CABO opposed 3 foot law
Thread started by
trickmilla at 05.6.11 - 12:03 pm
http://www.cabobike.org/2011/05/04/cabo-opposes-3-foot-passing-bill-sb910/comment-page-1/#comment-395
Knife meet back:
"Regrettably, CABO opposes SB910 for the following reasons (most of which are mentioned in the bill analysis):
1. The law already provides that motorists must pass bicyclists at a safe distance without interfering with their safe operation.
2. We don’t believe that three feet is measurable or enforceable in practice.
3. Emphasizing three feet as the passing distance may encourage some drivers to pass too closely when greater clearance is needed.
4. A 15-mph speed differential also can’t be measured or enforced, and is not always appropriate.
5. By amending CVC 21750 to remove references to bicycles and replacing it with CVC 21750.1, which always requires passing on the left, the bill apparently makes it unlawful to pass a bicyclist on the right, even if the bicyclist is turning left.
6. The language of proposed CVC 21750.1 is ambiguous:
“The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left at a safe distance, at a minimum clearance of three feet or at a speed not exceeding 15 miles per hour faster than the speed of the bicycle, without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken bicycle.”
“At a safe distance,” “at a minimum clearance of three feet,” or “at a speed not exceeding 15 miles per hour faster than the speed of the bicycle” can be read as a series of three items any one of which is sufficient. It’s also unclear whether “without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken bicycle” modifies all of these, or only the last.
7. We support the concept of permitting motorists to cross double yellow lines to pass bicyclists. However, “substandard width lane” is undefined, and the condition given, when “it is safe to do so,” is too vague and allows too much latitude for driver misjudgment.
reply
yeah... saw that. they have some points... it would be good to address them now and get them out of the way...
Roadblock05.6.11 - 12:10 pm
reply
I think when it comes to CABO the brass tacks of the organization is they are all about vehicular cycling. They want to be treated like a car and any deviation to that meme is not in their interest.
sack or crack you choose05.6.11 - 12:36 pm
reply
that pretty much sums it up. they can't get past that... to a fault.
Roadblock responding to a
comment by sack or crack you choose
05.6.11 - 12:58 pm
reply
How can one openly fight against cyclist? He is openly saying he does not give a fuck about our safety in regards to vehicles passing.
I guess its time to take more side mirrors as souvenirs.
revolution05.6.11 - 2:32 pm
reply
in spirit you can say "pass with care" but in the actual wording of a law, technicalities need to be addressed to shore up loopholes and cover every possible situation... CABO are a bunch of bike path bicke facility hating mofo's from what I've heard and so of course they will scrutinize anything that appears to give cyclists special status in case those same priviledges end up restricting cyclists' rights to the roads in unforeseen ways.
Roadblock05.6.11 - 2:46 pm
reply
Everything they said makes perfect sense.
PC05.6.11 - 2:56 pm
reply
I've been against the 3-Feet to Pass law for a long time, and for similar reasons. It's bad law, whether we think it something good for cyclists. Trickmilla knows, we discussed it, and Im not sure why it's being portrayed as a knife in back.
For one, couldn't we say that a bad law is a knife in the back to justice? Maybe CABO is concerned with that larger issue: justice, rather than forsaking justice for winning some unclear benefit for cyclist.
Rather than say "knife meet back", why not address why CABO's points are wrong?
peace
markd05.6.11 - 3:13 pm
reply
it would be nice if you articulated your reasons... I'd like to know. this latest 3 foot law push started right here with our community and Danny Zuko's slogan... we should talk about it.
Roadblock responding to a
comment by markd
05.7.11 - 3:40 pm
reply
it would be nice if you articulated your reasons... I'd like to know. this latest 3 foot law push started right here with our community and Danny Zuko's slogan... we should talk about it.
Roadblock responding to a
comment by markd
05.7.11 - 3:40 pm
reply
"3. Emphasizing three feet as the passing distance may encourage some drivers to pass too closely when greater clearance is needed. "
3 feet minimum, if there was more room to pass do you really think cars would swerve closer towards the cyclist?? REALLY?
Not all their points are valid, PC.
dannyzuko05.7.11 - 3:44 pm
reply
http://www.midnightridazz.com/forums.php?searchType=user&showThreads=1&keyword=md2&topicId=15927
Back when Sack or Crack was Foldie.
markd responding to a
comment by Roadblock
05.7.11 - 4:53 pm
reply
That foldie dude is way smarter than me but I agree with everything he says.
Give me 3 or I will cut off your pee pee.....
sack or crack you choose responding to a
comment by markd
05.7.11 - 5:37 pm
reply
The 3 feet to pass campaign in LA is good news. Most drivers aren't aware that cyclists have any rights at all.
liquidpremium responding to a
comment by sack or crack you choose
05.8.11 - 9:31 am
reply
This is how I'd address it:
Make it 5.
Instead of 3 feet, make it 5 feet.
Instead of 15 mph, make it 5 mph.
We should amend CVC 21750 with a CVC 21750.5 instead of 21750.1.
the reverend dak05.8.11 - 1:14 pm
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
