Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
If you want to know the stupidity of the system, consider the 3 feet law
6 views
Skip to first unread message
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Apr 12, 2012, 11:59:49 AM4/12/12
to
I may have posted this around, but I want to make sure that nobody can
dodge the issue, particularly those who can make it safer for all. We
in Florida have the "3 feet law" that makes cars keep a minimum
distance of 3 feet from a bike, and yet we lead the nation in bike
fatalities. California is #2 but it has a much larger population. I
pinned the blame on engineers, but I'm sure they can not play the game
alone, and politicians and bike activists alike are to blame.
Solution? TAKE THE LANE and force cars to pass you on another lane.
It's that simple.
HOW DO YOU ENFORCE THE 3 FEET LAW?
"Using a bicycle to commute to work, run errands, or for entertainment
value is an economical alternative to maintaining a car or buying gas
at the pump. It even sends an environmentally responsible message.
Unfortunately, it can also be dangerous.
Florida is one of 17 states that has enacted a three foot law with
regard to the spatial relationship between cyclists and automobiles.
One of the purposes of this rule is to cut down on Bicycle Accidents
and Car Accidents. The law states that drivers must grant cyclists a
three foot clearance at all times. Failure to do so can result in
being issued with a citation by law enforcement. On its surface the
law seems like a good idea, however, police officers find it difficult
to enforce, citing reasons such as difficulty determining whether a
driver is exactly three feet away from a bicyclist at all times."
http://injurylaw.labovick.com/2011/06/articles/bicycle-accidents/floridas-3foot-law-for-cyclists-needs-more-attention/
***
It doesn't take a lawyer to know this is bullshit. I noticed that a
long time ago! Is this some kind of mental masturbation? They even
made bumper stickers to make sure everybody got the point. Do you
think most people got that kind of accuracy with their their car? HAS
ANYONE EVER BEING TICKETED FOR VIOLATING THE LAW?
But the lawyers won't spare you from reality like some other people
do. They profit from it. Here is reality:
"In 2009, approximately, 630 bicyclists were killed in traffic
fatalities, a number that is 2% of all the traffic fatalities for the
year. Florida led the nation with 107 fatal bicycle accidents,
followed by California with 99. The NHTSA data also shows that car
accidents attributed to 51,000 injured bicyclists in 2009. Sadly,
8,000 of the injured bicyclists were children age 14 and under."
***
It seems to me that the 3 feet law is yet another distraction. But
that's only my humble opinion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
dodge the issue, particularly those who can make it safer for all. We
in Florida have the "3 feet law" that makes cars keep a minimum
distance of 3 feet from a bike, and yet we lead the nation in bike
fatalities. California is #2 but it has a much larger population. I
pinned the blame on engineers, but I'm sure they can not play the game
alone, and politicians and bike activists alike are to blame.
Solution? TAKE THE LANE and force cars to pass you on another lane.
It's that simple.
HOW DO YOU ENFORCE THE 3 FEET LAW?
"Using a bicycle to commute to work, run errands, or for entertainment
value is an economical alternative to maintaining a car or buying gas
at the pump. It even sends an environmentally responsible message.
Unfortunately, it can also be dangerous.
Florida is one of 17 states that has enacted a three foot law with
regard to the spatial relationship between cyclists and automobiles.
One of the purposes of this rule is to cut down on Bicycle Accidents
and Car Accidents. The law states that drivers must grant cyclists a
three foot clearance at all times. Failure to do so can result in
being issued with a citation by law enforcement. On its surface the
law seems like a good idea, however, police officers find it difficult
to enforce, citing reasons such as difficulty determining whether a
driver is exactly three feet away from a bicyclist at all times."
http://injurylaw.labovick.com/2011/06/articles/bicycle-accidents/floridas-3foot-law-for-cyclists-needs-more-attention/
***
It doesn't take a lawyer to know this is bullshit. I noticed that a
long time ago! Is this some kind of mental masturbation? They even
made bumper stickers to make sure everybody got the point. Do you
think most people got that kind of accuracy with their their car? HAS
ANYONE EVER BEING TICKETED FOR VIOLATING THE LAW?
But the lawyers won't spare you from reality like some other people
do. They profit from it. Here is reality:
"In 2009, approximately, 630 bicyclists were killed in traffic
fatalities, a number that is 2% of all the traffic fatalities for the
year. Florida led the nation with 107 fatal bicycle accidents,
followed by California with 99. The NHTSA data also shows that car
accidents attributed to 51,000 injured bicyclists in 2009. Sadly,
8,000 of the injured bicyclists were children age 14 and under."
***
It seems to me that the 3 feet law is yet another distraction. But
that's only my humble opinion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
Simon Mason
Apr 12, 2012, 12:08:16 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 4:59 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
yesterday
QUOTE:
The juvenile offender has been the first in Bethlehem, and perhaps the
state, to be charged under a new section of Pennsylvania law that
provides additional protection for cyclists on our roadways. The
section took effect at 12:01 a.m. on the date of the crash. The
section is, in pertinent part:
§ 3303. Overtaking vehicle on the left.
(a) General rule.–The following rules shall govern the overtaking and
passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction, subject to the
limitations, exceptions and special rules stated in this chapter:
(3) The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a pedalcycle proceeding
in the same direction shall pass to the left of the pedalcycle within
not less than four feet at a careful and prudent reduced speed
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2012/bicycle-bridge-crash-video/
--
Simon Mason
<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It doesn't take a lawyer to know this is bullshit. I noticed that a
> long time ago! Is this some kind of mental masturbation? They even
> made bumper stickers to make sure everybody got the point. Do you
> think most people got that kind of accuracy with their their car? HAS
> ANYONE EVER BEING TICKETED FOR VIOLATING THE LAW?
Yup - someone got done for violating a FOUR FEET rule in PA only
>
> It doesn't take a lawyer to know this is bullshit. I noticed that a
> long time ago! Is this some kind of mental masturbation? They even
> made bumper stickers to make sure everybody got the point. Do you
> think most people got that kind of accuracy with their their car? HAS
> ANYONE EVER BEING TICKETED FOR VIOLATING THE LAW?
yesterday
QUOTE:
The juvenile offender has been the first in Bethlehem, and perhaps the
state, to be charged under a new section of Pennsylvania law that
provides additional protection for cyclists on our roadways. The
section took effect at 12:01 a.m. on the date of the crash. The
section is, in pertinent part:
§ 3303. Overtaking vehicle on the left.
