3ft passing requirement revisited
Mike Jacoubowsky
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 Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> 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.
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/6.1.html
Jobst Brandt
Bob
wrote:
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
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> 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.
>
> http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/6.1.html
>
> Jobst Brandt
I'm missing the point. Don't get me wrong; I generally agree with what's in
the FAQ. But why did you reference it?
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
<jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:48ae06c7$0$17206$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Cycle Carl
news:ponrk.19001$jI5....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
I had a near miss incident on Old La Honda a few weeks ago. Black 2000
Ford Expedition, license 5JCS565. Could this have been the same vehicle?
--
Carl
rms
> pass us no closer than 3 feet.
It's 5 feet here. 3 is much too close, imho.
rms
John Thompson
On 2008-08-22, Mike Jacoubowsky <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> 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.
Times like that, a carbide spike on the end of a 3' long horizontally
mounted fiberglass pole sounds awfully tempting.
--
John (jo...@os2.dhs.org)
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Mike A Schwab
wrote:
> 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.
>
If you stick your arm and hand out to signal a left turn, your finger
tips are roughly 3 or more feet from your shoulder. And a passing car
should assume that could happen at any time.
Brian Huntley
Where's your "here", r? Boston?
Here in Toronto , it's 1m, or 3' 3.37", not that it's observed or
enforced. My mirror sticks out perhaps 10cm (4") and has been hit by
passing car mirrors more times than I care to think about over the
past 15 years of downtown commuting.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> 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.
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/6.1.html
> I'm missing the point. Don't get me wrong; I generally agree with
> what's in the FAQ. But why did you reference it?
To underscore that this is not unusual and has been characterized long
ago. That Item has been in the FAQ for many years. Sheldon did not
include it with the articles on his site because it is too contentious
for some readers who identify more with their cars than their bicycle.
Jobst Brandt
Tom Keats
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> 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.)
It's been shown time and time again the cyclists riding
so close to the edge of the road /invites/ drivers to
buzz them.
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. Except I've learned from experience to
watch out for overtaking semis, 'cuz sometimes those
drivers don't know how long their 53' trailers are. But
you can always slow down and let the trailer get past,
and use your wriggle-room to the right to avoid getting
nerfed into the ditch by the ass end of a semi trailer
inexorably ingressing into your space. If you ~have~
wriggle-room to your right.
So, here am I, sounding like I'm giving advice to
my betters. Maybe we can just say I'm trying to
remind ya.
Maybe it's too easy to default to thinking in terms of
the dimensions of the [static] pavement, because that's
more tangible than visualising [dynamic] traffic streams.
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.
There are either wide lanes or narrow lanes, and each
requires their own treatment.
cheers, & self-preservation transcends legislation,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
Mike Jacoubowsky
| 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.
| 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 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.
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.
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.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Tom Keats" <tkeat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8hcl8g...@news.motzarella.org...
invasiv...@gmail.com
> In article <ponrk.19001$jI5.8...@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> 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.)
Illinois, Utah, Minnesota, Kansas, and probably several other
states have just such laws (Kansas since the mid-1980s). I
would not bet on there being even one ticket written on the
basis of those laws, let alone carrying through in court.
Mike A Schwab
One guy (the guy who lobbied for it), insisted the officer write a
ticket for the offense when he was hit by a passing car in Arizona.
Can't find it right now.
And another 3 foot passing law is enforced.
http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php?article=23479
bigji...@gmail.com
"brushing you back" which is necessary when cyclists are not as far
right as possible or riding two abreast.
> Bob Hunt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Peter Cole
So I'm changing my tune, and not just asking for a 3 foot passing law for
> cyclists, but demanding it.
> 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.
I've undergone a similar conversion. I'm not sure how much such a law
would change driver behavior, but I think it's a step in the right
direction.
I was surprised when the local advocacy group (Massbike, Boston)
rejected the idea out of hand, saying that it was impractical for the
areas narrow roads. My question: if not useful on narrow roads, then
where? That attitude reminds me of the 2' bike lanes that get laid out
entirely within the door zone of narrow streets. Thee solution to narrow
streets is not to pretend they're not.
Dan...@gmail.com
> In article <ponrk.19001$jI5.8...@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> 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.
Barry Harmon
>
> 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
rms
>Where's your "here", r? Boston?
New Mexico
rms
Frank Krygowski
> 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
bigji...@gmail.com
causes road rage
On Aug 22, 11:38 am, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
wrote:
> bigjimp...@gmail.com 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!
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> 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
Don Freeman
> 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.
Cycle Carl
"Barry Harmon" <john...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B026972C5B9Bjo...@209.197.15.254...
>
... 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
Barry Harmon
2214e2...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
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
Barry Harmon
news:lNBrk.8351$cn7....@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com:
>
> "Barry Harmon" <john...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B026972C5B9Bjo...@209.197.15.254...
>>
> ... 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.
>
But you were off the roadway. I said if you can't keep up with
traffic,stay off the road. you couldn't keep up with traffic and you
were off the road. We agree.
Actually, it's not more complicated than I suggest. It's very simple.
If all traffic is moving in the same direction and it's all moving at
about the same speed, things go along well. The greater the disparity
between cars in the traffic, the greater the potential for problems.
It's not speed that kills, it's the difference in speed.
>>
>> 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.
>
You're right. They're also designed for trucks.
> 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.
>
Yes, we agree, because you were not on the road.
> ... 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
>
>
>
I probably should have prefaced my remarks with the caveat that I was
talking about people riding in the traffic lanes, the ones "taking the
lane."
Barry Harmon
Timothy J. Lee
Barry Harmon <john...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Actually, Frank, there are minimum speed provisions on most interstates.
>
>highways. There must be something going on that you don't know about, eh?
The road where the buzz pass incident was described is not a limited
access freeway.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Timothy J. Lee
nmp <add...@is.invalid> wrote:
>Wow. Where I live (.nl) drivers are required by law to make sure it is
>safe to open their door before they do it. Makes sense if you ask me.
Such a law exists in many places...
>I still keep a healthy distance from parked cars though.
A good idea. A bicyclist hugging the parked cars is hard to see by
someone in the traffic side of a parked car trying to check whether
it is safe to open the door (the current car design trend to smaller
windows and big pillars makes it worse).
Dane Buson
> the perfect time to write:
>
>
> 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.
I think his post is probably an example of why you should killfile him,
as almost everyone in rb.misc has long previously.
--
Dane Buson - nn07...@unixbigots.org
If you can read this, you're in range of the demat gun
John Kane
> You werent hit so get over it. The driver might simply have been
> "brushing you back" which is necessary when cyclists are not as far
> right as possible or riding two abreast.
You just flunked reading comprehension 101. Go back and reread Mike's
original post.
John Kane Kingston ON Canada
John Kane
> 1. A large difference in relative speed makes for accidents,
I've heard this before but I've never seen anything to support it. Do
you have a decent cite for this?
John Michaels
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.
The cushion made it safer for the cyclist. It also had a very interesting
side effect that I observed. The tensions between cyclists and driver were
diminished. Only conflict I had was with another cyclist who thought I
should have done something else differently. As he only spoke French, I
can't tell you what it was and it was like at the 80 hour point so I didn't
care. Point is that everyone got along much better. It was a safer and
more friendly environment. Drivers would pull up behind you, turn on their
signal light, pass when it was safe, signal in the other direction and get
back into the proper lane. It was amazing and this was repeated time and
time again. The traffic circles were a bit different and I was just talking
about the stop lights with a friend who just returned from France earlier
this week. Again, this cushion worked. It worked well. We should revisit
it.
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
news:ponrk.19001$jI5....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
Jeremy Parker
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote
[snip]
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.
[snip]
> 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.
[snip]
Position in the road makes a very effective signal, much better than
the official hand signals. It's a common theory that your distance
from the edge of the road indicates to the motorists' subconscious
how much clearance you think you need for yourself, which results in
the motorists giving the same clearance to you as you give to the
curb.
