skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Avatar for billdsd

( billdsd )

Comments made by billdsd

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

@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.

February 5, 2014 at 11:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

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

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.

February 5, 2014 at 9:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

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

@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.

February 5, 2014 at 4:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

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

@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.

February 5, 2014 at 1:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

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

@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.

February 5, 2014 at 1:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

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

@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.

February 5, 2014 at 1:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

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

@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.

February 5, 2014 at 12:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

'Bike To Work Day' Highlights San Diego's Infrastructure Needs

@DIZZY: You need to seek help for your paranoia.

Many people use bicycles as transportation. If you don't want to, then don't. Nobody's forcing you to ride a bike. Encouraging people to ride bikes and trying to make our infrastructure safer for bicyclists is not the same as forcing you to ride a bike.

May 24, 2013 at 11:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Grand Jury Report: San Diego Needs To Be More Bike-Friendly

Actually, getting bicyclists onto paths improves your life by getting bicyclists out of your way.

Why does your quality of life depend upon diminishing the quality of life for bicyclists?

May 17, 2013 at 10:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Grand Jury Report: San Diego Needs To Be More Bike-Friendly

I rode 20 miles on the road and I was never worried about being hit by a car either. I bet I had more fun too.

May 16, 2013 at 8:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )