New Bill to Require Drivers to Yield 4-Foot Safety Buffer to Cyclists (Pittsburgh: chapel, how much)

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

I read the following article in this morning's Post-Gazette:

New bill could make drivers give bicycles 4-foot berth - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

While I'm a proponent of cycling as a means to reduce traffic congestion I also feel as if the increase in cyclists I've noticed since moving here over a year ago can simultaneously lead to some congestion issues as motorists are unable to pass slow-moving cyclists on narrow streets.

Ellsworth Avenue through Shadyside is a great example of a road favored by cyclists (as an alternative to busy Fifth Avenue or Baum Boulevard). Often times, though, there are vehicles parked on both sides of the street, especially around the Winchester Thurston School, and with frequent oncoming traffic I don't foresee there being enough room to create this four-foot safety buffer around cyclists as you pass them. Melwood Avenue in Polish Hill is tough enough to navigate, given that it is seemingly half the width of many other major roads while also having vehicles parked on both sides and above-average levels of traffic for a road of its width. Motorists have to find a safe place between parked vehicles to "duck in" to permit oncoming traffic to pass.

I applaud any and all efforts made to encourage more people to bike and to discipline those who are hostile towards cyclists; however, this bill seems to ignore the fact that there is quite often not enough room to safely pass with that four-foot buffer, meaning our city would have to alternatively spend millions to widen roads to reduce congestion caused as people now become paranoid about passing any cyclists on our streets.

What do others think?

I think its ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, if I could bike to work I would in a heart beat. Its obvious that motorists need to share the road to a greater degree than they already are, but also obvious too that many cyclists are a greater danger to themselves than the cars they ride around are.

With that said though, how do you implement this rule and not see adverse effects on traffic? Is it even possible to reasonably to even have this rule given how narrow our many streets are? I agree with the spirit of the bill, but the practicality of it is lacking.

[WestLibertyAve]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

I neither waved nor flashed my high beams to extend the courtesy for them to proceed in front of me, so I find it pretty rude that they would "demand" it. I get equally as angry when I pull over to the side of a narrow street to permit an oncoming vehicle to pass only to then have an entire parade of vehicles behind that vehicle also try to proceed through instead of taking "turns." I finally asserted myself last night and pulled back into traffic, causing one of the opposing vehicles to nearly take out someone's side-view mirror.

It's all about assertiveness. During the Pittsburgh left, if you start pulling forward as the first car is making the turn, you'll limit the amount of people who use the "shield". I've used another car as a shield plenty of times, but only when the opposing driver isn't showing much initiative...it's more efficient for me to just go than to try to figure out if he's A-letting me go, B-just being timid, C-waiting to turn but isn't using a signal, or D-cursing me up and down for sneaking in front of him. Most people anticipate the Pgh left and start moving before they even get the green light. I'd suggest doing the same if you want to defend against it....sure it's a courtesy but you also have the right to deny someone that courtesy just by hitting the gas a little sooner and a little harder (although it's not worth wrecking over).

As far as opposing traffic on a narrow road, it depends more on the situation. Sometimes it's faster just to let a line of cars go than to take individual turns if there are several cars coming from each direction and having to wait for each to navigate the single lane area. Of course this is often a problem on short city streets where the back end of that line of cars may very well be blocking an intersection or another part of the same road.

It's all give and take, sometimes you just gotta take a little more than you give.

To get slightly back on topic, how would you feel if a line of bicyclists pulled a Pittsburgh left on you, considering they should be following the same rules of the road as cars? Is the first one cool, but the rest are jagoffs for using him as a shield?

[gg]

Originally Posted by WestLibertyAve

To get slightly back on topic, how would you feel if a line of bicyclists pulled a Pittsburgh left on you, considering they should be following the same rules of the road as cars? Is the first one cool, but the rest are jagoffs for using him as a shield?

I would and have used a car as a shield like that, but I really look the situation over very well to the point I even know what kind of cars everyone is driving that I am dealing with and if they are male, female age and more. I don't do anything like that if there is a pickup in the mix for example. Lots of pickup truck drivers hate cyclists because of the personality of some dominant man thing. They seem to like to muscle up to bicycles and are out to prove they are king of the road. Little do they know, everyone other than the cyclist is king of the road if you are on a bicycle and yes, even a Prius.

[BrianTH]

The new law is in effect:

New law protects bicyclists - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

[gg]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The new law is in effect:

New law protects bicyclists - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Well, at least if a cyclists gets hit they have more teeth in court. That is if the cyclist is still alive. That is a pretty big deal. It isn't open season anymore as far as the law goes, but there will be no visible change. Maybe 1 in 100,000 people might change their driving habits due to a little bit of awareness. I am expecting to be passed by cars today within a couple feet like everyday.

[Huckleberry3911948]

why state the same thing in a different manner? dont run over pedestrians.

[TechieTransplant]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Well, at least if a cyclists gets hit they have more teeth in court. That is if the cyclist is still alive. That is a pretty big deal. It isn't open season anymore as far as the law goes, but there will be no visible change. Maybe 1 in 100,000 people might change their driving habits due to a little bit of awareness. I am expecting to be passed by cars today within a couple feet like everyday.

Yep, from the start, I said it's good to see a law introduced in cyclists favor, but just like every other rule of the road, people won't follow it, and I'm sure the enforcement will be virtually non existent.

[gg]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

why state the same thing in a different manner? dont run over pedestrians.

Um, you can run over a cyclist and nothing happens at all. There was some pickup truck driver that hit and killed Donald Parker of Hampton and he didn't even have to do community service. His excuse for killing Parker? His flipflop got tangled with his brake pedal. No big deal. Parker was training to do the MS 150 for charity and was on his way to work on a residential street. He is dead and the killer is just living normally with no issues. I don't know if the killer would at least get community service or maybe something with the new law, but maybe not? Hard to say. Ah well, just another cyclist lost that was just trying to get in shape for a charity ride.

[gg]

Originally Posted by scottrpriester

Yep, from the start, I said it's good to see a law introduced in cyclists favor, but just like every other rule of the road, people won't follow it, and I'm sure the enforcement will be virtually non existent.

True, you and I both know there will be no difference when we cycle, but the next cyclist that gets hit, we may see if the law has an effect on a punishment. Maybe it will still be open season and that is what I am assuming, but I guess I hope a good attorney will use the new law in a cyclist's favor to set some precedent in the next case that is sure to happen soon enough.

[ditchdigger]

Maybe 1 in 100,000 people might change their driving habits

Not me, I've always tried to give cyclists a wide berth. Seriously. I don't trust any of you not to just fall over at the wrong time...