On the front page of today's San Jose Mercury-News: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16570732.htm

In article <Xns98C772B1BC082s321@192.160.13.20>, sally <sally@sally.com> wrote: > On the front page of today's San Jose Mercury-News: > http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16570732.htm "It is not known how many collisions statewide result from motor vehicles passing bicycles." So, no, it's not a good law. I highly doubt it is going to be enforced with any regularity, either. Also, why single out bikes when safety should apply equally to all passing traffic? -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

> I could see extending the rule to apply to passing a motorcycle - any > small two-wheeled vehicle that might have to avoid some small obstruction > in the road that would not bother a car or truck. Er... no, that might not be such a good idea. If motorcycles expect to continue to benefit from lane-splitting, they're inevitably going to be in places where it's just not going to be possible to pass them by three feet. --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

On 2007-01-30, Mike Jacoubowsky <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote: >> I could see extending the rule to apply to passing a motorcycle - any >> small two-wheeled vehicle that might have to avoid some small obstruction >> in the road that would not bother a car or truck. > > Er... no, that might not be such a good idea. If motorcycles expect to > continue to benefit from lane-splitting, they're inevitably going to be in > places where it's just not going to be possible to pass them by three feet. That only applies to you heathens that allow lane splitting. -- __o Kristian Zoerhoff _'\(,_ kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com (_)/ (_)

"Timothy J. Lee" <remove22@sonic.net> wrote in message news:45bf99a6$0$80122$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net... > In article <bluvh.242$gj4.52@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, > Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote: >>The reason it is a good law is it codifies a minimum standard for safe >>passing, rather than relying on case-by-case judgments, at least in a >>particularly egregious subset of passing incidents, those with clearly >>less than a 3-foot margin. > > It would be better if it were speed and speed differential dependent. > A bicyclist climbing a steep hill at 5-10mph might not appreciate a > 3-foot pass by a car going 55mph, but probably wouldn't mind a car > crawling by at 3mph less than 3-feet away while s/he is stationary in > a traffic jam (though it is more likely that the bicyclist is passing > the car in that thick a traffic jam). > > I don't see this law as one that will be used to hand out tickets but rather as a way to quantify legal and civil liability in case of an accident. -- -Don Ever had one of those days where you just felt like: http://cosmoslair.com/BadDay.html ? (Eating the elephant outside the box, one paradigm at a time)

In article <bluvh.242$gj4.52@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote: > Doc O'Leary wrote: > > In article <Xns98C772B1BC082s321@192.160.13.20>, > > sally <sally@sally.com> wrote: > > > >> On the front page of today's San Jose Mercury-News: > >> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16570732.htm > > > > "It is not known how many collisions statewide result from motor > > vehicles passing bicycles." > > > > So, no, it's not a good law. I highly doubt it is going to be enforced > > with any regularity, either. Also, why single out bikes when safety > > should apply equally to all passing traffic? > > > > The reason it is a good law is it codifies a minimum standard for safe > passing, rather than relying on case-by-case judgments, at least in a > particularly egregious subset of passing incidents, those with clearly > less than a 3-foot margin. That doesn't make it a good law, it just makes it understandable. It takes more than giving a specific number to make it "good". > However, the books are full of good laws which are difficult to > enforce in call cases. While true, that is bad. It doesn't matter how precisely they draw the line between legal and illegal. It only serves the abuse of power to have laws that are frequently broken without penalty. > In this case, at least, it will be clearly > demonstrable that there are some sections of roadway for which legal > passing is essentially impossible, and thus if there are collisions in > these cases, the driver is at fault for attempting an illegal pass. I don't see how this new law is necessary for that. I don't see how restricting it to bicycles helps. > Safety should be applied to all traffic, that is true. However, the > standard of safety differs between passing a cyclist, versus passing a > car. The two events are very different, the risks are very different, > like it or not. What makes you think I care about other cars? I care more about pedestrians, rollerbladers, wheelchairs, mopeds, electric carts, Amish buggies, and all sorts of other things that might be (for whatever reason) in the roadway at the mercy of someone in a bigger vehicle. -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

In article <45bf9bb4$0$68989$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, "Don Freeman" <freemand@sonic.net> wrote: > I don't see this law as one that will be used to hand out tickets but rather > as a way to quantify legal and civil liability in case of an accident. Then why not just specify that a bicycle has the default right of way? It's not like we're actively looking to get into an accident with a cage, nor can we do nearly as much damage to others if we *do* get in one. The problem is not that the laws aren't bicycle-friendly enough, but that they are too car-friendly. -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

In article <12rvs1dtlqgg3ab@corp.supernews.com>, "CJ" <cje20@hotmail.com> wrote: > Doc O'Leary wrote: > > > ...The problem is not that the laws aren't bicycle-friendly > > enough, but that they are too car-friendly. > > > Could that be because bicycles are not registered, licensed, or taxed > so they and their riders can contribute to the pool of money used for > road construction and maintenance as are cars and trucks. Nah... > couldn't be. Could that be because bicycles don't have *nearly* the impact on the surrounding environment that motor vehicles do? Yeah . . . that could be exactly it. -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com, heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

"Mike Nelson" <uce@ftc.gov> wrote in message news:KtSdnbWh5ZgirV_YnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@comcast.com... >> > > What is more: this idea that vehicle taxes and fuel taxes pay for > roads is a gross exaggeration. Vehicle taxes and fuel taxes don't > even _begin_ to pay for the cost of our streets and highways. The > general fund (which pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists alike > all pay into) pays for streets and highways. I thought the California gasoline fuel taxes, that would be the state excise tax, the federal excise tax and the sales tax was the major transportation funding to repair our roads and highways. The rest of the distribution of the fuel taxes would go to transit and the planning administration. fwiw, -tom