venturi95

Oh yes, the whole MTBE nightmare is an example of incompetence on a huge scale - right on the heels of leaded gasoline! And the resultant money spent on environmental firms cleaning up the mess is a joke. All gas station tanks leak at some point, I have been told. The false promise and financial projections of the High Speed Rail project is also right up there. The real danger comes when the greedy corporate/political types use this to extinguish any attempts at preservation and fueling anti-intellectualism. As to the OP's topic: AAA is a cyclist's public enemy number one. A huge pile of lobbying money to keep driving cars as the only option at the expense of all else.

harshbarj

Actually 14 feet is too narrow. That 1 foot means you are passing parked cars by 1 foot, far too close. It should be 3 feet minimum, 4-5 feet ideally. My bike is also very wide at about 4 feet with both the wide dutch handlebars and mirrors.

CB HI

Keep drinking the Cali koolaid while complaining about increasing cancer rates. Politicians do not solve problems with their environmental laws, they just screw things up more.

venturi95

Maelochs

A 14-foot lane is not too narrow to share .... if a car is six feet wide, a bike three feet wide, and the car passes three feet from the bike, both have a foot on either outside edge. I am pretty wide, but under three feet ... more like 2.5 feet, and under three feet wide even with packed panniers. A 7-foot--wide truck or SUV could give three feet and still leave six inches between the vehicle an the yellow line, and the bike and the fog line. Theoretically, two SUVs traveling in opposite directions could simultaneously pass cyclists safely and legally. [/quote]
Three feet bike, three feet space, six feet car, one foot on each edge equals 14 feet. And darn few road bikes are three feet wide, but just in case. And that is just if the overtaking car doesn't squeeze the center line.

A vehicle like a Cadillac Escalade or a Ford Expedition is 80 inches, so one could fit past with four inches to its left and the bike could still be a foot to the right of the fog line. (A four-foot-wide bike would have to hug the fog line for a few moments--or the vehicle would have to move left.).)

My point here is mostly that “close passes” are a matter of perception, not fact. Even the biggest SUVs on the market can safely (with three to four feet of space) overtake a bike in a 14-foot lane with a three-foot buffer.

Most drivers tend to pull into the oncoming lane when passing me, for whatever reason, at last partway. That’s great, but I don’t freak out when cars pass more closely.

As for those 10-foot wide tourist buses—they have to pull into the oncoming lane. Not too hard to figure out this stuff.

Same thing, obviously, for bikes with wide bars and mirrors which stick out … or when a rider is carrying a wide load. Really not too tough to figure out.

Not sure where the rest of you ride, but I get passed by cars on every ride. And it works out fine, every time, else i wouldn't still be riding.

CB HI

Like the death of a cyclist in the Carolina's hit in the back of the head by a tourist bus mirror (as reported by a BF member)
and
Cyclist dies from accident injuries - Larry Schwartz; pedaled appx. 26,000 miles last year
and
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2018/09/...r-dan-hanegby/

CB HI

So no actual debate of an issue, just your claims of how great cali is; one, (if not THE) most auto centric states in the country.
Much of the water that cali has polluted with MTBEs was taken from states like Colorado. Even the EPA takes bad things and makes them worse: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gold-ki...rs-epa-claims/

And if you really want to debate fires, cali with the help of Gov. Moonbeam messed up forest management so bad, the Campfire blaze was one of the worst ever. The US Forest Service has done bad, but cali did much worse.

What does "Serach" mean your holy one. You should not try to imply that you are smarter than others.

venturi95

OK, you are cluleess if you think that you can make the trees and vegetation of California fireproof with thinning, you are SPITTING IN THE OCEAN. There was intensive cutting and thinning just up the road from me in the Campfire and it did nothing, zip, zilch, zero. I was in the campfire and saw it with my own two eyes.Do you have any idea how many thousands of square miles of forest there are to "manage", and how many millions of dollars it would require, it is incalculable. The fires in California are getting worse due to climate change and people building in the wild areas more. I must be smarter than you, because you don't know your rear end from a hole in the ground. Turn off Fox news and AM hate radio and educate yourself, if your mind hasn't already been poisoned. You keep going on about MTBE in California as if it defines the last 49 years of the EPA! "Search" means use a search engine, This took me all of 30 seconds:

banning the widespread use of the pesticide DDT, which was decimating bald eagles and other birds and threatening public health; achieving significant reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions that were polluting water sources via acid rain; changing public perceptions of waste, leading to innovations that make use of waste for energy creation and making new products; getting lead out of gasoline; classifying secondhand smoke as a known cause of cancer, leading to smoking bans in indoor public places; establishing stringent emission standards for pollutants emitted by cars and trucks; regulating toxic chemicals and encouraging the development of more benign chemicals; establishing a national commitment to restore and maintain the safety of fresh water, via the Clean Water Act; promoting equitable environmental protection for minority and low-income citizens; and increasing public information and communities’ “right to know” what chemicals and/or pollutants they may be exposed to in their daily lives.
YOU ARE BLOCKED

Maelochs

When calling out another for spelling ... Spell it Right.

Chris0516

Respectfully, That is a gibberish line of thinking. While a bike n' vehicle may physically fit in a lane together IN A STANDING POSITION. That is not the case, when they vehicle is passing the cyclist. The driver, while keeping their eyes on the road, ahead of them. Cannot accurately gauge how close they are, when passing a cyclist.

CB HI

I see you know virtually nothing of how forest fires burn. How all the dead wood mandated to be left in the forest, the prohibition of camp fires, the prohibition of taking wood for fire places, putting out small fires too soon and the blocking of logging creates huge amounts of fuel for forest fires and allows the fire to burn much hotter. These super fires spread faster, jump fire breaks easily and kill off the seeds that would have been activated by the normal heat of a standard forest fire. It will take many decades for the land burnt by these super to grow back. Normal forest fires have young growth the very next season. If we want to maintain good mountain biking and cycle touring in our mountains, our government needs to stop being so stupid.

You also know little of the issues you pulled off the internet. Doing an internet search does not mean you are educated on the subject. DDT was not nearly the carcinogen that the EPA claimed. 'Clean Water Act', how about that EPA and local state of Michigan craziness:
Steve Tvedten and the Dam Beavers - a tribute to the human spirit in spite of supidity ... A REAL STORY

CB HI

Since venturi did not do his 30 second internet search to get the joke, even if it may have been a 'little lame', I edited the post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holly_One

Chris0516

Then, There are also those motorists', who know what it means. But blatantly ignore it.

livedarklions

None of this crap has anything to do with bike advocacy. Please stop trolling for a political debate here.

CB HI

Environmental issues and the associated government regulation very much has impacted on cycling as I noted with mountain biking and cycle touring.
The entire thread is based on government regulation and the stances taken by different groups. Especially with some peoples hate of AAA. Even if AAA had less than good will, is this case, the AAA opposition had a good impact by stopping mandatory bike lane use.

The EPAs yellow river disaster forced me to completely change the route I was on through Colorado, since I could no longer use the river as a water source at the time it happened. The alternate route in Colorado was bare burnt areas where the forest was completely gone and nothing had even begun to grow back (with the exception a very few small stands of aspen trees starting to grow back because of their community root system) because of how hot the forest burnt due to US Forest management.

Please feel free to not open political threads if you are triggered by political debate relating to cycling.

livedarklions

Your mental gymnastics are highly amusing, but you just can't stick the landing. Not good enough for competition, but have you considered a circus act?

CB HI

So no actual discussion by you, just you trying to be internet cute.
What is your opinion on mandatory bike lane use and why is a so called cycling advocacy group trying so hard for the last 3 years to push it? Maybe they think if we are forced to stay in our place, they can get more bike lanes painted and declare some misguided victory.

Your lack of discussion is far from amusing, but you do fit in well with so many others like you in BFs.

Maelochs

Something like this, I think.

Some folks think bike lanes are the answer .... and in a lot of places, they are. In urban environments with lot so complicated intersections, on-street parking, alley driveways, and such .... probably still helpful sometimes. But the only real answer is driver awareness, and good luck with that.

