https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...03-bikes_N.htm

I posted this in Advocacy, but feel it needs greater exposure. Please stop by and read the article and post a comment. Most are anti-cycling, so we need to show a representation from the cycling world.

So if I am driving down a road with no shoulder, I have to move over into on-coming traffic to give three feet? I don't think cyclist should be able to ride on roads that do not have a shoulder or separate lane. It is funny how in the original article they talked about Fort Collins, CO. That has to be one of the most bike friendly cities in the entire country! I think 80% of the roads there have designated bike lanes.

Yes, you have to hold your speed and drive directly into oncoming traffic in a dangerous game of chicken to pass that biker. The option to slow down for a moment until there is a safe distance to pass isn't available.

I don't see anything anti-cycling about the article. It's just factual. This one statement might upset some but it's true. As a sheriff it is nearly impossible to enforce. That's the same reaction Virginia law enforcement said about a proposed law making it illegal tfor motorists to stay in the far left except for passing

"Not everyone supports the new laws. Larimer County, Colo., Sheriff James Alderden, who testified against Colorado's 3-feet-to-pass law, called them "basically impossible" to enforce and said he thinks some bicyclists, "cop an attitude" when it comes to following traffic laws."

Maine passed "the 3 foot rule" several years ago. Nothing changed. Of course we are not a hot bed of car/bike confrontations in the first place. But traffic in general here moves at a more civilized pace than much of the rest of the country. Not as much road rage madness.

I think the OP meant the most of the comments were anti-cycling. I tried to register to post a comment, but I get an error about the registry being down.

Anything in USA Today is slanted to draw right-wingers, dependent on petroleum, to come screaming out of their driveways swinging an axe. A desk-clerk at a hotel once tried to refuse me a room because I said I didn't want the "Complimentary Copy of USA Today."

It's a garbage rag that proves the adage - "If you can't write, just make a list." Go get a copy of the New York Times or something.

You should've accepted it. Makes great stuffing to dry out your cycling shoes. "USA Today, drying cycling shoes all over America!"

USA Today conservative?

What about when the speed limit is say, 55mph? Do you think it is safer to have slam on the brakes?

No, not at all. However, I actually look ahead and try to pay attention, so the times I have to "slam on the brakes" are few and far between.

well, yes, since it is not progressive and is pre-digested for those who prefer intravenous or being spoon fed what they find convenient to know, not about what they need to be informed...

I think you are in the minority if you think it's conservative. I stick to the Wall Street Journal myself.

yes, the progressives are always in the minority.

conservative = reticent/constipated

true, USA today isn't quite FOX NOISE/FIXED NEWS, it is quite tepid and safe. thus DANGEROUS

p.s.
i guess you are quite conservative if you stick with the WSJ...all good, all fine. just a reality check

My work here is done.....