New law for passing bicyclists starts Tuesday in CA
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
Well I think that applies to bikers, runners and pedestrians as well. This morning I was making a right turn at a stop sign, looked to the left to see it was clear, about to make the turn when a bike sped right by my right side through the stop sign. And yes I had my signal on.Great law so long as people follow it! Too many motorists are too impatient and "too important" to follow laws. In Virginia we have that law and the double-line law. No one knows about the three foot law. Also, even though it's a law that you can't pass when there's a double line, no one pays attention most of the time. It's also a law that pedestrian have the right of way in a crosswalk. Motorist don't follow that law either.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
What's not mentioned is that is if there is a double yellow line, even if there is no oncoming traffic, it would be a violation to overtake by crossing the double yellow line.The Three Feet for Safety Act goes into effect Tuesday. According to Banning-based California Highway Patrol Public Information Officer Darren Meyer, it will be enforced statewide like all traffic laws.
The law reads: “A driver of a motor vehicle shall not overtake or pass a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on a highway at a distance of less than three feet between any part of the motor vehicle and any part of the bicycle or its operator.”
If there is insufficient room for the 3-feet gap, motorists will be required to slow to safely pass riders.
http://www.pe.com/articles/bicycle-749809-safety-law.html
My city has bike lanes and paths, but in alot of the urban areas and backroads, I'm sure there will be backlash from drivers. Especially if on the back roads riders decide to go 2-3 wide on rides.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I think you'll find that most bicyclists will move to the right as soon as is possible to allow cars to pass. If a driver has to wait for a minute until it is actually safe to pass, then so it shall be! btw, 3ft law is already federal as I understand it, so if cyclists wanted to enforce it, they could.
There is no Federal 3-feet law pertaining to cyclists. This is a state by state statute.0 -
Is this only for highways? I don't see many riders on highways.
It's not only for highways. It pertains to any street or road (at least it does here in VA)0 -
My city has bike lanes and paths, but in alot of the urban areas and backroads, I'm sure there will be backlash from drivers. Especially if on the back roads riders decide to go 2-3 wide on rides.
Let's not forget how many graves this law is built upon.
I'm a ragin' cager, but I know better. I know that If I have to wait a minute to safely pass a bike rider it's fine, because I can tool up to 90+ and get where I'm going just as fast.
Without brain spatter on my bumper.0 -
What's not mentioned is that is if there is a double yellow line, even if there is no oncoming traffic, it would be a violation to overtake by crossing the double yellow line.The Three Feet for Safety Act goes into effect Tuesday. According to Banning-based California Highway Patrol Public Information Officer Darren Meyer, it will be enforced statewide like all traffic laws.
The law reads: “A driver of a motor vehicle shall not overtake or pass a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on a highway at a distance of less than three feet between any part of the motor vehicle and any part of the bicycle or its operator.”
If there is insufficient room for the 3-feet gap, motorists will be required to slow to safely pass riders.
http://www.pe.com/articles/bicycle-749809-safety-law.html
My city has bike lanes and paths, but in alot of the urban areas and backroads, I'm sure there will be backlash from drivers. Especially if on the back roads riders decide to go 2-3 wide on rides.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
They have passed this law here in the past few years. There are no issues that have arisen that I am aware of and my job would allow me to be aware of such issues. And as a cyclist, I haven't seen any issues from that end either.
I can't speak for where you are but where I am, while driving left of center is not allowed on a double solid line, there is a stipulation in the motor vehicle act that allows you cross over it where it is "reasonable and prudent to do so due to weather and other conditions". This would be one of those conditions.0 -
Is this only for highways? I don't see many riders on highways.
It's not only for highways. It pertains to any street or road (at least it does here in VA)
Yes, most definitions of a "highway" in motor vehicle act include streets and roads, not just the highway we usually refer to.0 -
The pedestrians think they own the streets and just walk right out in front of you all the time without looking (not in crosswalks) or walk in the middle of the street and stop suddenly to take pictures and then act irritated when you swerve and narrowly avoid the collision they almost caused.
There's a woman in Cambridge, MA that commutes by bike and carries a bullwhip. I've seen here use the bullwhip on cars that get too close, and peds that get in her way. It's funny to see.
Frickin' MA.0 -
The pedestrians think they own the streets and just walk right out in front of you all the time without looking (not in crosswalks) or walk in the middle of the street and stop suddenly to take pictures and then act irritated when you swerve and narrowly avoid the collision they almost caused.
There's a woman in Cambridge, MA that commutes by bike and carries a bullwhip. I've seen here use the bullwhip on cars that get too close, and peds that get in her way. It's funny to see.
Frickin' MA.
I've been known to carry my .380. Luckily, I've never had to use it. Rednecks around here think that cyclists are target practice for their pickup truck. This law is for after the accident. It won't prevent anything.0 -
There is no Federal 3-feet law pertaining to cyclists. This is a state by state statute.
Thanks for clearing that up. I usually have a camera on my bike, so if there ever is a concern, it's recorded. A lot of us have cameras now that the technology has become so much more affordable. Mostly, I find this to be true: Don't be a jerk on the road, not in your car and not on your bike; not on the bus, train, nor even airplane. Even better if you can apply it to all parts of your life: Don't be a jerk.
Here's some info that is also helpful to anyone curious...
http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/bicycle-and-pedestrian-safety.aspx
3-Feet/Safe Bicycle Passing
A bicycle safety policy that has gained significant interest and activity in state legislatures is 3-feet or safe passing laws. These laws seek to ensure that, when passing bicycles, motor vehicles allow adequate space to avoid sideswiping bicyclists or causing them to overcorrect to avoid a vehicle. Skeptics doubt such laws can be enforced and whether 3 feet allows sufficient space for bicyclists. In addition, many bicyclists feel that laws dictating they must ride to the far right of a lane are of more concern because they often encourage too-close passing and leave bicyclists vulnerable to being “doored” by a parked car or to encountering roadside debris. Advocates state that these passing laws at least create a legal framework to protect bicyclists who are hit or buzzed from behind, create a less arbitrary standard and raise awareness of the importance of safe passing.
In 1973, Wisconsin became first state to enact such a law; several more states have since enacted such measures. As of October 2011, 20 states—Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah and Wisconsin—and the District of Columbia have enacted 3-feet passing laws. Since 2008, 12 states have enacted 3 foot passing measures.
Delaware, Georgia, Kansas and Nevada laws were enacted in 2011. Not all legislation introduced in 2011 passed, however. California’s bill was vetoed, as was a 5-feet passing measure in New Mexico. Bills in Iowa and Missouri did not pass. An attempt failed in Rhode Island to amend its law to require 3-feet passing, rather than safe passing. Virginia introduced legislation to increase the passing buffer from 2 feet to 3 feet, but that measure also failed.
A few states—including New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont (its law applies to all vulnerable users) and West Virginia—have more general “safe passing laws. These laws typically state that vehicles must pass bicyclists at a safe distance and speed, but usually are not more specific. Statutes in states with 3-feet passing laws contain varying degrees of detail. Some simply lay out the 3-feet threshold, while others are more distinct. The New Hampshire language, for example, is quite specific, stating “The distance shall be presumed to be reasonable and prudent if it is at least 3 feet when the vehicle is traveling at 30 miles per hour or less, with one additional foot of clearance required for every 10 miles per hour above 30 miles per hour.”
The Colorado law, passed in 2009, reads, “Allow the bicyclist at least a three-foot separation between the right side of the driver’s vehicle, including all mirrors or other projections, and the left side of the bicyclist at all times.”
State penalties for violating 3-feet passing laws also vary. Florida law states that a violation is a noncriminal traffic infraction that carries a $60 fine and three points on the license. Louisiana law carries a maximum fine of $250. The Arkansas law carries a $100 fine, although the fine for causing physical injury or death is only $1,000.0 -
Isn't there a yearly tax that automobile owners pay that goes to the roads? Do bike riders pay that tax on their bikes?
Seems like bikes should be getting out of the way of the cars since they are basically paying to be on the road.
I know you bike riders won't like that but the truth is there are other places to ride your bikes that don't interfere with traffic.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Isn't there a yearly tax that automobile owners pay that goes to the roads? Do bike riders pay that tax on their bikes?
Seems like bikes should be getting out of the way of the cars since they are basically paying to be on the road.
I know you bike riders won't like that but the truth is there are other places to ride your bikes that don't interfere with traffic.
I agree with this point of view. The problem is, the law doesn't agree with it. The law says that bikes and cars share the road. If the bike owner works, they pay taxes. Most bike owners I know own a motor vehicle. I do not know any adults with bikes that don't have a car. I'm sure they exist, but I don't know any, and they are probably in the minority. So, I would conclude that the majority of those that ride their bikes, pay their taxes, and therefore, they have just as much right to be on the road as a car.
The part I agree with you is having a different path for bikes. I don't think cars and bikes should mix together. It's dangerous. New infrastructure should be built for bike riders.
They pay ad valorem taxes on their bike? Automobile owners pay an ad valorem tax based on the value of their car which i think goes to roads as well (i could be wrong). Unless that bike is mounted to the top of their car then why should it get the same benefits that a car has? Just a thought. I live in a high traffic town and bike riders will muck it up. They basically put their life on the line so they can ride their bikes. Crazy but whatever. Gotta love the yellow shirts. Go Lance Go!!!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Isn't there a yearly tax that automobile owners pay that goes to the roads? Do bike riders pay that tax on their bikes?
Seems like bikes should be getting out of the way of the cars since they are basically paying to be on the road.
I know you bike riders won't like that but the truth is there are other places to ride your bikes that don't interfere with traffic.
I pay more in all taxes related to my car than any would ever be collected from the bike use and ownership.
That level of taxes from a bike would pay for squat to be done for infrastructure.
Plus, the wear and tear on the road from bikes where people are actually replacing one for the other as mode for transportation, more than makes up for it.
In my case, the biking is in addition to, not instead of, car usage.
The cheapest is a 4 ft additional width on the road on each side. Solutions that are different bike paths are expensive, and even if the capital outlay is done, the maintenance costs rarely are adequate and the specific path falls in to disuse from basically inability to use. That's what I've seen articles on regarding the separate solution not working well. But guess who pays for that path anyway?0 -
Isn't there a yearly tax that automobile owners pay that goes to the roads? Do bike riders pay that tax on their bikes?
Seems like bikes should be getting out of the way of the cars since they are basically paying to be on the road.
I know you bike riders won't like that but the truth is there are other places to ride your bikes that don't interfere with traffic.
I agree with this point of view. The problem is, the law doesn't agree with it. The law says that bikes and cars share the road. If the bike owner works, they pay taxes. Most bike owners I know own a motor vehicle. I do not know any adults with bikes that don't have a car. I'm sure they exist, but I don't know any, and they are probably in the minority. So, I would conclude that the majority of those that ride their bikes, pay their taxes, and therefore, they have just as much right to be on the road as a car.
The part I agree with you is having a different path for bikes. I don't think cars and bikes should mix together. It's dangerous. New infrastructure should be built for bike riders.
They pay ad valorem taxes on their bike? Automobile owners pay an ad valorem tax based on the value of their car which i think goes to roads as well (i could be wrong). Unless that bike is mounted to the top of their car then why should it get the same benefits that a car has? Just a thought. I live in a high traffic town and bike riders will muck it up. They basically put their life on the line so they can ride their bikes. Crazy but whatever. Gotta love the yellow shirts. Go Lance Go!!!
OK. So, there should be a tax on bikes. Let's see how that flies. What about kids?
You must not have kids. I get my *kitten* taxed off because of them. How about every year when i have to spend $50 for school supplies when a pencil, a book and a piece of paper should do. So, yes the government charges for kids too.0 -
Bikes that use the roads should have to be registered with the dmv, just like a car. Plates should be issued,and renewed, and they should have to be inspected once a year as well. There should be min safety requirements a bike on the road must have. There should also be a bike permit corse requires to ride on the roads.Isn't there a yearly tax that automobile owners pay that goes to the roads? Do bike riders pay that tax on their bikes?
Seems like bikes should be getting out of the way of the cars since they are basically paying to be on the road.
I know you bike riders won't like that but the truth is there are other places to ride your bikes that don't interfere with traffic.
I agree with this point of view. The problem is, the law doesn't agree with it. The law says that bikes and cars share the road. If the bike owner works, they pay taxes. Most bike owners I know own a motor vehicle. I do not know any adults with bikes that don't have a car. I'm sure they exist, but I don't know any, and they are probably in the minority. So, I would conclude that the majority of those that ride their bikes, pay their taxes, and therefore, they have just as much right to be on the road as a car.
The part I agree with you is having a different path for bikes. I don't think cars and bikes should mix together. It's dangerous. New infrastructure should be built for bike riders.
They pay ad valorem taxes on their bike? Automobile owners pay an ad valorem tax based on the value of their car which i think goes to roads as well (i could be wrong). Unless that bike is mounted to the top of their car then why should it get the same benefits that a car has? Just a thought. I live in a high traffic town and bike riders will muck it up. They basically put their life on the line so they can ride their bikes. Crazy but whatever. Gotta love the yellow shirts. Go Lance Go!!!
OK. So, there should be a tax on bikes. Let's see how that flies. What about kids?0 -
Bikes that use the roads should have to be registered with the dmv, just like a car. Plates should be issued,and renewed, and they should have to be inspected once a year as well. There should be min safety requirements a bike on the road must have. There should also be a bike permit corse requires to ride on the roads.Isn't there a yearly tax that automobile owners pay that goes to the roads? Do bike riders pay that tax on their bikes?
Seems like bikes should be getting out of the way of the cars since they are basically paying to be on the road.
I know you bike riders won't like that but the truth is there are other places to ride your bikes that don't interfere with traffic.
I agree with this point of view. The problem is, the law doesn't agree with it. The law says that bikes and cars share the road. If the bike owner works, they pay taxes. Most bike owners I know own a motor vehicle. I do not know any adults with bikes that don't have a car. I'm sure they exist, but I don't know any, and they are probably in the minority. So, I would conclude that the majority of those that ride their bikes, pay their taxes, and therefore, they have just as much right to be on the road as a car.
The part I agree with you is having a different path for bikes. I don't think cars and bikes should mix together. It's dangerous. New infrastructure should be built for bike riders.
They pay ad valorem taxes on their bike? Automobile owners pay an ad valorem tax based on the value of their car which i think goes to roads as well (i could be wrong). Unless that bike is mounted to the top of their car then why should it get the same benefits that a car has? Just a thought. I live in a high traffic town and bike riders will muck it up. They basically put their life on the line so they can ride their bikes. Crazy but whatever. Gotta love the yellow shirts. Go Lance Go!!!
OK. So, there should be a tax on bikes. Let's see how that flies. What about kids?
Now you've just caused the expense for that bike cost to far outway what could be charged on them. But that is like government in many places, the expense to do something isn't even paid for by that thing, but from the general coffers.
New system in place to handle those tags and registration, people that know what they are doing for inspections and courses, informing public of laws and users to abide by, ect.
Here cars here have no yearly inspection for new tags, only when brought in from out of state.
No driver test on renewal anymore of drivers license.
And since bikes are to follow rules of the road, why a separate course, just require drivers license?0 -
There are special courses for motorcycles, I don't see the difference. I also don't see the problem with opening new jobs, this means new tax revenue.
Bikes that use the roads should have to be registered with the dmv, just like a car. Plates should be issued,and renewed, and they should have to be inspected once a year as well. There should be min safety requirements a bike on the road must have. There should also be a bike permit corse requires to ride on the roads.Isn't there a yearly tax that automobile owners pay that goes to the roads? Do bike riders pay that tax on their bikes?
Seems like bikes should be getting out of the way of the cars since they are basically paying to be on the road.
I know you bike riders won't like that but the truth is there are other places to ride your bikes that don't interfere with traffic.
I agree with this point of view. The problem is, the law doesn't agree with it. The law says that bikes and cars share the road. If the bike owner works, they pay taxes. Most bike owners I know own a motor vehicle. I do not know any adults with bikes that don't have a car. I'm sure they exist, but I don't know any, and they are probably in the minority. So, I would conclude that the majority of those that ride their bikes, pay their taxes, and therefore, they have just as much right to be on the road as a car.
The part I agree with you is having a different path for bikes. I don't think cars and bikes should mix together. It's dangerous. New infrastructure should be built for bike riders.
They pay ad valorem taxes on their bike? Automobile owners pay an ad valorem tax based on the value of their car which i think goes to roads as well (i could be wrong). Unless that bike is mounted to the top of their car then why should it get the same benefits that a car has? Just a thought. I live in a high traffic town and bike riders will muck it up. They basically put their life on the line so they can ride their bikes. Crazy but whatever. Gotta love the yellow shirts. Go Lance Go!!!
OK. So, there should be a tax on bikes. Let's see how that flies. What about kids?
Now you've just caused the expense for that bike cost to far outway what could be charged on them. But that is like government in many places, the expense to do something isn't even paid for by that thing, but from the general coffers.
New system in place to handle those tags and registration, people that know what they are doing for inspections and courses, informing public of laws and users to abide by, ect.
Here cars here have no yearly inspection for new tags, only when brought in from out of state.
No driver test on renewal anymore of drivers license.
And since bikes are to follow rules of the road, why a separate course, just require drivers license?
