Please support these two bills (real estate, gated, legally)

[kutra11]

Originally Posted by spencgr

This is actually LEGAL on the highways in California!! I can't imagine more people aren't killed this way.

I'm fine with them doing it where it's legal. In VA it's not, so follow the existing laws before asking for new ones!!!

[spencgr]

Originally Posted by AnonymouseX

They made this legal because most motorcycles used to be air cooled. Most if not all Harley's are.

In case you've never done it, sitting in traffic on an air cooled motorcycle gets real uncomfortable real quick.

Well, if that is the intent of the law, it makes sense. But, because the law likely didn't define that it was legal in stopped traffic only (or set a certain speed limit), those on motorcycles speed down between lanes when everyone is going normal speed. Very, very, dangerous.

Hmm...I guess laws that aren't specific in their wording can actually cause more problems than they solve.........strictly my complaint with the one bike law proposed here.

[AnonymouseX]

Originally Posted by spencgr

Well, if that is the intent of the law, it makes sense. But, because the law likely didn't define that it was legal in stopped traffic only (or set a certain speed limit), those on motorcycles speed down between lanes when everyone is going normal speed. Very, very, dangerous.

Hmm...I guess laws that aren't specific in their wording can actually cause more problems than they solve.........strictly my complaint with the one bike law proposed here.

That's the problem with laws. Vagueness.

Like the aforementioned proposed bike laws.

Too vague...

[RobCG]

Originally Posted by phrekyos

Bicycles are not motor vehicles, which is what the roads are designed for. They don't belong there. If you want to play Lance Armstrong, do it on a bike path or something. The rest of us have places to go and things to do, and we don't need to be stuck behind somebody furiously peddling along at 10 mph.

You'll be taught patience. Bicycles aren't going away.

[tysonsengineer]

Originally Posted by JEB77

The first proposal, as far as I can tell, does not appear to be the subject of a current legislative proposal in Virginia. While I would not want cars rear-ending bikes, I would not support legislation that imposes a legal duty on drivers to maintain a "reasonable distance" from a cyclist riding a bike on a road designed primarily for cars, at least not without a better understanding as to whether it might also be illegal for the cyclist to be on the road in the first place, while traveling at a snail-like pace, or some explanatory guidance as to what a "reasonable distance" means. Standards based on concepts of "due care" are hard to folllow when people find themselves in unanticipated, unpleasant situations where they really aren't sure what's appropriate for them to do under the circumstances.

@JEB, this is not correct. No where in any document does it say roads are intended primarily for cars. There are certain roads, due to their speed, that restrict non-motorized. Other than that all other roads must be designed using ALL forms of transportation. In fact in the mid-20th century many town dwellers debated restricting cars from town roads because they were far too dangerous to pedestrians and bicyclists going (wait for it) 20mph. The perversion of our internal road networks has been a long battle but I can assure you that there is no legal document that says cars own this more than bikes or people do.

That being said, VDOT has all but forgotten any other form of transportation except for cars and trucks.

[JD984]

Originally Posted by tysonsengineer

@JEB, this is not correct. No where in any document does it say roads are intended primarily for cars. There are certain roads, due to their speed, that restrict non-motorized. Other than that all other roads must be designed using ALL forms of transportation. In fact in the mid-20th century many town dwellers debated restricting cars from town roads because they were far too dangerous to pedestrians and bicyclists going (wait for it) 20mph. The perversion of our internal road networks has been a long battle but I can assure you that there is no legal document that says cars own this more than bikes or people do.

That being said, VDOT has all but forgotten any other form of transportation except for cars and trucks.

Your post is a non-sequitur. I'm not really focusing on roads that are restricted by law to drivers. I have been referring to roads that, as a factual and historical matter, were designed primarily with cars in mind, of which there are many in this area (which is not exactly overrun with the types of small towns of the type you mention). That's a context in which one needs to evaluate proposed new laws to impose new duties and potential liabilities on drivers vis-a-vis cyclists.

If you want to advocate for mass transit or biking, be my guest, but don't mischaracterize what I've said to get there.

[tysonsengineer]

Originally Posted by JEB77

Your post is a non-sequitur. I did not say anything about roads that were restricted by law to drivers. I was referring to roads that, as a factual and historical matter, were designed primarily with cars in mind, of which there are many in this area (which is not exactly chock full of small towns of the type you mention). If you want to advocate for mass transit or biking, be my guest, but don't mischaracterize what I've said to get there.

Sorry wasn't trying to argue that your stance was wrong, but I think it is worth noting that originally when roads were created in towns in NOVA that it wasn't for providing priority for vehicles. It has become that but initially it wasnt.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by JEB77

Your post is a non-sequitur. I'm not really focusing on roads that are restricted by law to drivers. I have been referring to roads that, as a factual and historical matter, were designed primarily with cars in mind, of which there are many in this area (which is not exactly overrun with the types of small towns of the type you mention).

many of them were originally built with cars in mind, and some delivery trucks - not minivans, or SUV's or minicars, or a range of other things that are now common on our roads. That does not make it legal to follow such vehicles too closely.

I am not sure how the original design visions of the roads are relevant to the legislation. I mean it sounds like the logic is A. Many roads (IE especially those in rural areas, or what were rural areas when they were designed) are not well designed for bikes B. Ergo, its better to discourage cycling C. allowing close following is a good way to discourage cycling

A is certainly true. B, as far as I can tell, is the exact opposite of the policy of the Commonwealth. Its certainly opposite to the policy of Fairfax County (and a fortiori Arlington and City of Alexandria - Im not sure about the other NoVa jurisdictions) C, is something I have a lot of difficulty with, and Im sure few elected officials would admit to believing.

BTW, IIUC, the house committee has amended it - in a way that may address some peoples concerns

HB1950 ‘Following Too Closely’ Was Reported Out… | Virginia Bicycling Federation

"The driver of a vehicle shall not follow another vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard to the speed of both vehicles and the traffic on, and conditions of, the highway at the time."

[JD984]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

I am not sure how the original design visions of the roads are relevant to the legislation. I mean it sounds like the logic is A. Many roads (IE especially those in rural areas, or what were rural areas when they were designed) are not well designed for bikes B. Ergo, its better to discourage cycling C. allowing close following is a good way to discourage cycling

I kind of like that. We don't all have to be politicians. Although, if I were one, I'd probably add "on these roads" to "B" and replace "C" with "building new bike lanes/routes is a better way to promote cycling than penalizing drivers for close following on roads built with drivers in mind."

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by kutra11

I'm fine with them doing it where it's legal. In VA it's not, so follow the existing laws before asking for new ones!!!

I am pretty sure it is legal for a bicyclist to ride between ONE lane of stopped cars, and one lane of parked cars. Its not between two travel lanes of stopped cars, but then Im not sure why such a situation would be relevant to dooring anyone.

indeed, most of the bike lanes we have (in arlington, on Gallows rd in FFX, etc) encourage you to ride between the parked cars and stopped cars in the rightmost travel lane.


Of course a classic vehicular cyclist, who takes the lane regularly will not be doing that. They will be sitting in line in the center of the travel lane with all the other traffic.