New Bill to Require Drivers to Yield 4-Foot Safety Buffer to Cyclists (Pittsburgh: taxi, income)

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by Caladium

Do people cycle to work during the winter months there? Or is that mostly just a summertime thing?

People cycle here year-round. I'm inclined to agree with BrianTH that any congestion issues arising from this bill may be mitigated once more people feel more comfortable cycling (leading to fewer cars on the road).

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

People cycle here year-round. I'm inclined to agree with BrianTH that any congestion issues arising from this bill may be mitigated once more people feel more comfortable cycling (leading to fewer cars on the road).

We're never going to have so few cars on the road that it will offset the congestion resulting from having to drive as slowly as bikes.

We need bike lanes and other infrastructure for bikes, not this crazy law.

[ctoocheck]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I wouldn't say that--it is more treating them like they have a right to a narrow lane in the same sense that cars currently have a right to a full lane. I might note the bill also imposes a new duty on slow-moving bicycles to keep right, subject to some exceptions (e.g., when turning left), and a general duty to "use reasonable efforts so as not to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic."

I think this is effectively granting bikes the full lane in a road in most cases. If a lane is 12' (which is a typical, only barely wide lane; many in the City are 10'), and a bike even at the very edge of that road consumes 4', and a car is 8', this car will be riding the very edge of his lane if that is even possible.

Of course I think bikes should be much more encouraged in not only Pittsburgh, but in all cities, and that cars have been given far too much precedence. So despite most often traveling by car myself (in addition to sometimes bike and rarely transit), I can't really truthfully complain too much.

[ctoocheck]

Originally Posted by stburr91

Well, Minneapolis and Boulder are considered some of the most bike friendly cities in the US, so clearly a cold climate isn't a deterrent. Seattle is ranked #4, so rain isn't a problem, and San Francisco is ranked #6, so hills aren't a problem either.

c.f. an enormous number of cities in northern Europe...

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by Hopes

We're never going to have so few cars on the road that it will offset the congestion resulting from having to drive as slowly as bikes.

We need bike lanes and other infrastructure for bikes, not this crazy law.

More Infrastructure = More $$$

More $$$ = More Taxes

Pittsburghers Don't Like Taxes

End Result === No New Infrastructure

Consider me crazy, but I actually wouldn't mind being taxed nearly to death my entire life if it meant I could have a higher quality-of-life overall as a result. You only live once, so why not try to live in as near of a Utopian society as possible?

[ctoocheck]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

More Infrastructure = More $$$

More $$$ = More Taxes

Pittsburghers Don't Like Taxes

End Result === No New Infrastructure

Unfortunately what people don't realize is:

Bike infrastructure = $
Improving or even maintaining car infrastructure = $$$$
∴
More bikes = less taxes
More bikes = better health
Better health = less $$$
More bikes = less $$$
etc.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Hopes

We're never going to have so few cars on the road that it will offset the congestion resulting from having to drive as slowly as bikes.

Just removing a small percentage of cars from a route can have very significant congestion benefits.

And of course the law doesn't require that cars never pass slow-moving bikes--it just regularizes the rules for doing so, and also requires that slow-moving bikes stay right to allow passing. In fact, I'd suggest in these hypothetical scenarios (non-highways with all lanes in both directions trying to carry uninterrupted traffic), bikes are a minimal concern compared to the congestion that will arise from cars interactions, traffic signals, and so on. But I don't see people arguing we should allow anarchy among cars in those scenarios--we recognize that safe, regulated driving is still necessary. This "crazy" law merely applies the same sentiment to bikes as well.

[Caladium]

If people cycle year round, then a heavy snow storm could add an additional challenge to a law like this. Plowed roads are often fairly narrow, since they accommodate snow being pushed to the side. In some ways I like the idea of this bill, but it doesn't sound practical to me. I agree it's good for bringing attention to a problem but is that the purpose of passing a bill?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by ctoocheck

I think this is effectively granting bikes the full lane in a road in most cases. If a lane is 12' (which is a typical, only barely wide lane; many in the City are 10'), and a bike even at the very edge of that road consumes 4', and a car is 8', this car will be riding the very edge of his lane if that is even possible.

It depends on the scenario. Many streets will have a parking lane or shoulder such that the bike could get over even further right than the edge of the travel lane. And again cars can intrude on the opposite lane briefly to pass a bike even in no-passing zones.

I think people may be underestimating how useful that is. No-passing zones are laid out with the assumption that a car is trying to pass another car which is moving nearly as fast. Getting around a car taking up most of the travel lane in such a scenario and then getting fully back into the travel lane takes a lot of time, so they need to be cautious about no-passing zones. But just having to pass a slow-moving bike with only a partial out-and-back-in should take much less time, which is why they can allow it in no-passing zones.

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Consider me crazy, but I actually wouldn't mind being taxed nearly to death my entire life if it meant I could have a higher quality-of-life overall as a result. You only live once, so why not try to live in as near of a Utopian society as possible?

Who decides which features make a society utopian? What about the people who move away to other metro areas that have lower taxes--would you be willing to make up the difference after they leave?