Bicyclists don't need 'three foot rule'
03-24-10, 03:27 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,319
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4284 Post(s)
Liked 1,377 Times
in
958 Posts
The law also indicates that people thought about it and agreed to it. If a traffic related issue isn't in the law, what authority "owns" the issue? If it isn't in the law, what would keep different groups from picking their own number to recommend?
There is no real specific information in the law about how much space is reasonable for passing anything (as far as I know).
Last edited by njkayaker; 03-24-10 at 03:42 PM.
03-24-10, 04:27 PM
#27
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13659 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
The law is the best place to put this information. Otherwise, it's an ambiguous recommendation (which is weak), which people can then argue doesn't always apply. Being a law also precludes the "I didn't know" excuse!
The law also indicates that people thought about it and agreed to it. If a traffic related issue isn't in the law, what authority "owns" the issue? If it isn't in the law, what would keep different groups from picking their own number to recommend?
There is no real specific information in the law about how much space is reasonable for passing anything (as far as I know).
The law also indicates that people thought about it and agreed to it. If a traffic related issue isn't in the law, what authority "owns" the issue? If it isn't in the law, what would keep different groups from picking their own number to recommend?
There is no real specific information in the law about how much space is reasonable for passing anything (as far as I know).
Education of the driving public IS what is needed. If it takes a law to educate that driving public, so be it.
03-24-10, 04:36 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Jose (Willow Glen) Ca
Posts: 9,875
Bikes: Kirk Custom JK Special, '84 Team Miyata,(dura ace old school) 80?? SR Semi-Pro 600 Arabesque
Mentioned: 107 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2351 Post(s)
Liked 2,866 Times
in
1,560 Posts
My apologies to the OP and the 3 foot discusssion, but since we are on a roll.....I goofed off and did some more research a) to make sure my memory was good and b) see if there is any clarity
my memory is clear this is the opinion I refered to
[80]. Cal. Att’y. Gen., Indexed Letter, No. CV 74/224 (Jan. 21, 1975), at 7, in S. Con. Res. 47 Statewide Bicycle Committee, supra note 33.
here are comments on it from https://www.cabobike.org/articles/bic...he-law/#_edn80
Nonetheless, some police officers believe that the slow bicycle rule does so implicitly, because the bicyclist on the left is not riding “as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.” This opinion is also expressed in a 1975 Attorney General’s letter of advice to the Statewide Bicycle Committee, without further elaboration.[
As for clarity....the general feel I get from the sites I visited is: nuanced, it depends, not settled.......Nothing prervents, but nothing allows.... there is no clarity.
The legal and support group sites have lots of opinions....but who knows how these will play out in a court as most of these sites view from the bicylist point of view which is not necesarrily the courts view.
From the Bob Mionske blog https://www.bicyclelaw.com/blog/index...o-Enforce-Them
here is what kinda of best summarizes it, in his opinion/interpretation of the laws, and it is interesting to note that his final comment is good luck in a court
For cyclists traveling in a vehicular lane on the roadway:
In California, cyclists may legally ride two or more abreast, as long as they are traveling at the "normal speed of traffic," or if they are traveling in a lane that is too narrow to safely share with a motor vehicle.
However, if the cyclists are not traveling at the "normal speed of traffic," and the lane is wide enough to safely share with a motor vehicle, then the cyclists must ride single file.
For other situations:
It is legal for cyclists to ride two or more abreast in the following situations:
When both cyclists are riding on the shoulder
When both cyclists are riding in a bicycle lane
When one cyclist is riding on the roadway, and one cyclist is riding on the shoulder.
Now, the other trick for cyclists will be to explain that they are riding within what the law allows to any law enforcement officers who stop them in the mistaken belief that “single file is the law.” Good luck with that one—you may have better luck explaining the law to a traffic court judge.
my memory is clear this is the opinion I refered to
[80]. Cal. Att’y. Gen., Indexed Letter, No. CV 74/224 (Jan. 21, 1975), at 7, in S. Con. Res. 47 Statewide Bicycle Committee, supra note 33.
here are comments on it from https://www.cabobike.org/articles/bic...he-law/#_edn80
Nonetheless, some police officers believe that the slow bicycle rule does so implicitly, because the bicyclist on the left is not riding “as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.” This opinion is also expressed in a 1975 Attorney General’s letter of advice to the Statewide Bicycle Committee, without further elaboration.[
As for clarity....the general feel I get from the sites I visited is: nuanced, it depends, not settled.......Nothing prervents, but nothing allows.... there is no clarity.
