Forgot password? | Forgot username? | Register

3 Foot Law

3 Foot Law

Bike Maryland got you 3 feet and we are working to strengthen the existing 3 foot law!

In one of the first U.S. studies of its kind, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future at the Bloomberg School of Public Health have found that bike lanes in Baltimore improve cyclist safety, in a paper published in the Journal Accident Analysis and Prevention on March 27, 2012.  Read the full paper here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar … 7512000917  Bike Maryland thanks Dr. David Love for initiating and completing this important study.

The study looked at drivers’ behavior around cyclists on roads with and without bike lanes, and the good news is that drivers pass significantly wider when cyclists are in bike lanes. The bad news is that on roads without bike lanes, drivers had trouble sharing the road with cyclists, which often violated a state law aimed at making cycling safer.  In 2010, with the support of Bike Maryland, Maryland passed what is known as the “3-foot law,” which requires that drivers must pass cyclists by three feet or more. The study authors found that one in six motor vehicle passes in Baltimore, or about 17 percent, violated the 3-foot law.

Researcher David Love, PhD, says that, “As cyclists, we knew the 3-foot law was not being followed, and we wanted to quantify the problem. Now, for the first time, we have baseline data to inform future transportation and planning efforts.”
Violations to the 3-foot law were virtually non-existent on streets with bike lanes.  Love notes, “we need to find ways to separate car traffic from bike traffic, and bike lanes are one way to do that.”

The study was conducted by a team of six Johns Hopkins University faculty, staff and students who routinely commute to work or school by bicycle. The authors attached video cameras to their bicycles, recording commutes in the Fall of 2011. By translating video footage into data, the study authors documented experiences that others in Baltimore have reported only anecdotally.
Researcher Jared Margulies says, “many cyclists feel safer in bike lanes, and our data indicates that drivers do give cyclists more room when bike lanes are present.”

The study was sponsored in part by Bike Maryland as we support research to assess motorist compliance with the law.

Carol Silldorff
Executive Director
useravatar
Offline
20 Posts
Female  Website 
Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.

Re: 3 Foot Law

I travel the roads used for this particular study daily, Monday through Friday, and I do agree that the lanes are a positive start. However, I do hope that Dr. Love plans to also do a study on the negative behavior of bicycists in this same exact area. I have seen numerous bicyclists (usually messengers) who totally disregard rules of the road for bicyclists, whether it's running red lights, riding on the left side of the road, weaving in and out of traffic, using two or more bicyclists to purposely go super slow (two bicyclists abreast), in the left lane (daring any mnotorist to pass them), etc. While it's nice to have the study that Dr. Love has conducted, equal attention to how some (certainly not all) bicylists still don't get it should be considered. Respect on the road is a two-way street. For every knuckle head out there who disregards the rules of the road for bicyclists, there's an angry motorist who is more than eager to point it out. I am a bicyclist, just like anyone who is reading these posts, but we're all motorists first, cyclists second. I haven't met a bicyclist yet who doesn't use his/her motor vehicle to drive to most cycling events. Let's not act like we don't know how annoying it is when bicyclists behave badly.
    Getting back to the original post; yes it is a very good study, and it certainly does point out that motorists will give bicyclists more room when there are bike lanes, and yes, more bike lanes should be painted on the streets.

Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.

Re: 3 Foot Law

Lindsay Sweet wrote:

I do hope that Dr. Love plans to also do a study on the negative behavior of bicycists in this same exact area.

These cyclists who engage in "negative behavior" definitely irritate some motorists.  No doubt about it.  The motorists, on the other hand, seriously injure and kill cyclists. 

These are wholly different issues and are in no way connected!!

Motorists are irritated by other motorists, by delays due to parts of the Jones Falls Expressway being closed, by pedestrians who cross the street where they shouldn't, by news on the radio about this or that, by what their spouse says to them on the phone while they are driving distractedly, The list goes on and on.  And those crazy cyclists are definitely on the list of things that tick them off.

And irritated motorists are definitely a public hearth issue. Aggressive driving is the cause of many accidents and deaths.

But none of this is related to protecting cyclists from motorists which the Maryland 3 foot law was designed to do.

