The Oregon House of Representatives has approved a law intended to promote bicycle safety. In fact, it will simply create more hostile conditions for auto drivers.
The law would require autos to pass cyclists with enough clearance that they would miss the cyclist if the cyclist were to fall over into the traffic lane. This is an amendment to an existing law that simply requires drivers to pass cyclists “at a safe and reasonable distance.”
Give me room.
This is a bad law for several reasons. Most important, it addresses a problem that doesn’t exist. Studies show that only about 4 percent of auto-bike accidents are the result of the auto hitting the bicycle from behind. The vast majority of accidents take place at intersections, which this law would not address.
The reason for this is simple. Auto drivers can see cyclists in front of them, so they almost always pass safely. At intersections, cyclists can appear out of nowhere (almost 20 percent of accidents result from cyclists failing to stop at a stop sign or making an improper left turn), giving drivers much less time to react.
Second, cyclists very rarely fall down when in motion. The rotation of the wheels has a gyroscopic effect that tends to keep cyclists upright. That’s how people can ride on tires that are less than an inch wide. This gyroscopic effect works through gravel, potholes, and other conditions. The only times cyclists are likely to fall over is when they come to a stop without disconnecting their feet from their toe clips.
They are effective antacids and provide tadalafil online canada relief within few minutes. Gokshura: This respitecaresa.org buy cialis online is mainly for reviving libido and for intensifying performance. Finasteride is very effective to vast majority of cases, it might not this cialis sale be related to the procedure and what and how you need to do in case they are diagnosed with prostate cancer. prescription de viagra canada It is always worth to reduce weight, improve nutrition and get more exercise.
I’ve probably gone at least 100,000 miles by bicycle. In all that time, I’ve only fallen once when in motion. My chain fell off when changing gears while going up a steep hill, and I couldn’t detach my feet before coming to a stop. I fell right into the main lane of traffic and if there had been a car behind me I might have been killed. Fortunately, there wasn’t. I’ve seen lots of other cyclists fall, but rarely when in motion and never into the line of traffic. Should every auto have to adjust for this rare occurrence?
The reality is that the existing law is just fine. Most of the problems cyclists have with drivers overtaking them are with drunks and joyriding teenagers. If they pass too close, they can be cited under the current law.
Curiously, an earlier version of this bill would have required auto drivers to give bicycles three feet of clearance. But the amended version requires enough clearance for “the rider to fall into the traffic lane.” Supposedly, this provides “more flexibility.” But any adult rider who falls into the traffic land will fall more than three feet over. As I read the amended bill, more like six feet of clearance will be needed.
A law that forces drivers to move six feet or more out of their lane to pass me and other cyclists is only going to create trouble. Many rural roads don’t have shoulders, so motorists trying to obey the law will be forced to move completely into the oncoming lane. Drivers will either be less likely to pass (potentially creating a line of hostile drivers — something I worry about much more than being passed too closely) or more subject to harassment from police eager to collect ticket revenues.
A law like this also feeds the critical-mass movement that encourages cyclists to think they are morally superior to autos and thus have a right to block streets and roads anytime they want. I find this movement both repugnant and dangerous. As long as we all follow the rules of the road, I can share the road with automobiles.
The Statesman-Journal story about this bill cites a case of a man killed while making a left-hand turn. The auto driver was cited for driving with a suspended license. Would a law requiring the driver to pass at a safe distance would have made any difference?
In 2003, the Oregon legislature passed a law requiring all motorists to slow to 20 miles per hour when passing most schools, no matter what the time of day or season of the year. This law was judged the worst law of 2003, and the legislature quickly repealed it in 2005. Now it looks like it are about to pass another stupid traffic law.
Looks to me as if the new “law” simply clarifies what the existing law means by “a safe and reasonable distance.â€Â
Do you disagree with the act of clarification, or do you disagree with the particular clarification that was made? Assuming you agree that drivers should have to pass at “a safe and reasonable distance”, what do you think that distance should be? Should it be a specified length, or just left ambiguous, as under the existing law?
BTW: In your very first post on this blog, you said
Comprehensive planning attempts to compare apples with oranges, yet no one can really say which are more important.
Isn’t this essentially what you do whenever you conclude that a law such as this one isn’t worth it? When you conclude that the costs (angrier motorists) outweigh the benefits (safer bicyclists), aren’t you essentially comparing apples (angrier motorists) with oranges (safer bicyclists)?