(a) General rule.–The following rules shall govern the overtaking and
passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction, subject to the
limitations, exceptions and special rules stated in this chapter:
(3) The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a pedalcycle proceeding
in the same direction shall pass to the left of the pedalcycle within
not less than four feet at a careful and prudent reduced speed
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2012/bicycle-bridge-crash-video/
--
Simon Mason
JNugent
Apr 12, 2012, 12:19:03 PM4/12/12
to
of a collision, which is rather an extreme form of evidence.
There is no reason to believe that there would have been a prosecution if the
passing clearance had been 3' 9" or even 2' 6".
Dave - Cyclists VOR
Apr 12, 2012, 1:00:33 PM4/12/12
to
On 12/04/2012 16:59, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
> I may have posted this around, but I want to make sure that nobody can
> dodge the issue, particularly those who can make it safer for all. We
> in Florida have the "3 feet law" that makes cars keep a minimum
> distance of 3 feet from a bike
I knew push bikes were a pretty useless form of transport, but a minimum
> I may have posted this around, but I want to make sure that nobody can
> dodge the issue, particularly those who can make it safer for all. We
> in Florida have the "3 feet law" that makes cars keep a minimum
> distance of 3 feet from a bike
of 3 feet?
We allow less distance for passing other cars at higher spees here in UK.
Mind you, we can drive properly & have decent cars.
--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Apr 12, 2012, 10:55:06 PM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 5:53 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 11:57 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> were struck and killed from behind. Taking the lane works only *IF*
> the vehicle approaching from behind you sees you and slows or takes
> evasive action to avoid hitting you. Too many times a motorist strikes
> a bicyclist from behind and then gets off with (if the bicyclist is
> lucky) no more than a light tap on the wrist. Due to the huge
> disparity in the mass of a bicycle and its rider versus any motor
> vehicle the bicyclist has to be aware of what's coming up behind them
> as well as what's going on in front of them.
>
> Cheers
You may argue that a cyclist taking the lane enjoys much better
visibility than one riding to the edge. The excuse of "I never saw
him" could not be used. It may help --actually may be required-- that
the cyclist wears a bright vest or clothing.
> On Apr 12, 11:57 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I may have posted this around, but I want to make sure that nobody can
> > dodge the issue, particularly those who can make it safer for all. We
> > in Florida have the "3 feet law" that makes cars keep a minimum
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I may have posted this around, but I want to make sure that nobody can
> > dodge the issue, particularly those who can make it safer for all. We
> > in Florida have the "3 feet law" that makes cars keep a minimum
> > distance of 3 feet from a bike, and yet we lead the nation in bike
> > fatalities. California is #2 but it has a much larger population. I
> > pinned the blame on engineers, but I'm sure they can not play the game
> > alone, and politicians and bike activists alike are to blame.
> > Solution? TAKE THE LANE and force cars to pass you on another lane.
> > It's that simple.
>
> > HOW DO YOU ENFORCE THE 3 FEET LAW?
>
> > "Using a bicycle to commute to work, run errands, or for entertainment
> > value is an economical alternative to maintaining a car or buying gas
> > at the pump. It even sends an environmentally responsible message.
> > Unfortunately, it can also be dangerous.
>
> > Florida is one of 17 states that has enacted a three foot law with
> > regard to the spatial relationship between cyclists and automobiles.
> > One of the purposes of this rule is to cut down on Bicycle Accidents
> > and Car Accidents. The law states that drivers must grant cyclists a
> > three foot clearance at all times. Failure to do so can result in
> > being issued with a citation by law enforcement. On its surface the
> > law seems like a good idea, however, police officers find it difficult
> > to enforce, citing reasons such as difficulty determining whether a
> > driver is exactly three feet away from a bicyclist at all times."
>
> >http://injurylaw.labovick.com/2011/06/articles/bicycle-accidents/flor...
> > fatalities. California is #2 but it has a much larger population. I
> > pinned the blame on engineers, but I'm sure they can not play the game
> > alone, and politicians and bike activists alike are to blame.
> > Solution? TAKE THE LANE and force cars to pass you on another lane.
> > It's that simple.
>
> > HOW DO YOU ENFORCE THE 3 FEET LAW?
>
> > "Using a bicycle to commute to work, run errands, or for entertainment
> > value is an economical alternative to maintaining a car or buying gas
> > at the pump. It even sends an environmentally responsible message.
> > Unfortunately, it can also be dangerous.
>
> > Florida is one of 17 states that has enacted a three foot law with
> > regard to the spatial relationship between cyclists and automobiles.
> > One of the purposes of this rule is to cut down on Bicycle Accidents
> > and Car Accidents. The law states that drivers must grant cyclists a
> > three foot clearance at all times. Failure to do so can result in
> > being issued with a citation by law enforcement. On its surface the
> > law seems like a good idea, however, police officers find it difficult
> > to enforce, citing reasons such as difficulty determining whether a
> > driver is exactly three feet away from a bicyclist at all times."
>
>
> > ***
>
> > It doesn't take a lawyer to know this is bullshit. I noticed that a
> > long time ago! Is this some kind of mental masturbation? They even
> > made bumper stickers to make sure everybody got the point. Do you
> > think most people got that kind of accuracy with their their car? HAS
> > ANYONE EVER BEING TICKETED FOR VIOLATING THE LAW?
>
> > But the lawyers won't spare you from reality like some other people
> > do. They profit from it. Here is reality:
>
> > "In 2009, approximately, 630 bicyclists were killed in traffic
> > fatalities, a number that is 2% of all the traffic fatalities for the
> > year. Florida led the nation with 107 fatal bicycle accidents,
> > followed by California with 99. The NHTSA data also shows that car
> > accidents attributed to 51,000 injured bicyclists in 2009. Sadly,
> > 8,000 of the injured bicyclists were children age 14 and under."
>
> > ***
> > It seems to me that the 3 feet law is yet another distraction. But
> > that's only my humble opinion.