Why would anyone even mention these two things together?  What were you thinking Lindsay?  Do they think that the rude behavior of a few cyclists justifies other cyclists getting run down by cars?  Do you think it is ok or understandable that cyclists get killed by cars because there are rude and impolite cyclists?  Is it OK for a motorist to run down a cyclist if a bike messenger has just zoomed in front of him upsetting him?  None of this has to do with "respect"; it is about life and death.

This is a plea to completely disconnect these issues and focus on the issue of protecting cyclists by laws--which Bike Maryland is trying to do.

On the study itself done by the Hopkins group, I am sorry that it is not a comparative study which gives some sense of whether the 3 foot law has made things better or worse.  The study can function as a base line though and will be useful as such.

I wish that the study had been done also on more rural roads where the BBC club rides take place.  Just how bad are things out there?  I get passed too closely quite often.  It does not seem to me that the 3 foot law has had any effect yet.  (I did not expect to have an effect yet. It has not been incorporated into the Maryland driver education and it is not being enforced. It will take time.)

Ed Hopkins
ed.hopkins@verizon.net

Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.

Re: 3 Foot Law

Ed Hopkins wrote:



Lindsay Sweet wrote:

I do hope that Dr. Love plans to also do a study on the negative behavior of bicycists in this same exact area.

These are wholly different issues and are in no way connected!!

+1
Speaking as a cyclist first and a motorist second(yes there are some of us here) the dangerous motorist have been here long before the messengers were running lights.  As Ed said, you can't compare these 2 acts.  They are not even close.  Opinions like yours, show exactly how our society is car-centric and bicycle advocates must not only fight against politicians, communities but also fellow cyclist.   
Charlie Murphy

Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.

Re: 3 Foot Law

I get buzzed inside 3' on every ride.
I get passed with oncoming traffic every ride.
I rarely put my foot down (stop) on rural country roads at stop signs, nor do cars.

In November, a punk in a pickup laid on his horn, ran up to my back wheel, pulled beside me and after we yelled at each other flicked his lit cigarette in my face from 1' away.  The State of Maryland is criminally prosecuting him for 2nd degree assault (up to 10 years/ $10K), disorderly conduct and then a slew of traffic offences including the 3' law, littering and throwing items at a bicycle and throwing items at the occupant of a vehicle (me).

Will he or his friends key my cars or destroy my deck furniture, shoot me or burn down my house once I testify against him and he knows who I am, I don’t know?  But it has to stop.  There are limits and this is over the limit.  I reported the incident with description and license number.  I identified the jerk in a photo line-up.  He tried to plea bargain and the State’s Attorney refused.  It isn’t me prosecuting or suing him, it is the State of Maryland.  We’ll find out on May 31 at Howard County District Court.  It isn’t fun, but this kind of behavior has to stop.

I believe that BBC should try to offer volunteers from our riders to go into schools and/or speak to private Driver’s Ed classes to try to help these kids understand the special care they need to exercise around cyclists.  We desperately need to help with the education.  Great leaders like Chris Tsien within BBC have helped a lot with the 3’ law and with new language for the driver’s test but I think we need to keep pushing the envelope.  Every cyclist is a son, daughter, wife, husband, mother, or father and is totally exposed with no protection and motorists MUST give space and patience.  The arrival time will NEVER be influenced AT ALL on the roads we are talking about so waiting to pass safely MUST be our universal message.

Stuart

Will

~too much of anything is just enough for me. Pete Townshend

Stuart Lamb
Stuart the Descender
useravatar
Offline
201 Posts
Male 
Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.

