skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

New Calif. Law Adds 3-Foot Protection For Cyclists But Will It Make San Diego Roads Safe Enough?

Evening Edition

Aired 2/4/14 on KPBS Midday Edition.

GUESTS:

Andy Hanshaw, Executive Director of the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition

Mark McCullough, Traffic Officer with the San Diego Police Department

Finding a safe way for bikes to share the road with cars is one of the greatest challenges facing San Diego transportation.

This city was built for fast moving car traffic. The city of San Diego bike master plan points out that bike collisions are more than twice as likely to be fatal in San Diego than in the nation as a whole.

Changes are being made to the law and to some road infrastructure. Beginning in September, California law will require drivers to be 3 feet away from a bicyclist's handlebars or shoulders while passing on the road. Violators of The Three Foot For Safety Act will face fines of between $35 and $250.

Will the new law make San Diego cyclists feel safer? Make them more welcome on the roads?

Comments

Avatar for user 'commus'

commus | February 4, 2014 at 1:51 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Yet another prejudiced bike panel with absolutely no representation of the motoring public whose gas taxes pay for those roads.
The moderator is even prejudiced dragging out his sob story of being hit but no mention of his position in traffic. Brought out over and over. Hey! Where is the official police record of the accident?
He soft pedals the records showing how many bike traffic violations there are.
Not a single word about bikers being required to register their vehicles, provide financial responsibility, provide proof of fitness to operate a bike and lknowledge of rules of the road or operator licensing.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Derek'

Derek | February 4, 2014 at 3:05 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Commus, if gas taxes pay for the roads, how do you explain the TransNet sales tax that helps build our freeways?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'RyanD'

RyanD | February 4, 2014 at 3:29 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Commus,

Most people who commute on a bike also own cars, who buy gas, and pay taxes, which pays for said roads.

"provide financial responsibility" - on what?

Proof of fitness, to ride a bike? Seriously? What's next, proof of being able to type a sentence with correct grammar on the internet - before actually typing a sentence with correct grammar on the internet?

I can get behind some of your comments about how cyclists should know rules of the road and getting fined for moving violations, but otherwise, I feel like your comment is short sighted. The main point here is that the legislation is supposed to help protect cyclists from cars who pass them too closely. I ride as defensively as I drive, but that still doesn't stop some idiot who feels superior in his aluminum box by almost hitting me because he can, while speeding off shortly thereafter.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 4, 2014 at 3:43 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

RD "I ride as defensively as I drive, but that still doesn't stop some idiot who feels superior in his aluminum box by almost hitting me because he can, while speeding off shortly thereafter."

Please note that the legislation discussed does not prevent this either.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'sdreefer21'

sdreefer21 | February 4, 2014 at 4:14 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

The rule of physics should always be respected regardless of the law. A law doesn't mean shoot if you get taken out by a texting driver. I think motorists and bicyclists can share our roads. But when i see the same lame bike crew three wide on a 35 mph street outside of the bike lane I feel like they are really bringing down all those who obey the bike lane. It seems I see more people on bikes creating a hazard to themselves by being oblivious in conversation. Just as those cell phone drivers pose a hazard to those who are riding. My point is lug nuts will always prevail. This law while nice on paper means jack shoot on the road.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'janwhitt'

janwhitt | February 4, 2014 at 7:44 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

I'm all for people biking and even getting to work with their bikes but this sounds like it's going to cause more accidents among motorists as they try to swerve around cyclists in order to prevent a ticket!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'PedalPusher'

PedalPusher | February 4, 2014 at 9:44 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

enforced by what means? a patrol car with a yardstick attached to the right rearview mirror? this is just anther ill-planned mockery of our justice/civil system. then theres the argument in court, "Your honor, i was certainly over the 3 foot distance by at least a good quarter of an inch!". these laws are just another stupid waste of paper, talk and taxpayer time and money.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'nias'

nias | February 4, 2014 at 10:52 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

The 3ft rule could be a problem in carlsbad. The city widened the bike lanes to give bikers more room for safety and the car lanes are now skinnier. Worse, the bikers constantly overflow outside their lanes near the beach as it is. Now I see them 3 abreast regularly at times more. They do this as though it is their right to overflow into the car lanes. With the skinnier lanes there is less room for error. Much less 3ft. But I guess all traffic could slow to bike speed to accommodate them. Someone should set up a camera so we can see how common this is on weekends particularly. I am for biking and its positives but there are plenty of dumb bikers making dumb decisions. They drive cars too and make the same dumb decisions drivers do.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'x76'

x76 | February 5, 2014 at 7:30 a.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

This is the kind of planning you do BEFORE YOU BUILD A CITY. Trying to retrofit bike lanes by changing where the paint stripes are on a road is absurd, it's just laughable. On "Camino del Norte" near where I live they resurfaced it and then re-striped it, with bike lanes stuffed into the road. It's insane.

A few decades back, before this rabbit warren community was slapped together, THAT would have been the time to PLAN for bike paths and pedestrian walkways. As it is, both are afterthoughts. The whole area was slapped up as fast as possible without any imagination that I can discern. So we're trying to fix that somehow by changing the paint stripes on the roads? If this was a comedy, I'd love it. Otherwise...

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'commus'

commus | February 5, 2014 at 12:06 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

No Derek TransNet is for regional transportation and environment. It is 1/2 cent/percent as opposed to 50-60% fuel taxes.

RyanD - so you care to be financially irresponsible for any damage you cause on your bike. You make a stupid move in traffic and cause harm to others but what? You run away as has been accused of drivers here? I have seen just as many boneheaded moves by bikers in traffic and their only response was an extended finger.
Yes proof of fitness. I have seen enough idiots wobbling down the streets. Proof of knowledge of rules of the road. As was attested to by SDPD in the interview. The majority of tickets are bikers riding the wrong way. What else don't they know? Try traffic limit lines. Riding in pedestrian walks. Riding thru red lights. Riding on the white line.

Finally Ryan the trouble is your law creates a privileged class. It protects bikers who claim they are so badly wronged? No matter what they are doing yet nothing protects the motorist or even the pedestrian from the biker. When there is requirement for financial responsibility, proof of operator fitness to operate, licensing of bikes (abolished this year) and wheel taxes to pay for their privileged road areas there is total inequality and laws that are totally unfair.

Almost forgot those huge icons on the streets.. Now your bikers also feel that they own the WHOLE STREET.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'wpstoll'

wpstoll | February 5, 2014 at 12:42 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Talk about a privileged class! It is the province of entitled drivers to behave as if they own the whole street. What are militant drivers but entitled elitists? My advice is to get over your bigoted prejudices and show a little compassion for vulnerable road users. Drive as if your children were cycling or walking nearby. Show some compassion instead of reflecting the violence inherent in today's brutal society. Drivers and cyclists - I challenge you to be kind, connected, and unafraid. Those who choose to reject the dominant transportation paradigm in favor of adopting a more sustainable and healthy model should be praised and encouraged for their insightful and current contributions to the betterment of our built environment. The vanguard is first ignored, then laughed at, then viciously attacked. After that stage, they win!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 5, 2014 at 12:54 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

@commus: Be honest. You've never read a single road funding budget have you?

I have read several.

Fact 1: Fuel taxes go primarily to state and federal highways. City and county maintained roads get little if any money from fuel taxes.

Fact 2: Registration fees don't even come close to being enough to paying for local roads.

Fact 3: The majority of money for local roads comes from general fund taxes that everyone pays; especially sales and property taxes.

Fact 4: Even state and federal highways get some of their money from general fund taxes. The federal fuel tax, $0.183/gallon has not been raised since 1993. Do you think that the costs of building and maintaining roads has not risen since then?

Bicycles don't have to be registered.

Bicyclists don't have to be licensed, though the vast overwhelming majority of adult riders are also licensed drivers.

Bicyclists aren't any worse about obeying the law than motorists are.

Ignorance is not as good as knowledge.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 5, 2014 at 1:03 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

@sdreefer21: I often get told to get in the bike lane but it's almost never when there is an actual bike lane on the road a the time. Many people think that shoulders are bike lanes. They are not. Some people even seem to think that the right edge of a travel lane is a bike lane. It is not. Bike lanes are defined in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Part 9 and California Streets and Highways Code 890.4. They need white lines and signs and/or symbols designating them as bike lanes and they have to meet minimum width standards.

If there is a bike lane and I'm not in it, it's because there is some safety reason or I'm making a left turn. CVC 21208(a)(4) exempts bicyclists from the requirement to ride in bike lanes when approaching a place where a right turn is authorized. That includes driveways. CVC 21208(a)(3) exempts bicyclists from the requirement to ride in bike lanes to avoid hazards. Doors which could open from parked cars are a hazard.

Nobody is more territorial and petty than someone who gets upset when they see a bicyclist outside of a bike lane. It pretty much shows that bike lanes exist primarily for the convenience of motorists who can't bear the thought of changing lanes for a lowly sub-human bicyclist.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 5, 2014 at 1:06 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

@janwhitt: If you get into a collision because you "swerved over" to avoid a bicyclist, then you are 100% at fault. You are required by law and ostensibly taught in driver's education that you have to make sure that you move over safely. If you can't move over safely then you have to slow down until you can move over safely. It's easy. It's not rocket science.

If you don't know how to do this safely then you need to go back to driving school and learn how to drive.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 5, 2014 at 1:11 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

@commus: Bicyclists can't do anything close to the damage that cars do. You talk about liability but the reality is that when bicyclists do damage, it tends to be less than most deductibles.

The keep right rule has exceptions and the exceptions detailed in CVC 21202(a)(3) and (a)(4) occur so frequently that bicyclists can usually use the full lane.

It's pretty clear that you think that the road is the exclusive territory of motorists. The law says that it is also the territory of bicyclists. You're supposed to know that. Maybe you're the one who needs to go to school to learn the rules of the road.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'sdreefer21'

sdreefer21 | February 5, 2014 at 2:09 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

VC 21654 (b) states all slow moving vehicles shall be as close to the right as possible. It could be said that riding three abreast in a traffic lanes violates this part of the law. A car is always gonna win in an accident no matter what this law states.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 5, 2014 at 4:23 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

@sdreffer21: "21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway."

First off, it says "in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb". If the road has lanes then CVC 21654 only requires slow traffic to travel the right hand lane. It does not require riding on the right edge of the right hand lane. If you think it does, then you need to learn what the word "or" means in the English language.

Secondly, the word "practicable" does not mean the same thing as the word "possible", no matter how much you wish that it did. It is often unsafe to ride on the edge of the lane. Riding unsafely is not practicable. Again, maybe your command of the English language is suspect.

Third, taking up the whole lane actually makes a collision FAR less likely because it makes the bicyclists far more visible and makes it clear that overtaking motorists have to change lanes to pass. Changing lanes to pass is FAR safer than passing within the same lane.

Fourth, the League of American Bicyclists, Cycling Savvy, Effective Cycling, Cyclecraft, Bicycling Street Smarts and pretty much every bicycle safety organization, book and teacher teaches that it's safer to take up the lane than to encourage passing in the same lane. There are the teachings of real experts on bicycle safety and there are the opinions of people who've never applied any kind of rigorous analysis to the issues and are just making excuses to not suffer the trivial inconvenience of moving over to pass.

What's your next excuse for not moving over to pass a bicyclist going to be? I'm ready. I know the CVC inside out.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 5, 2014 at 9:29 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

This article contains a nice interactive flash animation that demonstrates some of the reasons why it's often unsafe for bicyclist to ride far right:

http://cyclingsavvy.org/hows-my-driving/

It's from Florida, but Florida's laws regarding bicyclists are mostly the same as California's.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DonWood'

DonWood | February 5, 2014 at 10:30 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

San Diego County needs a bike path network that is separate from paved highways and streets. There is no reason people should be forced to risk their lives traveling roads with drivers of two ton cars and trucks who are drunk, drugged or distracted by talking or texting on their cell phones if they want to ride a bicycle. Either create separate bike lanes parallel to existing streets with a curb separating motor vehicles from bikes, or create a separate bike path network that lets you ride a bike from one part of the county to others without sharing a road with cars, busses and trucks. That is how enlightened cities in Europe do it, and there's no reason we can't, if the SANDAG board members were in bed with freeway construction contractors and sprawl developers.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 5, 2014 at 11:29 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

@DonWood: Denmark has those "separated" facilities and they are finding that they don't work as well as you think. Fatalities are low but collisions are still high because those facilities aren't really separated. They still have crossing conflicts at every intersection and driveway. Learning how to ride safely does a better job.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 5, 2014 at 11:29 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

@DonWood: Denmark has those "separated" facilities and they are finding that they don't work as well as you think. Fatalities are low but collisions are still high because those facilities aren't really separated. They still have crossing conflicts at every intersection and driveway. Learning how to ride safely does a better job.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'sdreefer21'

sdreefer21 | February 6, 2014 at 11:02 a.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Your blinded by your passion for your sport. If it is unsafe to ride to the far right because you choose improper tires or the road conditions you face in san diego arent suited to a road bike that is a personal choice. Cars will always outnumber you, and you will find the majority of them are annoyed by large groups slowing them up. That's the reality of the situation whether it be roght or wrong. Its never going to change. You can spout all the laws and bike clubs thoughts you want. Cars will always rule the road. When bikes rule the road things might change. But that isnt happening anytime soon.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'wpstoll'

wpstoll | February 6, 2014 at 12:04 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

"Passion for sport" has absolutely nothing to do with getting to and from work. When you assert that "cars will always rule the road" you are suggesting that drivers are able to flout the law with impunity. This is becoming less and less the case as our ship of a legal system slowly rights its course to aggressively defend vulnerable road users. More and more drivers who carelessly or aggressively injure others on the roads are facing serious legal and civil penalties that may restrict their driving privileges and deplete their finances. If I were you, and I assume by your posts that you tend to act out your aggressive fantasies while behind the wheel of your steel cage, I would drive cautiously around people who might be injured by your entitled carelessness. Finally, ability to write properly in English goes a long way toward achieving credibility. The first word of your last post should be the contraction "you're" (you + are), not the possessive pronoun "your."

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 6, 2014 at 12:32 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

@sdreefer: You are blinded by your ignorance of bicycle and road safety and your delusion that you are entitled to not share the road with bicyclists.

I didn't refer to any bike clubs. I referred to bicycle safety organizations and books.

Riding far right is usually unsafe because it makes bicyclists less likely to be noticed by overtaking drivers, it sets up unsafe small clearances and it sets up dangerous crossing conflicts. It has nothing to do with tires.

Your annoyance is due to the fact that you have an expectation of not having to move over to pass bicyclists safely. That is an unreasonable expectation given what the law actually says and the reality of how bicyclists need to ride in order to be safe.

What is so difficult about moving over to pass a bicyclist safely? Why do you get more annoyed by having to do that than you do if you have to move over to pass a bus or any other slow traffic on the road?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'wpstoll'

wpstoll | February 6, 2014 at 2:41 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

We are dealing with simple bigotry here. This time it's not based on cultural or religious differences or even skin color or facial shape. In this instance it is due to transportation choice and the tendency and will to use a chosen transportation tool as a weapon for intimidation. It is this kind of simian chest beating that confirms our genetic similarity to the great apes. Hateful bigoted anonymous posts amount to sublimated poo-flinging.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 6, 2014 at 5:48 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

It is indeed a case of prejudice and elitism. People who have a problem with bikes on the road believe that they have a superior right to use the road and that bicyclists have less or no right to use the road. They don't care what the law says on the matter, especially when they find out that it doesn't support their delusions of entitlement.

Notice the arguments about who pays for the roads. It's an attempt to lay exclusive claim to a shared public right of way. By exclusive, I mean excluding bicyclists, again, regardless of what the law says.

They try to make arguments about safety, even though they've never spent 5 minutes studying bicycle safety and so they know nothing about it.

They try to make arguments about the law, even though in most cases they haven't read the law and even when they try to read it, they fail to comprehend even simple words like "or".

They do all of this because for some reason that I do not understand, they can't handle moving over to pass a bicycle safely or in rare cases, slowing down until they can move over to pass. It's the most trivial inconvenience in all of driving. When I'm driving, I am inconvenienced far more often and for far greater time losses by other motorists.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'VossDefrin'

VossDefrin | February 7, 2014 at 8:24 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Just started reading this with no strong opinion either way. I don't want to see any bicyclists ran over. I'm fine with them doing their thing. Some of the chicks have nice a$$es in that tight lycra! That's the danger- you're cruising along, and WHOA! Dam! Look at that! Next thing you know you're (hope my grammar is correct Prof. wpstoll) in the other lane. What offsets that is the next Lance Armstrong wannabee in HIS tight Lycra. That's just nasty, bros. Too much information! Rockin' the Oakley blades, shirt unzipped flowing behind him. All logoed up, legs pumpin, clicking through precision gears on a bike more expensive than a lot of people's cars. It's pretty awesome if you like spotting dbags and kooks to get a good laugh. Whatever though, to each his own. Dope your blood and go for the gold!
Can any of you legal aces here tell me what the law is when you see a pack of like 10-15 of these cats riding down the middle of a backcountry road 4 wide? Some of them are definitely using performance enhancers because they are just oblivious to the world. They don't give a $hat if they are in your way. Is it legal to simulate the Tour De France on the road? Just tonight I passed a dude riding his bike in the dark with no lights! The guy in front of me came sooo close to tagging him. The bike dude got pissed and flipped him off which made him swerve his bike into the lane as I passed him (three feet away exactly). Totally sketchy scene. Oh by the way, if you do ride out in the backcountry, be careful flipping bird at hillbillies. A few years ago some methhead got the one finger salute from a bike rider. Crank smoker made a uie in his lifted truck and came back to run the poor guy over I'm pretty sure he's in prison now but there are plenty more like him. No joke, be careful. The law of man protects you on paper, but the laws of physics still apply in the lifted prerunner driving tweaker vs athlete/carbon fiber/titanium bike scenario.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'VossDefrin'

VossDefrin | February 7, 2014 at 8:24 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Seriously though, it would suck to see someone get hit. I always try to give them plenty of space. If it's a blind corner, slow down and wait. Not a major inconvenience, it's part of driving, deal with it. What makes me most nervous are the riders who just climbed a grade and are out of shape. I saw one guy that was passing out. He swerved his bike out into the center of the road, crossed a double yellow, then abruptly swerved back the other way way too far into the shoulder where he lost it in the dirt and crashed. I pulled up to him and asked if he was alright, and he yelled at me. He was all "mind your own business,man". What's the law regarding a bicyclist who is not in control of himself or bike and swerves into oncoming traffic? Pretty scary, super bummer if he got hit but I'd also feel bad for the driver who had to live with that.
Oh yeah, some of you bike guys sound like crazies on here. Getting way too psycho-analytic about other commenters, calling people bigots and stuff. Bashing a dude for not using "your" right. C'mon, lighten up. Go ride your bikes and chill.
DonWoods- best idea about this whole situation. That would be rad if we had a a world class bike-only network in San Diego. Build like cool bridges and tunnels. Make banked velodrome speed- corners on some giant downhill run. It would be sick!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 7, 2014 at 10:39 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

California has no law prohibiting bicyclists from riding side by side. Most of those winding country roads have lanes which are too narrow for a bicycle and a car to travel safely side by side within the lane. CVC 21202(a)(3) says that when that is the case, then bicyclists are under no obligation whatsoever to ride far right. The reason is that it's safer for them to take up the whole lane because when they ride far right in narrow lanes, motorists tend to pass dangerously close and sometimes hit bicyclists. In the middle of the lane, motorists are forced to slow down and find a safe place to pass. In other words, it's the same thing as if you came up behind a tractor on a winding country road. They often have maximum speeds in the same range as bicyclists.

Most safety experts recommend an absolute minimum of 14 foot wide lanes for cars and bikes to share side by side. Texas and Florida even have that 14 foot width in their laws. Winding country roads almost never have lanes more than 12 feet wide and many are narrower than that.

I've driven roads like that plenty and in practice, it usually doesn't take long to find a safe place to pass. The relatively low speeds of bicycles, especially up hill means that most cars can pass them very quickly once there's an opening with adequate visibility and clearance. It's very rare to have to wait for more than a few seconds for a safe place to pass.

Out of control is bad. That guy that yelled at you after he crashed was probably extremely embarrassed and upset about crashing and didn't want to talk to anyone. Riding at night without lights is bad. I once flagged down an unlit night rider and gave him some lights.

The word "bigot" is appropriate. Some people will move over to pass any slow traffic as long as it isn't a bicycle. They will move over for a bus or a garbage truck or a loaded 18 wheeler or a cement truck. As long as it's a motor vehicle it's OK. They have a double standard when it's a bicycle though. They refuse to move over on multi-lane roads even though it's easy and they would move over for someone operating a motor vehicle in the same situation. It's based solely on the fact that it's someone on a bicycle and nothing else. It's not based upon the law which they don't understand. It's not based upon safety which they also don't understand. How is it not bigotry?

I'm just fine with riding on the road. I've studied bicycle safety from some of the top bicycle safety experts in the country. What protects me is making sure that drivers see me and don't have any illusions that they can just barely squeeze by me, and recognizing and staying out of dangerous crossing conflicts which are what cause most collisions. Too many of these separated facilities have to be shared with pedestrians which does not work. Too many set up dangerous crossing conflicts at driveways and intersections.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 9, 2014 at 3:18 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Here are some tips on bike safety and sharing the road with bicyclists from the California DMV:

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffdl37.htm

Taking a safety class from the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition would be even better if you really want to understand bicycle safety.

http://www.sdcbc.org/adult-bicyclist-education.html

Here is a series of interactive flash animations illustrating a variety of bicycle safety concepts:

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/animations/

Knowledge is better than ignorance.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'commus'

commus | February 9, 2014 at 9:08 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Yes VossDefrin yoou have hit the nail on the head. we seem to have a group of elitist web bullies who have no tolerance for the experience of others. They refuse to believe that there should be any kind of responsibility. But this is exactly the attitude you experienced with the irresponsible biker on the road. When anything is pointed out to any of them their most civil response is an uplifted finger.

Your points are well noted billsd but with the hostility and judgmental attitude you show toward all indicating that no biker has ever made a mistake. I can assure you that over 50 years of vehicle operation (I am sure you will find some way to twist that fact) has left me with enough observations of bike operators and their carelessness to assure you that financial responsibility is needed. Yes you can do a lot of damage with your bike. If your carelessness leads to accidents by motorists you are liable. If you damage a car you are liable and I challenge you to share the cost of repairing a 2 foot long scratch in a car fender. Try over $2,000.00. If you hit one of your fellow bikers how much of medical bills and replacement of those expensive carbide framed bikes?

To you and RyanD I see enough bikers on a daily basis that prove total ignorance of rules of the road and carelessness. That was proven by the SDPD officer on the show that indicated that many of the tickets written to bikers are for riding the wrong way. Licensing...darn right! Again without it you are an elite group. Just as with vehicle operation it is a privileged NOT A RIGHT. In spite of your attitudes.

If "bigot" is appropriate here then it is pointed in the wrong direction. By definition "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.". Unless you apply it as one who is critical or one who desires that others not have a privileged status. Or is it simply used because it might be used to smear others when logic cannot be used on someone who has shown absolutely nothing but constructive criticism. Nowhere did I say you should be removed from the roads I simply reflected a leveling of the playing field which has led to a nasty smear.

You are your won worst enemy.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 9, 2014 at 11:51 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

@commus: Nope. You are the one that is twisting people's words.

I never said that no bicyclist has ever done anything wrong. You made that straw man.

I don't have a problem with 99.9% of motorists. I have a problem with the people who try to deny me the right to ride a bicycle safely on the road according to both the law and the best safety practices recommended by the top bicycle safety experts in the country including the League of American Bicyclists, Cycling Savvy, Effective Cycling, Cyclecraft and Bicycling Street Smarts.

Back here in reality, a bicyclist can't come close to doing anything remotely like the damage that a car can. Your contrive examples are silly and not in any way based in reality.

Your complaints about bicyclists breaking the rules are simply an excuse to rationalize your general hatred of all bicyclists, including those like me, who actually do obey the rules of the road.

You whine about bicyclists as if they are the only ones breaking the rules or they are the real danger on the road. 34,000 deaths per year due to motorists and over 2 million seriously injured by motorists tells a much different story. You see so much law breaking by motorists that you filter it out and don't even notice it. I see massive numbers of drivers speeding and failing to signal and making unsafe lane changes. Try standing on the corner of Beech and India St and count how many cars actually come to a complete stop at the stop signs. It's even a favorite stop sign enforcement spot for SDPD but still they roll stop signs constantly.