>
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
>
> It would be very interesting to see how many of those dead bicyclists
> > ***
>
> > It doesn't take a lawyer to know this is bullshit. I noticed that a
> > long time ago! Is this some kind of mental masturbation? They even
> > made bumper stickers to make sure everybody got the point. Do you
> > think most people got that kind of accuracy with their their car? HAS
> > ANYONE EVER BEING TICKETED FOR VIOLATING THE LAW?
>
> > But the lawyers won't spare you from reality like some other people
> > do. They profit from it. Here is reality:
>
> > "In 2009, approximately, 630 bicyclists were killed in traffic
> > fatalities, a number that is 2% of all the traffic fatalities for the
> > year. Florida led the nation with 107 fatal bicycle accidents,
> > followed by California with 99. The NHTSA data also shows that car
> > accidents attributed to 51,000 injured bicyclists in 2009. Sadly,
> > 8,000 of the injured bicyclists were children age 14 and under."
>
> > ***
> > It seems to me that the 3 feet law is yet another distraction. But
> > that's only my humble opinion.
>
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
>
> were struck and killed from behind. Taking the lane works only *IF*
> the vehicle approaching from behind you sees you and slows or takes
> evasive action to avoid hitting you. Too many times a motorist strikes
> a bicyclist from behind and then gets off with (if the bicyclist is
> lucky) no more than a light tap on the wrist. Due to the huge
> disparity in the mass of a bicycle and its rider versus any motor
> vehicle the bicyclist has to be aware of what's coming up behind them
> as well as what's going on in front of them.
>
> Cheers
You may argue that a cyclist taking the lane enjoys much better
visibility than one riding to the edge. The excuse of "I never saw
him" could not be used. It may help --actually may be required-- that
the cyclist wears a bright vest or clothing.
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Apr 13, 2012, 10:26:09 AM4/13/12
to
On Apr 12, 1:00 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
weapon to tame traffic.
On Apr 12, 10:52 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 5:53 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It would be very interesting to see how many of those dead bicyclists
> > were struck and killed from behind. Taking the lane works only *IF*
> > the vehicle approaching from behind you sees you and slows or takes
> > evasive action to avoid hitting you.
>
> Right, the motorist has to see you and respond properly. But I think
> they're more likely to do that when you're in the path they're
> driving, rather than off to the side and out of their field of
> attention, so to speak.
>
> Anyway, in most situations where I take the lane in traffic, there's
> no alternative. Except, I suppose, stopping and getting off the bike.
> There's no sense inviting a motorist to squeeze by you in a lane
> that's too narrow.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
I want to add that enforcing my proposal is easy. Those who do not
exit the lane when passing a cyclist are in violation. Caught on
camera and charged for reckless driving.
wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 16:59, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>
> > I may have posted this around, but I want to make sure that nobody can
> > dodge the issue, particularly those who can make it safer for all. We
> > in Florida have the "3 feet law" that makes cars keep a minimum
> > distance of 3 feet from a bike
>
> I knew push bikes were a pretty useless form of transport, but a minimum
> of 3 feet?
>
> We allow less distance for passing other cars at higher spees here in UK.
>
> Mind you, we can drive properly & have decent cars.
We need your SPEED CAMERAS here in the US. That would be ultimate
>
> > I may have posted this around, but I want to make sure that nobody can
> > dodge the issue, particularly those who can make it safer for all. We
> > in Florida have the "3 feet law" that makes cars keep a minimum
> > distance of 3 feet from a bike
>
> I knew push bikes were a pretty useless form of transport, but a minimum
> of 3 feet?
>
> We allow less distance for passing other cars at higher spees here in UK.
>
> Mind you, we can drive properly & have decent cars.
weapon to tame traffic.
On Apr 12, 10:52 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 5:53 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It would be very interesting to see how many of those dead bicyclists
> > were struck and killed from behind. Taking the lane works only *IF*
> > the vehicle approaching from behind you sees you and slows or takes
> > evasive action to avoid hitting you.
>
> they're more likely to do that when you're in the path they're
> driving, rather than off to the side and out of their field of
> attention, so to speak.
>
> Anyway, in most situations where I take the lane in traffic, there's
> no alternative. Except, I suppose, stopping and getting off the bike.
> There's no sense inviting a motorist to squeeze by you in a lane
> that's too narrow.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
I want to add that enforcing my proposal is easy. Those who do not
exit the lane when passing a cyclist are in violation. Caught on
camera and charged for reckless driving.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Apr 13, 2012, 12:30:38 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 13, 11:15 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 8:57 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> bicyclist falls over you will not hit them. Not sure how this plays
> out in prosecution and enforcement (obviously, in practice, most
> drivers aren't even aware of the law and some still buzz you anyway),
> but in theory, it reads to me like presumed fault if you hit a
> bicyclist - which sounds sweet.
That's yet another argument for TAKING THE LANE, if we are talking
prevention, not justice. Last fall I took was far and wide and I'd
have been crushed by a vehicle being 6 feet away. You need to be away
from cracks and potholes common on the edge of the road, and be able
to maneuver left or right. I had another close call a couple of days
ago on one of those cracks while turning a corner. These cracks appear
between the gutter and the asphalt and you have very little control
over them.
I think I rather be safe than being able to sue.
> On Apr 12, 8:57 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I may have posted this around, but I want to make sure that nobody can
> > dodge the issue, particularly those who can make it safer for all. We
> > in Florida have the "3 feet law" that makes cars keep a minimum
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I may have posted this around, but I want to make sure that nobody can
> > dodge the issue, particularly those who can make it safer for all. We
> > in Florida have the "3 feet law" that makes cars keep a minimum
> > distance of 3 feet from a bike, and yet we lead the nation in bike
> > fatalities. California is #2 but it has a much larger population. I
> > pinned the blame on engineers, but I'm sure they can not play the game
> > alone, and politicians and bike activists alike are to blame.
> > Solution? TAKE THE LANE and force cars to pass you on another lane.
> > It's that simple.
>
> > HOW DO YOU ENFORCE THE 3 FEET LAW?
>
> > "Using a bicycle to commute to work, run errands, or for entertainment
> > value is an economical alternative to maintaining a car or buying gas
> > at the pump. It even sends an environmentally responsible message.
