M
Matt O'Toole
Guest
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 marked lanes, or
> if the lanes are marked, 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.
> 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 marked lanes, or
> if the lanes are marked, 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.
