Advocacy & Safety - Non-cyclists, eh?

I realise that it's not the usual rant. However, asking for repeal of both the 3' law and cycling with traffic seems just a tad dangerous.

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080727/OPINION/807270404/1029/OPINION03

Dangerous law

Jack Stephenson, Gilford

July 27, 2008 - 12:00 am

Regarding the "bicycle safety bill" signed by Gov John Lynch:

Did John or anyone else actually review what that bill requires? At 30 mph you must give the bicycle 3 feet clearance. That means with the typical bicycle riding on the right side of the lane, your left wheels must be on the center dividing line. For every 10 mph faster, the clearance must increase one foot. Thus at typical 55 mph you must swerve into the oncoming traffic lane 2½ feet to avoid the idiot riding a bicycle too close to traffic!

During World War II bicycles became a necessary means of transport. Soon the military tired of all the accidents and so ruled that bicycles were the same as pedestrians, and thus had to ride on the left side of the road, facing traffic, so they could avoid oncoming vehicles. That was the law when I was a paper delivery boy up to 1951.

Some time later, when bicycle use was low, some typically stupid legislators changed the rules to make bike riding dangerous, reversing the World War II rules. Now Lynch signs a grossly stupid law to require drivers to swerve into oncoming traffic to avoid a thoughtless bicycle rider! If you don't, you can be fined $100. And if you do, you will be fined much more for going into the wrong lane!

This is extremely dangerous. I hope this law is soon overturned.

JACK STEPHENSON

Gilford

Jack Stephenson, your appointment with Dr. Kervorkian has been moved up to NOW!

That law sounds perfect!

The law doesn't require you to swerve into oncoming traffic, it requires you to use a lane that oncoming traffic would be in. This Jack fellow sounds like he can't find his brake pedal.

The law doesn't require you to swerve into oncoming traffic, it requires you to use a lane that oncoming traffic would be in. This Jack fellow sounds like he can't find his brake pedal.

No, no, no. The law _requires_ you to swerve into traffic, blare your horn, narrowly miss the semi barreling toward you, jerk back into your lane, and then raise your hands in disgust at the idiot cyclist as you come to the next red light. $100 for the first offense if you don't, jail time for repeat offenders.

I'd show it to you in the bill that the guv signed, but I'm not going to do your legwork for you...

Well, repealing that law makes a lot of sense. After all, if you're riding facing traffic that means there is no possible way a 3000lb car could do any damage to a cyclist. See, if we're riding at 25mph towards traffic, and the car is coming at us at 35mph, then that is only a net collision speed of 10. Only wusses would get scared of getting hit at 10mph! Besides, real cyclists would just bunny hop the cars anyway.

Then again, I've never been good at math, or paying attention to raving idiot lunatics.

Well, repealing that law makes a lot of sense. After all, if you're riding facing traffic that means there is no possible way a 3000lb car could do any damage to a cyclist. See, if we're riding at 25mph towards traffic, and the car is coming at us at 35mph, then that is only a net collision speed of 10. Only wusses would get scared of getting hit at 10mph! Besides, real cyclists would just bunny hop the cars anyway...

Of course! How could I fail to see this. Quick, start a petition. :p :lol:

"That means with the typical bicycle riding on the right side of the lane, your left wheels must be on the center dividing line"

He won't pass me with only his wheels on the center dividing line. If he wants to pass me, he'll be nearly completely in the other lane.

mark, how do you troll all this stuff up?

why?

Methinks someone needs to educated Mr. Stephenson about closing speed.

"so they could avoid oncoming vehicles"


You see, back when I used to have to walk to school in 3' snow drifts with no shoes, carrying my lunch on a stick, bicycles had no rights, and now the *******s want ME to go around them into oncoming traffic like i'm passing a genuine car? Poppycock.

or harleyfrog about sarcasm

mark, how do you troll all this stuff up?

why?

90% Interest, 10% boredom, 5% pedant, 5% curmudgeon :thumb: Always give 110% :lol:

Google news search for bicycle OR bicyclist OR bicycling OR cyclist OR cyclocross OR recumbent OR mtb OR bmx OR "mountain bike" (http://news.google.com/news?svnum=10&as_scoring=n&hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=bicycle+OR+bicyclist+OR+bicycling+OR+cyclist+OR+cyclocross+OR+recumbent+OR+mtb+OR+bmx+OR+%22mounta in+bike%22) saved to my favorites

No, no, no. The law _requires_ you to swerve into traffic, blare your horn, narrowly miss the semi barreling toward you, jerk back into your lane, and then raise your hands in disgust at the idiot cyclist as you come to the next red light. $100 for the first offense if you don't, jail time for repeat offenders.

I'd show it to you in the bill that the guv signed, but I'm not going to do your legwork for you...

:roflmao2::roflmao2::roflmao2:

I am curious what he would do in the exact same situation without the 3' law in place?

Does he also propose repealing the 'safe passing' law?

Al

If he doesn't like driving around cyclists, perhaps he'll be more receptive to VC? :lol:

-Kurt

Appears to be a busiiness owner.
Warmlite (http://www.warmlite.com/start.htm) tents and bags.

90% Interest, 10% boredom, 5% pedant, 5% curmudgeon :thumb: Always give 110% :lol:

Google news search for bicycle OR bicyclist OR bicycling OR cyclist OR cyclocross OR recumbent OR mtb OR bmx OR "mountain bike" (http://news.google.com/news?svnum=10&as_scoring=n&hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=bicycle+OR+bicyclist+OR+bicycling+OR+cyclist+OR+cyclocross+OR+recumbent+OR+mtb+OR+bmx+OR+%22mounta in+bike%22) saved to my favorites

Why? We have you :).

Why? We have you :).

Thanks :p

Thanks

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080730/OPINION/807300320/1029/OPINION03

Rules of the road

Ken Gallager, Concord

July 30, 2008 - 12:00 am

Jack Stephenson reveals by his July 27 letter ("Dangerous law") that he doesn't understand what "share the road" means regarding automobiles and bicycles.

He frets that the new bicycle safety bill will force drivers to "swerve into oncoming traffic" to avoid bicycles. It apparently still hasn't occurred to Jack that bicycles are vehicles and should be treated the same way as slow-moving cars. When traveling 20 mph on my bike, I am clearly more like a vehicle than like a pedestrian. If there is no shoulder, I am going to have to ride in the travel lane to avoid obstacles. Need to cross the yellow line to pass a bicycle? Just wait until there is no traffic approaching.

On my regular ride to work down Pembroke Road, most drivers understand this, but there are usually two or three who just have to pass me while cars are coming the other way. No accidents yet, but there have been too many close calls. The bicycle safety law will help drivers think twice before trying to squeeze past us as cars are approaching, just to save a few seconds.

KEN GALLAGER

Concord

Well, repealing that law makes a lot of sense. After all, if you're riding facing traffic that means there is no possible way a 3000lb car could do any damage to a cyclist. See, if we're riding at 25mph towards traffic, and the car is coming at us at 35mph, then that is only a net collision speed of 10. Only wusses would get scared of getting hit at 10mph! Besides, real cyclists would just bunny hop the cars anyway.

Then again, I've never been good at math, or paying attention to raving idiot lunatics.

Have you ever tried bunny hopping a Suburban? Goes over like an 8 month pregnant vaulter.

Interesting - I actually have somewhere an ancient early catalog from the firm. Funny that a nudist and free thinker backcountry fellow would be so against cyclists! Probably some lack of understanding and perspective.

Where on earth is the three-foot law actually enforced? In cases not involving death, I mean.

Just a thought, but instead of making fun of the dude and whining and *****ing here one of you "Advocates" might want to send your own letter to the editor. In that later you can explain to this miss guided person and to the rest of the public why he is wrong.

UD.

I don't care if it was the law, I'm not riding into oncoming traffic.

Apparently a 3' law MAKES people pass unsafely?

Not quite the discussion I was hoping you guys would generate but at least the "forcing cyclists to cycle against traffic" idea isn't being discussed any more.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080731/OPINION/807310322

Hot Topic
A 'feel good' law on bicycle safety

By MAURICE REGAN
For the Monitor
July 31, 2008 - 12:00 am

The Monitor has published several news and opinion pieces on the new law requiring passing motorists to give cyclists a minimum of 3 feet of clearance. This law will take effect Jan. 1 and includes a provision for increasing clearance distance with increasing motor vehicle speed.
During my brief tenure in the New Hampshire House, I occasionally heard bills referred to as "feel good legislation," often because they had a noble motive, such as traffic safety, but were probably ineffective, unenforceable and a duplicate of other laws. The cyclist clearance law appears to merit the "feel good" label. We feel good about protecting cyclists, but will this law add to their safety?
To test the possible value of this new law, I got on my bike Sunday morning and rode four state routes (3, 4, 106 and 127) and three city streets (Loudon Road, Main Street and Manchester Street) for a total of 28 miles over 110 minutes averaging nearly 15 mph. Some of these roads had shoulders the width of a traffic lane, and some had no shoulders at all, forcing me to share the lane with cars. Some roads had more than two total lanes.
I was passed by 167 cars and two motorcycles, approximately 1.5 cars per minute. I was able to determine the minimum clearance mandated by the law, as I am 3 feet from my sternum to the knuckles on my outstretched left arm. Every single vehicle passed with adequate clearance, with the possible exception of one driver who may have been exceeding 50 mph and may have been closer than 5 feet. However, no car would have come close to scraping my knuckles.
I did note two interesting phenomena. Drivers nearly always gave me far more clearance than necessary and often drove into oncoming traffic to do so, occasionally crossing double yellow lines. However, drivers never seemed to slow down when passing. When encountering me, drivers moved to the left of their lane or moved to adjacent lanes. No matter what the traffic conditions, no one slowed down and waited to pass when conditions improved.
So this cyclist clearance law may be designed to solve a problem that does not exist while ignoring a problem that does exist. Drivers already give cyclists adequate clearance and will even break other motor vehicle laws to do so. What drivers will generally not do is simply slow down and overtake the cyclist when conditions improve and it is safe to pass.
This clearance law might actually make conditions more dangerous for cyclists. This law suggests that drivers need not slow down if they can clear a cyclist by 3 feet or more. The best routine practice when encountering cyclists, pedestrians and horseback riders is to slow down and pass when safe. In fact, existing motor vehicle and animal regulation laws spell out such behavior. Relying on existing law and prudent driving practices will accord cyclists more safety than "feel good" clearance laws.
(Maurice Regan lives in Pembroke.)

The idea seems to be if you are riding into oncoming traffic you can get to the side and let the car pass. What is wrong with that idea? In theory pedestrians are supposed to walk into the direction of oncoming traffic. I wonder what the rules of the road where back when bicycles were more commonly used in the USA, say 1930.

"I don't care if it was the law, I'm not riding into oncoming traffic." Why? wouldn't it be better to see the cars up ahead coming at you? At night the headlights would blind you, that is a problem.

The idea seems to be if you are riding into oncoming traffic you can get to the side and let the car pass. What is wrong with that idea? In theory pedestrians are supposed to walk into the direction of oncoming traffic. I wonder what the rules of the road where back when bicycles were more commonly used in the USA, say 1930.

"I don't care if it was the law, I'm not riding into oncoming traffic." Why? wouldn't it be better to see the cars up ahead coming at you? At night the headlights would blind you, that is a problem.

When the car is doing 35mph and I'm doing 15mph we'd be closing the gap at 50mph and both of us would need to react. I would know how to react: Move over to the left. The car wouldn't because I'm doing something very unexpected. I can hope the car would hold position or swerve to miss me.

If there is oncoming traffic the car cannot swerve. He cannot wait behind me either because I'm coming at him: He'd have to reverse! He can't do that, there is probably a car behind him.


As a pedestrian the speed difference is negligible. We add 6mph to the total speed difference (instead of 20-30). As a pedestrian I can use the 6 inch shoulder that I can't use as a cyclist. As a pedestrian I can move offroad when a car comes. Or the car can stop: Pedestrians are the most important form of human transportation, they get a lot of leeway.

The only advantage I can see in the law is that should a close pass blow someone over and there's a witness, the rider gets another arrow in the form of this negligence per se count.

The only advantage I can see in the law is that should a close pass blow someone over and there's a witness, the rider gets another arrow in the form of this negligence per se count.

A number of people have been clipped by people passing too closely some of which resulted in serious injuries to the rider. I was lucky in that all it did was fold the mirror back but it's very frightenning especially when it happens at speed, on a busy road where almost everyone else has passed safely and legally.

When the car is doing 35mph and I'm doing 15mph we'd be closing the gap at 50mph and both of us would need to react. I would know how to react: Move over to the left. The car wouldn't because I'm doing something very unexpected. I can hope the car would hold position or swerve to miss me.

If there is oncoming traffic the car cannot swerve. He cannot wait behind me either because I'm coming at him: He'd have to reverse! He can't do that, there is probably a car behind him.


As a pedestrian the speed difference is negligible. We add 6mph to the total speed difference (instead of 20-30). As a pedestrian I can use the 6 inch shoulder that I can't use as a cyclist. As a pedestrian I can move offroad when a car comes. Or the car can stop: Pedestrians are the most important form of human transportation, they get a lot of leeway.

I'll add a couple.

Pedestrians exist on hte roadway when there is no sidewalk. This almost always means something outside the road, even if it is the brier patch a pedestrian can exit the road. Most of the time it is dirt, or even curb. No problem to step up on the curb. (Heck, kids make a gome of walking on the curb). Not so with a bike. They are on roads where facing traffic means between the parked cars and the moving cars. No where to go. Seeing things only helps if yuo can do something. No advantage to seeing death or injury coming if you can not try to prevent it.

Also if you add facing traffic to staying to the right and mix in parked cars you end up with bukes coming from nowhere (moving out from behind parked cars as the drivers see it).

Oops up to 3. Stop and think what happens with a left turn. No one ever checks, and it is almost impossible to check for cyclists riding against traffic going the same way you were when turning left.

I wonder about this 'Law'. Any of the older guys here know if there is any truth to this? I'm 55 and many kids were taught to ride against traffic when I was growing up. But it was NOT the law.

I was passed by 167 cars and two motorcycles, approximately 1.5 cars per minute. I was able to determine the minimum clearance mandated by the law, as I am 3 feet from my sternum to the knuckles on my outstretched left arm. Every single vehicle passed with adequate clearance, with the possible exception of one driver who may have been exceeding 50 mph and may have been closer than 5 feet. However, no car would have come close to scraping my knuckles.

Knuckles hell, around here you'd better tuck your elbows in!