> > Unfortunately, it can also be dangerous.
>
> > Florida is one of 17 states that has enacted a three foot law with
> > regard to the spatial relationship between cyclists and automobiles.
> > One of the purposes of this rule is to cut down on Bicycle Accidents
> > and Car Accidents. The law states that drivers must grant cyclists a
> > three foot clearance at all times. Failure to do so can result in
> > being issued with a citation by law enforcement. On its surface the
> > law seems like a good idea, however, police officers find it difficult
> > to enforce, citing reasons such as difficulty determining whether a
> > driver is exactly three feet away from a bicyclist at all times."
>
> <snip>
> > fatalities. California is #2 but it has a much larger population. I
> > pinned the blame on engineers, but I'm sure they can not play the game
> > alone, and politicians and bike activists alike are to blame.
> > Solution? TAKE THE LANE and force cars to pass you on another lane.
> > It's that simple.
>
> > HOW DO YOU ENFORCE THE 3 FEET LAW?
>
> > "Using a bicycle to commute to work, run errands, or for entertainment
> > value is an economical alternative to maintaining a car or buying gas
> > at the pump. It even sends an environmentally responsible message.
> > Unfortunately, it can also be dangerous.
>
> > Florida is one of 17 states that has enacted a three foot law with
> > regard to the spatial relationship between cyclists and automobiles.
> > One of the purposes of this rule is to cut down on Bicycle Accidents
> > and Car Accidents. The law states that drivers must grant cyclists a
> > three foot clearance at all times. Failure to do so can result in
> > being issued with a citation by law enforcement. On its surface the
> > law seems like a good idea, however, police officers find it difficult
> > to enforce, citing reasons such as difficulty determining whether a
> > driver is exactly three feet away from a bicyclist at all times."
>
>
> > It seems to me that the 3 feet law is yet another distraction. But
> > that's only my humble opinion.
>
> Ours is a beauty. It says you have to allow enough space that if the
> > It seems to me that the 3 feet law is yet another distraction. But
> > that's only my humble opinion.
>
> bicyclist falls over you will not hit them. Not sure how this plays
> out in prosecution and enforcement (obviously, in practice, most
> drivers aren't even aware of the law and some still buzz you anyway),
> but in theory, it reads to me like presumed fault if you hit a
> bicyclist - which sounds sweet.
That's yet another argument for TAKING THE LANE, if we are talking
prevention, not justice. Last fall I took was far and wide and I'd
have been crushed by a vehicle being 6 feet away. You need to be away
from cracks and potholes common on the edge of the road, and be able
to maneuver left or right. I had another close call a couple of days
ago on one of those cracks while turning a corner. These cracks appear
between the gutter and the asphalt and you have very little control
over them.
I think I rather be safe than being able to sue.
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Apr 13, 2012, 3:43:10 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 13, 12:37 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 9:29 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> > That's yet another argument for TAKING THE LANE...
>
> No, it's not. If we do not give them as much room as is practicable,
> what are we asking for under the golden rule?
The Golden Rule: Those with the gold rule. We are largely irrelevant
because we get a "free ride," so the saying goes.
>
> > ..., if we are talking
Open to debate. It creates conflict between driver and cyclist as to
who has the right to the lane. It's a balance of power that it's not
balanced. The catchphrase "share the road" is meaningless.
>
> > I had another close call a couple of days
> > ago on one of those cracks while turning a corner. These cracks appear
> > between the gutter and the asphalt and you have very little control
> > over them.
>
> No control whatsoever - over anything like that. If it's not one
> thing it will be another. (Chaos rules.)
You got a much better chance of finding a smooth surface at the center
of the traffic lane than the edge. Chaos is bad for the little fish.
>
> > I think I rather be safe than being able to sue.
>
> Presumed fault is one road to encouraging responsibility.
And another reason for drivers to become "hit and run," something that
reaches epidemic proportions. They sure don't want to get caught when
they face liability. That's why we need TRAFFIC CAMERAS to catch them
and make clear rules what sharing the road means.
They give you 3 feet because it's also meaningless.
> On Apr 13, 9:29 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
> No, it's not. If we do not give them as much room as is practicable,
> what are we asking for under the golden rule?
The Golden Rule: Those with the gold rule. We are largely irrelevant
because we get a "free ride," so the saying goes.
>
> > ..., if we are talking
> > prevention, not justice. Last fall I took was far and wide and I'd
> > have been crushed by a vehicle being 6 feet away. You need to be away
> > from cracks and potholes common on the edge of the road, and be able
> > to maneuver left or right.
>
> "Practicable"
> > have been crushed by a vehicle being 6 feet away. You need to be away
> > from cracks and potholes common on the edge of the road, and be able
> > to maneuver left or right.
>
Open to debate. It creates conflict between driver and cyclist as to
who has the right to the lane. It's a balance of power that it's not
balanced. The catchphrase "share the road" is meaningless.
>
> > I had another close call a couple of days
> > ago on one of those cracks while turning a corner. These cracks appear
> > between the gutter and the asphalt and you have very little control
> > over them.
>
> thing it will be another. (Chaos rules.)
You got a much better chance of finding a smooth surface at the center
of the traffic lane than the edge. Chaos is bad for the little fish.
>
> > I think I rather be safe than being able to sue.
>
And another reason for drivers to become "hit and run," something that
reaches epidemic proportions. They sure don't want to get caught when
they face liability. That's why we need TRAFFIC CAMERAS to catch them
and make clear rules what sharing the road means.
They give you 3 feet because it's also meaningless.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Apr 14, 2012, 8:43:06 AM4/14/12
to
On Apr 14, 2:37 am, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 11:01 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 13, 10:43 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 13, 5:43 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
> > > <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 13, 8:26 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 13, 4:21 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> > > > > > over, even without a wind, centrifugal force says I won't merely act as
> > > > > > if the bike and I are hinged at the point of road contact.
>
> > > > > Yep, and it's the law here. There are some big exceptions: Roads
> > > > > with speeds less than 35 or 40 mph (something like that), and where a
> > > > > bike lane is used or available (something like that).
>
> > > > > The beauty, though, lies not in feet of clearance, but the more
> > > > > general statement that seems to say, "Don't hit them; just don't."