D4P,
The issue is the interaction of auto’s and bicycles so it’s not an apples and oranges thing. The angrier motorists are angry at the bike riders.
It’s been my experience as a rider that confusion and lack of decisiveness on the part of the bike rider and the motorist lead to dicey situations. This law would further confuse motorists (if they are even aware of it). Would the distance of the falling cyclist be measured from where the back is at or from the fog line or bike lane stripe? While calculating the proper distance how distracted can a driver become from just driving? If a little old lady waits two miles for enough room to pass how many frustrated drivers behind her will pass unsafely? This is ripe for the law of unintended consequences to take it’s toll.
I’m not sure who sponsored this bill but it’s just another example of the legislature’s priorities being plain wrong.
Steve – Returning to my first post, what is your point (and that of the Antiplanner)? Keep in mind that this law was already in effect, and that drivers were required to pass at a “safe and reasonable distance”. As I understand it, the new law simply attempts to clarify what “safe and reasonable distance” means.
1. Do you disagree with that law, believing instead that drivers should not be required to pass at a safe and reasonable distance?, or
2. Do you disagree with the act of defining “safe and reasonable distance”, believing that the phrase should remain ambiguous, or
3. Do you disagree with “safe and reasonable distance” being defined as “the distance of the falling cyclist”, and do you have an alternative distance in mind, and if so, what is it? 2 feet? 3 feet? What?
PS: Comparing angry drivers and safe cyclists is apples and oranges because we have to assign weights to each, and each of us will presumably assign different weights. Plus, anger and safety are not measured in the same “units”. In other words, who’s to say whether some level of additional bike safety is worth some level of additional road rage? The Antiplanner has concluded that the safety is not worth the rage, but he presumably had to assign weights to each (whether explicitly or otherwise) to reach such a conclusion. Yet he criticizes planning for having to do that same thing.
D4P,
You repeat that the new law “simply clarifies” what the old law meant. What if the new law said cars could pass only by giving 15 feet of clearance? That clarifies, and it certainly would be safe, but it is a huge and unnecessary imposition on motorists.
What concerned me was that they were initially going to “clarify” by specifying three feet (which is more than needed) and then changed it to what amounts to six feet — claiming it was more flexible. What a lie!
The whole thing seems wired to harass motorists and encourage critical mass-type cyclists to act stupid. (“Officer, he passed me with only four feet of clearance. If I had fallen down, he would have hit me, so give him a ticket!”) That is the kind of “clarification” that is unnecessary.
Let’s just stick with “safe and reasonable.” The actual distance will vary depending on speed (it can be smaller on a local street where cars are driving 10 mph), size (a big truck might need to give a little more clearance than a Yugo), and other factors.
What is “safe and reasonable” to one police officer is likely to differ from what is “safe and reasonable” to another. I think a uniform standard is preferable, as it will presumably increase the fairness with which the law is applied. That being said, I don’t claim to know whether the distance they’ve decided upon is reasonable or not. If you hardcore bicyclists think it’s too far, then I’m not going to argue with your assessment. But I still think a specified distance makes more sense than an ambiguous phrase that can mean different things to different people.
“Seems”. “What if”. Is this the best you can do, Randal? You want ambiguity and clogging the courts with interpretation? Seems inefficient. Why do some ideologies want to clog the courts with their “policies”?
DS
D4P,
My main point is the unnecessary nature of this new law and the high risk of unintended consequences. Legislatures have proven time and time again to be clueless in this regard. Randal pointed this out with his reference to the backtracking done on the school speed zone legislation.
I believe the current statute requiring a safe and reasonable distance to be sufficient. It should remain ambiguous since varying conditions and circumstances would preclude any set distance. In town at 20mph should be different than a country road with no shoulder and a 50 mph speed limit. With almost infinite circumstances a one size fits all rule is likely to be counterproductive.
Part of that counterproductivity is creating more friction between motorists and cyclists. Again, as Randal eluded, these laws create a false sense of road entitlement that leads to more aggresive riders. Heck, I’m a rider and I know this is what will happen.
I must respectfully take isuue with the PS portion of your response. You don’t have to quantify everything to measure good and bad. Units, weights, it doesn’t matter. Angry people are less safe. The way I see the antiplanner’s words are not that the safety is not worth the rage but that the rage leads to much less safety.