The legal and support group sites have lots of opinions....but who knows how these will play out in a court as most of these sites view from the bicylist point of view which is not necesarrily the courts view.
From the Bob Mionske blog https://www.bicyclelaw.com/blog/index...o-Enforce-Them
here is what kinda of best summarizes it, in his opinion/interpretation of the laws, and it is interesting to note that his final comment is good luck in a court
For cyclists traveling in a vehicular lane on the roadway:
In California, cyclists may legally ride two or more abreast, as long as they are traveling at the "normal speed of traffic," or if they are traveling in a lane that is too narrow to safely share with a motor vehicle.
However, if the cyclists are not traveling at the "normal speed of traffic," and the lane is wide enough to safely share with a motor vehicle, then the cyclists must ride single file.
For other situations:
It is legal for cyclists to ride two or more abreast in the following situations:
When both cyclists are riding on the shoulder
When both cyclists are riding in a bicycle lane
When one cyclist is riding on the roadway, and one cyclist is riding on the shoulder.
Now, the other trick for cyclists will be to explain that they are riding within what the law allows to any law enforcement officers who stop them in the mistaken belief that “single file is the law.” Good luck with that one—you may have better luck explaining the law to a traffic court judge.
__________________
Life is too short not to ride the best bike you have, as much as you can
(looking for Torpado Super light frame/fork or for Raleigh International frame fork 58cm)
Life is too short not to ride the best bike you have, as much as you can
(looking for Torpado Super light frame/fork or for Raleigh International frame fork 58cm)
03-24-10, 05:14 PM
#29
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13659 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
In California, cyclists may legally ride two or more abreast, as long as they are traveling at the "normal speed of traffic," or if they are traveling in a lane that is too narrow to safely share with a motor vehicle.
However, if the cyclists are not traveling at the "normal speed of traffic," and the lane is wide enough to safely share with a motor vehicle, then the cyclists must ride single file.
However, if the cyclists are not traveling at the "normal speed of traffic," and the lane is wide enough to safely share with a motor vehicle, then the cyclists must ride single file.
https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...sentenced.html
03-25-10, 12:46 AM
#30
Bicikli Huszár
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by squirtdad
In California, cyclists may legally ride two or more abreast, as long as they are traveling at the "normal speed of traffic," or if they are traveling in a lane that is too narrow to safely share with a motor vehicle.
However, if the cyclists are not traveling at the "normal speed of traffic," and the lane is wide enough to safely share with a motor vehicle, then the cyclists must ride single file.
However, if the cyclists are not traveling at the "normal speed of traffic," and the lane is wide enough to safely share with a motor vehicle, then the cyclists must ride single file.
Now, the other trick for cyclists will be to explain that they are riding within what the law allows to any law enforcement officers who stop them in the mistaken belief that “single file is the law.” Good luck with that one—you may have better luck explaining the law to a traffic court judge.
03-29-10, 11:14 PM
#31
www.theheadbadge.com
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Southern Florida
Posts: 28,522
Bikes: https://www.theheadbadge.com
Mentioned: 124 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2425 Post(s)
Liked 4,419 Times
in
2,098 Posts
Bicyclists don't need 'three foot rule'
-Kurt
__________________
03-30-10, 02:24 PM
#32
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13659 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Actually again... I note that cyclists don't need the 3 foot rule.... motorists do as their judgment of what is a safe pass is often not consistent with a cyclists view of the same.
03-31-10, 08:25 PM
#33
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
yes, there's about 10 states that have no frap requirement at all and cyclists are (theoretically and lawfully) allowed to ride anywhere in the right hand lane available for thru travel. in these states i'd suspect cyclists can operate with impunity and stack up as deep as they'd like.
OF COURSE< however, regardless of individual states' laws, a singular vehicular cyclist should still always be riding frap in the presence of overtaking traffic to fairly share the roads with that faster traffic, and groups should single up if significant impeding can be alleviated by singling up- say, the 101 along the Hood Canal for instance or any other narrow, two lane, busy highway speed roadways.
Groups of cyclists should be allowed to double up for safety IMO in all states on multiple lane roads.
And a three foot passing law would help all cyclists (and other vulnerable road users in some states!)and the cause of cycling and equitable road use in a positive manner regardless if a state has a frap law or not.
I believe cyclists in washington state are expressly allowed to ride no more than two abreast and still be legal - i don't believe the presence of faster traffic mandates single file in this state.
The latest safe passing law bill here (which i believe passed and got signed on by the gov already) benefited both pedestrians and cyclists when i was down lobbying for it at the state capitol this spring.
OF COURSE< however, regardless of individual states' laws, a singular vehicular cyclist should still always be riding frap in the presence of overtaking traffic to fairly share the roads with that faster traffic, and groups should single up if significant impeding can be alleviated by singling up- say, the 101 along the Hood Canal for instance or any other narrow, two lane, busy highway speed roadways.
Groups of cyclists should be allowed to double up for safety IMO in all states on multiple lane roads.
And a three foot passing law would help all cyclists (and other vulnerable road users in some states!)and the cause of cycling and equitable road use in a positive manner regardless if a state has a frap law or not.
I believe cyclists in washington state are expressly allowed to ride no more than two abreast and still be legal - i don't believe the presence of faster traffic mandates single file in this state.
The latest safe passing law bill here (which i believe passed and got signed on by the gov already) benefited both pedestrians and cyclists when i was down lobbying for it at the state capitol this spring.
Last edited by Bekologist; 03-31-10 at 08:42 PM.
04-02-10, 12:28 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,646 Times
in
6,054 Posts
The fact is that other than railways, bicycling is the safest form of land transportation in the U.S. In 2006, the National Safety Council reported that 928 people died while riding a bike. This compares with 45,316 motor vehicle deaths and 6,162 pedestrian deaths for the same year. Considering the fact that roughly half of the reported bicycle deaths each year are children who inadvertently ride out into traffic and another large percentage are wrong-way cyclists or non-illuminated nighttime riding deaths, the safety of an adult rider of a bicycle conforming to vehicular riding principles becomes even more pronounced. The cases of a motorist simply running into a bicyclist who is safely riding are so small as to be almost statistically insignificant. Yet those who clamor for more laws, mandatory helmet use and segregated bicycle facilities think nothing of driving their car -- a much more lethal activity.
How do things look when we compare the fatalities per mile traveled, or per hour traveled? Sure, these numbers are hard to get at, because most people don't track them, and the cyclists and drivers who do, often don't report them to anyone who can aggregate statistics. How many miles were biked last year? Nobody knows. But there are at least some estimates, and a guess is better than pretending it doesn't matter.
This page has some interesting data: https://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html I found this on the same page, and it's more salient, to me at least:
U.S. cyclists are three more likely to be killed than German cyclists and six times more than Dutch cyclists, whether compared per-trip or per-distance traveled. (Reuters, Aug. 28, 2003, by Maggie Fox)
04-14-10, 11:27 PM
#35
Kaffee Nazi
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374
Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
And lion fighting must be the safest form of recreation ever discovered, because as far as I know, there were zero deaths from gladiator-style lion fights last year. Zero. Presenting numbers out of context is fun. Then spinning off into some emotionally salient propaganda after planting a false impression in your readers' minds is a great way to lie to people.
How do things look when we compare the fatalities per mile traveled, or per hour traveled? Sure, these numbers are hard to get at, because most people don't track them, and the cyclists and drivers who do, often don't report them to anyone who can aggregate statistics. How many miles were biked last year? Nobody knows. But there are at least some estimates, and a guess is better than pretending it doesn't matter.
This page has some interesting data: https://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html I found this on the same page, and it's more salient, to me at least:
How do things look when we compare the fatalities per mile traveled, or per hour traveled? Sure, these numbers are hard to get at, because most people don't track them, and the cyclists and drivers who do, often don't report them to anyone who can aggregate statistics. How many miles were biked last year? Nobody knows. But there are at least some estimates, and a guess is better than pretending it doesn't matter.