What other reason could you have for huddling close to the edge of
the road but to indicate to motorists behind that you want to share
not just the road, but the lane you are in as well. You are telling
the motorists that you want them to pass **in your lane**.
By implication, you are telling the motorists that you think it is
safe for the motorists to do so. What other reason could you have
for sending out the signal.
Jeremy Parker
dave a
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
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in news:6ed6a699-d3a6-45c1-b6bb-
> 2214e26ba...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Aug 22, 10:23 am, Barry Harmon <johnf...@optonline.net> 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.
Barry, I've bicycled hundreds of miles on interstates, perfectly
legally. Those minimum speed requirements apply only to motorized
vehicles, not to bicycles. IOW, get a grip, please.
>
> 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.
:-) Your next challenge is to write a 100 word theme explaining the
difference between "motorist" and "bicyclist." Think you're up to it?
> 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.
Gosh, I'll have to tell that to my riding buddies - the one who's a
police chief, the one who's a city cop, the one who's a retired state
highway patrolman, and the one who's an ex-cop and current criminal
justice professor. Somehow, they all seem to disagree with you.
Wonder who's wrong? ;-)
>
> Finally, there are prohibitions against bikes on most limited-access
> highways. There must be something going on that you don't know about, eh?
Yes, most limited access highways prohibit bikes, but not all. Check
the state laws for New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho,
Utah, etc etc. These (and many other) states allow cycling on at
least some limited access highways.
Now to tie that to your statement from the last post: Obviously, the
legislators differ from your opinion that " if you can't maintain a
reasonable minimum speed, you shouldn't be on that particular section
of road." Or alternately, they accept the normal speed of a bicycle
as a "reasonable minimum."
That demonstrates there's "something you don't know about"!
> Seems to me that there are as many agressive, ignorant, selfish, suicidal
> bike riders as there are selfish and ignorant motorists.
What things seem to you isn't important. I've already lost all
respect for your uninformed opinions.
- Frank Krygowski
bigji...@gmail.com
On Aug 22, 3:08 pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
wrote:
>
> Consider yourself "brushed back" when a semi runs you off the road in
> your cage, asswipe.
>
> I think I've scraped higher life forms off my shoe
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> 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.
Sorry, you're wrong. Riding near the right edge is not safe in most
circumstances. And since cyclists have a right to use the road
safely, they certainly don't have to be "inches" from the edge, as the
OP was.
To explain: Obviously, it's unsafe to ride over obstacles (say, bad
grates or potholes) or most debris at the road edge. But it's also
unsafe to swerve to avoid such things. Thus, for safety, you need to
stay far enough away from the edge if there's a reasonable possibility
that such debris will appear. And such debris tends to collect at the
road edge, by the sweeping action of car tires.
Another "obstacle" - and a particularly dangerous one - is a car door
that _might_ pop open. Practically speaking, that means the door of
any parked car. This is why every reputable bike safety expert says
you should never ride in the "door zone." (That's true even if simple-
minded "bicycle advocates" have had bike lanes painted in the door
zone.)
Furthermore, you shouldn't ride close to the edge if you're between
widely spaced parked cars. It's not safe to do the repeated merges
with traffic when you come to a parked car. A competent cyclist knows
to maintain a straight line, not to slavishly swerve back and forth to
try to ride right at the edge of the road.
And you shouldn't be too far to the right if it makes you too
inconspicuous on the road. For example, when I'm riding a certain
downhill highway through our village, I might be doing 25 mph, with
the right of way, as cars come up to stop signs on the right. Should
I ride close to the edge? Heck no! If I do, they may not notice me
in the shadows of the trees. I'm much safer both in terms of
visibility and evasive room if I ride more centered in the lane.
And to get back to the OP's example: it's obviously unsafe to ride
far enough to the right that motorists are tempted to squeeze past.
That was the mistake Mike and his riding buddies were making. When a
lane is too narrow to safely share, you don't share it.