>
> > > > As a general rule that appeal works with nice people.
>
> > > You can call it an "appeal" if you want to. It's the law here.
>
> > > > But it doesn't
> > > > work when they are on the phone, or in a hurry or drunk.
>
> > > And this is why you take the lane?
>
> > > > For nasty
> > > > people though it sounds like an invitation for trouble.
>
> > > Are you suggesting these nasty people will be even nastier in
> > > rebellion against a law intended to hold them responsible for being
> > > considerate?
>
> > > I guess you're just being contrary. Don't you get it? This is
> > > society saying (insisting), "Bicyclists are legitimate road users -
> > > especially vulnerable. Allow them the space they need."
>
> > Sometimes you need the whip, sometimes you need a lane to measure
> > things. A bike needs a traffic lane just to be cautious. There's no
> > room for mistake when a cyclist is vulnerable.
>
> > A law that relies only on good will is not a wise law. It may give a
> > false sense of safety that's not there. How about if you want to ride
> > with a partner and be able to talk and share?
>
> If you want to ride and talk then get a VOX two-way radio with a boom-
> mike and earpiece (like secretaties use) and put the earpice above the
> ear rather than over it. The boom mikes are pretty good now. Or just
> find some back roads that are very quiet and ride side by side if you
> want *BIUT* keep a constant vigil for approaching automobile traffic
> both in front of and behind you.
>
> Cheers
Thank you for the tip. One thing we have to reverse is that the we are
in constant lookout for danger. Again, TAKING THE LANE would give us a
peace of mind. In the meanwhile, we can say we have to survive with
the scraps --if any.
> On Apr 13, 11:01 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 13, 10:43 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 13, 5:43 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
> > > <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 13, 8:26 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 13, 4:21 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 04-13-2012 11:15, Dan O wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Ours is a beauty. It says you have to allow enough space that if the
> > > > > > > bicyclist falls over you will not hit them. Not sure how this plays
> > > > > > > out in prosecution and enforcement (obviously, in practice, most
> > > > > > > drivers aren't even aware of the law and some still buzz you anyway),
> > > > > > > but in theory, it reads to me like presumed fault if you hit a
> > > > > > > bicyclist - which sounds sweet.
>
> > > > > > That would be seven feet or more. I'm almost six foot, and if I fall
> > > > > > On 04-13-2012 11:15, Dan O wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Ours is a beauty. It says you have to allow enough space that if the
> > > > > > > bicyclist falls over you will not hit them. Not sure how this plays
> > > > > > > out in prosecution and enforcement (obviously, in practice, most
> > > > > > > drivers aren't even aware of the law and some still buzz you anyway),
> > > > > > > but in theory, it reads to me like presumed fault if you hit a
> > > > > > > bicyclist - which sounds sweet.
>
> > > > > > over, even without a wind, centrifugal force says I won't merely act as
> > > > > > if the bike and I are hinged at the point of road contact.
>
> > > > > Yep, and it's the law here. There are some big exceptions: Roads
> > > > > with speeds less than 35 or 40 mph (something like that), and where a
> > > > > bike lane is used or available (something like that).
>
> > > > > The beauty, though, lies not in feet of clearance, but the more
> > > > > general statement that seems to say, "Don't hit them; just don't."
>
> > > > As a general rule that appeal works with nice people.
>
> > > You can call it an "appeal" if you want to. It's the law here.
>
> > > > But it doesn't
> > > > work when they are on the phone, or in a hurry or drunk.
>
> > > And this is why you take the lane?
>
> > > > For nasty
> > > > people though it sounds like an invitation for trouble.
>
> > > Are you suggesting these nasty people will be even nastier in
> > > rebellion against a law intended to hold them responsible for being
> > > considerate?
>
> > > I guess you're just being contrary. Don't you get it? This is
> > > society saying (insisting), "Bicyclists are legitimate road users -
> > > especially vulnerable. Allow them the space they need."
>
> > Sometimes you need the whip, sometimes you need a lane to measure
> > things. A bike needs a traffic lane just to be cautious. There's no
> > room for mistake when a cyclist is vulnerable.
>
> > A law that relies only on good will is not a wise law. It may give a
> > false sense of safety that's not there. How about if you want to ride
> > with a partner and be able to talk and share?
>
> If you want to ride and talk then get a VOX two-way radio with a boom-
> mike and earpiece (like secretaties use) and put the earpice above the
> ear rather than over it. The boom mikes are pretty good now. Or just
> find some back roads that are very quiet and ride side by side if you
> want *BIUT* keep a constant vigil for approaching automobile traffic
> both in front of and behind you.
>
> Cheers
Thank you for the tip. One thing we have to reverse is that the we are
in constant lookout for danger. Again, TAKING THE LANE would give us a
peace of mind. In the meanwhile, we can say we have to survive with
the scraps --if any.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Apr 14, 2012, 5:41:09 PM4/14/12
to
On Apr 14, 1:35 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 8:01 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> What law does not rely on good will? Should there be any laws with
> respect to the interaction of bicyclists and motor vehicles on roads?
> What law(s) would be wise?
Make the law as clear as crystal. Around here there's a sign on every
drawbridge that says, "Walk bike across bridge." We are riding on the
road and a driver comes and attack. Why?
Don't the engineers know plain English?
> On Apr 13, 8:01 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> respect to the interaction of bicyclists and motor vehicles on roads?
> What law(s) would be wise?
Make the law as clear as crystal. Around here there's a sign on every
drawbridge that says, "Walk bike across bridge." We are riding on the
road and a driver comes and attack. Why?
Don't the engineers know plain English?
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Apr 15, 2012, 10:11:07 AM4/15/12
to
On Apr 15, 12:22 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 5:42 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 14, 7:07 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 14, 2:39 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> > > Is there any ambiguouty in the law I cited?
>
> > You go to cross a bridge in which the engineers approve a sign (city
> > ordinance) that says 'WALK BICYCLE ACROSS BRIDGE.'
>
> > What do you think it means?
>
> I think it means you're supposed to get off your bike and walk it
> across the bridge. Concise expression, but clear enough to me.
