Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 08 Oct 2006 17:41:55
From: Beach Runner
Subject: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Motorists must leave 3 feet of clearance when passing a bicyclist.

I'm usually satisfied with 2 inches!!!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/wpbf/20061002/lo_wpbf/9977279

Date: 16 Oct 2006 10:45:10
From: gds
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Wayne Pein wrote:

>
> The bad facilities of which I speak are bicycle specific facilities.
> Bike lanes in general, substandard width bike lanes, debris strewn bike
> lanes, bike lanes with storm grates or other suface hazards, bike lanes
> to the right of significant right turning traffic, parallel paths, paths
> with bollards, poles, or other obstructions, paths with near
> non-existent sight distance, etc.
>
> Wayne

OK thanks for the definition and examples. In general I agree with what
you are saying but, again, don't find them to be very common. I'm no
fan of bike paths and I avoid MUP's like the plague. I find it bizarre
that some cycling advocacy groups actually lobby for them.
But I'm quite happy sharing the road with motor vehicles and
particularly like wide shoulders which tend to result in very happy
coexistence. Of course, it is sometimes the case that there is too much
debris off on the shoulder but at least here in the SW shoulders do get
swept. BTW the laws here clearly state that a cyclist can take the lane
to avoid debris in a bike lane or on a shoulder.

So, in the end I agree with your dislike of poorly designed facilites
but don't find them all that common.

Date: 16 Oct 2006 21:42:31
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

gds wrote:

>BTW the laws here clearly state that a cyclist can take the lane
> to avoid debris in a bike lane or on a shoulder.
>

Yes, that is typical when there is a mandatory bike lane/shoulder law,
though I think you mean "use" the lane rather than "take" the lane. You
have to wonder to what extent bike lanes are really for the benefit of
bicyclists when they are mandatory and when you have to have
justification in order to leave them. Imagine, for example, needing
justification to leave the minivan lane.

Wayne
"Thank you sir! May I have another?"

Date: 16 Oct 2006 08:38:14
From: gds
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Wayne Pein wrote:
> gds wrote:
>
> > Wayne Pein wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I state my case emphatically (you call it getting worked up) because
> >>there is a lot of misinformation put out by government and ngo's about
> >>bicycling, and this misinformation is a source of problems that need not
> >>exist. That you don't see bad facilities and bad law as infringement on
> >>cyclist's rights is your perogative. I see it differently and work to
> >>change it.
> >>
> >>Wayne
> >
> >
> > I guess the difference is that I don't see all these bad laws and and
> > bad facilites.
>
> Huh? Poorly worded stay right laws; mandatory bike lane laws, mandatory
> shoulder laws; mandatory sidepath laws; etc. They all exist in various
> places.
>
> You don't see bad facilities or you don't know they exist? You really
> can't be serious.
>
> Wayne

Having cycled all over the US (and parts of Europe) for over 40 years
and many, many miles I can honestly say that I have not experienced
that many problems. Sure there are areas which are poorly designed and
which do not lend themselves to to enjoyable or safe cycling. So I
avoid them. It would be an issue if they were common but I find them to
be the exception rather than the rule.
An example, I regularly ride through downtown Tucson. (It isn't very
large as Tucson is very geographically dispersed) The main street is
very congested, has diagonal parking with cars constantly backing into
traffic lanes and it really is diificult for cars and bike to coexist
happily.( Hard for cars vs. cars too!) However, if you simply move one
street over there is little traffic and the cycling is fine. I don't
find that cycling one street over compromises me in any menaingful way
and the result is I have a pleasant ride through downtown and that is
my solution to the poor design of the main street.

Date: 16 Oct 2006 17:04:13
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

gds wrote:

>> Wayne Pein wrote:

>>You don't see bad facilities or you don't know they exist? You really
>>can't be serious.

> Having cycled all over the US (and parts of Europe) for over 40 years
> and many, many miles I can honestly say that I have not experienced
> that many problems. Sure there are areas which are poorly designed and
> which do not lend themselves to to enjoyable or safe cycling. So I
> avoid them. It would be an issue if they were common but I find them to
> be the exception rather than the rule.

The bad facilities of which I speak are bicycle specific facilities.
Bike lanes in general, substandard width bike lanes, debris strewn bike
lanes, bike lanes with storm grates or other suface hazards, bike lanes
to the right of significant right turning traffic, parallel paths, paths
with bollards, poles, or other obstructions, paths with near
non-existent sight distance, etc.

Wayne

Date: 15 Oct 2006 16:28:17
From: Smokey
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

k Hickey wrote:
> Joshua Putnam <josh@phred.org> wrote:
>
> >What I can't find in the law is a prohibition on sharing a lane while
> >passing that applies to *motorists*.
> >
> >The requirement in the RCW is that "The driver of a vehicle overtaking
> >other traffic proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left
> >thereof at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side
> >of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken traffic."
> >
> >There's nothing that says they can't straddle the lane line while
> >passing, or even that they can't share a lane while passing if there
> >happens to be a lane wide enough to share while passing at a safe
> >distance.
>
> I'm curious...
>
> How many of those who are participating in this thread have a problem
> with a motor vehicle passing "straddling the line" if the clearance is
> 3-6' (1-2m) depending on the speed? That is, how many feel slighted
> when a car passes at an undeniably safe distance, but without changing
> lanes entirely?
>
> I'll go first - I could care less if the car fully changes lanes. I'm
> passed all the time by cars that straddle the line (on roads that
> don't have bike lanes), and it never occurred to me to be upset about
> it, as long as they give me adequate clearance.
>
> k Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

I don't have a problem with a vehicle not going over completely into
the other lane if he passes me at a safe distance. I also haven't had
that big of a problem with motorists buzzing me. It has happened a few
times, but most drivers are pretty courteous and allow a safe distance;
many do cross over into the other lane. I do a lot of riding on chip
seal roads, some of which don't have a painted centerline. Here again
most drivers move over to a safe distance when passing. I live in
central MO in a very rural area so that could have something to do with
it.

Smokey

Date: 14 Oct 2006 09:35:45
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

gds wrote:
> ...
> But even so having worked on the staff of congress people and one
> governor I can tell you that when the voices get too shrill they get
> very discounted.

Unless those very shrill voices are backed by large amounts of campaign
cash!

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

Date: 14 Oct 2006 08:10:24
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

In article <568df$4530f759$18ec69a4$16424@knology.net >,
wvantwiller <wvantwiller@knickerbocker.com > writes:

>>> How about a spring loaded paint roller to give cars a good, hot pink
>>> stripe when they pass to close? It'll be a scarlet letter of sorts ;)
>>
>> For that, it would have to paint an 'A'.
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Tom
>>
>
> Could just be an I or lower case L.
>
> I really don't see where the car is committing adultry

Who say's the 'A' stands for "adultery"? ;-)

cheers,
Tom

> if you can get a
> paint roller between it and the bicycle (like between an Irish Wolfhound
> and a toy Poodle).

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Date: 14 Oct 2006 13:22:28
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

"Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:0luqge.24f.ln@vcn.bc.ca...
> In article <568df$4530f759$18ec69a4$16424@knology.net>,
> wvantwiller <wvantwiller@knickerbocker.com> writes:
>
>>>> How about a spring loaded paint roller to give cars a good, hot pink
>>>> stripe when they pass to close? It'll be a scarlet letter of sorts ;)
>>>
>>> For that, it would have to paint an 'A'.
>>>
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Tom
>>>
>>
>> Could just be an I or lower case L.
>>
>> I really don't see where the car is committing adultry
>
> Who say's the 'A' stands for "adultery"? ;-)

Some states have a Morality Law that may preclude the use of the A in that
context.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 17:05:11
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

In article <egon58$1r0$1@news-int2.gatech.edu >,
Paul Hobson <fobson@gatech.edu > writes:
>
>> On 2006-10-10, Werehatrack <rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
>>> I would caution Florida riders to increase their vigilance and perhaps
>>> add a rear-view mirror to their gear at this point. In my opinion, if
>>> the reaction to the new law can be predicted in any manner, it is that
>>> there will be assholes around who will *intentionally* see just how
>>> close they can come to cyclists when they perceive that there is no
>>> enforcement possible.
>
> John Thompson wrote:
>> Maybe a 3' long fiberglass pole with bright orange flag and a carbide
>> tip might be in order? :-)
>
> How about a spring loaded paint roller to give cars a good, hot pink
> stripe when they pass to close? It'll be a scarlet letter of sorts ;)

For that, it would have to paint an 'A'.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Date: 14 Oct 2006 10:42:33
From: wvantwiller
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote in news:nj9pge.a9c.ln@vcn.bc.ca:

> In article <egon58$1r0$1@news-int2.gatech.edu>,
> Paul Hobson <fobson@gatech.edu> writes:
>>
>>> On 2006-10-10, Werehatrack <rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
>>>> I would caution Florida riders to increase their vigilance and perhaps
>>>> add a rear-view mirror to their gear at this point. In my opinion, if
>>>> the reaction to the new law can be predicted in any manner, it is that
>>>> there will be assholes around who will *intentionally* see just how
>>>> close they can come to cyclists when they perceive that there is no
>>>> enforcement possible.
>>
>> John Thompson wrote:
>>> Maybe a 3' long fiberglass pole with bright orange flag and a carbide
>>> tip might be in order? :-)
>>
>> How about a spring loaded paint roller to give cars a good, hot pink
>> stripe when they pass to close? It'll be a scarlet letter of sorts ;)
>
> For that, it would have to paint an 'A'.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>

Could just be an I or lower case L.

I really don't see where the car is committing adultry if you can get a
paint roller between it and the bicycle (like between an Irish Wolfhound
and a toy Poodle).