Most of the bicyclists who are riding against traffic know it's against the law but they do it anyway because they incorrectly believe that it is safer. I can assure you that I've spent far more time arguing with wrong way bicyclists than you have.

Most adult bicyclists are already licensed drivers. What's next? Licensing pedestrians?

Insurance companies don't offer bicycle liability insurance for a reason. They've run the numbers and it doesn't make financial sense for them. Most of the cost would be overhead. Bicyclists usually do damage that is less than most deductibles. Damage is caused by force and force is equal to mass times acceleration. Motorists have dramatically more mass and significantly more acceleration which is why they are so much more dangerous.

You don't want to level the playing field. You simply want to punish bicyclists for existing and that is why you are trying so hard to spread hatred for people who are not like you. That is your motivation for wanting licensing. That is your motivation for wanting insurance. You can try to pretend that it isn't but you are transparent.
(continued)

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 9, 2014 at 11:51 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago


Motor vehicle operation is a privilege, not a right. Riding a bicycle on the road is a right. That's why it doesn't require a license. Motorists earned their licensing requirements and insurance requirements through massive amounts of carnage over the course of decades.

Bicyclists on the road are not a problem. They are not causing massive numbers of injuries and deaths. They are not causing massive amounts of property damage. Motorists prove their danger to others every single day. Their massive daily carnage is well documented.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'commus'

commus | February 10, 2014 at 8:47 a.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

What percentage of the commuting miles are cars as opposed to bikes?
How many killed/injured on foot, horse and wagon/buggy, auto, bike?
How many bike injuries are only the bike or another bike and how many are untrained irresponsible?
If biking is a right then why is there a section of CVC ((worshipped by some here...pro bikers) regulating bikes?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 10, 2014 at 11:11 a.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

California Vehicle Code 21200(a) says that bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as the drivers of vehicles with respect to Division 11 of the CVC and certain other sections which it explicitly names. CVC Division 11, Chapter 1, Article 4 covers most of the bicycle specific laws.

It's a right because it does not require licensing. You can't revoke a license that doesn't exist. Privileges can be revoked. Rights, not so much. Having a right to use the road doesn't mean that there are no rules. You have a right to free speech but you don't have a right to yell fire in a crowded theater (unless there actually is a fire) or threaten the president.

I don't understand your question about percentage of commuting miles. If you're really paying attention to bicyclists on the roads, you'll notice that most bicyclists are in fact commuters. Most of them are effectively invisible to the average motorist. Most motorists do their best to pretend that bicyclists don't exist which is why the #1 thing that motorists say when they hit bicyclists is "I didn't see (him/her/them)". A lot of the riders who you probably think are recreational are also commuters. If you see someone on a racing bike, wearing spandex but also a back pack, they are almost certainly a commuter. I tend to like to commute on my racing bike and I keep clothes at the office so that I don't have to carry them on my commute. Most people seeing me would think that I am not commuting, unless it's raining in which case I'm on my touring bike with fenders and wearing rain gear and tend to look much more like I'm commuting.

Over 4000 pedestrians per year are killed by motorists in the U.S. according to the NHTSA. I can't find stats on bicyclists killing pedestrians because it's so rare. When a bicyclist kills a pedestrian it tends to be big news though, again because it is so rare. Based upon news reports (which I follow), it seems to be about 1-3 per year and most of the victims are elderly or otherwise in fragile health such that they die from complications that would not kill a normal healthy adult. A bicyclist killing a pedestrians is basically a freak occurrence. A motorist killing a pedestrian is so common that most don't make the news. You have to wait for NHTSA statistics to come out to find out how common it is.

Most bicyclists do not have bicycle safety training in spite of the fact that there are League of American Bicyclists safety instructors all over the U.S. and Cycling Savvy instructors in several major metropolitan areas. Most people think that they understand bicycle safety (especially anti-cyclists who ironically, never do) but they don't. In spite of this, bicyclists actually do pretty good safety wise. Only about 600-700 bicyclists die per year on the roads of the U.S. Over 28,000 motorists die on the road every year (NHTSA).

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'commus'

commus | February 10, 2014 at 6:43 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

"It's a right because it does not require licensing. You can't revoke a license that doesn't exist. Privileges can be revoked."

You must be registered to vote even if it is at the time of voting but it is a right that cannot be revoked. Your logic makes no sense.

"I don't understand your question about percentage of commuting miles. "

Figures do not lie liars figure.

"If you're really paying attention to bicyclists on the roads, you'll notice that most bicyclists are in fact commuters."

And this is based on what? I sit in my business every day and see hundreds of them and not a single one appears to be commuting. I guess you are the one here making untrue assumptions again. I do not see a single one with a back pack. The 1 o 2 I see a week are cross country bikers. Prove your "facts".

"Most motorists do their best to pretend that bicyclists don't exist which is why the #1 thing that motorists say when they hit bicyclists is "I didn't see (him/her/them)"."

Try again. The biker is much more invisible than the motorcyclist. All it takes to conceal you is a telephone pole, shrub or low tree.

"Over 4000 pedestrians per year are killed by motorists in the U.S. according to the NHTSA."

Then i suggest that you read this article from New York City

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/study-finds-higher-number-of-pedestrians-hurt-by-bikes/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Notice the information abut the unreported casualties from pedestrian/bike accidents not reported?

"Most people think that they understand bicycle safety (especially anti-cyclists who ironically, never do) but they don't."

Wrong you are talking about your cyclists..NOT drivers. Once you are on the bike you are no longer one of the drivers. If so they You sir are just as guilty as those you malign.

"Only about 600-700 bicyclists die per year on the roads of the U.S. Over 28,000 motorists die on the road every year (NHTSA)."

Again how many commuting miles do bikers ride a year as opposed to autos. What is the ratio for each group? According to your NTHSA auto accident rates are about 1.06 per 100,000,000 vehicle miles. (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811845.pdf)

" Only about 600-700 bicyclists die per year on the roads of the U.S."

Again that is how many per biking mile?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 10, 2014 at 8:50 p.m. ― 9 months, 3 weeks ago

Again, you're just making things up because you don't pay attention to bicyclists unless they force you to. Where is your business? Even in particularly recreational spots like 101 through Del Mar and Solana Beach I see plenty of commuters but then I'm actually looking for them all the time.

I look for bicyclists because it's a subject that I actually care about. I see commuters everywhere. I worked downtown for years and I saw very few downtown who didn't look like commuters. I see bike commuters everywhere. I can't help it if you're not paying attention.

You say: "You must be registered to vote even if it is at the time of voting but it is a right that cannot be revoked."

I've read that 3 times and your sentence makes no sense. It's gibberish.

Let me see if I can break it down for you on bikes:

1. Bicyclists have had a legal right to use the roads since bicycles were invented in 1863.
2. Bicyclists have never been required to have an operator's license.
3. You can't take away their bicycle operator's license because it doesn't exist. Riding a bike on the road is a right.

As for motorists:

1. Motorists have been required to have an operator's license since around 1913 in California if I recall correctly.
2. Mandatory licensing came about for motorists because they were killing thousands of people even back then.
3. Licenses can be revoked because operating a motor vehicle is a privilege which is predicated upon your ability to operate that vehicle safely on the roads.

In any case, most adult bicyclists already have driver's licenses and know the rules of the road as well as most motorists, which isn't saying much since most motorists have a limited awareness of the rules of the road. Driving tests are far too easy.

NYC is unusual in that pedestrian traffic is dramatically larger in both numbers and percentages than any other city in the U.S. Riding on the sidewalk is illegal there but many do it anyway due to the fear of cars. Notice that that story doesn't talk about pedestrians being killed and it also notes that more pedestrians are seriously injured by cars. From that blog, 70,000 injured and hundreds killed in NYC alone by motorists. It's been years since a pedestrian was killed in NYC by a bicyclist. The numbers don't even come close to being comparable.

You clearly have a big problem with bicyclists. When I drive, bicyclists are by far the least of my problems. Motorists cause me most of the headaches I have while driving, followed by traffic controls, followed by pedestrians. You're focused on the least of your problems and ignoring much bigger issues. You're acting like an occasional trivial inconvenience is a major problem. You're grasping at straws for any excuse to support your hatred.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'commus'

commus | February 11, 2014 at 5:51 p.m. ― 9 months, 2 weeks ago

"Again, you're just making things up because you don't pay attention to bicyclists unless they force you to. Where is your business?"

Interesting as I see nothing but that in everything you post. Including your total belief that your unsubstantiated claims that certainly would make you too old to be physically able to commute on a bike.

The question about where I work is out of line too.

"I've read that 3 times and your sentence makes no sense. It's gibberish."

I am sorry for you if you cannot comprehend case logic. You address a right based on whether there is a requirement to register just as voting is. It is "gibberish" only when you cannot comprehend your failed premise.

In 1863 horses and wagons were on the streets and killed many yet they were never licensed.

"bicycles were invented in 1863" wrong Walking Machi8ne 1817, Velocipede 1865, High Wheel Bicycle 1870,

"Bicyclists have never been required to have an operator's license."

Why not!!! You have never given a single good reason other than some convoluted logic about what you call "rights".

"Mandatory licensing came about for motorists because they were killing thousands of people even back then." Proof please.

"Licenses can be revoked because operating a motor vehicle is a privilege which is predicated upon your ability to operate that vehicle safely on the roads."

And all bicyclists are so perfect? There are enough personal observations on this discussion alone to indicate that is not true.

"In any case, most adult bicyclists already have driver's licenses and know the rules of the road as well as most motorists, which isn't saying much since most motorists have a limited awareness of the rules of the road."

1. Then why are motorcyclists required a different test?

2. So motorists are ignorant...most bikers are motorists...so your criticisms of motorists point right back to a majority of bikers riding an unstable 2 wheel vehicle. But you make them elite with no requirement for proof of ability.

"You clearly have a big problem with bicyclists."

As do most motorists who know that the biker can pull all sorts of boneheaded stunts and expect...no demand, just as you do, that the motorist compensate for it.

"You're grasping at straws for any excuse to support your hatred."

My straws as you call them are direct from your sources that you read with prejudice.

Yep there you go again with your smear tactics. Just 3 words ... you don't know me.
You just tag everyone who does not go along with you as a hater.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 11, 2014 at 11:15 p.m. ― 9 months, 2 weeks ago

I understand actual logic just fine. Your disjointed disconnected thoughts can be tough to follow.

My claims are pretty easy to verify with a little research, not to mention actually observing how things work in the real world. You seem to be incapable of either.

Registering to vote is not in any way like licensing. You don't pay to register. You don't have to pass a test. You just have to be a citizen of proper age without convictions for certain crimes.

I don't consider it a bicycle until it has pedals. In 1817 there were no pedals on the draisine. In 1863 two french inventors put pedals on a two wheeler and that was the first bicycle and their claims are documented. There is one claim from Scotland that purports to be before that but the claim was made years later by the inventor's son and it is not well documented and so many consider it suspect. Your two other dates are after 1863.

Why not? Because bicyclists don't have the carnage statistics to justify a license requirement. They particularly don't have the numbers for injuring others. You try to pretend that they do but they just don't.

As for how drivers came to be licensed, have you done any research on this whatsoever? I've read several articles stating that. There were actually some fairly big anti-car movements in the early 20th century due to their massive carnage.

I am a trained vehicular cyclist. If you have to do anything on the road because of me, you have a long time to react to me. You'll see me signal before making any lateral move. You'll see me stop at stop signs and wait at red lights. Of course, you assume that because I am a bicyclist that I do boneheaded stunts on the road. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Back here in reality, I've driven about 750,000 miles in my life and I never seem to have difficulty dealing with bicyclists on the road. I can only guess at why you do. I expect that it's because you aren't really paying attention to the road and you somehow expect bicyclists to not be there and you're shocked when there's suddenly one in front of you. Bicyclists don't shock me. They don't surprise me. They are easy to avoid.

You're the one reading with prejudice. You are full of hate for people who are not like you.

Bicyclists also tend not to be responsible for this sort of carnage:

https://www.google.com/#q=head+on+collision&tbm=nws&tbs=qdr:d

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 11, 2014 at 11:26 p.m. ― 9 months, 2 weeks ago

Here's a book about the history of fighting the dangers of cars, though it starts at around 1915. I know I've read stuff that was about this problem from even earlier, but I'm having trouble finding it right now.

http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Traffic-American-Inside-Technology/dp/0262516128

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 12, 2014 at 10:16 a.m. ― 9 months, 2 weeks ago

I know it is bad, but I cannot help crack a smile when I read a story about a biker getting hit by a car... I have seen bikers acting like they own the roads for far too many years.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'commus'

commus | February 12, 2014 at 12:22 p.m. ― 9 months, 2 weeks ago

You cite bikes being so safe but cannot provide a single verified statistic that is validly comparable to the auto statistics divided. Is that so difficult for you to comprehend. Or do I have to simplify it to the level of a 3rd grader?

Yet another factor you claim determines the difference between right and privaledge. Why is it that you cannot lay all your cards on the table at once? Look you cannot vote if you do not comply with rules. If laws exist requiring licensing to operate on public streets and roads they are perfectly legal. The only one who is exercising a right is the pedestrian. Humans have this as the basic form of transport. All others are convenience.

If you cannot comprehend that I suggest that go to therapy, counseling and/or special ed.

It is remarkable that you have so many miles, are such a perfect driver and biker yet you totally ignore what safety experts know about the hazards of the disappearing bike to instead personify it as some sort of motorist vendetta. No wonder you try to
Indicate hatred from me that shows nowhere in my posts. They only one showing negative emotions is you as you came in here trying to smear anyone who does not agree with you. Life is so terrible for people like you. Too bad. Remember when you point a finger at someone there are three pointing back at you.

Too bad I believe in a level playing field not an elite group.

When do you plan on presenting your numbers? I have no intention on doing your work as it is obvious that all of your supposed research is unbelievably biased.

Figures don't lie liars figure.

The rest is just unsubstantiated blather.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'commus'

commus | February 12, 2014 at 12:27 p.m. ― 9 months, 2 weeks ago

"I am a trained vehicular cyclist. If you have to do anything on the road because of me, you have a long time to react to me. You'll see me signal before making any lateral move. You'll see me stop at stop signs and wait at red lights. Of course, you assume that because I am a bicyclist that I do boneheaded stunts on the road. You have no idea what you are talking about."

Where? You have been the one posting personal slams....NOT ME!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'commus'

commus | February 12, 2014 at 5:04 p.m. ― 9 months, 2 weeks ago

"You're the one reading with prejudice. You are full of hate for people who are not like you."

Oh?
Born and raised in the Deep South. White child of a lower middle class blue collar family.
Worked in the Civil Rights movement in my college years. Voter registration in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee. Marched and was spit on by my own and it would not be the first time. Witnessed the violence after the assassination of Dr. King. Sang with my university (mostly white) choir in an AME church in the middle of the riots to promote peace.
Served in the U.S. military for 5+ years during the height of the Vietnam conflict even though I was opposed to it and saw many of my classmates die in that war.
Have fought for LGBTQ rights for years. Marched in the first LGBTQ Pride parade in Birmingham, Alabama with my church's contingent and was again called names and spit on by "christians". I have sat in a church holding a dear lesbian friend who was sobbing uncontrollably because she was gang raped on a parking lot the night before by a bunch of red necks who believed they could make her straight.

I have been called names and subjected to smear tactics by a heck of a lot better than you. So if you want to discuss fine. If you want to smear go down the street to a bar. It is where your attitude belongs if not a sewer.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 12, 2014 at 7:31 p.m. ― 9 months, 2 weeks ago

You wrote: "As do most motorists who know that the biker can pull all sorts of boneheaded stunts and expect...no demand, just as you do, that the motorist compensate for it."

What exactly am I expecting them to compensate for? Are you not accusing me of doing bone headed stunts?

On the road, I compensate for all other road users all the time. It's called defensive driving. I set up safe clearances. I maximize visibility. I allow for the possibility that anyone else could do something stupid. This is the essence of defensive driving. I could go into more detail on specific techniques but that will take up a lot of space.

The fact is that bicyclists on the road are not a real problem. The best you've come up with is an old article which shows what seems to be a large number of injuries from bicyclists in NYC until you read the entire article and see that that number is absolutely dwarfed by the number of injuries and deaths caused by motorists.

Meanwhile, time marches on and here's a more recent article about how bicyclists are getting significantly better in NYC, in large part due to the massive increase in the number of bicyclists there in the last few years:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2014/02/new-york-more-cyclists-has-led-better-biking-habits/8299/

You ignorantly and incorrectly presented the notion that bicyclists don't pay for the roads. You did this to pretend that motorist have more right to the road than bicyclists, regardless of what the law says.

You tried to pretend that most bicyclists are recreational. Again, in an effort to pretend that their use of the roads is less important than yours. Of course, nevermind that I am active in the local bicycling community and so I know an enormous number of bicyclists and most of them are bike commuters. The only exclusively recreational riders I know are riders who only ride off road. All of the people that I know who ride on the road commute by bike at least part of the time. A racer friend of mine commutes 20 miles each way to work every day. The spandex racer types usually also commute because it helps them get in some training every day.

You are trying to establish priority and superiority. Racists do the same thing as they make up arguments about other races. Homophobes and xenophobes follow the same M.O. It's a basic component of all active bigotry.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 12, 2014 at 7:32 p.m. ― 9 months, 2 weeks ago


Bicyclists are also victims of violent attacks from ignorant psycho rednecks. I've been called many names myself and been spit on and had things thrown at me merely for riding a bike on the road. I have been run off the road more than once. I've had drivers pull in front of me and slam on the brakes. In most cases these incidents happen on multi-lane roads where drivers can easily change lanes to pass and where there are safety issues with riding far right in the lane. Many bicyclists who ride on the road have been attacked. These attacks aren't about time or the law. They are about priority, entitlement and territory.

Here's a story of an assailant who got convicted recently, though he managed to plea bargain to a lesser charge:

http://tucsonvelo.com/news/driver-hit-pro-cyclists-gets-7-days-jail/18135

Reality is that you want bicyclists to have licensing and insurance because you want to discourage bicycling. If those things were required then a lot fewer people would bother, which is what you really want. Of course, a lot of very poor people would lose their only form of transportation other than walking. The spandex racer types would probably not be affected so much. I guess you mostly just want to keep very poor people from riding?

What about licensing children or are you just going to ban them from the streets altogether?

You'd also probably get really angry if all of the bicyclists were actually trained in bicycle safety. It would mean that you'd be seeing a lot more bicyclists using the full lane a large percentage of the time because that's what bicyclists do when they understand how collisions actually happen and the means to avoid those collisions.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'VossDefrin'

VossDefrin | February 12, 2014 at 9:15 p.m. ― 9 months, 2 weeks ago

I agree with commus.
Check this out- I'm driving out on Honey Springs rd last weekend. That road is packed with hardcore bike nazis. I come up on a pack riding 3 wide, I slow down, its a blind corner and the dicks start waving me to go around them! Its a double yellow, so I just kick it and stay behind them. Dudes are giving me stink eye, shaking their heads. Wtf! Do they want me to go into a blind corner and get in a head on? Really f-d up! I was trying to be cool, I was taking Billsd's advice and giving them their "right" to be on the road.
Billsd- you need to get your fellow bike riders with the program. Your spending way to much time in a losing battle with commus when the problem seems to be these militant dickhead bikers. Oh yeah, I got to the bottom of Honey Springs and another pack of these pricks were making the turn onto HS from 94 and not one gave any turn signal.
I probably encountered 30-40 bike riders in a 6 mile stretch and none were commuting. All joyriders.
It says "share the road". The bikers act like its their personal training track.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 12, 2014 at 10:48 p.m. ― 9 months, 2 weeks ago

You were right not to pass them in a blind curve. Passing anything on a blind curve is idiotic. A safe place to pass will present itself soon enough. I've driven thousands of miles on roads like that. You always have to deal with something that's slow at some point or another. The main difference with bicycles is that they tend to be a lot easier to pass than most other slow traffic on the road.

They were probably right to use the full lane. Most of Honey Springs road is far too narrow for a bicycle and a car to travel safely side by side within the lane. When bicyclists ride far right in this situation, cars tend to pass too close. I've had two different friends get clipped this way. Fortunately both made full recoveries.

When bicyclists use the full lane in narrow lanes, motorists tend to slow down and wait for a safe place to pass -- the same as they would for a bus or a garbage truck or a tractor or any other slow moving vehicle. It's much much safer.

CVC 21202(a)(3) (that's California state law) says that bicyclists don't have to ride far right when the lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a car to travel safely side by side within the lane. Safely side by side within the lane would include safe passing distance (3 ft according to most traffic safety experts). It has been law in California since 1976. I know this because I know a couple of the safety advocates who convinced the state legislature to add it to the law. commus has the excuse that it was passed after he learned to drive. What's your excuse for not knowing this?

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm

Share the road does not mean share the lane side by side but you still think that you should be able to endanger bicyclists by passing dangerously close to them in the same lane. How do you share the road with buses? Do you expect them to ride on the edge of the road or do you expect to move over to pass them? Why do you think that it is different with a bicyclist? The law says that it's not.

The only reason that you think commus is winning is because you didn't bother to learn the rules of the road and you think that you have a superior right to the road over bicyclists.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'commus'

commus | February 13, 2014 at 6:48 p.m. ― 9 months, 2 weeks ago

"What exactly am I expecting them to compensate for? Are you not accusing me of doing bone headed stunts?"

Again your self centered logic that believes that anyone who disagrees with you is against you personally...get a life! The lives of others are not all out to "get" you, Accuse you or anything. If someone cannot cite your statements and attitudes that are obvious from your words then you try to take it personal.

"Bicyclists are also victims of violent attacks from ignorant psycho rednecks. I've been called many names myself and been spit on and had things thrown at me merely for riding a bike on the road."

Don't you dare equate your hobby with campaigns for human rights. You can live without a bike...You must be the MLK of the bike lanes...

It is amazing that you are constantly under attack and ride your bike everywhere while accumulating those 750,000 driven miles. Do you even have a job or is it driving and biking.

"Reality is that you want bicyclists to have licensing and insurance because you want to discourage bicycling. "

Dose it discourage driving and auto insurance costs a heck of a bunch more. In many cases it can be included in homeowner's insurance.

"If those things were required then a lot fewer people would bother, which is what you really want."

No that is what YOU THINK I want. I want responsibility just as i STATED OVER AND OVER AND YOU IGNORE OVER AND OVER.

" I guess you mostly just want to keep very poor people from riding?"

Try a real argument. The only poor riders are on a bike covered with bags and cans and a danger to all on the streets, and sidewalks.

"What about licensing children or are you just going to ban them from the streets altogether?"

I am denying nothing...you are making it a formal mode of transportation instead of a hobby...your campaign is to blame.

"You'd also probably get really angry if all of the bicyclists were actually trained in bicycle safety. It would mean that you'd be seeing a lot more bicyclists using the full lane a large percentage of the time because that's what bicyclists do when they understand how collisions actually happen and the means to avoid those collisions."

Not what the CVC says.

"You are trying to establish priority and superiority. Racists do the same thing as they make up arguments about other races. Homophobes and xenophobes follow the same M.O. It's a basic component of all active bigotry"

Nope YOU are trying to establish an elitist group with rights and no responsibilities. Not me.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'VossDefrin'

VossDefrin | February 13, 2014 at 7:46 p.m. ― 9 months, 2 weeks ago

commus,
biilsd is a lunatic. He can't accept that there are a great number of bike jerks looking for problems with cars or just plain stupid. He's one of them. Crazy how despite first hand accounts from a bunch of people he always blames the car driver. You are totally right and I thank you for taking the time to spar with him. If Hitler was on a bike he would defend him.
Just like there's good and bad drivers, there's good and bad bicyclists. Some of those bad drivers ride bikes.
I came here fairly opened minded. billsd has really represented the bike community poorly. I like to think not all of them are like him.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 13, 2014 at 10:34 p.m. ― 9 months, 2 weeks ago

I've driven 750,000 miles because I've been driving for over 34 years. I used to live in O.C. and I did a lot of driving back then. I used to ski a lot. I've driven across the country. I've driven up and down the coast. I've done a lot of driving.

Bicyclists are treated as lesser beings for simply existing. Most of the time I'm fine but I've also been riding on the road for over 42 years so incidents do come up. I've also know plenty of people who've been assaulted and threatened and I've read plenty of stories of the same.

You say I can live without the bike. There you go again with your need to pretend that I am less than you. Riding a bike is part of who I am. Riding bikes is important to many people.

We don't get assaulted for bad behavior. We get assaulted for existing. That's all there is to it.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm

CVC 21202(a)(3) says that bicyclists don't have to ride far right when any condition makes it unsafe to ride far right. CVC 21202(a)(4) says that bicyclists don't have to ride far right when approaching a place where a right turn is authorized. Maybe you should try actually bothering to read the law before pretending to know what it says. Bicyclists who are trained in bicycle safety know when it is and is not safe to ride far right. They also know that it's usually unsafe to ride far right and conditions which satisfy (a)(3) or (a)(4) occur almost constantly on most roads. If you don't believe me then take a class from the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition.

We do have responsibilities. Bicyclists are required to obey the rules of the road and they do get ticketed. I know that you like to pretend that they don't but they do. They are also liable for injuries and damage. The lack of insurance doesn't make that responsibility go away. You don't want responsibility. You just want to punish bicyclists for existing.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 14, 2014 at 12:18 a.m. ― 9 months, 2 weeks ago

I forgot to mention, your suggestion that the only very poor riders are covered with bags and cans and are a danger is yet another example of your extreme bigotry.

You forget about poor immigrants who quite often are working part time minimum wage jobs because that's all that they can get. They often ride bikes because they can't even afford public transit. Many also work restaurant or bar jobs which require them to work hours beyond what public transit supports.

You also forget about college students who also often work part time minimum wage jobs and can't afford a car.

I also wonder how it is that you think that the homeless bottle and can collectors with their bikes are so dangerous. Really? I mean really? I have never once felt endangered by them in my car or on my bike. They're really easy to avoid and they're just trying to survive.

Your elitism just keeps shining through.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'commus'

commus | February 14, 2014 at 8:22 p.m. ― 9 months, 2 weeks ago

"I've driven 750,000 miles because I've been driving for over 34 years"

Gee I must have driven 970,000+ miles and not a single wreck or ticket.

"Bicyclists are treated as lesser beings for simply existing. "

They are a waste of time unless they are doing something discourteous or careless.

"I've also know plenty of people who've been assaulted and threatened and I've read plenty of stories of the same."

And I have personally as well as others just on this post been abused by bikers.

"You say I can live without the bike."

As opposed to those without human dignity...you damn right.

"There you go again with your need to pretend that I am less than you."

If you can't live without your bike it is you who puts you in that place and not me... oh but wait everyone else is responsible for all your woes...right?? WRONG!!!

" Riding a bike is part of who I am. Riding bikes is important to many people."

Driving cars is just as important to many NOT ME read it carefully sweetie. I did not have a car or drive until I was almost 23 unlike some spoiled brats.

"We don't get assaulted for bad behavior. We get assaulted for existing. "

Pure trash!!!! By your own words and attitude here you show why you get assaulted. You ask for it...!!!!

"I forgot to mention, your suggestion that the only very poor riders are covered with bags and cans and are a danger is yet another example of your extreme bigotry."

Can't take the truth get over it!! Then how many do you see in north coastal?

"You forget about poor immigrants who quite often are working part time minimum wage jobs because that's all that they can get."

Hey D.A. ever hear of public transit? We have one of the most through transit systems in the nation. Go read a schedule some time. Look at the route saturation of this city.

"I also wonder how it is that you think that the homeless bottle and can collectors with their bikes are so dangerous. Really? I mean really?"

Yep coastal north..there are no homeless. You run them all out. Talk about a bigot neighborhood...LOL

Nothing but straw man arguments...

You are not worth my efforts and yes I damn well am above you on this...and I don't give a damn because a person takes the high moral road expecting equality does not make them a bigot or a snob...

You are lost in your own mire of self hate... demanding to be kicked and I will not be a part of it

Have a nice life...

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 14, 2014 at 10:57 p.m. ― 9 months, 2 weeks ago

You don't know why I got assaulted do you?

I was riding my bike in the right lane on north bound Morena Blvd. The lane was far too narrow for a bike and a car and it was next to parallel parked cars and the driver pulled in front of me and slammed on the brakes and started screaming about how he was going to kick my ass. I was doing nothing wrong. I was in full compliance with the law and the left lane was open. He could have passed safely but in his mind he was entitled to not change lanes to pass a bicycle safely.

I am well aware of public transit but a lot of very poor people can't afford it. Have you priced a bus pass lately? A monthly pass for an adult will set you back $72. There are people who can't afford that every month. Furthermore, we have a very poor public transit system. If you work at a restaurant or bar and get off work at 2am, good luck finding transit. They don't run that late. Most routes don't run past 10pm and some not past 8pm. Basically none after midnight. Maybe YOU are the one who should look at our public transit system.

You don't seem to know what a straw man argument actually is. Maybe you should look it up.

You are ignorant of the rules of the road and you are ignorant of bicycle and road safety. Bicyclists have always had the right to travel on the public roads but you clearly think that you are too important to share the road with bicyclists in the same way that you do with other motorists. Every once in a great while you might have to deal with a bicyclist in some small way and for you, that's too much. Nevermind the fact that other motorists are what really make driving a pain. You're focused on the most trivial inconvenience in all of driving because you put yourself above anyone on a bike.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | February 17, 2014 at 8:39 a.m. ― 9 months, 2 weeks ago

"The lane was far too narrow for a bike and a car and it was next to parallel parked cars"

I would not ride in a place like this.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 17, 2014 at 9:20 p.m. ― 9 months, 2 weeks ago

@JeanMarc: Riding in the middle of the lane renders it safe. It makes the bicyclist completely visible and impossible to not notice. It makes it completely clear that you can't pass within the same lane so that you have to change lanes to pass. People tend not to run into bicyclists who are riding in the middle of the lane for the same reason that they tend not to run into the back of buses or garbage trucks or loaded 18 wheelers or RV's or cement trucks or any other slow moving vehicle. They see it and they deal with it.

Changing lanes to pass a bicycle safely is trivially easy but some people act like it's the worst injustice that has ever occurred in history. Bicycles are no more difficult to deal with than any other slow moving vehicle and the law (CVC 21200(a)) says that bicyclists have just as much right to use the road as the drivers of vehicles.

This interactive flash animation demonstrates the principles well:

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/animations/lane-control/

Here's a video made by a couple of League of American Bicyclists certified safety instructors showing how it works in the real world:

http://www.youtube.com/user/CyclistLorax

All we're really talking about is motorists moving over to pass bicycles in exactly the same way that they do other motorists, because some people think that they shouldn't have to.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'commus'

commus | February 22, 2014 at 4:04 p.m. ― 9 months, 1 week ago

billdsd - You are ignorant of the rules of the road and you are ignorant of bicycle and road safety.

Commus - Lie prove otherwise with documented facts. Put up or shut up.

billdsd - Bicyclists have always had the right to travel on the public roads but you clearly think that you are too important to share the road with bicyclists in the same way that you do with other motorists.

Commus - Lie never said that.

billsd - Every once in a great while you might have to deal with a bicyclist in some small way and for you, that's too much.

commus - Lie prove otherwise.

billsd - You're focused on the most trivial inconvenience in all of driving because you put yourself above anyone on a bike.

commus - another unprovable lie.

billsd - Riding in the middle of the lane renders it safe. It makes the bicyclist completely visible and impossible to not notice.

commus - and jams traffic for miles.

billsd - People tend not to run into bicyclists who are riding in the middle of the lane for the same reason that they tend not to run into the back of buses or garbage trucks or loaded 18 wheelers or RV's or cement trucks or any other slow moving vehicle.

commus - stupid comparison. Mixing apples and oranges. No wonder the motorists get angry with you.

billsd - I am well aware of public transit but a lot of very poor people can't afford it. Have you priced a bus pass lately? A monthly pass for an adult will set you back $72. There are people who can't afford that every month.

commus - not very aware or you would know of the programs providing passes free and/or at reduced rates for the poor and homeless.

billsd - Furthermore, we have a very poor public transit system. If you work at a restaurant or bar and get off work at 2am, good luck finding transit.

commus - try again. You do not need to walk more than 1 mile to catch public transit. That is 1000 times better than most cities. The frequency is 15 minutes, 30 minutes and at worst 1 hour. UNLESS YOU LIVE IN AFLUENT NORTH COUNTY COASTAL!

billsd - If you work at a restaurant or bar and get off work at 2am, good luck finding transit.

commus - so all poor people work in bars and resturants? Well what a bigoted idea.

billsd - Maybe YOU are the one who should look at our public transit system.

commus - I don't have to I use it. But then I don't lie and only use the model of the affluent areas as the only places buses and trains run or the bigoted idea that poor only work in bars and restaurants.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | February 25, 2014 at 9:46 p.m. ― 9 months ago

Rules of the road: You claimed that the CVC does not say that bicyclists can use the full lane when it is unsafe to ride far right. CVC 21202(a)(3) says precisely that.

You do think you are too important. That's the only reason to be so upset with bicyclists. I see through your excuses. I've been listening the same childish excuses from anti-cyclists for decades.

Bicyclists don't jam traffic for miles when they ride in the middle of the lane. There's this amazing invention called changing lanes. You would do it for a bus. You would do it for a garbage truck. You'd do it for a cement truck. It's only bicyclists that you somehow can't figure out how to move over to pass.

It's not a stupid comparison. It works. I've been doing it for years. It's taught by every significant bicycle safety organization, teacher and book. I named at least 5 in previous comments. You think it doesn't because you can't be bothered to study the subject. I know a lot of old vehicular cyclists, including John Forester himself (author of Effective Cycling) who is in his 80's. Forester first got Effective published in 1976 IIRC though he was teaching for years before that. Vehicular cyclists have been at this a while. CVC 21202(a)(3) and (a)(4) are based upon ideas from vehicular cycling.

As far as public transit, check the bus schedules after 10pm. Try getting anywhere after about 8pm on a Sunday if you're not near a trolley route. I've used public transit. You clearly have not used it except maybe in the middle of the day or during peak periods. It's fairly easy to use then but not so much during off hours.

Not all poor people work in restaurants but a lot do. I did when I paid my own way through college working multiple jobs. I was poor in this city when I was in college. Have you ever been poor in this city?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'commus'

commus | March 8, 2014 at 11:22 p.m. ― 8 months, 3 weeks ago

billdsd: You claimed that the CVC does not say that bicyclists can use the full lane when it is unsafe to ride far right. CVC 21202(a)(3) says precisely that,

commus: (1) never said any such thing. (2) Your generalization is incorrect. The paragrpah you cite is an excedption not a rule. The rule CVC 21202(a) states "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 as close as practicable to the right-hand
curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following
situations:" Oh now is that full of hate?

billdsd: You do think you are too important. That's the only reason to be so upset with bicyclists. I see through your excuses. I've been listening the same childish excuses from anti-cyclists for decades.

commus: Again you do not know me. Everything you state is pure speculation. You cannot prove a word of it.

billdsd:Bicyclists don't jam traffic for miles when they ride in the middle of the lane. There's this amazing invention called changing lanes. You would do it for a bus. You would do it for a garbage truck. You'd do it for a cement truck. It's only bicyclists that you somehow can't figure out how to move over to pass.

commus: How on a two lane road. Perhaps someone should count their pills to make sure they have taken them. Try reading your own postings and the ones you were responding to from others.

billdsd: It's not a stupid comparison. It works. I've been doing it for years.

commus: Yes and on a two lane road it is no wonder people get upset at you.

billdsd: Vehicular cyclists have been at this a while. CVC 21202(a)(3) and (a)(4) are based upon ideas from vehicular cycling.

commus: The two are apples and oranges. One is traveling thru and the other is for turns. Nowhere in 21202 does it state the "middle" of the lane.

billdsd: As far as public transit, check the bus schedules after 10pm. Try getting anywhere after about 8pm on a Sunday if you're not near a trolley route. I've used public transit. You clearly have not used it except maybe in the middle of the day or during peak periods. It's fairly easy to use then but not so much during off hours.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'commus'

commus | March 8, 2014 at 11:25 p.m. ― 8 months, 3 weeks ago

billdsd: You claimed that the CVC does not say that bicyclists can use the full lane when it is unsafe to ride far right. CVC 21202(a)(3) says precisely that,

commus: (1) never said any such thing. (2) Your generalization is incorrect. The paragrpah you cite is an excedption not a rule. The rule CVC 21202(a) states "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 as close as practicable to the right-hand
curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following
situations:" Oh now is that full of hate?

billdsd: You do think you are too important. That's the only reason to be so upset with bicyclists. I see through your excuses. I've been listening the same childish excuses from anti-cyclists for decades.

commus: Again you do not know me. Everything you state is pure speculation. You cannot prove a word of it.

billdsd:Bicyclists don't jam traffic for miles when they ride in the middle of the lane. There's this amazing invention called changing lanes. You would do it for a bus. You would do it for a garbage truck. You'd do it for a cement truck. It's only bicyclists that you somehow can't figure out how to move over to pass.

commus: How on a two lane road. Perhaps someone should count their pills to make sure they have taken them. Try reading your own postings and the ones you were responding to from others.

billdsd: It's not a stupid comparison. It works. I've been doing it for years.

commus: Yes and on a two lane road it is no wonder people get upset at you.

billdsd: Vehicular cyclists have been at this a while. CVC 21202(a)(3) and (a)(4) are based upon ideas from vehicular cycling.

commus: The two are apples and oranges. One is traveling thru and the other is for turns. Nowhere in 21202 does it state the "middle" of the lane.

billdsd: As far as public transit, check the bus schedules after 10pm. Try getting anywhere after about 8pm on a Sunday if you're not near a trolley route. I've used public transit. You clearly have not used it except maybe in the middle of the day or during peak periods. It's fairly easy to use then but not so much during off hours.

commus: Again you do not know me and your assumption is totally off. Major buses Sunday hourly until 10:00 pm, Weekdays until 1:00 am. Trolleys Sunday & weekdays until 2:00 am. But affluent North County Coastal schedules are less. You claim years of residence here yet you do not even know that the transit system is built with highest saturation in lower income areas as the demand is higher increasing income from higher ridership.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'commus'

commus | March 8, 2014 at 11:26 p.m. ― 8 months, 3 weeks ago


billdsd: Not all poor people work in restaurants but a lot do.

commus: Not what you said.

bildsd: I did when I paid my own way through college working multiple jobs. I was poor in this city when I was in college. Have you ever been poor in this city?

commus: When tuition was dirt cheap unless you went to one of the private schools then that is your own fault. My finances are none of your business nor are they the topic. For that one I am unhappy as you have stepped over the line of propriety once again.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'billdsd'

billdsd | March 9, 2014 at 7:56 p.m. ― 8 months, 3 weeks ago

As usual, you completely miss the point. You're also trying to distort my words because you are incapable of forming a coherent argument based upon facts and logic.

You clearly don't know what it's like to be poor in this town. It's been a while for me but I still remember.

You try to pretend that we have great public transit. We don't unless you are travelling at prime time. I've also used public transit in recent years as I've tried to drive less. It's really not that great.

The fact is that bicyclists are not a problem on the road, no matter how hard you try to pretend that they are. I'm sure that you'll keep pretending to be a victim though. That's what bigots always do.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'commus'

commus | March 27, 2014 at 11:09 a.m. ― 8 months ago

Billdsd: As usual, you completely miss the point. You're also trying to distort my words because you are incapable of forming a coherent argument based upon facts and logic.

Commus: not a single reference just another attempt at a personal smerar.

Billdsd: You clearly don't know what it's like to be poor in this town. It's been a while for me but I still remember.

Commus: again you do not know me. I will not parade my personal finances here as it is off topic and your typical method of attempting to attack credability instead of the topic. I have seen my share of poverty thank you in places with public transit many times worse than here.

Billdsd: The fact is that bicyclists are not a problem on the road, no matter how hard you try to pretend that they are. I'm sure that you'll keep pretending to be a victim though. That's what bigots always do.

Commus: fact only from your biased sources and from sources where you have filtered out the part unfavorable to you.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'commus'

commus | April 10, 2014 at 2:19 p.m. ― 7 months, 3 weeks ago

As an additional note competitive cycles do carry liability insurance and seem to be professional enough to show financial responsibility for their sport.
Imagine that...with no hate or bigotry as billdsd would like to define my opinion.

( | suggest removal )