Lots of experienced cyclists don't understand this, but riding too far
to the right is often dangerous. Don't be a gutter bunny.
- Frank Krygowski
Mike Jacoubowsky
> is a lot of difference in speed between a car moseying along and a bike
> moseying along. If you can't keep up with the traffic flow, stay out of
> the road.
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've read on rbm, and I've read
some pretty silly stuff. Roads should be designed for all vehicular traffic,
not just cars. If not keeping up with traffic is causing problems, that's an
issue with road design.
> 2. Roads are designed for cars. There, I said it. Get over it.
Nice thinking there. Goes back to your point #1. We cyclists (are you a
cyclist?) should know our place. Some of us are just too uppity and
trouble-causing. Especially those who know the vehicle code.
> 3. Riding bikes on a busy, higher-speed road is dangerous.
Nonsense. It's not the speed that's dangerous, it's opportunities for
conflict. You are far more likely to be killed by either you or a car
running an intersection at moderate speed than being run down from behind on
an expressway.
> 4. Cars can survive an accident with a bike far better than vice-versa.
No question.
> 5. US roads are not, and never will be, as bike friendly as European
> roads. There is a world of difference between Denmark and the US, like
> it or not, and we can't change that, at least not over the next few
> years.
Change has to start somewhere. I believe it has started already. We're
making progress in DC at the annual Bike Summit. Road manuals are being
re-written to include the needs of cyclists by default. We're already seeing
the results, as new roadways are build and old ones redesigned for better
traffic flow. The world will become a better place for bikes only if
cyclists assert their rights to use the roads and tell people in Washington
that we're legit taxpayers.
> 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.
> Barry Harmon
--
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Barry Harmon" <john...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B026972C5B9Bjo...@209.197.15.254...
>
>>
Cycle Carl
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> 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
SMS
> I doubt that particular driver thought he or she was
> doing something reckless.
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.
Mike Jacoubowsky
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. His world depends upon this common bond (via
education), and thus an "idyllic" situation that will never exist.
I'm sure I could have expressed myself better. I knew John in the way-back
days; his daughter was a good friend of my girlfriend back in the day. I
respected him as a very intelligent person, but a bit, well, idyllic! Things
he thought were completely reasonable just couldn't happen. That's what I
thought way back when, and that's what I think now. There's nothing wrong
with defining a Utopian/Idyllic world; it's a very useful exercise. But it's
somewhat crazy to believe it would come to pass.
Tom Keats
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> 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
Tom Keats
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> writes:
>> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
>> news:PUHrk.18622$cW3....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>> 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.
TJ Saunders
>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
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> 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" <tkeat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hm0o8g...@news.motzarella.org...
peter
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).
Mike Jacoubowsky
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/essays/listening/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" <tkeat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l5vn8g...@news.motzarella.org...
Tom Sherman
> 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
> inches (really) of pavement to the right of our wheels. If there was a "good
> 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.
>
> its course. And it passed each of us by maybe, what, 6 inches? Could have
> even been a bit less. It was RIGHT THERE.
>
> 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.
>
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.”
Tom Sherman
> bigji...@gmail.com considered Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
> the perfect time to write:
>
>> causes road rage
>>
> The thing that causes road rage is attempted murder under the guise of
> impatience.
>
> You are the person that U locks were invented for.
This is "little jimmy" we are dealing with here.
The top posting should be a clue.
Tom Sherman
Jeff
That is exactly why I do not right on the very edge of the road. I give
myself a couple of feet of hedge room.
I like the idea of a three foot passing distance. Not so much that I
need three feet as much as if a driver gives much less than that, it's
obvious that they didn't give three feet.
Glad y'all're okay.
Tom Sherman
> In ba.bicycles Mike Jacoubowsky <Mi...@chainreaction.com> 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.
>
Munks who ran unopposed in the last election according to a Google
search) who would make this a campaign issue? Maybe something along the
line of "Sheriff Munks refuses to protect our children from road rage
drivers!"
Spending department funds at a brothel is not exactly re-election material.