Date: 16 Oct 2006 17:52:14
From: Werehatrack
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:42:33 -0400, wvantwiller
<wvantwiller@knickerbocker.com > wrote:

>tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote in news:nj9pge.a9c.ln@vcn.bc.ca:
>
>> In article <egon58$1r0$1@news-int2.gatech.edu>,
>> Paul Hobson <fobson@gatech.edu> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2006-10-10, Werehatrack <rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
>>>>> I would caution Florida riders to increase their vigilance and perhaps
>>>>> add a rear-view mirror to their gear at this point. In my opinion, if
>>>>> the reaction to the new law can be predicted in any manner, it is that
>>>>> there will be assholes around who will *intentionally* see just how
>>>>> close they can come to cyclists when they perceive that there is no
>>>>> enforcement possible.
>>>
>>> John Thompson wrote:
>>>> Maybe a 3' long fiberglass pole with bright orange flag and a carbide
>>>> tip might be in order? :-)
>>>
>>> How about a spring loaded paint roller to give cars a good, hot pink
>>> stripe when they pass to close? It'll be a scarlet letter of sorts ;)
>>
>> For that, it would have to paint an 'A'.
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Tom
>>
>
>Could just be an I or lower case L.
>
>I really don't see where the car is committing adultry if you can get a
>paint roller between it and the bicycle (like between an Irish Wolfhound
>and a toy Poodle).

"A", in this case, does not mean Adultery.

Consider: RTFMA is reported as the acronymic representation of "Read
The Furnished Materials, Sir" when the admonition must be addressed to
a superior officer.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 17:03:05
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

In article <NMxWg.5836$gL.3169@southeast.rr.com >,
Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes:

>> I don't mind sharing the lane if I safely can.
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Tom
>>
>
> This is the way I ride also. I willingly share my lane most of the time.
> My point is that it is not codified in traffic law that bicyclist MUST
> share their lane.

I think the "ride as far to the right as practicable" thing at least
implies that we bicyclists are indeed expected to share our lane
when we determine that we safely can.

> I believe the 3 ft clearance requirement is a step
> toward that end though.

Just out of curiosity I googled-up some overtaking/passing provisos
& rules in various jurisdictions. Now I wish I kept some of the URLs.
IIRC, one was for an overtaking vehicle operator to not attempt to
overtake by crossing the centre line unless he could return to his
original lane at a minimum distance of 200 yards in front of the
overtaken vehicle. That might have been exclusive for high-speed
expressways.

I figure all traffic law and all traffic ettiquette boils down to
Right-of-Way. If everybody respected ROW, there'd be no probs.
Trouble is, there's a dearth of understanding of ROW. And I don't
profess to be an expert, myself, although I'm trying to get there.
Right-Of-Way isn't as simple a subject as some might think. It's
at least as complex as the variety of possible traffic movements,
including U-turns, parallel parking, merging, pedestrian/vehicle
interactions, letting emergency response vehicles through, &c.

While we're all familiar with ROW rules at intersections, I understand
there's also applicable ROW in the zone directly in front of a vehicle's
direction of travel, into which no other vehicle operator should
dangerously intrude.

Maybe passing clearance is one factor determining where an overtaking
vehicle takes its place in front of the overtaken vehicle? IOW, maybe
the closer they pass ya, the closer they're likely to cut in front of ya
(and intrude into your ROW/"safe zone")? If so, laws regarding overtaking
should first consider ROW (regardless, of course, of the type of vehicles
involved.)

I suspect we're on the same page :-)

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Date: 15 Oct 2006 19:20:04
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Tom Keats wrote:

>
>
> I think the "ride as far to the right as practicable" thing at least
> implies that we bicyclists are indeed expected to share our lane
> when we determine that we safely can.
>

I believe that this rule has been poorly written, bastardized over time,
and in places has been distorted to be discriminatory to bicyclists.

Below is what I've written about NC's version of the "as far right as
practicable rule." Thankfully, it is not specific to bicyclists as are
versions in some other states. Still, it is often misinterpreted.

�20-146. Drive on right side of highway; exceptions.
Part (a) directs vehicles to be driven on the right half of the road (in
England it�s on the left).
Part (b) is a refinement of part (a), and says: �Upon all highways any
vehicle proceeding at less than the legal maximum speed limit shall be
driven in the right-hand lane then available for thru traffic, or as
close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the highway...�

NC. �20-146(b) is intended to facilitate orderly overtaking. But the
statute is unclearly written, and often misinterpreted.

First, the use of the conjunction �or� in the cited law indicates two
possibilities and choices:
�... the right-hand lane then available for thru traffic, or as close as
practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the highway.� When is
either choice appropriate? �20-146(d) is illustrative, and says,
�Whenever any street has been divided into two or more clearly ked
lanes for traffic...,� indicating the two possible conditions of roads:
with or without ked lanes. The most reasonable interpretation of
�20-146(b) is that �...in the right-hand lane then available for thru
traffic...� applies when lanes are ked, while �...as close as
practicable to the right...� applies when a street lacks ked lanes.
�20-146(b) imposes no requirement on any driver to operate as far right
as practicable within a ked lane. �20-146(b) ought to say �....or
when upon an unked roadway as close as practicable to the right-hand
curb or edge of the roadway (rather than highway)...�

The origins of �20-146(b) are from yesteryear when roads with no
striping were the norm. Now, only residential and minor rural roads are
stripe free. If there is no center line, any vehicle driver is required
to stay �...as close as practicable...� to the right and make available
that part of the road to his or her left to allow another driver to
pass. You can�t drive on the left or be a �road hog.� If there is a
center line, or lane separator stripes on a multi-lane road, the �...as
close as practicable...� provision is not relevant since an overtaking
driver can use the part of the roadway to the left of the line, the
adjacent or opposing lane, to pass a slower driver.

Wayne

Date: 13 Oct 2006 22:46:44
From: Joshua Putnam
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

In article <pf9pge.t8c.ln@vcn.bc.ca >, tkeats2005@hotmail.com says...
> In article <NMxWg.5836$gL.3169@southeast.rr.com>,
> Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes:
>
> >> I don't mind sharing the lane if I safely can.
> >>
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >> Tom
> >>
> >
> > This is the way I ride also. I willingly share my lane most of the time.
> > My point is that it is not codified in traffic law that bicyclist MUST
> > share their lane.
>
> I think the "ride as far to the right as practicable" thing at least
> implies that we bicyclists are indeed expected to share our lane
> when we determine that we safely can.

What I can't find in the law is a prohibition on sharing a lane while
passing that applies to *motorists*.

The requirement in the RCW is that "The driver of a vehicle overtaking
other traffic proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left
thereof at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side
of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken traffic."

There's nothing that says they can't straddle the lane line while
passing, or even that they can't share a lane while passing if there
happens to be a lane wide enough to share while passing at a safe
distance. (The lanes on the road in front of my house happen to be wide
enough for cars to pass within the same lane. That flaw will be
remedied by an upcoming sidewalk project.)

That means that if a motorist thinks it's safe to pass my car entirely
within my lane, giving me less than one foot of clearance, he can do it.
*If* he happens to get cited for passing to close, he can take it to the
judge and argue about whether it was a safe distance or not, since
there's no definition in the statute of what constitutes a safe
distance.

Now, if I'm on a bicycle instead of in my car, the law is slightly
different:

"The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian or bicycle that is on
the roadway or on the right-hand shoulder or bicycle lane of the roadway
shall pass to the left at a safe distance to clearly avoid coming into
contact with the pedestrian or bicyclist, and shall not again drive to
the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken
pedestrian or bicyclist."

As with passing a car, there's no statutory prohibition on passing in
the same lane. But motorists must also give safe clearance to bicycles
that are on the shoulder rather than in the roadway. And they have to
give safe clearance to bicycles or pedestrians going against traffic,
not only those "proceeding in the same direction."

Still, there's no statutory definition of what "a safe distance to avoid
coming into contact" is -- if the motorist believes he can squeeze by
with a foot of clearance and gets cited for it, he can still try to
convince the judge that was a safe distance. If he actually hits me,
that's different, he did not avoid contact, so he clearly wasn't far
enough away to avoid contact.

--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/ >
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html >

Date: 14 Oct 2006 06:36:12
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Joshua Putnam <josh@phred.org > wrote:

>What I can't find in the law is a prohibition on sharing a lane while
>passing that applies to *motorists*.
>
>The requirement in the RCW is that "The driver of a vehicle overtaking
>other traffic proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left
>thereof at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side
>of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken traffic."
>
>There's nothing that says they can't straddle the lane line while
>passing, or even that they can't share a lane while passing if there
>happens to be a lane wide enough to share while passing at a safe
>distance.

I'm curious...

How many of those who are participating in this thread have a problem
with a motor vehicle passing "straddling the line" if the clearance is
3-6' (1-2m) depending on the speed? That is, how many feel slighted
when a car passes at an undeniably safe distance, but without changing
lanes entirely?

I'll go first - I could care less if the car fully changes lanes. I'm
passed all the time by cars that straddle the line (on roads that
don't have bike lanes), and it never occurred to me to be upset about
it, as long as they give me adequate clearance.

k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Date: 15 Oct 2006 01:23:56
From: JP
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

"k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com > wrote in message
news:lnp1j2hu304o96fdnaolinjcd7j32spjfk@4ax.com...
>
> I'm curious...
>
> How many of those who are participating in this thread have a problem
> with a motor vehicle passing "straddling the line" if the clearance is
> 3-6' (1-2m) depending on the speed? That is, how many feel slighted
> when a car passes at an undeniably safe distance, but without changing
> lanes entirely?
>
> I'll go first - I could care less if the car fully changes lanes. I'm
> passed all the time by cars that straddle the line (on roads that
> don't have bike lanes), and it never occurred to me to be upset about
> it, as long as they give me adequate clearance.
>
> k Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame

I'd love 3-6 feet of courtesy room.
I'd also love a bike lane.
Typically I've got neither.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 14:13:56
From: gds
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Wayne Pein wrote:

> I state my case emphatically (you call it getting worked up) because
> there is a lot of misinformation put out by government and ngo's about
> bicycling, and this misinformation is a source of problems that need not
> exist. That you don't see bad facilities and bad law as infringement on
> cyclist's rights is your perogative. I see it differently and work to
> change it.
>
> Wayne

I guess the difference is that I don't see all these bad laws and and
bad facilites. I imagine it varies by jurisdiction but I've lived and
cycled int he midwest, northeast, and now the southwest and just
haven't run into the problems that you are attacking.

