grayEZrider

Let's try this....

Make the fancy electronic bike mounted gear available for "checkout and use" by any local cyclist who has located a consistent repeat offender or location specific problem. Let the biker turn over the evidence for use by authorities. Like a "mobile" red light camera. Enforceable, targeted where it's most needed and ties up no field officers. A lot of larger bike groups would be willing to donate or help purchase the gear I suspect. Some of us are or were LEOs. What do you think of this idea?

Maelochs

I have discussed at length how more stringent enforcement And social conditioning have changed the general perception and the frequency of DUI.
I disagree, but that is fine.
My question is, would it save a life? As I have pointed out, people either care or do not. That is why, even with DUI checkpoints, large fines, and license suspensions, there are still people who get stupid drunk and drive. The people who care will always be careful, and the rest will simply not care.

personally, if I were to be assigning officers, i wouldn't put even one on "close-pass" patrol. I would find out where in that district people were actually getting hurt and killed and put officer there. But ... differences of opinion are alright.

Arthur Peabody

https://www.abqjournal.com/1295229/c...h-mandate.html

Maelochs

From New Mexico's current traffic laws:

"66-3-705. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
A. Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.
B. Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
C. Notwithstanding any provision of this section, no bicycle shall be operated on any roadway in a manner that would create a public safety hazard.History: 1953 Comp., § 64-3-705, enacted by Laws 1978, ch. 35, § 104; 1997, ch. 47, § 1."

An interesting note: The NM law does not specify what "practicable" means. Most states define a host of specific exceptions and then and "and other causes." NM does not, meaning that it is both hard for a cyclist to defend taking the lane and equally hard for a prosecutor to cite a cyclist for taking the lane.

The only part of the new law that really conflicts with the old law substantially is the directive to use MUPs where available. And that is the most horrible provision imaginable.

So ... in an effort to get this unenforceable 5-foot law on the books, NM cyclists have hurt themselves immeasurably.

As far as i can tell NM had no "Three-foot law" prior to this. The latest was this 2011 update of a 2006 law of a 1996 law calling for "safe" overtaking:

NM Stat § 66-7-312
66-7-312. Limitations on overtaking on the left.

"No vehicle shall be driven to the left side of the center of the roadway in overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless such left side is clearly visible and free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to permit such overtaking and passing to be completely made without interfering with the safe operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle overtaken. In every event the overtaking vehicle must return to the right-hand side of the roadway before coming within one hundred feet of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction."

I'd say this calls for some civic action. NM cyclists need to gather in the State House or something to make sure that this gets media coverage (by which I mean "TV coverage"---no one reads anymore) so that cyclists can then start a call-in and write-in campaign to get this vetoed.

TimothyH

This requires a $10/month subscription to read.

Maelochs

Google? Google started charging fees?

Leisesturm

Here is a radical, completely original, still evolving, radical ... (did I say radical?) idea. POV of a single forward bike mounted camera is probably sub-par. F/R camera views probably better but still likely not nuanced enough to settle six figure personal injury judgements. IMO video records of accidents should NOT be the burden of the plaintiff! Personally, if I were a defendant in such a case and the plaintiff wanted the court to use evidence that they supplied ... ... seriously? Hang on, it gets bumpy from here ... IMO the public infrastructure should do the heavy lifting of collision documentation. There are already enough cameras mounted strategically to catch red light and speed limit scofflaws. Equip them with the software necessary to function as 24/7 intersection monitors. There are not statistically enough collisions occurring anywhere else. Get over it. But I know that won't suffice for the truly paranoid. So why not let car mounted cameras monitor the road spaces outside of the coverage of fixed cameras? I mean the things are everywhere, right? The data would not be under the drivers control to upload, edit, or in any other way tamper with. I submit that it is vastly easier to equip all road going motor vehicles with 360* monitoring capability than to do the same for all vehicular cyclists and the data collected can be used to adjudicate any accident that occurred in its coverage, whether or not the vehicle providing the evidence was involved in the accident or not. Seems workable to me, but what do I know. I'm just not sure I want my lawyer to accept some cyclists photoshopped account of an accident to have bearing on how many years I don't spend in prison. Or how much money my insurance company has to give ̶t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶u̶r̶a̶n̶c̶e̶ them.

base2 

Just change the presumption of liability the same way they did with rear-end accidents. If you rear-end a car, you are at fault & it is up to you to prove otherwise. Dash-cams work great to prove you were cut-off & brake checked, for example.

In the same way, it would be cool to shift the fault of a car/bicycle collision to the car driver automatically as they have the greatest responsibility to operate safely. Then it would be the drivers obligation to prove his actions were not safe.

In no way would this encourage dangerous behavior among cyclists because the risk profile & chances of injury from bad behaviour would remain the same for the cyclist.

Notso_fastLane

Right Click, "Open in Incognito Window"

Leisesturm

What you have there is fine without 'presuming' anything. You'll muddy the waters saying cars have a greater responsibility to operate safely. They do not. I still think the documentation should be neutral. Neither reporting party should have access to the data prior to its submission to authorities. Live streamed footage from strategic or vehicle mounted cameras to recording servers, just like any other kind of surveillance equipment, would be much more credible than dash cam or helmet cam evidence. No, I don't think any significant minority of cyclists (or drivers) are tampering with evidence, but if the stakes were high enough ...

Maelochs

So long as drivers outnumber cyclists, i don't foresee any legal changes which put drivers automatically at fault in collisions.

Any increase in civic spending (like collecting All data and saving it from all red light cameras) is likely a no-go. Again, cyclists are what, two percent of the tax base? As far as having cars equipped with more cameras .... again, too much regulation and too much cost. In a nominally free country, such a law requiring multiple in-car cameras uploading data to an off-site repository, cataloging, and storing it, would be quite a burden on manufacturers and consumers, and should only be done with their agreement.

I assume the cameras and On-site (in-car) storage might come in time, but I also assume the data would persist only a short time---it would be erased if the driver didn't want to save it (for instance, if the ride was uneventful.) So ... there would be Some way for a driver to erase data. (You know hackers would be all over that stuff.) There might be a "tampering" fine, but in cases of a serious transgression, the guilty party would probably prefer the fine. Possibly there could be a DUI-type "refusing the sobriety test is an admission of guilt" clause so anyone who erased data would be charged ... but there would then be lawyers specializing in proving that the erasure was due to accident damage, or that the system had been malfunctioning for days in advance.

The greatest safety tools we can hope for, IMO, are public-relations campaigns and strict enforcement and harsh penalties for hitting cyclists. it worked with DUIs. The problem I see is that car-bike crashes are not treated seriously---no insurance issues, so no motivation---so drivers simply don't think much about cyclists. Given a decade of repeated TV and internet commercials about how only lousy people crowd cyclists, how cyclists are people, etc coupled with cops taking video footage as evidence and actually tracking down and ticketing drivers, and drivers who hit cyclists getting convicted on "assault with deadly weapon" charges and second-degree murder (negligently mishandling a deadly object knowing that the outcome could be fatal to others) instead of "vehicular manslaughter" (basically, "Oops") then we'd get the only real safety cyclists can have except for having completely protected (by feet of concrete) enclosed and separated bike lanes, or an entire secondary road system devoted to bikes---neither of which are likely to happen.

base2 

Let's not go down the 1984 blackhole. We have enough of that already.

I'm not saying we should increase drivers responsibility; I'm holding them to the responsibility they already have. Explicitly stating in law that they are responsible unless they can prove extenuating circumstances is consistant with the responsibilities of the license they already have & ties prosecutors hands to hold them accountable.

It's the same as requiring drivers to follow the speed limit, not hit pedestrians, other cars, cause property damage, signal intentions, maintain minimum equipment standards, etc...
When a collision happens, the vulnerable user has the greatest price to pay in terms of consequences, & his behavior is least likely to cause harm, thus the responsibility to not cause harm falls on the driver. That is why a minimum proficiency must be demonstrated before a license is issued in the first place. What's wrong with that?
No camera required.
No database.
No servers.
No untold billions of tax payer funds.
None of that is necessary.
Simple, effective. Personal liberty & freedom maintained.
Surveillance State avoided.

noisebeam

5ft is excessive and would lockup city traffic if followed. Most US states have a safe passing law already.

Leisesturm

Maybe it is only slightly off topic to observe that the Surveillance State is already here. At least this would put the technology to a good use.

Maelochs

This is horrible reasoning. Every ninja salmon proves how wrong it is. Every crazed "serious" shaved-leg cyclist blasting through intersections while shouting "Strava!" proves how wrong it is. Every college kid riding with one hand and texting or carrying an open beer ..... Every New York delivery rider ....

There is Zero evidence that people who are more vulnerable are therefore more careful. The fact that so many of us have seen cyclists do crazy things (or maybe, back in our crazy youths, might have done them ourselves) belies that idea.

base2 

There are extremes in every set.

It is easy to be a Texas sharp-shooter.