>> So I'm changing my tune, and not just asking for a 3 foot passing law for
>> cyclists, but demanding it. A relatively-narrow two-lane road (like 84 near
>> Tripp, specifically right near the "singing gas pipes" on the west side of
>> the road) is no place for 3 bikes & two cars to share the same strip of
>> road. The car should have waited until it could pass us with reasonable
>> clearance, and there obviously needs to be a law defining what "reasonable
>> clearance" is because I doubt that particular driver thought he or she was
>> doing something reckless.
>
> Good luck with that. Problem is there are more pre-SUV Mike Jacoubowsky's
> who don't understand the problem and blame the victim than there post-SUV
> Jacoubowsky's who finally get what the rest of us have been talking
> about all these years.
>
Hey, we must stay out of the way of people driving expensive SUVs, since
they are more important than we are! [end sarcasm]
Barry Harmon
9bad6e...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
Among others, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speed_manage/docs/hicks2.pdf
Barry Harmon
>> 1. A large difference in relative speed makes for accidents,and
>> there is a lot of difference in speed between a car moseying along
>> and a bike moseying along. If you can't keep up with the traffic
>> flow, stay out of the road.
>
> That's one of the most ridiculous things I've read on rbm, and I've
> read some pretty silly stuff. Roads should be designed for all
> vehicular traffic, not just cars. If not keeping up with traffic is
> causing problems, that's an issue with road design.
>
At least some traffic engineers and police departments agree with me
regarding the hazards of large differences in relative speed. Note that
I said stay out of the road, not the roadway. If the speed limit is 45
and you are in the traffic lane doing 15 or 20, you are holding up
traffic and are endangering yourself. If you don't agree with that,
then you are probably a candidate for a Darwin Award.
Ridiculous? I find your attitude regarding road design amusing and
highly unrealistic.
>> 2. Roads are designed for cars. There, I said it. Get over it.
>
> Nice thinking there. Goes back to your point #1. We cyclists (are you
> a cyclist?) should know our place. Some of us are just too uppity and
> trouble-causing. Especially those who know the vehicle code.
Yes, I'm a cyclist, and have been since 1947.
It's not the uppity and trouble-causing that bothers me, it's the pseudo
machissimo that gets me. You can engage in all the dangerous acts you
want, but at least accept the consequences of your actions without
blaming others for them. (See a point below regarding influencing
others.)
>
>> 3. Riding bikes on a busy, higher-speed road is dangerous.
>
> Nonsense. It's not the speed that's dangerous, it's opportunities for
> conflict. You are far more likely to be killed by either you or a car
> running an intersection at moderate speed than being run down from
> behind on an expressway.
Huh? Just because running a stop sign happens more often than getting
blown off a high-speed road doesn't make it more dangerous. These are
not mutually exclusive outcomes. For some reason, many states have seen
fit to preclude bicycles and some other classes of things from their
high-speed roads. I wonder why? Maybe you should enlighten them.
>
>> 4. Cars can survive an accident with a bike far better than
>> vice-versa.
>
> No question.
>
>> 5. US roads are not, and never will be, as bike friendly as European
>> roads. There is a world of difference between Denmark and the US,
>> like it or not, and we can't change that, at least not over the next
>> few years.
>
> Change has to start somewhere. I believe it has started already. We're
> making progress in DC at the annual Bike Summit. Road manuals are
> being re-written to include the needs of cyclists by default. We're
> already seeing the results, as new roadways are build and old ones
> redesigned for better traffic flow. The world will become a better
> place for bikes only if cyclists assert their rights to use the roads
> and tell people in Washington that we're legit taxpayers.
I agree that change should start somewhere, but the thought that
cyclists should "take the lane to show the cagers who's in charge" won't
get it done.
Maybe I'm spoiled by riding in my part of Northern New Jersey. Some of
the roads where I live have a lot of 6-8 foot wide bike lanes, which
makes my daily 25-40 mile exercise ride very safe and serene -- as
serene as anything can be in New Jersey.
