Undercover sting underway to catch motorists violating the 3 foot law

[ethanw]

Interesting study

Bike Lanes Don

[Kiovo]

Originally Posted by vegankris

Uh....if you had paid attention you would have heard that the video you saw of the group of cyclists was from a PSA (public service announcement) made by the mayor's office to show that cyclists have the right to be on the road and that you MUST give them three feet.

Giving cyclists 3 feet is totally understandable. I even give motorcyclists more than three feet since I hate being near them (in fear of anything going wrong I don't want to be the one hurting them or running them over).

My issue is when the cyclist breaks the three feet rule. For example, the other day I was leaving work heading north on W.Dallas and there was a cyclist in the right lane, just casually pedaling her bike. I was in the right lane, made sure I was at least a car length behind her, finally had an opening to get in the left lane to pass, and I safely and lawfully pass her in the left lane and I signal to get back in the right lane. At the light I'm the first car in the right lane. What do ya know, here she comes just riding pass all the cars that are stopped and she finally stops when she's right next to my passenger side mirror. Less than a foot from my car. So, does the law not go both ways?

[Bike4Life]

Originally Posted by Kiovo

My issue is when the cyclist breaks the three feet rule. For example, the other day I was leaving work heading north on W.Dallas and there was a cyclist in the right lane, just casually pedaling her bike. I was in the right lane, made sure I was at least a car length behind her, finally had an opening to get in the left lane to pass, and I safely and lawfully pass her in the left lane and I signal to get back in the right lane. At the light I'm the first car in the right lane. What do ya know, here she comes just riding pass all the cars that are stopped and she finally stops when she's right next to my passenger side mirror. Less than a foot from my car. So, does the law not go both ways?

I guess all those cars the bicyclist passed should be given a ticket . I'm sure that will be an exception. But seriously, I'm a SUV driver too and that's a tricky situation. I usually stop with my bicycle at the back of the line as it's not safe for the novice bicyclist to wait right next to your right mirror. The drivers behind her might be more frustrated having another slow start and harder time passing the bicyclist. I would never ride in between the car and the curb - it's not safe and I don't want to hit the mirrors or scratch anyone's car.

But if the light just turned red in a dense urban area like downtown, I probably will pass all the cars on the left side and then if no cars are in cross traffic, I'll go ahead and "jaywalk" so I'll be way ahead by the time your light turns green. Everyone will be able to accelerate at full throttle and spread out enough to pass me or to meet at the next red light. Many bicycle messengers do that all the time in Manhattan. The goal is to be the least inconvenience to drivers by getting through traffic and soon be gone.

[ca_north]

Originally Posted by eric3781

Horse crap. Roads are for cars. Duh. A two-year old knows this. What's your excuse?

We pay gas tax for roads. Bicyclists don't pay for the roads, hence they have no claim. I don't make the rules, I just assert them.

When the bicyclists start funding the building and maintenance of all the roads then they can have input. That would be awesome. But until then, I guess their opinion of what constitutes a valid form of road transportation need not be considered.

You assume that these bicyclists don't drive cars at all? It's hardly just gas taxes that pay for roads, anyhow. A lot of transportation money comes from general funds.

But I agree that cyclists shouldn't ride in ways that block traffic.