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

[MeinGlanzendMotorrad]

I'm rather fond of not being "taxed nearly to death" and choosing on my own how I spend my money but hey, some of us just need Big Daddy Government ruling us 24/7 in order to live.

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Not to mention that American politicians have an infinitely long history of waste, mismanagement of funds, and lining pockets in shady back door deals when it comes to tax payer money. If people want a "taxed to death" model that actually increases quality of life, they need to go to a Scandinavian country.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Caladium

In some ways I like the idea of this bill, but it doesn't sound practical to me.

What is the more practical alternative?

Bikes are only allowed in bike lanes? You can't practically retrofit our streets to provide continuous bike lanes everywhere.

Cars can pass slow-moving bikes with only a whisker between them? Obviously that would be extremely hazardous.

The rule has to be something like slow-moving bikes must stay right, and cars can only pass them at a safe distance. This bill actually defines "safe distance", but the rule has to be along these lines regardless.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Caladium

Who decides which features make a society utopian?

In a representative democracy, our elected officials.

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?

Places with higher taxes and higher quality of life don't necessarily struggle to become populous (e.g., the NYC metropolitan area). In any event, you could have a variety of places and let everyone choose the balance they prefer.

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

What is the more practical alternative?

I wish I had an answer, but I don't. Every solution seems to have major problems.

[TechieTransplant]

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?

As a cyclist, it's nice to see legislation passed in our favor, but let's face it, people don't follow rules, so this is really no big deal to me.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Caladium

I wish I had an answer, but I don't. Every solution seems to have major problems.

It is basically an issue of allocating a scarce resource (road space). Any rule is going to require some tradeoffs, or seem like it is creating "problems" in comparison to a hypothetical ideal in which there was unlimited road space available for everyone.

So given the constraints of the real world, this seems like a reasonable balance to me.

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Places with higher taxes and higher quality of life don't necessarily struggle to become populous (e.g., the NYC metropolitan area).

Just my opinion, of course, but if Pittsburgh decided to adopt an attitude of "Let's tax people to death to create utopia" you would see a mass exodus of residents and businesses. OTOH if you could convince people to stay and if the city could pull a thing like that off it might end up becoming an amazing place. Or the money might get eaten up by mismanagement and focus groups.

[BrianTH]

I wouldn't necessarily leap to NYC taxation rates, but I do think we should recognize that we are well along the path to becoming a higher-income, higher-service, higher-quality metropolitan area, and we should be making smart long-term investments consistent with that vision. We shouldn't be taxing willy-nilly, and in particular we should not accept higher levels of government (state and federal) taxing us without giving us a fair share of those taxes back in the form of such investments, but at the same time we should not always favor marginally lower local taxes over providing adequate funding for such investments. In other words, neither extreme makes sense, which leaves the hard, never-ending work of finding an appropriate balance.

Anyway, as another poster pointed out, bike infrastructure in particular is really quite cheap, and generally provides lots of bang for the buck. Still, in densely-developed urban areas you can't provide dedicated bike lanes everywhere or even on most streets, and for the remaining network of streets you need reasonable rules for interactions between cars, bikes, and pedestrians.

[PittsburghLlama]

Originally Posted by Hopes

And eliminate humid summers, stop the constant rain, and require all employers to provide showering facilities to employees.

FYI, biking year round is not impossible, or even difficult. There are multiple companies that make very lightweight/cost effective gear for the winter months and for rainy days (biking in the rain is great fun, btw). If you dress in the appropriate layers, winter biking can be pretty comfortable.

Also, one needn't have a shower in their office to ride during humid weather (speaking from experience). Just bring a backpack and a change of clothing/towel/deodorant. In the summer, I always ride to work in cut off shorts and a tank top. I change into my work clothes in the bathroom, and unless you are of the extremely smelly variety, no one will know that you were gross and sweaty after you change/dry off.
I am sure there are some folks who might feel dirty without a shower, but I feel like it would mostly be in their heads; either that, or I actually am quite awful in the summer and my fellow employees just put up with my stench to spare my feelings.

Don't fear riding all year (rhyme!!)