Mandatory bike lanes can help---except when taking a lane is needed. ("The bike lane was full of broken glass, sand, and tree limbs." "This current picture shows it is not." "Well, that day it was." "Too bad, the drunk cell-phone user who hit you says you weren't in the bike lane, so you are guilty.") And can you imagine how the MUP part of the law might be interpreted? "The cyclist had no right riding on the road when there was an MUP just 100 yards away!" "The MUP doesn't go from where I was to where I needed to be." "You didn't use it, as mandated by law. Guilty!"

livedarklions

I'm generally against mandatory bike lanes, although I could imagine places where they might be appropriate as being the only way some route could be accessed by bikes--something unusual like down the median of an interstate highway, for example.
My opinion is Mr. Bill did a really good job of showing why OP was wrong about AAA, at least in this case. My opinion is you attempted to hijack this thread into an absurd attack on environmental law and the entire state of California which is totally outside of the scope of this thread and this forum, and your posts sound like that guy at the bar who has had a few too many and is spoiling for a fight about.... something.

mr_bill

People seem to be having trouble with the link.

Here's the pdf of the original bill. Again, it's currently dead again, but while past performance is no guarantee of future results, this bill is a zombie, and like any good zombie, expect it to be reintroduced in a future session of the California State Assembly, again. (Hopefully by then the California Bicycle Coalition will hire a lawyer to analyze the bill text.)

Excerpt of the fatal problem:

"SECTION 1. Section 21202 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride in the right-hand lane or bicycle lane, if one is present, except under either of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway."

The structure of the bill unfortunately moves the exception for "When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions... that make it unsafe to continue...." to ONLY apply to operating a bicycle in a right-hand lane that is wide enough for a vehicle and a bicycle to travel safely side by side.

So oddly, this exception does NOT apply to operating in a bike lane, and even more bizarrely, this exception does NOT apply to operating in a (substandard width) right-hand lane.

p.s. In my opinion, FRAP or FRAP with exceptions will ALWAYS be flawed, and any attempt to "fix" them is foolhardy. Just delete them already. States that aren't FRAP or FRAP with exceptions (like Massachusetts) work just fine.

-mr. bill

CB HI

You and rydabent took the thread on the environmental track in post 13 and 23 without any relation to cycling. Your the one that went on the cali is wonderful route in post 23 and then you get bent out of shape when others express a different opinion to yours. You should also remember that cali is the state that brought us the dangerous for cyclist and pedestrians, 'right turn on red' law. Cyclist use to be considered slow moving vehicles with far more rights until cali brought us the flawed FRAP law, which considers cyclist guilty until the cyclist prove they are not. Cali has such disdain for cyclist, you are not even granted the status of being a vehicle.

States truly friendly to cycling would give us the Idaho Stop Law.

PS - you claimed I am on your ignore list (in all caps).

livedarklions

Dude, you have me totally mixed up with someone else. I didn't post anything in posts 13 and 23, and I haven't claimed to put you on my ignore list yet. When and if I do, I will not do it in all caps.

And I haven't ridden in California in over 20 years, but it was a blast when I did.

I gotta say, if you can't deal with right turn on red, I don't have a lot of respect for your skills.

CB HI

A Hit&Run driver who side swiped me on a narrow downhill lane while I was traveling 30 MPH on a 35 road, claimed it was my fault to the police, court and his insurance because I was not in the bike lane. There is no bike lane on that road, just an shoulder that varies between 2 feet to a very narrow 6 inches wide. The insurance investigator had to admit in court that there was no bike lane and that I was cycling legally while taking the full lane. During a subsequent civil trial, I even proved the husband committed perjury in criminal court when a judge asked him if he had ever been in trouble with the law before and the guy said NO. Hit&Run was later forced to admit in court that he had been convicted of a DUI.

The Hit&Run driver was in such a rush because he and his wife were late getting their kid into town for private school. The wife was in the back seat helping the 9 year old with homework that was not done the night before. My life was unimportant to the parents. The fairy tale ending is, the kid actually turned out good and respects cyclist.

CB HI

You are right I did mix you and venturi into the same pot, sorry, you two just whine so much alike, that it is hard to tell you apart.

I deal with the right turn on red fine, but in safety advocacy, are we not suppose to help look out for everyone? You seem to be a me, me, me type of guy.

livedarklions

And with that, I'm putting you on my ignore list just so I can say I beat the ban.