I just feel any vehicle that is on the roads should have they same requirements. I have to renew my plates every 2years and my inspection every year. Why should a bike be different?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
A lot of GTAV reenactments are about to happen.0
-
Kids bikes don't go on roads. Shrug*
Bikes that use the roads should have to be registered with the dmv, just like a car. Plates should be issued,and renewed, and they should have to be inspected once a year as well. There should be min safety requirements a bike on the road must have. There should also be a bike permit corse requires to ride on the roads.Isn't there a yearly tax that automobile owners pay that goes to the roads? Do bike riders pay that tax on their bikes?
Seems like bikes should be getting out of the way of the cars since they are basically paying to be on the road.
I know you bike riders won't like that but the truth is there are other places to ride your bikes that don't interfere with traffic.
I agree with this point of view. The problem is, the law doesn't agree with it. The law says that bikes and cars share the road. If the bike owner works, they pay taxes. Most bike owners I know own a motor vehicle. I do not know any adults with bikes that don't have a car. I'm sure they exist, but I don't know any, and they are probably in the minority. So, I would conclude that the majority of those that ride their bikes, pay their taxes, and therefore, they have just as much right to be on the road as a car.
The part I agree with you is having a different path for bikes. I don't think cars and bikes should mix together. It's dangerous. New infrastructure should be built for bike riders.
They pay ad valorem taxes on their bike? Automobile owners pay an ad valorem tax based on the value of their car which i think goes to roads as well (i could be wrong). Unless that bike is mounted to the top of their car then why should it get the same benefits that a car has? Just a thought. I live in a high traffic town and bike riders will muck it up. They basically put their life on the line so they can ride their bikes. Crazy but whatever. Gotta love the yellow shirts. Go Lance Go!!!
OK. So, there should be a tax on bikes. Let's see how that flies. What about kids?
What about poor people. There would be a lot of children without bikes next Christmas.0 -
There are special courses for motorcycles, I don't see the difference. I also don't see the problem with opening new jobs, this means new tax revenue.
Bikes that use the roads should have to be registered with the dmv, just like a car. Plates should be issued,and renewed, and they should have to be inspected once a year as well. There should be min safety requirements a bike on the road must have. There should also be a bike permit corse requires to ride on the roads.Isn't there a yearly tax that automobile owners pay that goes to the roads? Do bike riders pay that tax on their bikes?
Seems like bikes should be getting out of the way of the cars since they are basically paying to be on the road.
I know you bike riders won't like that but the truth is there are other places to ride your bikes that don't interfere with traffic.
I agree with this point of view. The problem is, the law doesn't agree with it. The law says that bikes and cars share the road. If the bike owner works, they pay taxes. Most bike owners I know own a motor vehicle. I do not know any adults with bikes that don't have a car. I'm sure they exist, but I don't know any, and they are probably in the minority. So, I would conclude that the majority of those that ride their bikes, pay their taxes, and therefore, they have just as much right to be on the road as a car.
The part I agree with you is having a different path for bikes. I don't think cars and bikes should mix together. It's dangerous. New infrastructure should be built for bike riders.
They pay ad valorem taxes on their bike? Automobile owners pay an ad valorem tax based on the value of their car which i think goes to roads as well (i could be wrong). Unless that bike is mounted to the top of their car then why should it get the same benefits that a car has? Just a thought. I live in a high traffic town and bike riders will muck it up. They basically put their life on the line so they can ride their bikes. Crazy but whatever. Gotta love the yellow shirts. Go Lance Go!!!
OK. So, there should be a tax on bikes. Let's see how that flies. What about kids?
Now you've just caused the expense for that bike cost to far outway what could be charged on them. But that is like government in many places, the expense to do something isn't even paid for by that thing, but from the general coffers.
New system in place to handle those tags and registration, people that know what they are doing for inspections and courses, informing public of laws and users to abide by, ect.
Here cars here have no yearly inspection for new tags, only when brought in from out of state.
No driver test on renewal anymore of drivers license.
And since bikes are to follow rules of the road, why a separate course, just require drivers license?
I just feel any vehicle that is on the roads should have they same requirements. I have to renew my plates every 2years and my inspection every year. Why should a bike be different?
Purpose of inspections?
To confirm the vehicle is safe mechanically so it won't hard others and the driver, and not going to pollute the air.
And for a bike ...... ? really?
Minimum safety requirements? Do you even bike?
