiscates his more
pragmatic points about cycling with his political and personal
opinions, that nobody "gets" his ~good~, practical info about
cycling -- which would fit nicely in a soft-covered 8-page
booklet that stuffs neatly into your shirt pocket for
easy reference. It would be a great mistake to reject /all/
of his contributions out of misperceived & misgiven ideological
differences. That would be like throwing the pearl out with
the oyster.

Same for Robert Haston, Jefferey Hiles, et al.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
...
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.


Mike,

I usually agree with what you write, but idyllic? E. M. Forster perhaps,
but not John.

--
Carl

Carl: John envisions a world that I believe cannot exist, in which everyone
is taught from the earliest age the various rules of the road, all applied
equally to cars & bikes.

I grew up in such a world. That was back in the '50s & early '60s.
So I can attest such a world can exist, and has indeed existed.

I guess if you weren't there, it'd be hard to envision it.

Times & things & attitudes & interactions sure have changed.


cheers,
Tom


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

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.

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.

TJ

Carl: John envisions a world that I believe cannot exist, in which
everyone
is taught from the earliest age the various rules of the road, all
applied
equally to cars & bikes.

I grew up in such a world. That was back in the '50s & early '60s.
So I can attest such a world can exist, and has indeed existed.

I guess if you weren't there, it'd be hard to envision it.

Times & things & attitudes & interactions sure have changed.


cheers,
Tom

OK, I'm 52. Was I there or not? When did that world end? I'm guessing about
the time my Dad bought his tail-finned Impala.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA



"Tom Keats" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
...
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.


Mike,

I usually agree with what you write, but idyllic? E. M. Forster
perhaps,
but not John.

--
Carl

Carl: John envisions a world that I believe cannot exist, in which
everyone
is taught from the earliest age the various rules of the road, all
applied
equally to cars & bikes.

I grew up in such a world. That was back in the '50s & early '60s.
So I can attest such a world can exist, and has indeed existed.

I guess if you weren't there, it'd be hard to envision it.

Times & things & attitudes & interactions sure have changed.


cheers,
Tom


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On Aug 22, 10:29*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
Carl: John envisions a world that I believe cannot exist, in which
everyone
is taught from the earliest age the various rules of the road, all
applied
equally to cars & bikes.

I grew up in such a world. *That was back in the '50s & early '60s.
So I can attest such a world can exist, and has indeed existed.

I guess if you weren't there, it'd be hard to envision it.

Times & things & attitudes & interactions sure have changed.

cheers,
Tom

OK, I'm 52. Was I there or not? When did that world end? I'm guessing about
the time my Dad bought his tail-finned Impala.

I seem to have missed it as well. I recall being told to always ride
facing traffic so I could see the cars coming back in the '50s
(although that was not what it said in the local vehicle code).

Rather than respond to each of Tom's very reasonable points, I'll suggest
that anyone interested in the pros & cons of bike lanes and separate bike
facilities, as well as analysis of what actually causes bicycle accidents,
check out the paper he references-

http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles...ning/home.html

Listening to Bike Lanes : Moving Beyond the Feud (by Jeffrey Hiles).

Great reading; an excellent overview of the data, and what the various camps
see in that data.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"Tom Keats" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:
| 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.)
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.

That might work, and I like the idea. But I'm old enough to
recall a time when "information overload" was a catch phrase.
After that time, people got so information overloaded that we
forgot about it. Adroit & knowledgable road users don't need
so much signage, and the rest don't read it.

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

I respect your intimate knowledge of this particular road.

As a regular user of certain routes myself, I'm also well
acquainted of where the potholes, surface roughness and
other considerations are. So I realize you know what
you're talking about, while I acknowledge I don't share
your local experiences & knowledge.

| I nevertheless have to concede I think John Forester is
| right when he suggests thinking in terms of where the
| cars go, instead of where the road pavement & markings
| are. And that's part & parcel of the Art of lane-taking.

[I re-line-broke the following; please forgive me]

John Forrester basically believes that bikes should behave pretty
much the same as cars,

No, he believes riders should follow the same basic rules
as drivers in terms of 5 principles or tenets which really
boil down to Common Law Right Of Way traditions.

That's not the same as behaving pretty much the same as cars.
And I think JF gets a bad rap for so much general
misinterpretation, exascerbated by a bunch of officious,
literalist Foresterite prudes who strictly take his tome
as yet another Book of Leviticus, and cherry-pick the parts
they like, while disregarding the parts that are less
advantageous. Same as any other endeavour in life. If it
suits you, it's a good thing. If it doesn't, you're a jaded
Conservative who cheers-on Andy Rooney with much gusto.
Or a jaded Liberal who cheers on Ralph Nadir.


As one of my favourite Arts teachers once said: "You've
gotta know what the rules /are/, before you can
intelligently break 'em."

and to a large extent, I agree with him.
But what about those who aren't, in a literal sense, up to speed?

We have to do their thinking for them. That's where the stuff
described by Robert Haston (The Art of Urban Cycling) kicks-in
as an antidote for Foresterian overdoses.

[snip]

Perhaps 10% of the cyclists on the road are capable of duking it
out with cars.

I think John Forester really wanted to convey to other cyclists
how to /avoid/ duking it out with cars.

That leaves the other 90% who aren't comfortable
taking the lane or riding on crowded urban streets.

Those are the ones who want (need?) bike lanes.
I'm still thinking about that. There's a certain
paper available online, by a guy named Jeffery Hiles,
called "Listening to Bike Lanes." It's really quite
an intelligent treatise on the subject. If I was online
right now, I could provide you with the link. But Google
would cough it up soon enough if you're interested.
I really do recommend perusing it, if you haven't already
done so.

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.

What do you pretend to be when riding up Lombard St?

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.

Newbie (especially adult newbie) riders need comfortable
places to practice on. I'm all for your efforts.

Mike, I do know that you know what you're doing, and that
you know what you're talking about. Except the John Forester
thing. But that's understandable. He so obfiscates his more
pragmatic points about cycling with his political and personal
opinions, that nobody "gets" his ~good~, practical info about
cycling -- which would fit nicely in a soft-covered 8-page
booklet that stuffs neatly into your shirt pocket for
easy reference. It would be a great mistake to reject /all/
of his contributions out of misperceived & misgiven ideological
differences. That would be like throwing the pearl out with
the oyster.

Same for Robert Haston, Jefferey Hiles, et al.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

"Pat" wrote in message
...

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.

I rode the Katy Trail across Missouri this Spring, and when I rode between
Warrensburg and Clinton, every single motorist gave me that much room or
more. Every single one of them changed lanes. No yellling, no cursing,
just good manners. And, at the while, I was riding in a little portion of
the road on the right side of the white line, a space of about 4 feet.

Pat in TX

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
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"Pat" wrote in message
...

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.

I rode the Katy Trail across Missouri this Spring, and when I rode between
Warrensburg and Clinton, every single motorist gave me that much room or
more. Every single one of them changed lanes. No yellling, no cursing,
just good manners. And, at the while, I was riding in a little portion of
the road on the right side of the white line, a space of about 4 feet.

Pat in TX

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.

Er, a SUV is not a car. What does one expect from drivers of vehicles
marketed in large part on the "do more unto others than they can do to
you" context?

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.

What would the penalty for violating this law be? Reeducation in a
cycling camp?

--
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.”