Well, we were out on a beautiful Saturday afternoon, almost no cars on
this two lane road, proud not to pollute, as we went around to have a
good time that took us through this most beautiful causeway with
stunning views over the bay, and then first sign that everything was
not right was a policeman waving us to move over, perhaps because we
were TAKING THE LANE. Further down an SUV approached blasting the horn
in no uncertain terms to make us move over. Fine, we rode to the edge
on the way back. Then a driver starts blasting the horn and I give him
the finger. The guy stopped and started arguing that he was trying to
save me because this sign said 'WALK BICYCLE ACROSS BRIDGE,' which to
be honest I never saw. The guy is strongly built and wants to hit me
while I try to defuse the situation, then he spits in face and takes
off. MOST HUMILIATING INCIDENT IN MY LIFE IN FRONT OF MY GIRLFRIEND.
Then later I realized that I couldn't walk the bike either because the
sidewalk is two feet wide only. They mean that I should not ride
bicycle on sidewalk over the bridge, not that I shouldn't ride on the
road. I confront the engineer later and he stops talking to me when I
start asking questions about the sign and I mention I'm an activist.
THEY NEVER FIXED THE SIGN TO THIS DAY. They also have made the most
stupid pedestrian/cycling facilities in the world making people walk
through the mud because they couldn't extend a simple path long enough
to give us some pavement. C'mon, many people walk this mud path!
They are not only stupid. They treat the safety of cyclists and
pedestrians with casual disregard. Never trust the authorities to care
for you because they are never on foot or never ride a bike. As simple
as that. When they ride a bike through it, they mean it.
>
> (Speaking of signs and meaning, there's one above the microwave oven
> at work. Seems somebody left a bag of popcorn in there and started a
> fire, so this sign says, "DO NOT LEAVE POPCORN UNATTENDED". I get a
> real kick out eveyr time I see that sign, because we have a very
> mischievous cat at home named "Popcorn" :-)
>
> Still don't understand the part about the driver and attack - or what
> any of it has to do with the law I cited and what you find wrong with
> it.
Vague wording makes us fight each other. 'SHARE THE ROAD' IS EQUALLY
VAGUE. Save the sign and all the stupid bike facilities they have made
so far. They get people in trouble rather than help them. One bike
lane around here is discontinued along the way and they make people
brave the road with a mysterious sign that reads, 'BICYCLE MAY TAKE
FULL LANE.' That's what we need ALL THE TIME, no signs needed. What we
do need is TRAFFIC CAMERAS and undercover cops on bikes. WITHOUT THE
WHIP, THE BULL WILL KEEP BULLYING AND THE BULLSHIT WILL KEEP FLYING
AROUND.
>
> When I said the law holds driver responsible for being considerate, I
> didn't mean the law says they have to be nice. "Considerate" means
> with consideration. If, under our bicycle passing law, drivers fail
> to reasonably consider the space required to pass safely without risk
> of hitting the bicyclist, they are in violation - simple as that - no
> yardsticks or measuring tapes required - no excuses.
Really, next time they pass you 1 feet away, what will you do?
> On Apr 14, 5:42 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 14, 7:07 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 14, 2:39 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
> > > > Around here there's a sign on every
> > > > drawbridge that says, "Walk bike across bridge." We are riding on the
> > > > road and a driver comes and attack. Why?
>
> > > > Don't the engineers know plain English?
>
> > > I have no idea what you're talking about here, let alone hte point.
> > > > Around here there's a sign on every
> > > > drawbridge that says, "Walk bike across bridge." We are riding on the
> > > > road and a driver comes and attack. Why?
>
> > > > Don't the engineers know plain English?
>
>
> > You go to cross a bridge in which the engineers approve a sign (city
> > ordinance) that says 'WALK BICYCLE ACROSS BRIDGE.'
>
> > What do you think it means?
>
> I think it means you're supposed to get off your bike and walk it
> across the bridge. Concise expression, but clear enough to me.
Well, we were out on a beautiful Saturday afternoon, almost no cars on
this two lane road, proud not to pollute, as we went around to have a
good time that took us through this most beautiful causeway with
stunning views over the bay, and then first sign that everything was
not right was a policeman waving us to move over, perhaps because we
were TAKING THE LANE. Further down an SUV approached blasting the horn
in no uncertain terms to make us move over. Fine, we rode to the edge
on the way back. Then a driver starts blasting the horn and I give him
the finger. The guy stopped and started arguing that he was trying to
save me because this sign said 'WALK BICYCLE ACROSS BRIDGE,' which to
be honest I never saw. The guy is strongly built and wants to hit me
while I try to defuse the situation, then he spits in face and takes
off. MOST HUMILIATING INCIDENT IN MY LIFE IN FRONT OF MY GIRLFRIEND.
Then later I realized that I couldn't walk the bike either because the
sidewalk is two feet wide only. They mean that I should not ride
bicycle on sidewalk over the bridge, not that I shouldn't ride on the
road. I confront the engineer later and he stops talking to me when I
start asking questions about the sign and I mention I'm an activist.
THEY NEVER FIXED THE SIGN TO THIS DAY. They also have made the most
stupid pedestrian/cycling facilities in the world making people walk
through the mud because they couldn't extend a simple path long enough
to give us some pavement. C'mon, many people walk this mud path!
They are not only stupid. They treat the safety of cyclists and
pedestrians with casual disregard. Never trust the authorities to care
for you because they are never on foot or never ride a bike. As simple
as that. When they ride a bike through it, they mean it.
>
> (Speaking of signs and meaning, there's one above the microwave oven
> at work. Seems somebody left a bag of popcorn in there and started a
> fire, so this sign says, "DO NOT LEAVE POPCORN UNATTENDED". I get a
> real kick out eveyr time I see that sign, because we have a very
> mischievous cat at home named "Popcorn" :-)
>
> Still don't understand the part about the driver and attack - or what
> any of it has to do with the law I cited and what you find wrong with
> it.
Vague wording makes us fight each other. 'SHARE THE ROAD' IS EQUALLY
VAGUE. Save the sign and all the stupid bike facilities they have made
so far. They get people in trouble rather than help them. One bike
lane around here is discontinued along the way and they make people
brave the road with a mysterious sign that reads, 'BICYCLE MAY TAKE
FULL LANE.' That's what we need ALL THE TIME, no signs needed. What we
do need is TRAFFIC CAMERAS and undercover cops on bikes. WITHOUT THE
WHIP, THE BULL WILL KEEP BULLYING AND THE BULLSHIT WILL KEEP FLYING
AROUND.