This page has some interesting data: https://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html I found this on the same page, and it's more salient, to me at least:
04-14-10, 11:34 PM
#36
Kaffee Nazi
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374
Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
"Most at-fault motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians get off the hook. A study by the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition shows that three out of four at fault drivers were never even cited for hitting and killing pedestrians. 22% of fatal pedestrian crashes involved hit and run drivers, yet, none of the runaway motorists were found or charged. In New York, 70-92% of drivers were at-fault in killing pedestrians and cyclists, but 74% didn't even get a ticket. (RightOfWay.org, 1999) The story in Austin is similar."
This sounds like so much horse puckey. These '70-92% of drivers' were supposedly 'at fault' yet not even cited. How was it determined they were at fault?
It does not serve the cause of cyclists to make up statistics, or to pass on this drivel without foundation. It only weakens the credibility of those who make the claims without honest data. I'm not saying these claims that SOUND like bull are false, but I'd like to see the evidence before I endorse what appears to be speculative.
This sounds like so much horse puckey. These '70-92% of drivers' were supposedly 'at fault' yet not even cited. How was it determined they were at fault?
It does not serve the cause of cyclists to make up statistics, or to pass on this drivel without foundation. It only weakens the credibility of those who make the claims without honest data. I'm not saying these claims that SOUND like bull are false, but I'd like to see the evidence before I endorse what appears to be speculative.
04-15-10, 05:29 AM
#37
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
there's nothing speculative about increases to public safety from greater motorist culpability in the safety of vulnerable road users, danarnold!
04-15-10, 07:16 AM
#38
Kaffee Nazi
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374
Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Bek has spoken; thereby confirming the story IS horsepuckey
04-15-10, 07:21 AM
#39
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
bwahuaha.
Not familiar with current analyses of global interventions that support bicycling, are you?
Not familiar with current analyses of global interventions that support bicycling, are you?
04-15-10, 07:39 AM
#40
-=Barry=-
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
"Most at-fault motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians get off the hook. A study by the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition shows that three out of four at fault drivers were never even cited for hitting and killing pedestrians. 22% of fatal pedestrian crashes involved hit and run drivers, yet, none of the runaway motorists were found or charged. In New York, 70-92% of drivers were at-fault in killing pedestrians and cyclists, but 74% didn't even get a ticket. (RightOfWay.org, 1999) The story in Austin is similar."
This sounds like so much horse puckey. These '70-92% of drivers' were supposedly 'at fault' yet not even cited. How was it determined they were at fault?
It does not serve the cause of cyclists to make up statistics, or to pass on this drivel without foundation. It only weakens the credibility of those who make the claims without honest data. I'm not saying these claims that SOUND like bull are false, but I'd like to see the evidence before I endorse what appears to be speculative.
This sounds like so much horse puckey. These '70-92% of drivers' were supposedly 'at fault' yet not even cited. How was it determined they were at fault?
It does not serve the cause of cyclists to make up statistics, or to pass on this drivel without foundation. It only weakens the credibility of those who make the claims without honest data. I'm not saying these claims that SOUND like bull are false, but I'd like to see the evidence before I endorse what appears to be speculative.
04-16-10, 02:00 PM
#42
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13659 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
"Just give me half a lane, that's all I ask!"
Of course some may object and still prefer to "take a lane."
I donno... worth some thought anyway.
04-19-10, 01:16 PM
#43
Arizona Dessert
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 15,029
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5345 Post(s)
Liked 2,169 Times
in
1,288 Posts
What about something similar to what is applicable for motorcycles:
"A. All motorcycles are entitled to the full use of a lane. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle in such a manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection does not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane."
"A. All motorcycles are entitled to the full use of a lane. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle in such a manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection does not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane."
04-19-10, 01:30 PM
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,319
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4284 Post(s)
Liked 1,377 Times
in
958 Posts
What about something similar to what is applicable for motorcycles:
"A. All motorcycles are entitled to the full use of a lane. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle in such a manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection does not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane."
"A. All motorcycles are entitled to the full use of a lane. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle in such a manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection does not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane."
