Originally Posted by
Dan The Man
My point was that there are situations when it is safe to pass by a stopped schoolbus (take a pedestrian for example).
Don't stop there! There are certainly
many imaginable situations where it is safe for a
car to pass a stopped school bus too!
Why have laws at all? Let people decide what rules they deem safe. Your argument is based on a idealistic notion that a law has to be perfect and when it fails to be perfect you can ignore it.
Originally Posted by
Dan The Man
My point was that there are situations when it is safe to pass by a stopped schoolbus (take a pedestrian for example). So why is it safe for a pedestrian to pass and not a car? How about a jogger vs a car? Rather than just fixating on the rule, why not consider the logic behind it? A pedestrian is smaller and more maneuverable and has less energy than a car. Oh wait, a bicycle is also all of those things.
A typical pedestrian speed is < 3 mph. The speed of a
slow bicyclist is about 10 mph. The cyclist has over 10 times the kinetic energy. Thus, your "equivalence" fails basic physics.
Originally Posted by
Dan The Man
A bicycle traveling at the speed of a pedestrian poses no more threat to society's safety-blanket-wrapped children than a jogger does.
If bicycles typically traveled at the speed of a pedestrian (< 3 mph), you wouldn't need bicycles.
If cyclists have such a difficulty following the current law, why do you suppose they would follow a reduce-your-speed-to-some-magic number law?