Re: 3 Foot Law

Wow, what fiesty replies, unfortunate that words get added that weren't in my message, implying that I think it's okay for motorists to run down bicylists, where do you come up with that garbage (Ed)? If you read my message correctly, you'd see that agree that the study was positive, and that more lanes DO need to be painted on the roads.
    I remember when guys in my unit would get in trouble out in town, off base, and how they would be more worried about the trouble they'd get into once they got back on base, than the trouble they got into out in town. The Marines had a way of taking care of their own (for good and for bad), If you did good, they rewarded you, if you screwed up, you paid for that as well. I don't see that same kind of mentality with cyclists. While I think we all agree that fighting for tougher laws to protect bicyclists (as well as pedestrians) is extremely important, let's not lose focus that we should also be attempting to continue to educate cyclists on the rules/laws that are in place for cyclists. It's ridiculous to think that anyone who might bring this idea up for discussion is anti-cyclist, try not to have tunnel vision. This disagreement reminds me of how some parents who get called to the office because their kids acted up in school, will come charging into school yelling: "nope, not my kid, my kid wouldn't act up" The same thing applies here; just the mere mention that we (fellow cyclists) should learn to police our own (other cyclists), shouldn't make people get all huffy and puffy. If you see a cyclists acting poorly, we should call them on it, just as we should call nasty motorists on it, when they drive dangerously.
    Stuart, I do remember reading your story some time ago, and it's is very unfortunate that it occured. I hope they come down hard on him, no cyclist should have to go through that. I agree with you that more education is needed, not only in drivers ed classes, but also in the bicycle shops (the flip side). I think that whenever someone purchases a bike they should be offered  to either watch a safety video, and/or attend a safety/instructional class (like the one offered through BBC). Let's educate both motorists, AS WELL AS bicyclists, both ends need to be educated on safety and following the rules of the road.

Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.

Re: 3 Foot Law

Hi Lindsay,

Great to have your reply. I bet that Ed agrees with a lot of what you're saying here.
I also think he's responding to your sentiments with a very important distinction: motorists and cyclists act both respectfully and disrespectfully. Motorists, however, are holding the guns, so to speak, and as such MUST be held to a higher standard. We, as cyclists, can be irresponsible, selfish, aggressive, distracted, foolish, lost, all of it, but we are always extremely disadvantaged by a similarly-acting driver of a 2 ton vehicle.
With great power comes great responsibility and I do not believe this is being understood by most of our driving public.

-Bob

bobwag@gmail.com
4130 on 28's @ 15
http://randoramble.wordpress.com/

Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.

Re: 3 Foot Law

Lindsay

This is my last word on this.  (Feel free to email me off group if you wish to continue.)

I have to point out that you have not answered the ONLY question I posed to you:

Why do you think cyclist misbehavior and cyclist education are CONNECTED TO the issue of motorists running over cyclists?  This series of post began with a discussion of the 3 foot rule and YOU--not me--brought in the issue of cyclist misbehavior, expanding it in your last post to cyclist education.  Why do you think the issues of cyclist misbehavior and the need of cyclist  education are RELEVANT to the issue of motorists running down cyclists? I assume you thought they had some connection to each other:  tell me what you think that connection is.

Of course, I think the issue of cyclist education is important. Such education will save cyclists' lives. I also think there is an issue about cyclists running red lights and stop signs in the city. I think the following blog post from another gives the only reasonable solution to this problem. 

http://washcycle.typepad.com/home/2008/ … f-the.html

But these issues are not connected to or relevant to the problem of motorists running down cyclists. 

There is a belief in the cycling community that cyclists should be more polite and law abiding to motorists SO THAT the motorists will not get angry at cyclists and run them over.  Maybe this is what you think the connection between the issues is--but I don't want to speculate more on what you believe. Just tell us. 

I personally think that there is no connection between motorists running over cyclists and cyclist behavior.  I think the ONLY way to make roads safer for cyclists is to pass laws like the 3 foot law and have more bike lanes and educate motorists about them and enforce these laws.  Nothing else will help. Being sweeter and nicer to motorists will not help.  (But of course one should be sweet and nice to motorists and to everyone one.)

I strongly support the efforts of Bike Maryland to get laws passed that constrain motorists and Bike Marylands' efforts to get these laws enforced.  I see this as the only path forward -- as far as protecting cyclists from motorists is concerned.

Ed Hopkins
ed.hopkins@verizon.net

Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.

