Another Local Cyclist Hit By A Vehicle, Wants 3 Foot Law Enforced

Laws on the books should be enforced by the police and not on a selective basis, and, as said by a previous commentator, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Failure to observe this law can result in bodily injury to another human being and possibly death (and has in the past - see the David Meek story). I am offended by the police officer that did not cite the motorist as it is his job. I am also offended by the commentators who seem to feel that a few seconds of their time is worth another human life, because that is what this can come down to. This is not a game.

Please fellow motorists, exercise some patience and tolerance.

There are just too many drivers licensed by their states that lack the minimum skills, knowledge, judgment, attention span, and temperament to drive multi-ton high-speed vehicles in mixed traffic.

The effect of allowing nearly anybody to obtain a driver's license fosters the public's low expectations of the average driver performance. If you don't think this is true.. What are your expectations of commercial airline pilots and what is being done by their licensing authority ,the FAA, to ensure your expectations are met?

The officer quoted in this article is basically expressing this low expectation of drivers his state allows on the road. I have no doubt the officer's unwillingness to cite the driver is because he is quietly blaming the cyclist for placing himself in such an obviously hazardous environment.

The new laws passed like the 3 ft rule and others being proposed to protect cyclist are overdue, but to be effective people licensed to drive must be willing and able to following them. Until then the defense of "too ignorant or too ill-tempered drive safely" will continue to enjoy passive approval by the state when cyclist are involved.

I live on Lookout and am not the kind of person who is ever really in a hurry. Really. But being behind bikes scare me coming up the mountain -- I keep a car length between us. Two years a go I was behind a group of cyclists and on swerved and knocked into two others one fell down. I had enough time to stop but the guy behind me didn't, I got rear ended. I know the mountain is a beautiful ride (that is why I live here) but the ride up is really rough.

I've put thousands of cycling mile on many bikes.
for a time I trained with the US cycling sprint team.

roads are for cars.
when I cycled on the road I would literally ride the white line.
sometimes riding on whatever road surface there was between the white line and the shoulder.
when I would ride in the city I would ride in the space between moving traffic and parked cars.
intersections were handled wth extreme care.

cyclists today seem to have a sense of too much entitlement.
they are the ones who need to share the roads with the cars.
they are the ones who need to pick appropriate roads to cycle on.

What is the cause of danger on the roads?
Is a road dangerous?
No, a road is not dangerous in itself, unless it's likely to sink, curl up, or otherwise change without warning.
But aren't there are such things as "dangerous curves".
Well, people drive around such places, and don't have accidents. I've driven round them myself, and I got through safely. And I'd bet that if I sat there all day, the curve wouldn't rise up and bite my ass. So it's not dangerous in itself.

No.
What is dangerous about roads, curves, etc., is how the things that are on them get there, how they are being moved, and how they are being steered.

And isn't it true that if you are responsible for the thing moving, and control which way it moves, then you have a complete duty to take care of those things?

If I am on a road, moving or not, and someone else is close by, moving or not, then two things could happen.
Either the distance between us will remain the same, or it will not.
The only thing that can change that is a human being. The human being controls the movement of him or her-self.

You might deliberately move in such a way that you and/or your vehicle collides with another.
Did you know the other was there?
If you did not, then did the other suddenly without warning move and put itself in your way?
If so, you need to be more careful about such things that are likely to move into your way.
If you knew the other was there, then why did you not avoid it?

Don't we all know that cyclists can be injured if vehicles collide with them, or if they collide with vehicles?

If you are driving a vehicle, and you know there is a cyclist about, why would you move in such a way that it's more likely you would be involved in a collision with the cyclist?

If you're a cyclist, why would you put yourself in a situation where you might be involved in a collision with another road user?

Don't you think that each and every person who uses the road, in whichever way they use it, has a duty to take care?

Do you think that it's someone else's problem and you don't need to take care but you can use the road in any way you want?

How come I never see cyclists getting tickets for not staying on the far right or impeding the flow of traffic? Just b/c you ride a bike doesn't give you a sense of entitlement to the roads. No one wants to sit behind you going 2 mph as you huff and puff up Suck Creek Rd. not allowing cars to pass.

This debate could go on forever. There are inconsiderate people on both sides. I read a lot of good points on both. I have been on both sides of the spectrum. Most cops do not write tickets as long as you are legal.(license,insurance etc.) Most of the money from tickets goes to the state. Local govts. don't want to bother with the hassle. The only justice the bicyclist can hope for, is if he gets hit by an un-licensed driver with no insurance. The law is far more interested in revenue obtained through jailing people, than it is for safety. Even though they claim to pass laws for safety's sake. Today it's a small fine for violating the 3ft. law, tomorrow it's jail time. But that will be something for our granchildren to deal with. Big fines violate the eighth amendment(U.S.)but high court costs do not. What the future holds is; that it will one day be illegal to do anything. By that time it will be irreversible. Intolerance is what is taking your rights away. Awareness is what we should focus on, rather than who has the most rights to the highway.It's not always just about YOU.

Wow, just look at the comments. It's all about how cyclist are just a nuisance and that they shouldn't be allowed on the road, what a lark.

Well time to pick apart all the naysayers comments and spank them hard.

Quote: Mike 'Either ride bikes on roadways with a bike lane or ride in a car. It is that simple. The roadways were built for cars and trucks not bikes. The cars and trucks pay for the roadways in tags ( taxes ). Why do people have to ride their bikes on roadways built for motorized vehicles?
Bicycles are vehicles as well. They actually qualify as both pedestrian and vehicles at the same time legally. Roadways were built for transportation vehicle, the bicycle is a transportation vehicle, your point is moot. Time for you to go back to traffic school.

Quote: Guest 'I thought that is why great amounts of money was spent on sidewalks and parks? They even use their phones while peddling. Now whats wrong with this picture??'
Legally, you can't ride your bicycle on a sidewalk because it's the same as driving your car down the sidewalk. Yeah, no cops are writing tickets for it, but if you want to get picky, cyclist are bound to the road as much as the car or truck is. Some parks don't even allow you ride a bicycle in them, check the signs when you come in, you'll be surprised

Quote: quadwheels 'I'll gladly accept my ticket for the Three Foot Law when you start accepting yours for Blocking Traffic by traveling 40mph under the posted limit on two-lane roads with no shoulders and 12-foot deep ditches on either side.'
There is no law for that. Unless the speed minimum is posted on the road, the sign is meant as a speed maximum. A cyclist is much easier to pass than a car because the car is much wider. Even if you get a bunch of cyclist side by side, how is it any different than passing a car that's the same width? Too many posters here are really sticking their foot directly into their mouth. You all should have really thought out what you were going to post, it makes it so easy to discredit what you say as nonsense.

My $0.02 on the matter. The problem is a social problem. There are laws in place for cyclist to be passed safely, vehicles have more than enough HP to pass a cyclist. The only problem is the social problem. Motorist with the wrong attitude. Cyclist are not all innocent either, the same cyclist who flips you off if probably the same guy in the vehicle who cut you off in traffic. You all don't realize, it's one in the same. If you want less problems with cyclist, then please educate yourself on the laws and realize that cyclist are the same people you work with, go to church with, and are friends with. Once you realize that, you can leave banter behind. No one wants to get hit by a car and no one wants to be labeled a scum murderer for the rest of his/her life either.

Use common cortesy
Submitted by Guest (not verified) on March 25, 2009 - 6:48pm.
Obviously there can be extremes to both sides here. The fact remains the laws permit bicycles on public roads. Roads were actually originally built for horse and cart not cars and trucks, but that's not the point. I would think many incidents between cars and bicycles are usually due to lack of patience. I understand, 90% of the time I drive a car and whatever is slowing me down is frustating but what may seem ages to wait to safely pass may often only be 15-20 seconds! Is that really too long to wait to prevent accidents, I certainly don't think so. The right of way goes to the slower means of transportation. Power boats give way to sail boats and barges, that's the law. Bicycles, walkers, horse and cart if need be, should get the same respect from motorized vehicles.

I agree that cyclists should obey all traffic laws including red lights, which I've seen run by cyclists but not me. Also they should ride single file especially on busier roads. However riding in "the park" as many suggest is just not practical for everyone. Some people use their bike as transportation, others as an avid hobby and slowly pedaling around the park or river walk isn't their interest.

A huge part of the problem here is not the good, safe, law abiding motorists and cyclists, but those drivers who target bicyclists. They intentially throw bottles, buzz too close, etc. etc. just because they think it's funny or cool. These folk are the ones who need to brought to justice

I don't know anything about that, (that I hit someone on a bicycle). NOPE, that's a lousy excuse. My father taught me "ignorance of the law is no excuse"! (Ret. Hamilton Co. Assistant District Attorney 1968-1989) As a motorcycle rider I see people not paying attention to the roads all the time. They cut in front of US, pulling out in front of motorcycles from side streets...without even looking!!! Automobile drivers will just look, pay attention & most of all be courteous---sharing the road isn't going to kill or hurt you, or anyone else.

Either ride bikes on roadways with a bike lane or ride in a car. It is that simple. The roadways were built for cars and trucks not bikes. The cars and trucks pay for the roadways in tags ( taxes ). Why do people have to ride their bikes on roadways built for motorized vehicles? Why don't they pump gasoline with a lite cigarette in their mouth? Or pass baseball inside the house? Common sense should tell some people you can pass a Thirty foot law and the problem still exist. DUH!!! Why do people insist on giving away freedoms?
This is a right to chose just like seatbelts was until insurance stole it from us. Do we need to pass a law to not walk on the side of the roadway as well? Then we could pass a law that you have to stay in your car until a tow truck arrives. Where does it stop?

People need to wake up and think before giving away anymore of the precious few freedoms they have.

Bicycle riders should NOT be on certain roads period.There were a couple riding on Suck Creek road over the weekend and the woman was all over the road, if she needs to learn, let her put training wheels on and ride in the park. They think they own the road, and if car riders have to buckle up-then they should not be allowed to ride on public roads. I thought that is why great amounts of money was spent on sidewalks and parks? They even use their phones while peddling. Now whats wrong with this picture??

I'll take a ticket too when u start riding single file on the road instead of riding three wide where cars cant pass any way. There are people that stay on the side of the road with the bikes but there will always be some that want to ride side by side and leave cars no room to pass and won't move over for anyone, it makes all people on bicycles look bad. At least pick a road with a good shoulder or go to the park. Riding on Birchwood Pike is not safe, kind of stupid really!

I think it should be illegal to even ride a bicycle on public roads. They are nothing but traffic hazards. They ride in a lane where cars are traveling 35-55mph. Cars have to stop to avoid hitting them & risk being hit in the rear, or cross into on-coming traffic to get around them. Go to the park.

Sidewalks, River Walk, State Parks are good viable options for cyclist. The person in the vehicle should have given more room. I am thankful no one was seriously hurt, maybe consider swallowing your pride, move on, life is too short to dwell on what could've happened.

I'll gladly accept my ticket for the Three Foot Law when you start accepting yours for Blocking Traffic by traveling 40mph under the posted limit on two-lane roads with no shoulders and 12-foot deep ditches on either side.