And at least here in southern Arizona the governmental folks are
actually pretty sensitive to cyclists and are cooperative. In fact a
number of them are active cyclists.There are a number of planning
bodies and they include cyclists and actually listen to them. So, at
least here, from a a facility point of view the newer roads are all
great for cyclists. I can imagine tht in a less enlightened atmosphere
there can be a building of frustration.

But even so having worked on the staff of congress people and one
governor I can tell you that when the voices get too shrill they get
very discounted.

Date: 15 Oct 2006 19:06:57
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

gds wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>
>>I state my case emphatically (you call it getting worked up) because
>>there is a lot of misinformation put out by government and ngo's about
>>bicycling, and this misinformation is a source of problems that need not
>>exist. That you don't see bad facilities and bad law as infringement on
>>cyclist's rights is your perogative. I see it differently and work to
>>change it.
>>
>>Wayne
>
>
> I guess the difference is that I don't see all these bad laws and and
> bad facilites.

Huh? Poorly worded stay right laws; mandatory bike lane laws, mandatory
shoulder laws; mandatory sidepath laws; etc. They all exist in various
places.

You don't see bad facilities or you don't know they exist? You really
can't be serious.

Wayne

Date: 13 Oct 2006 13:12:01
From: gds
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Wayne Pein wrote:

> Where have I ever said I experience many problems? That is your fabrication!
>
> > I find the behavior of the vast majority of motorists just fine. I
> > don't experience all the bad and hostile drivers that you do.
> >
>
> So do I.
>
> Wayne

OK, so then why do you get so worked up? I simply don't see the great
infringement on cyclist's rights that you do. However, as I've noted
the way you describe how you actually behave while riding is much less
agressive than what you often describe as necessary to protect one's
rights.

I guess I'm just turned off by the absolutism that you espouse; but not
nearly so with your actual (self described) riding behavior and wonder
why the disconnect.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 20:48:46
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

gds wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>
>>Where have I ever said I experience many problems? That is your fabrication!
>>
>>
>>>I find the behavior of the vast majority of motorists just fine. I
>>>don't experience all the bad and hostile drivers that you do.
>>>
>>
>>So do I.
>>
>>Wayne
>
>
> OK, so then why do you get so worked up? I simply don't see the great
> infringement on cyclist's rights that you do.

I state my case emphatically (you call it getting worked up) because
there is a lot of misinformation put out by government and ngo's about
bicycling, and this misinformation is a source of problems that need not
exist. That you don't see bad facilities and bad law as infringement on
cyclist's rights is your perogative. I see it differently and work to
change it.

Wayne

Date: 13 Oct 2006 10:03:27
From: gds
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Wayne Pein wrote:
> GDS,
>
> My allegedly extreme positions are due your complicit acceptance of bad
> laws.
>
> Wayne
> I can say black, you'd say white.

No, it just seems that we have very different riding experiences. I
ride a fair bit- 4-6 days a week and ~5000 miles a year. I've lived and
ridden in the midwest, northeast, and now the southwest. I just don't
seem to experience all the problems that you do.

I find the behavior of the vast majority of motorists just fine. I
don't experience all the bad and hostile drivers that you do.

That said I also spend very little time challenging them. I do make an
effort to find riding routes that I feel are most conducive to bikes
and cars co existing. That does little to hamper me in where I want to
go nor does it seriously lengthen (or shorten) my rides.

Do you ever think that by constantly being confrontational you are
actually encouraging the behavior you are wishing to change? I don't
say that is the way things should be but in fact it is often the case
that folks become more beligerant and hostile from confrontation. Sure
in egregious cases confrontation may be the only viable path; but you
seem to relish and over use the technique.
My 2 cents

Date: 13 Oct 2006 19:41:29
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

gds wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>GDS,
>>
>>My allegedly extreme positions are due your complicit acceptance of bad
>>laws.
>>
>>Wayne
>>I can say black, you'd say white.
>
>
> No, it just seems that we have very different riding experiences. I
> ride a fair bit- 4-6 days a week and ~5000 miles a year. I've lived and
> ridden in the midwest, northeast, and now the southwest. I just don't
> seem to experience all the problems that you do.

Where have I ever said I experience many problems? That is your fabrication!

> I find the behavior of the vast majority of motorists just fine. I
> don't experience all the bad and hostile drivers that you do.
>

So do I.

Wayne

Date: 11 Oct 2006 09:53:28
From: gds
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
> >
> >
> > Folks, motorists already know their responsibilities when passing
> > bicyclists. It's to be courteous.
>
> I'm not sure about that. While I don't get hassled much, I
> occasionally hear "GET ON THE SIDEWALK!!"
>
> I think some of those lamebrains actually _don't_ know the rules or
> responsibilities.
>
> What was that quote? Something like "Never ascribe to malice what can
> be explained by stupidity."
>
> - Frank Krygowski

I agree. However, in many threads with Wayne posting I find that in the
end his actual behavior is not nearly so extreme as his stated
"positions." I guess he feels it necessary to stake out the hard
position on cyclist rights because he sees so much abuse by motorists.
Personally I find his descriptions of how he actually rides much more
persuasive than the hard line he espouses. I'd like to think that
reasonable trumps extreme.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 21:52:20
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

gds wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Folks, motorists already know their responsibilities when passing
>>>bicyclists. It's to be courteous.
>>
>>I'm not sure about that. While I don't get hassled much, I
>>occasionally hear "GET ON THE SIDEWALK!!"
>>
>>I think some of those lamebrains actually _don't_ know the rules or
>>responsibilities.
>>
>>What was that quote? Something like "Never ascribe to malice what can
>>be explained by stupidity."
>>
>>- Frank Krygowski
>
>
> I agree. However, in many threads with Wayne posting I find that in the
> end his actual behavior is not nearly so extreme as his stated
> "positions." I guess he feels it necessary to stake out the hard
> position on cyclist rights because he sees so much abuse by motorists.
> Personally I find his descriptions of how he actually rides much more
> persuasive than the hard line he espouses. I'd like to think that
> reasonable trumps extreme.
>

GDS,

My allegedly extreme positions are due your complicit acceptance of bad
laws.

Wayne
I can say black, you'd say white.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 16:09:31
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:oIdXg.6975$gL.3444@southeast.rr.com...
> gds wrote:
>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>Wayne Pein wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Folks, motorists already know their responsibilities when passing
>>>>bicyclists. It's to be courteous.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure about that. While I don't get hassled much, I
>>>occasionally hear "GET ON THE SIDEWALK!!"
>>>
>>>I think some of those lamebrains actually _don't_ know the rules or
>>>responsibilities.
>>>
>>>What was that quote? Something like "Never ascribe to malice what can
>>>be explained by stupidity."
>>>
>>>- Frank Krygowski
>>
>>
>> I agree. However, in many threads with Wayne posting I find that in the
>> end his actual behavior is not nearly so extreme as his stated
>> "positions." I guess he feels it necessary to stake out the hard
>> position on cyclist rights because he sees so much abuse by motorists.
>> Personally I find his descriptions of how he actually rides much more
>> persuasive than the hard line he espouses. I'd like to think that
>> reasonable trumps extreme.
>>
>
> GDS,
>
> My allegedly extreme positions are due your complicit acceptance of bad
> laws.

Maybe we can convince a state for you to move to to pass a law that
motorists use a 1 ft negative passing distance just for you. Of course,
everyone else will get at least a positive 3 ft. Then you can go for a bike
ride.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 15:51:46
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Daryl Hunt wrote:

Nothing of substance, but plenty of idioic blather.

Wayne

Date: 13 Oct 2006 12:47:22
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:mwtXg.7137$gL.6251@southeast.rr.com...
> Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
> Nothing of substance, but plenty of idioic blather.
>
> Wayne

You already shown yourself as a bigot. Say goodnight Gracie.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 09:13:16
From:
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>
> Folks, motorists already know their responsibilities when passing
> bicyclists. It's to be courteous.

I'm not sure about that. While I don't get hassled much, I
occasionally hear "GET ON THE SIDEWALK!!"

I think some of those lamebrains actually _don't_ know the rules or
responsibilities.

What was that quote? Something like "Never ascribe to malice what can
be explained by stupidity."

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 11 Oct 2006 18:23:22
From: Patrick Lamb
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

On 11 Oct 2006 09:13:16 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
>I'm not sure about that. While I don't get hassled much, I
>occasionally hear "GET ON THE SIDEWALK!!"

Particularly amusing when there's no sidewalk!

>I think some of those lamebrains actually _don't_ know the rules or
>responsibilities.

I'd agree completely if you changed "some" to "most."