Unfortunately for your agrument, the change won't come from Washington,
It'll come at the state and lower level, since that's where state and
local codes are written and enforced. You should spend your time in
Sacramento, not Washington.
>
>> 6. John Forrester is delusional. Following his path will be
>> dangerous to some people's health.
>
> Some of what John says is true, but it's far too idyllic to be
> practical for most.
My concern regarding this whole discussion is that some impressionable
sort will read about taking the lane, showing the cagers, etc., and
actually do it and get hurt doing it. The whole macho mantra displayed
here is akin to the person who gets his first 400hp car and becomes
Andretti for a day on the public roads. Machissimo may have its place,
but it's inappropriate while riding a bike in traffic. But maybe I'm a
throw-back to the days when a thing called Defensive Driving was
popular.
Barry Harmon
John Kane
> John Kane <jrkrid...@gmail.com> wrote in news:057ea8a5-6699-4000-bda0-
> 9bad6e4d5...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Aug 22, 10:23 am, Barry Harmon <johnf...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >> 1. A large difference in relative speed makes for accidents,
>
> > I've heard this before but I've never seen anything to support it. Do
> > you have a decent cite for this?
>
> > John Kane Kingston ON Canada
>
> Among others, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speed_manage/docs/hicks2.pdf
Thanks but that is just as restatement of assertion. It does not give
any evidence that would make m believe or disbelieve it. The
presenter does not give any source for it.
John Kane
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote innews:PUHrk.18622$cW3....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
> >> 1. A large difference in relative speed makes for accidents,and
> >> there is a lot of difference in speed between a car moseying along
> >> and a bike moseying along. If you can't keep up with the traffic
> >> flow, stay out of the road.
>
> > That's one of the most ridiculous things I've read on rbm, and I've
> > read some pretty silly stuff. Roads should be designed for all
> > vehicular traffic, not just cars. If not keeping up with traffic is
> > causing problems, that's an issue with road design.
>
> At least some traffic engineers and police departments agree with me
> regarding the hazards of large differences in relative speed.
I have heard at least one engineer ( constuction not traffic) and
cyclist say the same thing but so far it seems to me to be no more
than received wisdom which may or may not be based on any decent
research.
I may not be understanding the traffic dynamics but it would seem to
me that speed differentials would lead to cyclists being hit from the
rear but the accident figures I have read suggest that this is
extremely rare.
John Kane
> When I participated in Paris Brest Paris last year, the French must have
> some sort of law or it was the custom to give every bike about a meter
> cushion. It was one of the best things that I experienced.
If I remember correctly not only does France have more of a cycling
culture, that is, cycling is considered a respectable and important
sport but the law tends to assume that the automobile driver is at
fault (in the civil not criminal meaning) and so the driver is more
likely to be charged and it will be his/her insurance that pays for
any damages whether he is at fault or not. The situation is quite
different than in English Common law countries.
A quote from a paper about FRENCH LAW ON COMPENSATION FOR ROAD TRAFFIC
ACCIDENTS
"When bodily harm is concerned, faults on the part of non-driving
victims (passengers, pedestrians and cyclists) do not deprive them of
their right to redress, except where the fault is particularly
serious. However, a fault on the part of a driver reduces or
extinguishes his right to compensation."
www.fga.fr/Guide%20anglaisF%20081104.doc
Frank Krygowski
>
> >> 1. A large difference in relative speed makes for accidents,and
> >> there is a lot of difference in speed between a car moseying along
> >> and a bike moseying along. If you can't keep up with the traffic
> >> flow, stay out of the road.
>
> > That's one of the most ridiculous things I've read on rbm, and I've
> > read some pretty silly stuff. Roads should be designed for all
> > vehicular traffic, not just cars. If not keeping up with traffic is
> > causing problems, that's an issue with road design.
>
> At least some traffic engineers and police departments agree with me
> regarding the hazards of large differences in relative speed. Note that
> I said stay out of the road, not the roadway. If the speed limit is 45
> and you are in the traffic lane doing 15 or 20, you are holding up
> traffic and are endangering yourself. If you don't agree with that,
> then you are probably a candidate for a Darwin Award.
I rode 40 miles today, a round trip to a neighboring city, including
stops at a couple places in the center of that city. There were
plenty of times I was in the traffic lane, doing 15 to 25 mph. Speed
limits varied from 25 in towns to 55 on highways.
I estimate I delayed motorists by a grand total of one minute. (For
the record, I was delayed by motorists roughly the same amount.)
Why so little? Because almost every time a motorist passed me, there
was zero delay. Either the lane was wide enough to safely share, or
there was no oncoming traffic, so the motorist moved to the opposing
lane to pass me.
The few times I took the lane to prevent unsafe passing, I had no
problem. Nobody honked or complained. The delay for each motorist
was negligible, and they could see the reason for it.
IOW, you're making a mountain out of a molehill.
And I don't know what you would have me do, anyway. To leave my
village, I _must_ ride on several streets (including one state
highway) that have substandard lane widths - about 9 feet. Does you
intend for me to walk my bike out of town? Or stand meekly at the
side of the road until no cars are coming?
That's hardly consistent with the fact that cyclists have a legal
right to the road, is it?
- Frank Krygowski
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> 1. A large difference in relative speed makes for accidents,and
>>> there is a lot of difference in speed between a car moseying along
>>> and a bike moseying along. If you can't keep up with the traffic
>>> flow, stay out of the road.
>> That's one of the most ridiculous things I've read on rbm, and I've
>> read some pretty silly stuff. Roads should be designed for all
>> vehicular traffic, not just cars. If not keeping up with traffic
>> is causing problems, that's an issue with road design.
> At least some traffic engineers and police departments agree with me
> regarding the hazards of large differences in relative speed. Note
> that I said stay out of the road, not the roadway. If the speed
> limit is 45 and you are in the traffic lane doing 15 or 20, you are
> holding up traffic and are endangering yourself. If you don't agree
> with that, then you are probably a candidate for a Darwin Award.
> Ridiculous? I find your attitude regarding road design amusing and
> highly unrealistic.
>>> 2. Roads are designed for cars. There, I said it. Get over it.
>> Nice thinking there. Goes back to your point #1. We cyclists (are
>> you a cyclist?) should know our place. Some of us are just too
>> uppity and trouble-causing. Especially those who know the vehicle
>> code.
> Yes, I'm a cyclist, and have been since 1947.
> It's not the uppity and trouble-causing that bothers me, it's the
> pseudo machismo that gets me. You can engage in all the dangerous
>> No question.
> Unfortunately for your argument, the change won't come from
> Washington, It'll come at the state and lower level, since that's
> where state and local codes are written and enforced. You should
> spend your time in Sacramento, not Washington.
>>> 6. John Forrester is delusional. Following his path will be
>>> dangerous to some people's health.
>> Some of what John says is true, but it's far too idyllic to be
>> practical for most.
> My concern regarding this whole discussion is that some
> impressionable sort will read about taking the lane, showing the
> cagers, etc., and actually do it and get hurt doing it. The whole
> macho mantra displayed here is akin to the person who gets his first
> 400hp car and becomes Andretti for a day on the public roads.
> Machismo may have its place, but it's inappropriate while riding a
> bike in traffic. But maybe I'm a throw-back to the days when a
> thing called Defensive Driving was popular.
I find your response a ray of light in a dark elitist view of
bicycling and auto traffic. Locally the "cars are a hazard" people
lost out when Foothill expressway was repainted with standard lane
widths and an edge stripe that left a good 8 ft shoulder marked for
bicycles. They said it couldn't be done, but it has worked admirably
the last more than 10 years.
The "it can't be done folks still exist and try to make an issue of it
anywhere they can. I wrote to the county roads department and county
supervisors about another road, Kings Mountain Road, on which there
was a double center line with double bots-dots for the entire 4.2
miles from Woodside to Skyline Blvd. Because the anti bicycle folks
used these knobs and center lines as an excuse to buzzing bicyclists
closely, I asked that the bots-dots be removed so these poor drivers
could without rude noises from the road, pass bicyclists at a
reasonable distance.
