U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-17-2014, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,563,975 times
Reputation: 3941

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
I'm not talking about the first person to come up on the cyclist. I'm talking about being behind that car, then they either stop abruptly or swerve and you now see the cyclist. Yes, I understand that you need to be aware of what's in front of you when you're driving. I've been accident free for almost 40 years. But I'm pointing out that it could create situations that are MORE dangerous to everyone on the road.

I feel the same way about the law requiring cars to either slow down or change lanes when an emergency vehicle is on the shoulder of a highway, so it's not just against cyclists. Since that law, I've seen more cars abruptly change lanes, cutting other cars off, around a curve or over a hill than ever before.
What is "it"? That you need to give cyclist a safe amount of room as you pass them? This law does not create more dangerous situations, three feet is not a large distance.

As a person that is a pedestrian on about 90 percent of my trips, I too find many cyclists obnoxious (especially when they are forced to ride on the sidewalk due to unsafe riding conditions on the street). But this law is necessary, just about every week there is a cyclist killed in the Los Angeles area, and often it is the driver's fault (and often they just drive away).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-17-2014, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,563,975 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
Here you go, from Wiki:



So in other words...you keep setting us up with things we didn't actually say (i.e. most recently, that anyone can see a car under conditions we didn't even describe), then arguing THAT...that's the definition of a strawman argument. Just for future reference.
I did read what that poster said wrong. Doesn't change my opinion that this 3-foot law does little to hurt drivers rights, and does not create a dangerous situation for drivers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2014, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Southern California
25,348 posts, read 24,141,953 times
Reputation: 23737
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
I did read what that poster said wrong. Doesn't change my opinion that this 3-foot law does little to hurt drivers rights, and does not create a dangerous situation for drivers.
........aaaaaaaaaaaaaand lather, rinse, repeat...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2014, 04:07 PM
 
Location: Southern California
25,348 posts, read 24,141,953 times
Reputation: 23737
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
What is "it"? That you need to give cyclist a safe amount of room as you pass them?
Okay, here, bingo...if you were wondering...right here you've actually given yourself the perfect example of a strawman argument. I was trying to think of a direct example but you beat me to the punch.

It pretty much only happens when a. a person's mind is made up and s/he has decided in advance not to hear any actual arguments, therefore is deliberately working to disregard them; b. when a person simply wants to be argumentative in general or c. when a person feels foolish because s/he realizes s/he was wrong, but rather than apologize or correct him/herself, s/he digs deep to defend his/her original position - so as to hopefully no longer look foolish. Defense mechanism. That's just basic, I'm not stating what your own motives are, that's up to you to decide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2014, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
401 posts, read 604,496 times
Reputation: 391
@JerZ : my apologies, I've sorta gotten lost with all the posts.

Do you have a problem with the 3ft passing law, and if so, what's your issue with the law?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2014, 04:31 PM
 
Location: Southern California
25,348 posts, read 24,141,953 times
Reputation: 23737
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Freedom View Post
@JerZ : my apologies, I've sorta gotten lost with all the posts.

Do you have a problem with the 3ft passing law, and if so, what's your issue with the law?
With the three feet specifically and the possibility that the car may have to be way too close to the car in the next lane to pass, or that the car might actually have to go into the next lane to pass - on quiet roads, fine, unless it's a passing prohibited area. But quiet roads aren't exactly always plentiful. And most of these posts are referencing city cycling anyway.

And obviously only on roads that don't have bike lanes, instead having the biker already having the car move over (if the driver is at all logical and safe), then in addition to that, moving over yet three feet more...that's the place where I could see this danger. And there are an awful lot of roads or at least sections of roads without bike lanes.

In my opinion (but who am I?), we're better off investing to widen roads where possible and add a safely wide bike lane where there isn't one yet - safely wide for the bikers, I mean, enough for them to navigate comfortably. I realize that's just a fantasy as it would cost bokou $$, clog traffic during construction, perhaps cut into the sidewalks causing those to need to be moved back too (which may not even be logistically possible) and so on. But then again, this post isn't about what we personally be proposed to keep bikers safe, it's about this law specifically, so...

I obviously have no problem with trying to keep cyclists safe, that's just silly, nor with sharing the roads, that should be just a given, and these have been the intimations more than a few times here.

Hope this clarifies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2014, 04:44 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
401 posts, read 604,496 times
Reputation: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
With the three feet specifically and the possibility that the car may have to be way too close to the car in the next lane to pass, or that the car might actually have to go into the next lane to pass
So let me get this straight: with the law, passing a cyclist with three feet might put you too close to another car .. so you think the law is setting up a dangerous situation, and that this dangerous situation is WORSE than passing the cyclist with less than three feet.. which might put you dangerously close to an unprotected human on a bike.. a person that if you made accidental contact with them, they would likely fall and potentially be run over and killed by your car or the one behind?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
In my opinion (but who am I?), we're better off investing to widen roads where possible and add a safely wide bike lane where there isn't one yet
This, of course, is a better solution. But, this often takes a long time due to many factors, two of which are money and political pushback. Pasadena has planned bike lanes that have been in the plans for nearly 20 years but have yet to be built. What shall we do in the meantime?

It's my opinion that the 3ft law, while not solving all the world's problems, will make cycling safer (still not completely safe) with very minimal *real* impacts to drivers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2014, 04:47 PM
 
Location: Southern California
25,348 posts, read 24,141,953 times
Reputation: 23737
Quote:
So let me get this straight: with the law, passing a cyclist with three feet might put you too close to another car .. so you think the law is setting up a dangerous situation, and that this dangerous situation is WORSE than passing the cyclist with less than three feet.. which might put you dangerously close to an unprotected human on a bike.. a person that if you made accidental contact with them, they would likely fall and potentially be run over and killed by your car or the one behind?

Oh for heaven's sake, really?

These arguments have already been answered, multiple times. I don't even give my eight-year-old this many repeats, True. I say something, he kind of just keeps training his mind on how to make me give up and say he's right, often by strawmanning what I just said (for him it's "Well since you're NEVER letting us have ice cream again"; for you it's "So what you're saying is...this thing you never actually said") to try to trick me into backtracking (sound familiar?), then asks me to repeat what I said. I do it. One time. That's all he gets. That's all you get too. Read upthread.

Or don't listen and don't learn and make your mind up in advance, that's your choice and it's all the same to me. (shrug)

Last edited by JerZ; 09-17-2014 at 06:00 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2014, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
401 posts, read 604,496 times
Reputation: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
I don't even give my eight-year-old this many repeats, True. I say something, he kind of just keeps training his mind on how to make me give up and say he's right,
well, hopefully with your eight year old, you don't obfuscate your message with a plethora of aimless palaver.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2014, 10:09 PM
 
Location: SoCal & Mid-TN
2,079 posts, read 2,008,934 times
Reputation: 2362
What about roads such as Wilshire, Santa Monica, Olympic during rush hour? Anti-gridlock zones with 3 lanes of cars on each side of the middle lane. Or Melrose at any time - with cars parked on the curb on both sides and a single lane for each direction? Busy roads with lots of cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top