Pat

Email address works as is.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 22:16:50
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>
>>Folks, motorists already know their responsibilities when passing
>>bicyclists. It's to be courteous.
>
>
> I'm not sure about that. While I don't get hassled much, I
> occasionally hear "GET ON THE SIDEWALK!!"
>
> I think some of those lamebrains actually _don't_ know the rules or
> responsibilities.
>
> What was that quote? Something like "Never ascribe to malice what can
> be explained by stupidity."
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

Frank,

Most of them are pulling your chain, simply being assholes. Perhaps a
few genuinely believe you should be on the sidewalk and so become
emboldened vigilantes to let you know. Big deal. The other day a pickup
truck driver pulled up next to me and said, "Get the hell off the road."
I said "Thanks for the tip. Pull over so we can talk about it." He kept
going. Also the other day a bicyclist pointed at her helmet in an
attempt to educate me to put mine on. I told her to mind her own
business. See how easy it is to educate others?

If there is to be government sanctioned education and laws regarding
bicycling, they ought to be optimal in order to counteract pervasive
ignorance. A 3' passing clearance law is miseducation.

Wayne
Same Roads. Same Rules. Same Rights.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 17:16:04
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:m3eXg.6978$gL.1527@southeast.rr.com...
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Folks, motorists already know their responsibilities when passing
>>>bicyclists. It's to be courteous.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure about that. While I don't get hassled much, I
>> occasionally hear "GET ON THE SIDEWALK!!"
>>
>> I think some of those lamebrains actually _don't_ know the rules or
>> responsibilities.
>>
>> What was that quote? Something like "Never ascribe to malice what can
>> be explained by stupidity."
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>
> Frank,
>
> Most of them are pulling your chain, simply being assholes. Perhaps a few
> genuinely believe you should be on the sidewalk and so become emboldened
> vigilantes to let you know. Big deal. The other day a pickup truck driver
> pulled up next to me and said, "Get the hell off the road."

If you are riding like you present yourself in here then you should get the
hell off the road. There are rules for a purpose. When two "Rights" try to
occupy the same space then both "Rights" become privileges.

> I said "Thanks for the tip. Pull over so we can talk about it." He kept
> going.

Yah, right. I am about 240 lbs. Should I try to get a motorist to pull
over to discuss their bad behavior I don' t expect them to do so. While I
have a pretty good idea what their frame of mind is, they have no idea what
mine is. Do I wish to talk or get into a brawl. Better to keep right on a
truckin.

Also the other day a bicyclist pointed at her helmet in an
> attempt to educate me to put mine on. I told her to mind her own business.
> See how easy it is to educate others?

See how easy it is to not ignore something extremely trivial and piss of
everyone around you?

>
> If there is to be government sanctioned education and laws regarding
> bicycling, they ought to be optimal in order to counteract pervasive
> ignorance. A 3' passing clearance law is miseducation.

When they pass any laws that you don't agree with you think that you
shouldn't adhere to them? The 3 foot law is responsable. And that is the
minimum, not the maximum distance allowed. I imagine that even more is
warrented if need be. But I like the 3 foot limit. Usually, if you know
there is a 3 foot limit, you error to the outside of that number. I am
usually given 4 feet or more clearance and I can live with 3 feet. I can't
live with one foot or less, and I mean that literally.

>
> Wayne
> Same Roads. Same Rules. Same Rights.

Are you saying that you should have the same rights as a farm tractor? Or
how about a tobaggon. Or maybe skate boards? Or even a heavy hauler 18
wheeler? All of these have different rules than either cars or bikes. The
roads may be the same but the rules and rights are different due to the
vehicle itself.

Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:02:45
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Daryl Hunt wrote:

>
>>Wayne
>>Same Roads. Same Rules. Same Rights.
>
>
> Are you saying that you should have the same rights as a farm tractor?

Why not?

By the way. Farm tractors don't have rights. Drivers of farm tractors
have rights.

Or
> how about a tobaggon. Or maybe skate boards?

These are not classified as vehicles as are bicycles.

Or even a heavy hauler 18
> wheeler? All of these have different rules than either cars or bikes. The
> roads may be the same but the rules and rights are different due to the
> vehicle itself.

Prove it.

Wayne

Date: 11 Oct 2006 23:23:08
From: Ludmila Borgschatz-Thudpucker, MD
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

"Daryl Hunt" <dhunt@celticommnospam.com > wrote in message
news:452d7af7$1@news.i70west.com...
>
> Yah, right. I am about 240 lbs.

That's a lot of dead meat, even out near I-70.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 19:51:16
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

"Ludmila Borgschatz-Thudpucker, MD" <ftc@uce.NOSPAM.gov > wrote in message
news:w1fXg.5938$Lv3.2984@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Daryl Hunt" <dhunt@celticommnospam.com> wrote in message
> news:452d7af7$1@news.i70west.com...
>>
>> Yah, right. I am about 240 lbs.
>
> That's a lot of dead meat, even out near I-70.

Ah, the k00ks have followed me. Watch out folks, these are real fruitcakes
and NG killers.

Date: 10 Oct 2006 19:39:43
From: Chris Y.F.N.W.
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Group: rec.bicycles.misc Date: Sun, Oct 8, 2006, 5:41pm (EDT-3) From:
Bob4Health@hotmail.com (Beach=A0Runner)

>Motorists must leave 3 feet of clearance
>when passing a bicyclist.

>I'm usually satisfied with 2 inches!!!!!

>http://news.yahoo.com/s/wpbf/20061002/lo_wpbf/9977279

Florida sounds a lot like Southern California...

- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

Date: 10 Oct 2006 16:26:16
From: peter
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Daryl Hunt wrote:

> > Yes, they are inforcable.
>
> No, it is not enforceable. "Officer, that bad motorist passed me with
> only 2 ft 9 inches clearance. Arrest him!" "Son, it looked like 3 ft 1
> inch to me."

You won't get anywhere by telling a cop that somebody passed you going
at least 30 mph faster while you were going at the speed limit either.
But that doesn't mean speeding laws can't be enforced; just that it
requires some effort by the police to monitor compliance. This law
could also be enforced, but probably won't be. All it would take is
one officer to ride a bike with a device like that used by the
researcher in the UK who studied passing distances and he could signal
ahead to someone in a patrol car who would pull over the offender.
Preferably the rider would not be wearing the usual black shirt with
"POLICE" in block letters on the back.

Do I think that'll be done? No, but I still think the law has some
benefits. When an accident does occur the motorist frequently claims
that the cyclist swerved into his path. That's hard to counter if the
'swerve' could be as little as a few inches, but there may well be
witnesses and/or physical evidence that shows that any such swerve was
under 3'. The minimum distance would also be useful in educating
motorists about their responsibilities when passing cyclists,
especially if included in public service announcements or in letters
sent to motorists in response to complaints by cyclists of particularly
dangerous passing.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 15:47:16
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

peter wrote:

No, but I still think the law has some
> benefits. When an accident does occur the motorist frequently claims
> that the cyclist swerved into his path. That's hard to counter if the
> 'swerve' could be as little as a few inches, but there may well be
> witnesses and/or physical evidence that shows that any such swerve was
> under 3'. The minimum distance would also be useful in educating
> motorists about their responsibilities when passing cyclists,
> especially if included in public service announcements or in letters
> sent to motorists in response to complaints by cyclists of particularly
> dangerous passing.
>

How about this for enforcement:

If a lawfully operating bicyclist gets struck from behind it is
automatically the motorists' fault because he chose to pass within the
bicyclist's lane. If a motorist strikes a lawfully operating motorist
from behind, the striker is at fault, so such a standard already exists.
It simply needs to be applied to bicycle drivers.

How about this for education:

Pass with pleny of clearance and at slow speed, just like you would like
to be passed. Teaching motorists that 3' is the minimum passing distance
is like teaching a buffalo to sing.

Folks, motorists already know their responsibilities when passing
bicyclists. It's to be courteous. Further, 3' is woefully inadequate
under useful conditions, those times when high speed passing.

Wayne

Date: 10 Oct 2006 21:27:19
From: Werehatrack
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

On 8 Oct 2006 17:41:55 -0700, "Beach Runner" <Bob4Health@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>Motorists must leave 3 feet of clearance when passing a bicyclist.
>
>I'm usually satisfied with 2 inches!!!!!
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/wpbf/20061002/lo_wpbf/9977279

Particularly in Florida, merely making something illegal will not keep
it from happening; if that were true, we would need no police.

I would caution Florida riders to increase their vigilance and perhaps
add a rear-view mirror to their gear at this point. In my opinion, if
the reaction to the new law can be predicted in any manner, it is that
there will be assholes around who will *intentionally* see just how
close they can come to cyclists when they perceive that there is no
enforcement possible.

--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 19:05:50
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

On 2006-10-10, Werehatrack <rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net > wrote:

> On 8 Oct 2006 17:41:55 -0700, "Beach Runner" <Bob4Health@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Motorists must leave 3 feet of clearance when passing a bicyclist.
>>
>>I'm usually satisfied with 2 inches!!!!!
>>
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/wpbf/20061002/lo_wpbf/9977279

> Particularly in Florida, merely making something illegal will not keep
> it from happening; if that were true, we would need no police.
>
> I would caution Florida riders to increase their vigilance and perhaps
> add a rear-view mirror to their gear at this point. In my opinion, if
> the reaction to the new law can be predicted in any manner, it is that
> there will be assholes around who will *intentionally* see just how
> close they can come to cyclists when they perceive that there is no
> enforcement possible.

Maybe a 3' long fiberglass pole with bright orange flag and a carbide
tip might be in order? :-)

--

John (john@os2.dhs.org)

Date: 13 Oct 2006 14:52:44
From: Paul Hobson
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

> On 2006-10-10, Werehatrack <rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
>> I would caution Florida riders to increase their vigilance and perhaps
>> add a rear-view mirror to their gear at this point. In my opinion, if
>> the reaction to the new law can be predicted in any manner, it is that
>> there will be assholes around who will *intentionally* see just how
>> close they can come to cyclists when they perceive that there is no
>> enforcement possible.

