View Single Post
Old 02-10-07, 08:25 PM
  #25  
Wogster
Senior Member
 
Wogster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Posts: 6,931

Bikes: Old Bike: 1975 Raleigh Delta, New Bike: 2004 Norco Bushpilot

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by CommuterRun
I agree. It takes away the ambiguity of "at a safe distance" and makes it a defined distance.
The problem is that a safe distance varies depending on speed differential and size differential between the vehicles in question. A large truck travelling at 100km/h (60MPH) passing a bicycle travelling at 20km/h (12MPH) jprobably requires about 3m(10') for a safe passing distance. A better wording would be "a safe passing distance or 3' whichever is greater", let the driver then decide, if 3' is insufficient he/she has two options, use a greater distance, or reduce speed to a point where 3' is sufficient. If you get passed 100 times, I would say, from personal experience, 40 drivers will change lanes, 58 will slow down, pass, then speed up again, and 2 will be jerks. The funny thing is, because the first two actions are so common, we don't even register most of them, it's the jerks you remember, which is why jerks seem to be much more prevelent then they really are. I wouldn't expect the ratio of decent passes to jerk passes will change much, because jerks are well, jerks, and unless you can some how rewire their personalities, they will remain jerks.
Wogster is offline