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
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Wayne Pein <[email protected]> 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
 
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.
 

>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
[email protected]

"Cycle tracks will abound in Utopia" - H.G. Wells
 
Wayne Pein <[email protected]> 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.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
On 2006-10-09, Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> 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
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Ken C. M." <[email protected]> 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
 
"Wayne Pein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
 
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
 
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 marked lanes, or
if the lanes are marked, 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
 
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
 
Mark 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
 
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
 
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 primarily 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.
 
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
 
Wayne Pein <[email protected]> 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.

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

Similar threads