John Thompson wrote:
> Maybe a 3' long fiberglass pole with bright orange flag and a carbide
> tip might be in order? :-)

How about a spring loaded paint roller to give cars a good, hot pink
stripe when they pass to close? It'll be a scarlet letter of sorts ;)
\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
.:change the f to ph to reply:.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 16:06:06
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

John Thompson wrote:

>
> Maybe a 3' long fiberglass pole with bright orange flag and a carbide
> tip might be in order? :-)
>
How about a 5' long one with a plastic explosives tip? ;-)

Wayne

Date: 11 Oct 2006 16:10:13
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

"John Thompson" <john@vector.os2.dhs.org > wrote in message
news:slrneiqebl.h4s.john@vector.os2.dhs.org...
> On 2006-10-10, Werehatrack <rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8 Oct 2006 17:41:55 -0700, "Beach Runner" <Bob4Health@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Motorists must leave 3 feet of clearance when passing a bicyclist.
>>>
>>>I'm usually satisfied with 2 inches!!!!!
>>>
>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/wpbf/20061002/lo_wpbf/9977279
>
>> Particularly in Florida, merely making something illegal will not keep
>> it from happening; if that were true, we would need no police.
>>
>> I would caution Florida riders to increase their vigilance and perhaps
>> add a rear-view mirror to their gear at this point. In my opinion, if
>> the reaction to the new law can be predicted in any manner, it is that
>> there will be assholes around who will *intentionally* see just how
>> close they can come to cyclists when they perceive that there is no
>> enforcement possible.
>
> Maybe a 3' long fiberglass pole with bright orange flag and a carbide
> tip might be in order? :-)

I vote for a bazooka, myself. (g)

Date: 10 Oct 2006 22:37:43
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Werehatrack wrote:

>
> Particularly in Florida, merely making something illegal will not keep
> it from happening; if that were true, we would need no police.
>
> I would caution Florida riders to increase their vigilance and perhaps
> add a rear-view mirror to their gear at this point. In my opinion, if
> the reaction to the new law can be predicted in any manner, it is that
> there will be assholes around who will *intentionally* see just how
> close they can come to cyclists when they perceive that there is no
> enforcement possible.
>

I agree. Except that I don't know what a rear view mirror will do except
to create more paranoia.

Wayne

Date: 10 Oct 2006 12:23:13
From: gds
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Wayne Pein wrote:
> gds wrote:
>
>
> > I think "Give Cyclists Five Feet" is very educational. And it is very
> > similar to the signs like "Give Them a Brake" or "My momom works here"
> > posted near construction zones. I think your idea of educatiion is a
> > bit too narrow.
> >
>
> I think your idea of education is too specific, and imposes a measure
> motorists do not well understand: distance. Heck, bicyclists don't
> understand distance, as evidenced by the proclamations of passing
> distance in this thread, which has been reported at 2 inchs, 1 foot, etc.
>
> Your "Give Them a Brake" or "My momom works here" examples are generic.
> The messages are intended to induce generalized caution. They don't say
> "Give Them a Brake of 0.3 gees" or "My Mom Works Here, But It's OK to
> Kill Other Workers."
>
> Wayne

You are entitled to your opinion. As usual I find I don't agree with
you.

Date: 10 Oct 2006 10:14:45
From: gds
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Wayne Pein wrote:
> gds wrote:
>
>
> > But many things in society are accomplished through education and
> > having a "reasonable" passing distance "out there" strike me as more a
> > positive than a negative.
> >
>
> Education is a sign like "Pass Bicycle Drivers with Care" or something
> similar.
>
> Here in NC there are signs saying something like "Slow Down and Move
> Over for Stopped Emergency Vehicles" and "Slow Moving Busses Use This
> Highway."
>
> Wayne

I think "Give Cyclists Five Feet" is very educational. And it is very
similar to the signs like "Give Them a Brake" or "My momom works here"
posted near construction zones. I think your idea of educatiion is a
bit too narrow.

Date: 10 Oct 2006 19:11:41
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

gds wrote:

> I think "Give Cyclists Five Feet" is very educational. And it is very
> similar to the signs like "Give Them a Brake" or "My momom works here"
> posted near construction zones. I think your idea of educatiion is a
> bit too narrow.
>

I think your idea of education is too specific, and imposes a measure
motorists do not well understand: distance. Heck, bicyclists don't
understand distance, as evidenced by the proclamations of passing
distance in this thread, which has been reported at 2 inchs, 1 foot, etc.

Your "Give Them a Brake" or "My momom works here" examples are generic.
The messages are intended to induce generalized caution. They don't say
"Give Them a Brake of 0.3 gees" or "My Mom Works Here, But It's OK to
Kill Other Workers."

Wayne

Date: 09 Oct 2006 14:54:58
From: gds
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Daryl Hunt wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Yes, they are inforcable.
>
> No, it is not enforceable. "Officer, that bad motorist passed me with
> only 2 ft 9 inches clearance. Arrest him!" "Son, it looked like 3 ft 1
> inch to me."
>
> In a real world, Motorists will still give you as
> > little clearance as they can get. But if an accident happens due to the
> > lack of clearance (and you live through it) that motorist had better be
> > insured for what is coming down the pike. Reasonable Prudence does apply
> > and if a motorist causes an accident by not exercising Reasonable Prudence
> > then they can be sued back to the stone age.
>
> Reasonable Prudence laws already exist.
>
> >
> >
> > Second, by specifiying a distance, it implies motorists
> >
> >>are legally entitled to use the bicyclist's lane for passing.
> >
> >
> > That is hardly what it says. Motorists are NOT to use Bike Lanes. Only
> > bikes and very small Scooters (for the scooter, depends on the state)
>
> I'm talking about the full regular lane, not bike lanes.
>
> Wayne

Here in southern Arizona lots of cycling groups have touted "Give them
5 feet" as the standard. I'm not really sure how many municipalities
have adopted the standard into law but I don't think that was the main
purpose. The purpose was priily educational. The idea being that a
lot of motorists that pass very closely were simply ignorant of their
impact on the cyclist. The jerks who "buzz" on purpose probably will
not respond to education nor statute.

While it is the case that I sometimes get "buzzed" that is very much
the exception and most motorists give quite reasonable clearance to
cyclists. I agree that a specific distance as statute would be very
hard to enforce as there wold be no way to sure about the measurement.
But many things in society are accomplished through education and
having a "reasonable" passing distance "out there" strike me as more a
positive than a negative.

Date: 09 Oct 2006 22:46:51
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

gds wrote:

> But many things in society are accomplished through education and
> having a "reasonable" passing distance "out there" strike me as more a
> positive than a negative.
>

Education is a sign like "Pass Bicycle Drivers with Care" or something
similar.

Here in NC there are signs saying something like "Slow Down and Move
Over for Stopped Emergency Vehicles" and "Slow Moving Busses Use This
Highway."

Wayne

Date: 09 Oct 2006 12:25:37
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

In article <I_2dndCLKd5pzLfYnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@giganews.com >,
"Ken C. M." <ken@up-yours-spammer.net > writes:
> Beach Runner wrote:
>> Motorists must leave 3 feet of clearance when passing a bicyclist.
>>
>> I'm usually satisfied with 2 inches!!!!!
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/wpbf/20061002/lo_wpbf/9977279
>>
>
> I am pretty happy with about 1 foot, for most motor vehicles.

As long as they're not hauling a utility trailer with a
bunch of lumber or landscaping tools hanging over the side.

A small utility trailer can be quite well hidden behind
a large upcoming car.

> More with
> extra large commercial vehicles.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Date: 09 Oct 2006 09:43:15
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Beach Runner wrote:
> Motorists must leave 3 feet of clearance when passing a bicyclist.
>
> I'm usually satisfied with 2 inches!!!!!
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/wpbf/20061002/lo_wpbf/9977279
>

I am pretty happy with about 1 foot, for most motor vehicles. More with
extra large commercial vehicles.

Ken
--
Messengers and mountain bikers share a common chromosome. ~James Bethea

Date: 09 Oct 2006 06:30:32
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Beach Runner wrote:
> Motorists must leave 3 feet of clearance when passing a bicyclist.
>
> I'm usually satisfied with 2 inches!!!!!

If an 18 wheeler passed you with two inches, you'd end up either blown
onto the shoulder or sucked under the trailer just before being run
over by his back wheels.

>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/wpbf/20061002/lo_wpbf/9977279

Is there any mechanism for educating drivers about the new law? I've
seen several traffic laws passed here in Minnesota, and a month after
they take effect, nobody's heard of them (often, even swearing it's not
the law).

Austin

Date: 09 Oct 2006 06:05:44
From: qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Beach Runner wrote:
>
> > Motorists must leave 3 feet of clearance when passing a bicyclist.
> >
> > I'm usually satisfied with 2 inches!!!!!
> >
> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/wpbf/20061002/lo_wpbf/9977279
> >
>
>
> I don't see the point in passing clearance laws. First, they are
> unenforceable. Second, by specifiying a distance, it implies motorists
> are legally entitled to use the bicyclist's lane for passing. Currently,
> to my knowledge, it does not say in any state that motorists may pass in
> the same lane. It is common behavior, but not actually legally allowed.
> Motorists don't pass other motorists in the same lane. Third, 3 feet is
> quite close, closer than the typical pass actually is, regardless of the
> OP's sensationalist and exaggerated 2 inch claim.
>
> Wayne

Cheaper, easier than making shoulders or 'lanes' for bicycles.

Date: 08 Oct 2006 18:07:25
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

In article <O1hWg.2998$gL.2175@southeast.rr.com >,
Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes:
> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>> Motorists must leave 3 feet of clearance when passing a bicyclist.
>>
>> I'm usually satisfied with 2 inches!!!!!
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/wpbf/20061002/lo_wpbf/9977279
>>
>
>
> I don't see the point in passing clearance laws. First, they are
> unenforceable. Second, by specifiying a distance, it implies motorists
> are legally entitled to use the bicyclist's lane for passing. Currently,
> to my knowledge, it does not say in any state that motorists may pass in
> the same lane. It is common behavior, but not actually legally allowed.
> Motorists don't pass other motorists in the same lane. Third, 3 feet is
> quite close, closer than the typical pass actually is, regardless of the
> OP's sensationalist and exaggerated 2 inch claim.

I don't mind drivers going just partly over the center line
to give me leeway. As long as they give me leeway.

I cut breaks for them (drivers) too, when it's opportune
for everybody.

I'm not a doormat, and I'm not royalty. I'm somewhere
in between. Same as most other folks.

I don't mind sharing the lane if I safely can.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Date: 09 Oct 2006 19:53:17
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Tom Keats wrote:

> I don't mind drivers going just partly over the center line
> to give me leeway. As long as they give me leeway.
>
> I cut breaks for them (drivers) too, when it's opportune
> for everybody.
>
> I'm not a doormat, and I'm not royalty. I'm somewhere
> in between. Same as most other folks.
>
> I don't mind sharing the lane if I safely can.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>

This is the way I ride also. I willingly share my lane most of the time.
My point is that it is not codified in traffic law that bicyclist MUST
share their lane. I believe the 3 ft clearance requirement is a step
toward that end though.

Wayne

Date: 09 Oct 2006 21:29:55
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote:

>Tom Keats wrote:
>
>> I don't mind drivers going just partly over the center line
>> to give me leeway. As long as they give me leeway.
>>
>> I cut breaks for them (drivers) too, when it's opportune
>> for everybody.
>>
>> I'm not a doormat, and I'm not royalty. I'm somewhere
>> in between. Same as most other folks.
>>
>> I don't mind sharing the lane if I safely can.
>>
>This is the way I ride also. I willingly share my lane most of the time.
>My point is that it is not codified in traffic law that bicyclist MUST
>share their lane. I believe the 3 ft clearance requirement is a step
>toward that end though.

Why does a mandated 3 foot clearance do anything to take the lane away
from you? All it says to me is that a pass must be done safely -
whether the cyclist is riding in the gutter or in the middle of the
lane.

k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Date: 10 Oct 2006 15:43:57
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

k Hickey wrote:

> Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>This is the way I ride also. I willingly share my lane most of the time.
>>My point is that it is not codified in traffic law that bicyclist MUST
>>share their lane. I believe the 3 ft clearance requirement is a step
>>toward that end though.
>
>
> Why does a mandated 3 foot clearance do anything to take the lane away
> from you? All it says to me is that a pass must be done safely -
> whether the cyclist is riding in the gutter or in the middle of the
> lane.
>

Since lanes are typically 10 ft wide or more and bicyclists typically
ride at their right side, specifying a 3 ft clearance codifies that
motorists are entitled to use the bicyclist's lane to pass rather than
change lanes as would be the case in almost all circumstances when
passing motor vehicles. It puts into law that it really isn't the
bicyclist's lane but some kind of quasi shared space.

A 3 ft passing clearance does not say a pass must be done safely. It
says a pass must be at 3 ft minimum. 3 ft at 45 mph differential, for
example, is not safe. Often when approaching a light I'll stay right to
allow motorists to get ahead. They may pass at about 2 feet but its very
slow and non threatening. But they motorist would have broken the law.
These are 2 examples why the law is an ass.

Wayne

Date: 10 Oct 2006 17:13:52
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

The NC Driver's Handbook, which every motorist uses to take the written
exam says,

"Bicyclists usually ride on the right side of the lane, but are entitled
to the use of a full lane.

Pass With Care
A bicyclist staying to the right in their (sic) lane is accommodating
the (sic) following drivers by making it easier to see when it is safe
to pass, and easier to execute the pass. Drivers wishing to pass a
bicyclist may do so only when there is abundant clearance and no
oncoming traffic is in the opposing lane. When passing a bicyclist,
always remember the bicyclist is entitled to the use of the full lane."

A couple of years ago I knew that the NC DMV was going to rewrite the
Driver's Handbook, so I contacted the appropriate people and wrote what
I thought should be in the bicycling chapter. They used most of my work
which can be seen at:

http://www.ncdot.org/dmv/driver_services/drivershandbook/chapter6/bicycles.html

I wish the DMV used my words verbatim rather that butchering the
gram. The pdf version uses graphics to show what a Left Cross, Right
Hook, and Drive Out collision are.

http://www.ncdot.org/dmv/driver_services/drivershandbook/download/NCDL_English.pdf

Wayne

Date: 09 Oct 2006 00:50:54
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Beach Runner wrote:

> Motorists must leave 3 feet of clearance when passing a bicyclist.
>
> I'm usually satisfied with 2 inches!!!!!
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/wpbf/20061002/lo_wpbf/9977279
>

I don't see the point in passing clearance laws. First, they are
unenforceable. Second, by specifiying a distance, it implies motorists
are legally entitled to use the bicyclist's lane for passing. Currently,
to my knowledge, it does not say in any state that motorists may pass in
the same lane. It is common behavior, but not actually legally allowed.
Motorists don't pass other motorists in the same lane. Third, 3 feet is
quite close, closer than the typical pass actually is, regardless of the
OP's sensationalist and exaggerated 2 inch claim.

Wayne

Date: 14 Oct 2006 14:24:10
From: TomP
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

--------------E05D387065FCCAAAC7AF8853
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Wayne Pein wrote:

>
> I don't see the point in passing clearance laws. First, they are
> unenforceable.

They could be enforced, just as all laws. How many cops to you see when
riding???

> Second, by specifiying a distance, it implies motorists
> are legally entitled to use the bicyclist's lane for passing. Currently,
> to my knowledge, it does not say in any state that motorists may pass in
> the same lane.

California, lane splitting is not against the law.

--
Tp,

-------- __o
----- -\<. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
-----------------------------------------

No Lawsuit Ever Fixed A Moron...

--------------E05D387065FCCAAAC7AF8853
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en" >
<html >

Wayne Pein wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE >
 I don't see the point in passing clearance laws. First, they are
 unenforceable.</blockquote>
 They could be enforced, just as all laws. How
many cops to you see when riding???
 
<blockquote TYPE=CITE >Second, by specifiying a distance, it implies motorists
 are legally entitled to use the bicyclist's lane for passing. Currently,
 to my knowledge, it does not say in any state that motorists may pass
in
 the same lane.</blockquote>

 California, lane splitting is
not against the law.
 
 
 
 
--
 Tp,
-------- __o
 ----- -\<. -------- __o
 --- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
 -------------------- ( )/ ( )
 -----------------------------------------
 No Lawsuit Ever Fixed A Moron...
 </html>

--------------E05D387065FCCAAAC7AF8853--

Date: 09 Oct 2006 13:37:59
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:O1hWg.2998$gL.2175@southeast.rr.com...
> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>> Motorists must leave 3 feet of clearance when passing a bicyclist.
>>
>> I'm usually satisfied with 2 inches!!!!!
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/wpbf/20061002/lo_wpbf/9977279
>>
>
>
> I don't see the point in passing clearance laws. First, they are
> unenforceable.

Yes, they are inforcable. In a real world, Motorists will still give you as
little clearance as they can get. But if an accident happens due to the
lack of clearance (and you live through it) that motorist had better be
insured for what is coming down the pike. Reasonable Prudence does apply
and if a motorist causes an accident by not exercising Reasonable Prudence
then they can be sued back to the stone age.

Second, by specifiying a distance, it implies motorists
> are legally entitled to use the bicyclist's lane for passing.

That is hardly what it says. Motorists are NOT to use Bike Lanes. Only
bikes and very small Scooters (for the scooter, depends on the state).

Currently,
> to my knowledge, it does not say in any state that motorists may pass in
> the same lane. It is common behavior, but not actually legally allowed.
> Motorists don't pass other motorists in the same lane. Third, 3 feet is
> quite close, closer than the typical pass actually is, regardless of the
> OP's sensationalist and exaggerated 2 inch claim.

Beats the 6 to 12 I sometimes get.

Date: 17 Oct 2006 15:10:32
From: gds
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Wayne Pein wrote:
> gds wrote:
>
> > Tell you what. You are invited to come out here to Tucson and ride
> > with me. I'll bet that you will love it and will see that the issues
> > that concern you just don't have much standing out here. The bike
> > lanes, really just wide shoulders, are reallly great for riding. They
> > are in good condition, are regularly swept, and there are virtually no
> > hazards such as strom drains,posts, etc. Out here in the SW motor
> > traffic is quite fast. So even in the city major streets have speed
> > limits of 45 and cars regularly travel at 45-50 mph. Many of the nicer
> > riding roads out in the country have speed limits of 55 or even 65. So,
> > I and most cyslists are quite happy and satisfied having a nice wide,
> > clean shoulder on which we can ride comfortably, often two abreast
> > without having to worry about the cars at all. On smaller raods without
> > shoulders we also havelittle trouble and drivers are generally polite
> > and pass us with ample clearance.
>
> Tell you what. You are invited to come out here to Chapel Hill and ride
> with me. We don't have bike lanes except in places where they aren't
> needed anyway. Speed limits are lower. The ubiquitous narrow rural roads
> in the county have no shoulders, but they are not "needed." Lots and
> lots of bicycling occurs on these attractive roads. On Saturdays as many
> as 60-80 of us have a bandit race. Because the roads are narrow, they
> are more likely to have shade.
>
> Wayne

I've ridden in around the Duke campus area. Enjoyed it!

Shade! I remember that concept--don't use it much out here ;-)

Date: 09 Oct 2006 20:25:32
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Daryl Hunt wrote:

>
>
> Yes, they are inforcable.

