closetbiker

https://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline...#uslPageReturn

I'm suprised at the legs this story has.

Is the discussion being raised good for cycling advocacy?

MrCjolsen

I find it interesting that the two most anti-cycling posters use the screen names of "Jim Beam" and "John Holmes."

That should tell you something.

closetbiker

I'm glad the issue of cyclists treatment on the road is getting discussion going in the mainstream press

joejack951

To me, implying that increases of inches in passing distances are in any way meaningful to a cyclist's safety is sending the wrong message. Non-cyclists will read that and think that all cyclists are on the roads "fighting" for an extra two inches which is hardly the case (at least in my experience). Most cyclists, in typical form, will use this study as yet another reason to point the finger completely at motorists for causing the problems on the roads.

I'd prefer to see stories of people who have made great strides in increasing their health by cycling or similar such positive articles.

In terms of cyclist treatment, I would like to see an unbiased article about sharing the road that discusses the "as far right as practicable" law and what it really means. Discussion about minimum speeds on roads without minimum speed limits would also be appreciated.

closetbiker

maybe people can see the contradictions of Randy Swart in the story

closetbiker

I like it that Walker notes that when it comes to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem.

I think if the primary issue raised is cyclists would just like more clearance by vehicles overtaking them, the story is worth something