>
> When I said the law holds driver responsible for being considerate, I
> didn't mean the law says they have to be nice. "Considerate" means
> with consideration. If, under our bicycle passing law, drivers fail
> to reasonably consider the space required to pass safely without risk
> of hitting the bicyclist, they are in violation - simple as that - no
> yardsticks or measuring tapes required - no excuses.
Really, next time they pass you 1 feet away, what will you do?
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Apr 15, 2012, 1:04:54 PM4/15/12
to
On Apr 15, 12:22 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Still don't understand the part about the driver and attack - or what
> any of it has to do with the law I cited and what you find wrong with
> it.
This is a view of the causeway in question...
> Still don't understand the part about the driver and attack - or what
> any of it has to do with the law I cited and what you find wrong with
> it.
http://www.bayharborislands.org/webpage/text/causeway.htm
You may want to know that they made a bike/pedestrian path to bypass
the toll booth, but not long enough to connect the bridge with the
next community that would have made it convenient and safe for
people...
http://miami.citysearch.com/profile/map/41525113/bay_harbor_islands_fl/broad_causeway_toll_plaza.html
Almost a picture of paradise but it's hell. People have opened a foot
path through the grass, which you may appreciate in the aerial photo.
The view right next to the bridge is stunning, but nobody takes
advantage of it. I walked it once and it's too long. This is a wealthy
community that is saving some change. We are the monkeys, so to speak.
My issue though is the sign at the bridge, which provides no room on
the sidewalk to walk a bike, so you must ride on the road and face the
consequences. In other bridges, in other causeways, you may have to
struggle with pedestrians and never-ending construction, but that's
another story. To be continued --or not.
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Apr 15, 2012, 5:22:19 PM4/15/12
to
On Apr 15, 1:11 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 7:10 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> I wouldn't want to be him, either).
Because he looked for a better place to ride a bike, if I remember
right. If I go to Key West I'd never have an issue.
>
> One thing that I've found can substantially defuse such situations is
> to make a show of looking at his license plate. If that doesn't have
> an immediate effect, recite his plate number out loud. If that
> doesn't do it, tell him that his plate number will get you his home
> address (at this point he may begin to realize he doesn't know you
> from Adam, and he's going to have to sleep sometime... of course the
> ostensible thing is that whoever owns the vehicle will be accountable
> for whatever happens.)
I found out what they really meant much later when I asked a cop. But
he may be wrong too. People just ignore the sign and keep going at
their own risk.
> > Vague wording makes us fight each other. 'SHARE THE ROAD' IS EQUALLY
> > VAGUE.
>
> Now that *is* a case of a message that is merely PR "appeal" for
> people to get along. So you would rather *not* have "Share the Road"
> signs? I think they're great.
So if no sign is present they don't have to share the road?
>
> > Save the sign and all the stupid bike facilities they have made
> > so far. They get people in trouble rather than help them. One bike
> > lane around here is discontinued along the way and they make people
> > brave the road with a mysterious sign that reads, 'BICYCLE MAY TAKE
> > FULL LANE.' That's what we need ALL THE TIME, no signs needed. What we
> > do need is TRAFFIC CAMERAS and undercover cops on bikes. WITHOUT THE
> > WHIP, THE BULL WILL KEEP BULLYING AND THE BULLSHIT WILL KEEP FLYING
> > AROUND.
>
> I understand your cynicism, but also that you *do* seem to know the
> joy of bicycling, and hope the latter prevails.
It has prevailed and now I've found that riding a bike across town is
the one way to feel good. You may call it "safari riding" if you will.
It's amazing what the tourists pay to see the beasts in Africa, and we
can enjoy them here absolutely free.
> > > When I said the law holds driver responsible for being considerate, I
> > > didn't mean the law says they have to be nice. "Considerate" means
> > > with consideration. If, under our bicycle passing law, drivers fail
> > > to reasonably consider the space required to pass safely without risk
> > > of hitting the bicyclist, they are in violation - simple as that - no
> > > yardsticks or measuring tapes required - no excuses.
>
> > Really, next time they pass you 1 feet away, what will you do?
>
> Just keep riding. What else is there to do - quit riding? But the
> point is, the safe passing law doesn't hurt, and should help FWIW.
>
> (Actually, I might probably flip them off first, but *then* I'll just
> keep riding anyway. I might probably also make a mental note of
> vehicle and driver identification - on the chance that they stop for
> gas or something up ahead and let me catch up to them [happens quite a
> bit], or that they will be coming this way again and show more clues
> that can identify who they are, where they live or work or otherwise
> frequent [also happens quite a bit]... but really this kind of
> vengeful obsession is mostly not worth the grief, and while it can be
> satisfying to shock some nasty jerk with the realization that there
> could be consequences after all for wrongdoing they thought they could
> pull with impunity [that bit above about the license plate is really
> great, because the reason they think they can get away with this stuff
> is that they think they can just drive away anonymously, when in fact
> - if you ever do catch up with them in their registered vehicle - now
> *you* are the anonymous one who they have treated badly and you've got
> 'em where they live... I love seeing that realization come over their
> countenance], it's mostly not worth it, and in the end you'll be
> happier just letting it go, don't need [any more] enemies, and then
> you're going to want to forget it and just keep riding.)
My favorite way to get back to their nagging horn is to wear a shirt
that goes "Honk for the revolution!" It really depresses me to be
distracted when I'm concentrated on riding. That's disrespectful and I
consider it an attack. I'd plant undercover cops to catch them and
give them a 500 buck fine.
>
> I'm still wondering what you think the law should say about passing
> bicycles.
"You must exit the lane 30 feet before passing a cyclist and then pass
safely without harassing the cyclist."
Harassment refers not only to honking but to roaring the engine just
as they pass a cyclist. SUVs are particularly loud --for some sick
reason they are intimidating-- and in no way anyone can be immune to
it when they pass you 3 feet away.