No, it is not enforceable. "Officer, that bad motorist passed me with
only 2 ft 9 inches clearance. Arrest him!" "Son, it looked like 3 ft 1
inch to me."

In a real world, Motorists will still give you as
> little clearance as they can get. But if an accident happens due to the
> lack of clearance (and you live through it) that motorist had better be
> insured for what is coming down the pike. Reasonable Prudence does apply
> and if a motorist causes an accident by not exercising Reasonable Prudence
> then they can be sued back to the stone age.

Reasonable Prudence laws already exist.

>
>
> Second, by specifiying a distance, it implies motorists
>
>>are legally entitled to use the bicyclist's lane for passing.
>
>
> That is hardly what it says. Motorists are NOT to use Bike Lanes. Only
> bikes and very small Scooters (for the scooter, depends on the state)

I'm talking about the full regular lane, not bike lanes.

Wayne

Date: 09 Oct 2006 04:23:02
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote:

>Beach Runner wrote:
>
>> Motorists must leave 3 feet of clearance when passing a bicyclist.
>>
>> I'm usually satisfied with 2 inches!!!!!
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/wpbf/20061002/lo_wpbf/9977279
>
>I don't see the point in passing clearance laws. First, they are
>unenforceable.

To me, the real benefit of such a law is that it makes it hard to
"legally run over a cyclist". That is, the motorist excuse of "he
jinked a foot to the left just as I was passing him" doesn't work any
more.

k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Date: 09 Oct 2006 20:15:22
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

k Hickey wrote:

> To me, the real benefit of such a law is that it makes it hard to
> "legally run over a cyclist". That is, the motorist excuse of "he
> jinked a foot to the left just as I was passing him" doesn't work any
> more.
>

How about: If the motorist decides to pass in the same lane and strikes
a bicyclist the motorist is automatically at fault because he chose to
pass in the same lane rather than change lanes? Such a law would cover
passing clearance, passing speed (a variable not covered by the passing
clearance law), and acknowledges that bicyclists are indeed given the
rights of drivers of vehicles and thus the right to occupy entire lane
space, even if they don't most of the time.

Wayne

Date: 08 Oct 2006 20:45:34
From: Chris Neary
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

>I don't see the point in passing clearance laws. First, they are
>unenforceable. Second, by specifiying a distance, it implies motorists
>are legally entitled to use the bicyclist's lane for passing. Currently,
>to my knowledge, it does not say in any state that motorists may pass in
>the same lane.

The California VC implies this behavior is permitted:

REF: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm

I believe other states have similar language.

Chris Neary
diabloridr@tcsn.net

"Cycle tracks will abound in Utopia" - H.G. Wells

Date: 09 Oct 2006 20:09:53
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Chris Neary wrote:

>>I don't see the point in passing clearance laws. First, they are
>>unenforceable. Second, by specifiying a distance, it implies motorists
>>are legally entitled to use the bicyclist's lane for passing. Currently,
>>to my knowledge, it does not say in any state that motorists may pass in
>>the same lane.
>
>
> The California VC implies this behavior is permitted:
>
> REF: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
>
> I believe other states have similar language.
>

Implies is not the same as codified.

Such laws as in CA and elsewhere are also simply discriminatory to
bicyclists.

Wayne

Date: 13 Oct 2006 17:53:58
From: Chris Neary
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

>Such laws as in CA and elsewhere are also simply discriminatory to
>bicyclists.

Well of course they are (in the same manner that CVC 21656 is
"discriminatory" to slow moving vehicles).

Whats important is that there be a valid technical basis for the law.

Chris Neary
diabloridr@tcsn.net

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

Date: 19 Oct 2006 20:18:07
From: Ted P.
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Chris Neary wrote:
>> Such laws as in CA and elsewhere are also simply discriminatory to
>> bicyclists.
>
> Well of course they are (in the same manner that CVC 21656 is
> "discriminatory" to slow moving vehicles).
>
> Whats important is that there be a valid technical basis for the law.
>
>
> Chris Neary
> diabloridr@tcsn.net
>
> "Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
> you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
> loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

Was that a typo? Did you really mean 'valid technical bias'?

--

Ted
Don't forget to take out the trash

Date: 08 Oct 2006 23:38:32
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:50:54 +0000, Wayne Pein wrote:

> I don't see the point in passing clearance laws. First, they are
> unenforceable.

That's not the point. First, when there's a question about how close is
too close, it defines a standard. Second, it lets motorists know that
passing too close is breaking the law.

> Second, by specifiying a distance, it implies motorists
> are legally entitled to use the bicyclist's lane for passing. Currently,
> to my knowledge, it does not say in any state that motorists may pass in
> the same lane. It is common behavior, but not actually legally allowed.

Upgrade your knowledge. In CA, for example, it's
perfectly legal for more than one vehicle of any type to share the same
lane. This allows filtering forward to make right turns, etc. On desert
highways it's not uncommon for a slower vehicle to ease to the right,
straddling the shoulder if necessary, so faster vehicles can pass in the
same lane where there's a double yellow line for tens of miles.

> Motorists don't pass other motorists in the same lane.

Yes they do. They pass street sweepers, mail carriers, garbage trucks,
farm tractors, highway maintenance vehicles, etc. -- all slow moving
vehicles like bicycles.

> Third, 3 feet is
> quite close, closer than the typical pass actually is, regardless of the
> OP's sensationalist and exaggerated 2 inch claim.

While most people leave more clearance than that when they can, 3 feet is
plenty of room, and a typical passing distance on narrow,
heavily trafficked streets and roads where encroaching on the oncoming
lane is impossible.

Matt O.

Date: 09 Oct 2006 20:07:14
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Matt O'Toole wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:50:54 +0000, Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>
>>I don't see the point in passing clearance laws. First, they are
>>unenforceable.
>
>
> That's not the point. First, when there's a question about how close is
> too close, it defines a standard. Second, it lets motorists know that
> passing too close is breaking the law.

A law should be enforceable if it is to be a law. If education is the
purpose, then there should be an education campaign. Further, there
typically are laws that say one shouldn't drive in a manner that could
be hazardous to others. Passing closely falls in that category.

>
>
>>Second, by specifiying a distance, it implies motorists
>>are legally entitled to use the bicyclist's lane for passing. Currently,
>>to my knowledge, it does not say in any state that motorists may pass in
>>the same lane. It is common behavior, but not actually legally allowed.
>
>
> Upgrade your knowledge. In CA, for example, it's
> perfectly legal for more than one vehicle of any type to share the same
> lane.

This allows filtering forward to make right turns, etc. On desert
> highways it's not uncommon for a slower vehicle to ease to the right,
> straddling the shoulder if necessary, so faster vehicles can pass in the
> same lane where there's a double yellow line for tens of miles.

Yes, the lane sharer has allowed it. This is different than codifying
that bicyclists must share their lane, which I believe passing clearance
laws bring us one step closer to.

>
>
>>Motorists don't pass other motorists in the same lane.
>
> Yes they do. They pass street sweepers, mail carriers, garbage trucks,
> farm tractors, highway maintenance vehicles, etc. -- all slow moving
> vehicles like bicycles.

Such passing typically does not occur where there are ked lanes, or
if the lanes are ked, generally the passing motorist entirely changes
lanes because these vehicles are wide.

>
>
>>Third, 3 feet is
>>quite close, closer than the typical pass actually is, regardless of the
>>OP's sensationalist and exaggerated 2 inch claim.
>
>
> While most people leave more clearance than that when they can, 3 feet is
> plenty of room, and a typical passing distance on narrow,
> heavily trafficked streets and roads where encroaching on the oncoming
> lane is impossible.

Perhaps you should upgrade your knowledge about wind blast
effect/research. 3 feet is not always plenty of room. It is only plenty
of room when there is low speed differential, which the statute does not
address.

Wayne

Date: 10 Oct 2006 01:25:54
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:07:14 +0000, Wayne Pein wrote:

> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:50:54 +0000, Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't see the point in passing clearance laws. First, they are
>>>unenforceable.
>>
>>
>> That's not the point. First, when there's a question about how close
>> is too close, it defines a standard. Second, it lets motorists know
>> that passing too close is breaking the law.
>
> A law should be enforceable if it is to be a law. If education is the
> purpose, then there should be an education campaign.

Maybe there should be but there isn't. We have to work with what we have.

Many laws are impractical to enforce, but they keep most law abiding
citizens in line.

> Further, there
> typically are laws that say one shouldn't drive in a manner that could
> be hazardous to others. Passing closely falls in that category.

We're not writing assembly language code here, we're writing law -- from
which policy and public information campaigns are drawn. Cast a bunch of
seeds, and maybe a few will take root and thrive.

>>>Second, by specifiying a distance, it implies motorists are legally
>>>entitled to use the bicyclist's lane for passing. Currently, to my
>>>knowledge, it does not say in any state that motorists may pass in the
>>>same lane. It is common behavior, but not actually legally allowed.
>>
>>
>> Upgrade your knowledge. In CA, for example, it's perfectly legal for
>> more than one vehicle of any type to share the same lane.
>
> This allows filtering forward to make right turns, etc. On desert
>> highways it's not uncommon for a slower vehicle to ease to the right,
>> straddling the shoulder if necessary, so faster vehicles can pass in
>> the same lane where there's a double yellow line for tens of miles.
>
> Yes, the lane sharer has allowed it. This is different than codifying
> that bicyclists must share their lane,

Where/how are we codifying that bicyclists must share their lane?

> which I believe passing clearance
> laws bring us one step closer to.

Now you're really grasping.

>>>Motorists don't pass other motorists in the same lane.

>> Yes they do. They pass street sweepers, mail carriers, garbage trucks,
>> farm tractors, highway maintenance vehicles, etc. -- all slow moving
>> vehicles like bicycles.

> Such passing typically does not occur where there are ked lanes, or
> if the lanes are ked, generally the passing motorist entirely changes
> lanes because these vehicles are wide.

Nonsense.

> Perhaps you should upgrade your knowledge about wind blast
> effect/research. 3 feet is not always plenty of room. It is only plenty
> of room when there is low speed differential, which the statute does not
> address.

It doesn't matter. It's like blood alcohol level. If it's above the
legal limit you're statutorily drunk, but you can still be convicted of
drunk driving with a BAL below the legal limit, if there's enough other
evidence your driving was impaired by alcohol. This actually happens.

So if wind blast, or spray, or whatever is a problem, a truck driver
could still be convicted of passing too close, even if he didn't get
closer than the legal 3' limit. All you need is witnesses who say he was
too close, however close he really was. Closer than 3' just makes it
automatic, in the same way an over-limit BAL makes a drunk driving
conviction automatic.

Matt O.

Date: 10 Oct 2006 15:56:19
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Matt O'Toole wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:07:14 +0000, Wayne Pein wrote:

>>Yes, the lane sharer has allowed it. This is different than codifying
>>that bicyclists must share their lane,
>
>
> Where/how are we codifying that bicyclists must share their lane?
>
>
>>which I believe passing clearance
>>laws bring us one step closer to.
>
>
> Now you're really grasping.

I believe you are in denial.

>
>>>>Motorists don't pass other motorists in the same lane.
>
>
>
>>>Yes they do. They pass street sweepers, mail carriers, garbage trucks,
>>>farm tractors, highway maintenance vehicles, etc. -- all slow moving
>>>vehicles like bicycles.
>
>
>
>>Such passing typically does not occur where there are ked lanes, or
>>if the lanes are ked, generally the passing motorist entirely changes
>>lanes because these vehicles are wide.
>
>
> Nonsense.

This is what happens in my world.

>
>
>>Perhaps you should upgrade your knowledge about wind blast
>>effect/research. 3 feet is not always plenty of room. It is only plenty
>>of room when there is low speed differential, which the statute does not
>>address.
>
>
> It doesn't matter. It's like blood alcohol level. If it's above the
> legal limit you're statutorily drunk, but you can still be convicted of
> drunk driving with a BAL below the legal limit, if there's enough other
> evidence your driving was impaired by alcohol. This actually happens.
>
> So if wind blast, or spray, or whatever is a problem, a truck driver
> could still be convicted of passing too close, even if he didn't get
> closer than the legal 3' limit. All you need is witnesses who say he was
> too close, however close he really was.

Oh yea, witnesses. LOL.

Closer than 3' just makes it
> automatic, in the same way an over-limit BAL makes a drunk driving
> conviction automatic.

So if a motorist passes at 2.8 feet in a slow approach he is guilty?

You are rationalizing. The law is an ass.

Wayne

Date: 11 Oct 2006 00:43:39
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:56:19 +0000, Wayne Pein wrote:

> Matt O'Toole wrote:

>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:07:14 +0000, Wayne Pein wrote:

>>> 3 feet is not always plenty of room. It is only plenty of room when
>>> there is low speed differential, which the statute does not address.

>> It doesn't matter. It's like blood alcohol level. If it's above the
>> legal limit you're statutorily drunk, but you can still be convicted of
>> drunk driving with a BAL below the legal limit, if there's enough other
>> evidence your driving was impaired by alcohol. This actually happens.

>> So if wind blast, or spray, or whatever is a problem, a truck driver
>> could still be convicted of passing too close, even if he didn't get
>> closer than the legal 3' limit.

>> Closer than 3' just makes it automatic, in the same way an over-limit
>> BAL makes a drunk driving conviction automatic.

> So if a motorist passes at 2.8 feet in a slow approach he is guilty?

No, read what I wrote again. Even if the legal limit is 3', a driver
could still be convicted of passing too close at 5', or whatever. The 3'
limit just makes passing closer than that an automatic violation.

> The law is an ass.

Sometimes, but one should understand how it works before trying to
re-architect it.

Matt O.

Date: 11 Oct 2006 15:55:17
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Matt O'Toole wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:56:19 +0000, Wayne Pein wrote:
>

>
>>The law is an ass.
>
>
> Sometimes, but one should understand how it works before trying to
> re-architect it.
>

How are minimum passing clearance laws working in other states that have
had them?

A. Fabulously well. Most motorists now love bicyclists, waving as they
pass. Many offenders are behind bars.
B. Well. Many hit from behind collisions have been avoided, and
motorists have an Adopt a Cyclist program.
C. Huh?
D. A single motorist got a slap on the wrist for passing 2.5 feet
E. Motorists are sick of whiny bicyclists and see how close they can
pass and get away with it, kinda like a rolling stop at signs.

Wayne

Date: 11 Oct 2006 18:53:47
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote:

>How are minimum passing clearance laws working in other states that have
>had them?
>
>A. Fabulously well. Most motorists now love bicyclists, waving as they
>pass. Many offenders are behind bars.
>B. Well. Many hit from behind collisions have been avoided, and
>motorists have an Adopt a Cyclist program.
>C. Huh?
>D. A single motorist got a slap on the wrist for passing 2.5 feet
>E. Motorists are sick of whiny bicyclists and see how close they can
>pass and get away with it, kinda like a rolling stop at signs.

They seem to work just fine here in Arizona. I get buzzed MUCH less
than I have in any other location I've ever ridden in. Don't know if
has squat to do with bike lanes, passing restrictions or the fact that
few people from the northeast live here... ;-)

k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Date: 12 Oct 2006 16:21:25
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

k Hickey wrote:

> Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>How are minimum passing clearance laws working in other states that have
>>had them?
>>
>>A. Fabulously well. Most motorists now love bicyclists, waving as they
>>pass. Many offenders are behind bars.
>>B. Well. Many hit from behind collisions have been avoided, and
>>motorists have an Adopt a Cyclist program.
>>C. Huh?
>>D. A single motorist got a slap on the wrist for passing 2.5 feet
>>E. Motorists are sick of whiny bicyclists and see how close they can
>>pass and get away with it, kinda like a rolling stop at signs.
>
>
> They seem to work just fine here in Arizona. I get buzzed MUCH less
> than I have in any other location I've ever ridden in. Don't know if
> has squat to do with bike lanes, passing restrictions or the fact that
> few people from the northeast live here... ;-)
>

It's due to all the kindly Mexicans. In spite of their poor driving
record with regard to DUI, I've never been buzzed by a hispanic.

Wayne

Date: 13 Oct 2006 12:46:51
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:9YtXg.7154$gL.4921@southeast.rr.com...
> k Hickey wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How are minimum passing clearance laws working in other states that have
>>>had them?
>>>
>>>A. Fabulously well. Most motorists now love bicyclists, waving as they
>>>pass. Many offenders are behind bars.
>>>B. Well. Many hit from behind collisions have been avoided, and motorists
>>>have an Adopt a Cyclist program.
>>>C. Huh?
>>>D. A single motorist got a slap on the wrist for passing 2.5 feet
>>>E. Motorists are sick of whiny bicyclists and see how close they can pass
>>>and get away with it, kinda like a rolling stop at signs.
>>
>>
>> They seem to work just fine here in Arizona. I get buzzed MUCH less
>> than I have in any other location I've ever ridden in. Don't know if
>> has squat to do with bike lanes, passing restrictions or the fact that
>> few people from the northeast live here... ;-)
>>
>
> It's due to all the kindly Mexicans. In spite of their poor driving record
> with regard to DUI, I've never been buzzed by a hispanic.
>
> Wayne

Ah, the bigot speaks.

Date: 13 Oct 2006 19:42:59
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

Daryl Hunt wrote:

>>
>>It's due to all the kindly Mexicans. In spite of their poor driving record
>>with regard to DUI, I've never been buzzed by a hispanic.
>>
>>Wayne
>
>
> Ah, the bigot speaks.
>

Hey Ignoramus, I'm not a bigot because hispanics are overrepresented in
DUI. It's a fact.

Wayne

Date: 11 Oct 2006 16:07:35
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:Ft8Xg.6725$gL.4854@southeast.rr.com...
> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:56:19 +0000, Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>>The law is an ass.
>>
>>
>> Sometimes, but one should understand how it works before trying to
>> re-architect it.
>>
>
> How are minimum passing clearance laws working in other states that have
> had them?
>
> A. Fabulously well. Most motorists now love bicyclists, waving as they
> pass. Many offenders are behind bars.
> B. Well. Many hit from behind collisions have been avoided, and motorists
> have an Adopt a Cyclist program.
> C. Huh?
> D. A single motorist got a slap on the wrist for passing 2.5 feet
> E. Motorists are sick of whiny bicyclists and see how close they can pass
> and get away with it, kinda like a rolling stop at signs.

Maybe you could find a state with a negative passing distance and go for a
bike ride.

This is a NO WHINING zone.

Date: 09 Oct 2006 10:51:28
From: Charles M
Subject: Re: Florida Passes New Bike Law !!!!!!!

On 2006-10-09, Matt O'Toole <mattotoole@letterboxes.org > wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:50:54 +0000, Wayne Pein wrote:
>
<snip >
>
>> Third, 3 feet is
>> quite close, closer than the typical pass actually is, regardless of the
>> OP's sensationalist and exaggerated 2 inch claim.
>
> While most people leave more clearance than that when they can, 3 feet is
> plenty of room, and a typical passing distance on narrow,
> heavily trafficked streets and roads where encroaching on the oncoming
> lane is impossible.
>
> Matt O.

I remember reading that DOT claims 3 feet is the *absolute minimum* clearence
you shoud have, which would mean its definately not "plenty of room".

CMM