Maybe there is some composition/division mixed in there as well.

In all cases, the one licensed is the one with the responsibility to conform to the expected standards of the license. You aren't arguing for bicycle or pedestrian licenses are you?

To your point: If anything, the vulnerable may or may not be more careful, but that (crediting human goodness here) is bourne of ignorance or inability. They are likely unaware of their unsafe behavior...which is why car drivers are licensed. To avoid infringing on the rights of others no matter their ability to ambule the environment.

Steve B.

noisebeam

3ft is fine, although it should be reciprocal. The excessiveness of 5ft makes it hard to take seriously in practice under all conditions which weakens it overall. 3ft is far more widely used in law across the US and sets a memorable standard.
I prefer the basic safe passing law as safe is greatly dependent on conditions including speed, relative speed, vehicle type, road conditions, etc. 3ft on a 65mph traveled highway is insufficient. 1ft in the city works with give and take communication between cyclists and other drivers.
As you noted the real benefit of 3ft is the clear violation if there is a hit. I don't know why it can't be equally argued (in similar type of collision) that a hit is clear evidence of unsafe passing as well.
In AZ the penalties for the 3ft law are only applicable if cyclist was in bike lane or path if one available. This has resulted in arguing over the finer points of if cyclist was in bike lane or not at time of hit. That is an unacceptable part of the law which hopefully is not being included elsewhere.

Maelochs

NM had a NY-style "safe-passing" law (still does, until this new one is enacted.) One could argue that if an overtake resulted in a collision it was an unsafe overtaking maneuver. it is incumbent upon the overtaking car to perform the maneuver in a safe fashion.

In any case ... it isn't the law, it's the way people consider bikes on the road.

When drunk driving was considered a normal week-end late-night activity, it was the stuff of jokes, was socially accepted, and no one much paid attention to the consequences. A few years of public pressure from grassroots lobbying groups, and all that started to change.

People used to see a completely blitzed person stagger to his car and make jokes about him not hitting anything on the way home. Now that same person would be told not to drive, and possibly his friends or just a bystander might take his keys, even by force. Rather than a lovable drunk, he would be seen as a crazed idiot, ready to kill others without concern.

When people see hitting a cyclist ass a crime as severe as murdering a child, then the "safe passing" law will be more than sufficient. Until then, even a ten-foot law won't matter, because some people couldn't care much less about the law or the cyclist.

IMO.

base2 

+1

livedarklions

So, if I understand NM procedure correctly, if the governor doesn't sign this by Saturday, the bill is automatically vetoed.

Anyone know if that's correct?

base2 

No. Then the Governor could subvert all of the efforts of a seperate, but co-equal branch of government by simply going on vacation.

If the governor does absolutely nothing, then she wasn't interested enough to take action in any direction one way or the other & the will of congress the (edit: legislature) reigns.

Approval/Veto is about exercising authority on the other branch's will & maintaing a power balance between branches.

livedarklions

I guess I'd take your opinion seriously if you knew how to spell governor and that NM doesn't have a Congress. It's a state legislature.

You're giving me an answer that's partially correct for the federal government. State constitutions have different rules.

BTW, I said partially correct because even at the federal level, legislation can sometimes be vetoed by the president "taking a vacation". Google "pocket veto"--it only occurs under very special circumstances.

base2 

Understood. Here in Washington State it is Upper & Lower House, but the 3 branch structure is generally similar across all the states regardless of name assigned.

As far as "pocket-veto" then I will with 100% say that I do not know if New Mexico has or uses this practice in it's politics. It seems simple enough to remain in session or designate a person to stand guard until action is taken. If the issue is important enough, then the Governor would still be testing the legislatures will & the power check remains.

So, I guess the better question is: Assuming pocket-vetos are a thing in New Mexico, & the Governor does not sign the bill, is the legislature going to stay in session & wait her out? To that, I think nobody will know until it happens

Good call on the typo...and yes the word "congress" was an oversight, but thank-you for understanding what I meant.

mr_bill

The legislature has adjourned "sine die." So it is not now in session.

In New Mexico, all bills sent after noon on March 16 that aren't acted on by the governor's office are pocket vetoed.

Since the regular session has already terminated "sine die" - a special session would have to be called to attempt to override any veto. Unusual feature of New Mexico, if no special session is called, they can override when the next regular session opens, EVEN if an election has intervened.

In the unlikely event that the constitutional officers of the executive branch of New Mexico went on vacation between March 16 and April 5, everything would be pocket vetoed.

-mr. bill