> On Apr 15, 7:10 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
> <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Well, we were out on a beautiful Saturday afternoon, almost no cars on
> > this two lane road, proud not to pollute, as we went around to have a
> > good time that took us through this most beautiful causeway with
> > stunning views over the bay, and then first sign that everything was
> > not right was a policeman waving us to move over, perhaps because we
> > were TAKING THE LANE. Further down an SUV approached blasting the horn
> > in no uncertain terms to make us move over. Fine, we rode to the edge
> > on the way back. Then a driver starts blasting the horn and I give him
> > the finger. The guy stopped and started arguing that he was trying to
> > save me because this sign said 'WALK BICYCLE ACROSS BRIDGE,' which to
> > be honest I never saw. The guy is strongly built and wants to hit me
> > while I try to defuse the situation, then he spits in face and takes
> > off. MOST HUMILIATING INCIDENT IN MY LIFE IN FRONT OF MY GIRLFRIEND.
>
> Frank takes the lane all over the world and nobody seems to mind (but
> <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Well, we were out on a beautiful Saturday afternoon, almost no cars on
> > this two lane road, proud not to pollute, as we went around to have a
> > good time that took us through this most beautiful causeway with
> > stunning views over the bay, and then first sign that everything was
> > not right was a policeman waving us to move over, perhaps because we
> > were TAKING THE LANE. Further down an SUV approached blasting the horn
> > in no uncertain terms to make us move over. Fine, we rode to the edge
> > on the way back. Then a driver starts blasting the horn and I give him
> > the finger. The guy stopped and started arguing that he was trying to
> > save me because this sign said 'WALK BICYCLE ACROSS BRIDGE,' which to
> > be honest I never saw. The guy is strongly built and wants to hit me
> > while I try to defuse the situation, then he spits in face and takes
> > off. MOST HUMILIATING INCIDENT IN MY LIFE IN FRONT OF MY GIRLFRIEND.
>
> I wouldn't want to be him, either).
Because he looked for a better place to ride a bike, if I remember
right. If I go to Key West I'd never have an issue.
>
> One thing that I've found can substantially defuse such situations is
> to make a show of looking at his license plate. If that doesn't have
> an immediate effect, recite his plate number out loud. If that
> doesn't do it, tell him that his plate number will get you his home
> address (at this point he may begin to realize he doesn't know you
> from Adam, and he's going to have to sleep sometime... of course the
> ostensible thing is that whoever owns the vehicle will be accountable
> for whatever happens.)
>
> > Then later I realized that I couldn't walk the bike either because the
> > sidewalk is two feet wide only. They mean that I should not ride
> > bicycle on sidewalk over the bridge, not that I shouldn't ride on the
> > road.
>
> That's not what the sign says, though.
> > Then later I realized that I couldn't walk the bike either because the
> > sidewalk is two feet wide only. They mean that I should not ride
> > bicycle on sidewalk over the bridge, not that I shouldn't ride on the
> > road.
>
I found out what they really meant much later when I asked a cop. But
he may be wrong too. People just ignore the sign and keep going at
their own risk.
> > Vague wording makes us fight each other. 'SHARE THE ROAD' IS EQUALLY
> > VAGUE.
>
> people to get along. So you would rather *not* have "Share the Road"
> signs? I think they're great.
So if no sign is present they don't have to share the road?
>
> > Save the sign and all the stupid bike facilities they have made
> > so far. They get people in trouble rather than help them. One bike
> > lane around here is discontinued along the way and they make people
> > brave the road with a mysterious sign that reads, 'BICYCLE MAY TAKE
> > FULL LANE.' That's what we need ALL THE TIME, no signs needed. What we
> > do need is TRAFFIC CAMERAS and undercover cops on bikes. WITHOUT THE
> > WHIP, THE BULL WILL KEEP BULLYING AND THE BULLSHIT WILL KEEP FLYING
> > AROUND.
>
> joy of bicycling, and hope the latter prevails.
It has prevailed and now I've found that riding a bike across town is
the one way to feel good. You may call it "safari riding" if you will.
It's amazing what the tourists pay to see the beasts in Africa, and we
can enjoy them here absolutely free.
> > > When I said the law holds driver responsible for being considerate, I
> > > didn't mean the law says they have to be nice. "Considerate" means
> > > with consideration. If, under our bicycle passing law, drivers fail
> > > to reasonably consider the space required to pass safely without risk
> > > of hitting the bicyclist, they are in violation - simple as that - no
> > > yardsticks or measuring tapes required - no excuses.
>
> > Really, next time they pass you 1 feet away, what will you do?
>
> point is, the safe passing law doesn't hurt, and should help FWIW.
>
> (Actually, I might probably flip them off first, but *then* I'll just
> keep riding anyway. I might probably also make a mental note of
> vehicle and driver identification - on the chance that they stop for
> gas or something up ahead and let me catch up to them [happens quite a
> bit], or that they will be coming this way again and show more clues
> that can identify who they are, where they live or work or otherwise
> frequent [also happens quite a bit]... but really this kind of
> vengeful obsession is mostly not worth the grief, and while it can be
> satisfying to shock some nasty jerk with the realization that there
> could be consequences after all for wrongdoing they thought they could
> pull with impunity [that bit above about the license plate is really
> great, because the reason they think they can get away with this stuff
> is that they think they can just drive away anonymously, when in fact
> - if you ever do catch up with them in their registered vehicle - now
> *you* are the anonymous one who they have treated badly and you've got
> 'em where they live... I love seeing that realization come over their
> countenance], it's mostly not worth it, and in the end you'll be
> happier just letting it go, don't need [any more] enemies, and then
> you're going to want to forget it and just keep riding.)
My favorite way to get back to their nagging horn is to wear a shirt
that goes "Honk for the revolution!" It really depresses me to be
distracted when I'm concentrated on riding. That's disrespectful and I
consider it an attack. I'd plant undercover cops to catch them and
give them a 500 buck fine.
>
> I'm still wondering what you think the law should say about passing
> bicycles.
"You must exit the lane 30 feet before passing a cyclist and then pass
safely without harassing the cyclist."
Harassment refers not only to honking but to roaring the engine just
as they pass a cyclist. SUVs are particularly loud --for some sick
reason they are intimidating-- and in no way anyone can be immune to
it when they pass you 3 feet away.
0 new messages