Plates is for paying taxes I'm betting too, to help pay for a few things. Hardly for roads, though it may end up in that fund that has many other sources for paying for that. But here cities pay for roads, State gets money from tags, county some of it. There are some county road projects, but vast majority chip in some % with cities and Federal money for road improvement.
New tax revenue from people with new jobs? That would be NO zero-sum gain.
And where exactly do you think the money to pay these people and the management and bureaucracy come from? You can bet it ain't going to be paid entirely by taxes on bicycles.
Did you know sidewalks next to roads are usually included in the cost of road building and improvements?
Where is pedestrians payment for that usage - to take your logic here of not benefiting from infrastructure because they aren't paying for it.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
The pedestrians think they own the streets and just walk right out in front of you all the time without looking (not in crosswalks) or walk in the middle of the street and stop suddenly to take pictures and then act irritated when you swerve and narrowly avoid the collision they almost caused.
There's a woman in Cambridge, MA that commutes by bike and carries a bullwhip. I've seen here use the bullwhip on cars that get too close, and peds that get in her way. It's funny to see.
Frickin' MA.
I've been known to carry my .380. Luckily, I've never had to use it. Rednecks around here think that cyclists are target practice for their pickup truck. This law is for after the accident. It won't prevent anything.
.380? What are you going to do, tickle them?
I carry a 9mm when riding. Had a few yutes try to pull me off my bike, moment they realized they didn't find a soft target they got to steppin.0 -
Isn't there a yearly tax that automobile owners pay that goes to the roads? Do bike riders pay that tax on their bikes?
Seems like bikes should be getting out of the way of the cars since they are basically paying to be on the road.
I know you bike riders won't like that but the truth is there are other places to ride your bikes that don't interfere with traffic.
That's a slippery slope.
Is there a tax on mountain bike riders to use trails? Or running shoes and camping gear? No? Why not? Hunters like me pay for it with our arms and ammo, our licenses and tags.
There are other places to ride bikes and walk that don't interfere with nature.
See, same argument, different focii... still predicated on life being fair. Life ain't fair, boss.0 -
How bout they just ban cyclists. they can go to spin class or something. And wear their super cool spandex in spin class groups.0
-
How bout they just ban cyclists. they can go to spin class or something. And wear their super cool spandex in spin class groups.
Seems legit.0 -
2 lane road. Traffic high going the opposite direction. Have 2 feet clearance to pass a biker, but CAN'T do it due to new law. So in essence, traffic behind biker has to slow to their speed until it's safe to pass with a 3 foot clearance. That could be for a few miles traveling at 15 miles an hour.Heck yeah! I hope other states do the same real soon.
EDIT; And I'm every bit of a driver as much as I am a cyclist.
Give 'em a break! er uh brake.
I'm not for or against the law, just looking at possibilities of issues that may arise from it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yes that's true, they are going to have to wait and pass when it's safe. You know the same thing happens here when there is a slow moving scooter or moped or bicycle. People wait until it's safe to pass. It's been happening more and more and it's nice to see it ahead when I'm driving, and it's nice to see traffic passing me in the oncoming lane as they go by. The Carolina's are full of people who show respect to cyclists.
I mean who really wan'ts to run over a cyclist?
When i lived in Philly, people would just about graze you as they went by. For years I didn't think much of it, but it started to scare me when i reached my 30's. I still stay as far right as i can on my bike though, from lifelong habit.
Two lane blacktop on country roads can be treacherous if you are out of line of sight like when you crest a hill and drop over the other side or have just rounded a blind corner.
Where I live, they have these city streets that are very busy, two lanes on each side. The made one of those lanes a bike lane if a bike is there. So, effectively, at rush hour, it's a one lane road now. Back to 1973. They made it two lanes because of traffic. Duh.
I'm not against bikes, I'm against the approach to the problem. It's very dangerous here for a lot of different reasons. Not only are moving vehicles aggressive, but all the cars parked on the side where bikes are riding...I saw someone open their door to get out of their car, and a biker came to a dead stop into that open door. They need to do this differently. Integrating cars and bikes is a mistake, IMO.
They did this here too. In NW portland there are two one way streets to cross the interstate. So effectively ONE surface street to get across. It had two lanes. Until 2 weeks ago when one of those lanes became a bike only lane. Now, it's 100% packed traffic on the single lane, backed up and takes two full light cycles to get through each intersection. The bike lane? one biker every 5 minutes or so.
Wonderful legislation guys. Really progressive! If we inconvenience drivers enough, maybe we'll have a carbon free, bike-riding, progressive society!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions