Driving Around Cyclists for Dummies

I got an email from a regular reader, Keay Edwards; he said,

“I thought you might be interested in AAA's stance on California's proposed law requiring a three foot passing distance of cyclists by motor vehicles. 

I was surprised to discover that my auto insurance company was lobbying against the proposed law and asked them why." 

Here is their response: 

Thank you for your comments relative to AAA's position on SB 910.

Our official position is not a straight oppose, it is an 'oppose unless amended'. We don't take issue with the 3 foot distance rule when it can be safely accomplished. The problem is how to address situations when a 3 foot distance cannot be maintained or met.

Current language in the bill would require the vehicle to slow to 15 mph of the speed of the bicycle to pass. But this is problematic for several reasons, as pointed out in the bill analysis. Law enforcement has issues with this approach as well because it can cause a drastic decrease in speed differentials between the vehicle passing the bicycle and other vehicles on the road depending on the posted speed limit.

Not only can this cause rear-end collisions, it can create a more dangerous situation for the cyclists. It is the differences in speed that is the number one cause of car crashes. Another suggested approach is to require the car to enter into the opposite lane of traffic (cross a double line) in order to give the cyclists the 3 foot distance. This is something being explored as well as a number of other ideas.

While we can all agree on the concept and goal SB 910, crafting workable legislation usually requires addressing a number of details and issues that arise throughout the process as the concept is flushed out and enforceability is addressed.

The author of the bill, Senator Lowenthal, is committed to working with all interested parties, including law enforcement, AAA and the bicycle coalition sponsors of the bill to find the most appropriate and safest way to address situations, when the general rule to allow a 3 foot distance cannot be met due to road design. We have to determine what the law should be in those circumstances and there is some disagreement on that level.

Thank you again for allowing us to explain our position on the bill.
Best Regards,
Crista B. (AAA Northern California, Nevada and Utah.)

Thank you Keay for forwarding this; here is my take:

Why all the fuss over an issue that should be common sense. Would you pass any vehicle giving less than 3 foot of space? You would give a stray dog at least 3 feet when passing.

Let’s say there is a large object, a refrigerator for example, lying at the side of the road protruding 3 feet into your lane. Would you continue driving at 55 or 60mph and miss it by less than three feet?

Most sensible people would slow, and if they couldn’t go into the opposing lane, they would squeeze by carefully at a slow speed. The 3 foot passing law is calling for what people should do anyway if they were using common sense.

Let me offer another simple scenario: You are driving on any two lane highway or street; a vehicle is waiting to make a left turn. (Right turn in the UK.) The driver cannot make the turn because there is opposing traffic; he stops and waits with his turn signal on.

Other traffic stops and stacks up behind, waiting for the driver to make his turn. There is no danger, no one runs into the rear of anyone; eventually there is a break in opposing traffic, the vehicle makes its turn and everyone goes on their merry way.

And yet to read Crista B’s explanation above, a vehicle slowing because it is not safe to pass a cyclist presents a danger to other road users. I would suggest if a vehicle runs into the rear of another, they were driving too fast for the road conditions, or they were following too close. This is driving 101.

Maybe I should write a “Driving around cyclists for Dummies” book. In it I would say, “If you see a cyclists ahead give him/her plenty of room as you pass. If you can’t go into the opposing lane because there are cars coming the other way, slow down and wait for a break in opposing traffic.”

You only need a small break because a cyclist is about 7 foot long and 3 foot wide, usually traveling at 15 to 20mph; it is not like trying to pass an 18 wheel semi. And you don’t have to go completely over to the opposite lane but at least straddle the center line.

If I am that cyclist quite honestly I have no objections if you squeeze by with less than 3 feet, as long as you do so carefully at slow speed. If you bump me at 5mph over the speed I am doing it would probably not be too serious; but clip me at 55 or 60 and it might be fatal.

This 3 foot passing law is getting way too complicated for the average person to understand. Crista B for the AAA asks:

When the general rule to allow a 3 foot distance cannot be met due to road design. We have to determine what the law should be in those circumstances.

This situation is no different than a stop sign where cross traffic doesn’t stop. You stop, and then proceed when it is safe to do so. Legislators are not asked, “What do I do when it is not safe to proceed?” The answer is simple; you wait until it is safe. Give a cyclist 3 feet; if you can’t do that safely, then wait until you can.

No need to change the wording; if you slow down and pass a cyclist carefully no one is going to take a yard stick and argue over the exact 3 feet.

Imagine the cyclist is a refrigerator or some other large object in the road.  Just slow down and go around while being careful not to bump into it.

                        

Deadly Weapon

A couple of weeks ago I was out riding with two friends; we were on a two lane country road, traffic was light as it was early Sunday morning.

We were riding single file close to the right hand edge of the road when three vehicles approached from behind; it just so happened that there was an opposing vehicle there at the same time.

The leading car behind us decided to slow and wait for this single car in the opposite lane to pass before swinging wide to overtake us. This was proper behavior, they could have squeezed by without waiting, but this driver decided to take the safer approach.

I was the last in this trio of cyclists, also riding in a safe and courteous manner; I even gave the lead driver behind me a little thank you wave as he went past. The second car did the same, swinging wide to overtake us.

However, the third vehicle was a full size Chevy truck; he just laid on the horn and drove by as fast as he could and as close as he could; he missed us by about a foot. Totally unnecessary as the opposing lane was now clear.

This was intimidation with a deadly weapon, pure and simple; a “How dare you slow me down; I’ll teach you,” attitude.

If I could have spoken with this driver I would have asked, “Where are you going in such a hurry on a Sunday morning that you can’t stand to be delayed for two seconds?” Because I swear this whole maneuver took no longer. I would also have asked him this.

“If you had a loaded gun in your hand and you were mad at someone, would you fire it missing them by twelve inches just to intimidate them?”

I doubt most law abiding citizen would do that, including this driver. But the potential for death or serious injury are the same; I would describe it as ‘Assault with a deadly weapon.’

In fact I would go further and say, given the choice between taking a bullet and taking a hit from a full size Chevy truck, I would rate my chances of survival better if I took the bullet.

What is it about driving a large vehicle that gives one such a sense of entitlement? It seems it is always the driver of a full size truck or SUV that have this attitude; I rarely get the ‘Horn and Buzz’ treatment from anyone in an economy car.

This exact same scenario happened just this week in California; a driver of an SUV threatened a group of cyclists with his vehicle. They were able to take his tag number, flagged down a Sheriff’s Deputy, and reported it; the driver was traced and arrested for... Guess what? Assult with a deadly weapon.

I have to remember that; when I am riding on my own I usually ignore such behavior as it is just my word against another. But in the above instance I was with two friends, I had witnesses. I may be too old to kick ass, at least I can take numbers.

                         

Bikes and parked cars don’t mix

A plan to add bike lanes to streets in San Diego has been shot down by city planners. The reason, the move would mean a loss of 137 parking spaces, and of course this is seen as a detriment to local businesses.

It is an old, old story that is played out in cities all over the US and I am sure, in many other countries too. To ignore the problem is short sighted, because every bicycle on the street means one less car, less congestion and one more parking space available.

I agree that parked cars and bicycle lanes don’t mix, like some in San Francisco, shown in the above picture. This is a death trap, a car door carelessly opened in front of a cyclist, knocks the unfortunate bike rider right under the wheels of a passing vehicle. It happens all the time.

The picture is from an article on the SF.StreetsBlog, where the writer points out that with a bike lane positioned this way, a cyclist has the choice of riding in this lane at the risk of getting doored, or ride out in the main traffic lane and incur some serious road rage, because nothing pisses off a motorist more than seeing a cyclist in “His” lane, when there is a bike lane right next to it.

Even if there is enough room for a four foot door zone between the parked cars and the bike lane, there is still a danger from cars entering or exiting parking spaces. If you place the parked cars next to the motor traffic lane and put the bike lane on the inside next to the side walk, this does not eliminate the danger of car passengers opening doors as cyclists pass. And an even bigger danger presents itself at every intersection as cyclists immerge blindly from behind a row of parked cars.

A sensible solution in this case would be a shared lane (Sharrow.) next to the parked cars. In the above picture I see at least four, maybe five lanes of traffic going in one direction. Would it be a huge inconvenience if one of those lanes were shared with cyclists? If a motorist doesn’t want to share, all he has to do is move over to one of the other lanes.

Bike lanes are a good idea on roads leading into a city center, where automobile speeds are high, and there are no parked cars.

But once you get into a business district where there are parked cars, speed limits need to be lowered and enforced, and cyclists’ sharing the lane is, in my opinion, safer.

In San Diego, city planners speak of adding traffic calming devices instead of bike lane; why not shared lanes.

Encourage more people to ride bikes; add a number of bike riders to the mix with the appropriate signage so it is clear to everyone that cyclists are supposed to be there.

Seasoned cyclists are often quick to point out that they are entitled to share any lane. That may be true, but entitlement doesn’t help much if the person you are sharing with is ignorant of that fact.  It doesn’t hurt to have a few road markings and signs to remind the uneducated.

Education is key, make people realize that every person riding a bike to work is one less car on the road. This means less congestion; everyone can drive slower, and still get where they are going on time. That is a benefit to all road users, not just bike riders.

                          

A plea for sanity

Checking on cycling related articles this weekend; I came across two that did not show cyclists in a good light, in fact I found them downright embarrassing.

These were “Opinion” type articles that were not the usual anti-cyclist rants; in both cases the writers expressed that they were all for cycling and an active lifestyle.

Rebecca Farrow who lives in the Murfreesboro area of Tennessee, wrote a piece titled “Bicyclists must learn to share the road, too.”

The lady was driving to work when she says she was nearly run off the road by a pack of cyclists riding towards her, four and five abreast. Not only were they taking up the entire opposite lane, but some were over the yellow line and riding in her lane as she approached.

Rebecca estimates there were over 100 riders; even if this is an exaggeration and there were half that number, in my opinion that is too many to be riding in a pack without an official escort. She then stated:

“I was surprised when bicyclists started using hand gestures to tell me to slow down and move over. I was driving 10 mph under the posted speed limit well within my lane and no bicycles were traveling the same direction as I was.

I continued to get hand gestures and dirty looks from bicyclists and started hearing people shouting at me in my vehicle to "slow down," "move over," and remember "three feet." I would have given the bicyclists three feet of clearance had they stayed at least two feet from the center yellow lines.”

I am sorry but I have to take the side of Rebecca Farrow in this instance. If the approaching pack of cyclists were taking only half the lane as they should have done, then traffic within the opposing lane that is driving at a reasonable speed should be of no concern.

It  does not warrant signals to slow down and move over.  WTF, it is the cyclists who should be moving over. It is exactly this type of arrogant attitude, especially towards drivers who are doing nothing wrong, that sours people against all cyclists.

The second article in the Philadelphia Enquirer, by Robert Kelley, tells a story from a pedestrian’s viewpoint. 

As with the previous article the writer is sympathetic to the cyclists plight, having previously ridden bicycles and motorcycles himself; now forced to be a pedestrian because of vision impairment.

Robert’s beef is with cyclists running red lights at a high rate of speed, and he states:

“When it comes to bicyclists or motor vehicles, we're not all able to react as quickly as we'd like. In my case, I lost much of my peripheral vision and all of my depth perception because of a head injury, and I can't drive at night.

When I cross Center City on foot to my night job, I can see cars but must try hard to read the flow of other pedestrians. And I will often miss bicyclists running against the light.”

I urge you to read these two articles (Links are in the text.) and tell me if you agree that these two people are being reasonable and have a legitimate complaint against the cyclist’s behavior.

I make no apologies for always bitching about cyclists’ poor judgment and actions. It is pointless for me to complain about bad driving by operators of automobiles, that is not my reading audience.

However, I am hopeful that I can make an appeal for sanity to a few intelligent thinking cyclists who might happen to read this.

Start sharing the road and maybe others will be willing to do the same

                       

Running stop signs

Here is something you don’t see too often; 25 cyclists on a recreational ride stopped and ticketed for running a stop sign. It happened on August 28th in Woodside, CA, in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I'll admit I roll through stop signs all the time, especially in quiet rural or residential areas where there is not another person or vehicle in sight.

However, I do not “Blow” through at 20 or 25 mph, I slow to a speed where I could stop if I had to, but I don’t see the point of unclipping and putting my foot to the ground if there is no one else there.

On the other hand, if there are other cars or pedestrians there at the same time, I will unclip and come to a complete stop. I do this out of common decency. If I go to a movie theater I don’t push to the front of the line, I wait my turn. Why should I behave any differently on my bike?

Red lights are a different matter for me; I will not roll though a red light whether there is someone there or not. If it is early in the morning and there is not another car in sight, and I could be waiting a long time for the light to change, I will probably then move on. But never without coming to a complete stop and waiting at least a short period of time.

Cyclists will always argue that drivers of automobiles roll though stop signs, and run red lights all the time, and that no motorist was ever killed by a cyclist. 

Motorists for the most part will do exactly the same as a cyclist at a stop sign; if there is no one there, roll through. But if there are others already stopped, usually most will stop and wait their turn.

The same with traffic lights, motorists will push the “Orange” light to the limit and often going through after it turns red. But you will rarely see a motorist pull up to a red light and on seeing no one coming, go on through.

There are of course exceptions to motorist’s behavior in both these scenarios, but what pisses off the average person is when they pass a cyclist, then at the next stop sign or traffic light, he rides past the line of waiting traffic and through the intersection without appearing to slow down. I view this kind of behavior as extreme rudeness.

There are any number of bad motorists out there, but please, do me and yourself a favor. Stop using that as an excuse for behaving badly. Pointing the finger at others and saying, "Well he did it too," is something we all should have left in kindergarten.

If you run every stop sign and red light regardless of the circumstances of other traffic waiting there, this is a pattern of behavior you might want to think about adjusting.

Maybe the riders in the Woodside group deserved a ticket, maybe not. But when cyclists just blow though a stop sign without appearing to slow, it just plain looks bad.

Many see cyclists as a bunch of arrogant, self-righteous pricks, keep doing this and you prove it beyond all doubt.