Originally Posted by
parkbrav
Thanks for all the replies, really top-quality stuff. I must express some disappointment, however, with some of the responses. In my opinion, some of these responses are raising the "straw-man fallacy." I interpret that phrase to mean that you are 1) conveniently ignoring the specific fact pattern set out in thorough detail above, much of which undermines your position and 2) knocking down arguments that haven't been raised by anybody, and then 3) declaring total victory because you can't be changed from your own set of facts.
So people don't agree with your opinions (and they are opinions, not laws consistent everywhere) and you're disappointed in us?
Again, the fact pattern that I raised at the beginning of this thread sets out that it is a very wide street that accommodates motorists and cyclists such that it doesn't seem necessary for a bicycle to operate illegally on a sidewalk.
The topic has changed somewhat since then. This is normal for any conversation, and practically required of an internet conversation. It will continue to morph into other scenarios in the future.
The salmon-ing BSO will confuse motorists not expecting to see BSO heading north in the south-bound lane. The other problem is that creates a situation (as described) where there are two bicycles heading north on opposite parts of the road. Motorists in either direction seeing two bicycles will likely be confused in what way to give the requisite 3 feet.
As a motorist, I have yet to be confused by anything happening on the sidewalk. If you are paying attention to the sidewalk while driving on the road, you shouldn't be driving a car. Period.
And what does the 3 foot passing rule have to do with anyone on the sidewalk?
I personally detour-ed myself by at least 2.5 miles every day for a month last November in order to avoid several obstacles posed by a highway interchange that cuts through my municipality. We all do what we can to be safe.
Good for you. Others of us found other safe ways to avoid being killed that don't involve going miles out of our way. Because we are doing what we can to be safe. If going 2.5 miles out of your way is the safest option, you should do it. In the alternate scenarios presented that wasn't an option.
Have you checked out the Advocacy and Safety forum here? I think you'd like it. It's full of lively discussions about what the rules should be and most everyone agrees with each other.