There are no more bots-dots on Kings Mountain road and practically no
cars buzz bicyclists who ride where they ought to. In contrast, HWY
84 from La Honda to HWY 1 has wakeup burrs in the dual center stripe,
yet buzzing bicyclists is rare, the Kings Mountain folk not treading
there often and cars regularly brrrrrmp over the center stripe when
passing bicyclists. That show me how much ill will there is on Kings
Mountain road.
Jobst Brandt
peter
> Note that
> I said stay out of the road, not the roadway.
You seem to be using these terms in a way that is not consistent with
the definitions in the vehicle codes.
I'm reading this in ba.bicycles and therefore going by the California
code, but AIRC the one in NJ was similar.
Section 530 of the CVC specifies that "roadway" refers only to the
portion of highway or road that is ordinarily used by motor vehicle
traffic (therefore excluding the shoulder). Staying out of the 'road'
is therefore more restrictive and includes both staying off the
'roadway' and also any adjacent shoulder or other part of the public
route.
But from a practical standpoint, many roads do not have sufficient
shoulder area to allow a bicyclist to travel on them without being in
the traffic lane (i.e. 'roadway') at least some of the time.
Restricting cyclists from even the roadway portion of all roads where
traffic goes substantially faster than bike speeds would have the
effect of preventing bicycle access to many possible destinations and
eliminate the bicycle as a viable means of transportation in many
areas.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
If you can't see that even the motor vehicle code is filled with
gratuitous verbiage, you are not a critical reader. I am appalled at
warning signs that end with "AHEAD" and begin with "BE PREPARED TO
STOP" in contrast to an icon of a flagman or traffic signal. Roadway
is much like road signs in my area where, for instance, "Pescadero
Rd." has become "PESCADERO CREEK ROAD", more words are more important.
Jobst Brandt
recycled
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
news:ponrk.19001$jI5....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
> 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.
That might be the problem. See below.
> 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.
I related a similar experience to a veteran motorcylcist. His reaction was
more or less, 'Well, what did you expect?!? If you cede the lane then you
will eventually get pushed off the road.' His experience was similar for
cars passing motorcycles. The the car passing tended to assume they need not
go _all_ the way over into the oncoming lane since it was just a motorcycle
and before long the motorcyclist ended up being pushed off the road. So on a
motorcycle you take the lane aggressively, hugging the left side of the lane
markings.
The problem with taking the lane though in my experience is road
situations wherein an overtaking car has little time and sightlines to see
the slower moving vehicle and slow if the oncoming traffic allows for a safe
pass.
My strategy is a compromise. When the oncoming traffic is heavy I cede the
lane and take the shoulder if practiceable. If there is no oncoming traffic
I can see with good sightlines then I take the lane - not as aggressively as
a motorcyle migh, hugging the lane markings, but assertively enough to make
the overtaking vehicle realize he has to move all the way into the other
lane.
Timothy J. Lee
nmp <add...@is.invalid> wrote:
>Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>
>> In article <48aeaf69$0$183$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>, nmp
>> <add...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>I still keep a healthy distance from parked cars though.
>>
>> A good idea. A bicyclist hugging the parked cars is hard to see by
>> someone in the traffic side of a parked car trying to check whether it
>> is safe to open the door (the current car design trend to smaller
>> windows and big pillars makes it worse).
>
>Smaller windows make no difference. It is still their responsibility to
>check. That might even require opening the window and sticking ones head
>out.
It may make no difference in determining legal fault in a door opening
crash, but small windows and blind spots increase the risk of such a
crash if the bicyclist is hugging the parked cars. Car occupants may be
legally required to check if it is safe to open the door before opening
the door, but, given how many people have rather sloppy driving skills,
it would not be surprising that they do not check carefully enough
for bicyclists hugging the parked cars before opening the door.
So keeping outside of the door range of parked cars is a defensive
maneuver for the bicyclist.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.