Re: 3 Foot Law

3 Foot law equal to “comfort food”

    In a sense, the 3 foot law can be thought of as equivalent to how we view comfort food; it makes us feel warm and fuzzy on the inside. It’s not the same as saying that the law shouldn’t exist; merely that it is a paper tiger of a law. It is a law which will be very difficult to enforce, which is one of the reasons it took some time to convince enough delegates to get on board and pass it. When I walked around to visit various delegate’s offices, during the bike symposium, the year that the 3 foot law was passed, I wasn’t too surprised to hear the responses from the delegates. Many of them voiced the same concerns that I thought, which were basically: “why are we passing a law which will be very difficult to enforce”. Don’t get me wrong, I think that everyone on the planet agrees with the concept of making streets safer for bicyclists and pedestrians. That’s not the question here when you ask if someone is strongly for the 3 foot law. We had a saying in the service, which was: “good initiative, not-so-good-judgment”, and that can somewhat apply to the 3 foot law. It was definitely good initiative to embark on the quest of making the roads safer, but I do wonder if it was entirely thought through. For example; let’s say that cyclist A and motorist B were both traveling down the same road, side by side, at some point the end of the handlebar of the bike touches the side mirror of the motor vehicle, and a disagreement ensues. They go to court, and it becomes a “he said, she said” situation, as to who invaded whose space. The bicyclist will say that the motorist came into his/her lane; the motorist might say that the bicyclist came into his/her lane. It could be very hard to determine (without witnesses), who came into whose lane. This brings me to my next point, helmet cams.
Helmet cams
    I think that helmet cams are a great device, for two main reasons. First (and foremost), to have for recording bicycle rides that might be something to save, especially if riding with family, and/or friends, to look at years later, similar to anyone who likes to take photos of nice events. The helmet cam I have uses an SD card, and can be formatted after you’ve finished the ride, and after you might choose to save it to your computer and/or a DVD disk. The second reason to have a helmet cam (or a handlebar cam) is if you happen to experience an aggressive motorist, you now have it on video, which will be useful in a court of law. I would think that large groups, such as BBC would be able to contact several of the helmet cam manufacturers, and ask how much of a discount the club could get if they purchased 1-2 hundred (or however many club members were interested in purchasing), and offer the discount to BBC members. Perhaps the BBC instructional/safety series folks could use one or more of the helmet cams to use for their instructional classes. To either update the current safety DVD they currently use, or to video tape current rides, and use it to point out good riding styles, as well as show where improvements could be implemented. Speaking of the BBC instructional series, I think that any BBC member who hasn’t already attended the training, I recommend doing so at least once. I did so several years ago, with my youngest son, when I got him a newer bike, as I didn’t want him to become a statistic on the roads, but also so that he wouldn’t become one of the knucklehead cyclists who do whatever they please on the roads. The BBC members who volunteer to put on this event each year do a great job with it.
The St. Paul Street study
    I can only speak about my own experiences about driving on St. Paul Street, where the Dr. Love study was conducted. I travel not once, but twice a day, every day, Monday through Friday, going down St. Paul Street, along the same exact route that the study was conducted. Personally, I think that it was a fantastic idea to do the study, especially since it indicates that actual painted bike lanes are far more effective than merely having a law on the books. The ironic thing about the study is that I had just been discussing how rude many cyclists are going down St. Paul St., with a fellow BBC member, while at the bike symposium this year (a couple months ago), and then, lo and behold, Dr. Love discusses the very topic when it was his turn to speak. He gave a very interesting presentation, for anyone else who may have gone to the symposium this year. However, since I have had a different experience driving down St. Paul St., in a motor vehicle, for the past 15 years, I was waiting for him to say that he ALSO had another study, that of the behavior of cyclists which travel this route. I am happy to report that “in my experience”, in the 15 years I’ve been traveling down St. Paul St., I can’t remember any cases of road rage, or flare-ups between bikes and vehicles. Sadly, though, I do remember more instances of poor riding behavior of cyclists, than that of motorists (running lights, weaving through lanes, coming close to clipping cars, etc.). This observation of mine alone doesn’t really mean anything, since someone else may have a totally different experience when they drive down St. Paul St. I can only go by my own experiences while traveling through that area. I do totally agree with Dr. Love that more bike lanes are needed. I think also that if the same time and effort that went into fighting for the 3 foot law would have been spent on fighting for funding for more painted bike lanes maybe that would have been better time spent, since the study clearly shows that the lanes keep the peace between cyclists and motorists. Well, we can’t undo the law, and it’s not as though it’s a bad law, it’s just a paper tiger of a law that will be very difficult to enforce. You may as well file the 3 foot law with other laws already on the books which aren’t  all that easy to enforce (i.e. you can’t throw a bale of hay out of a second story window, you can’t throw trash on the ground, you can’t spit on the ground). I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the 3 foot law to show results (on their own merit). Instead, bicyclists should get behind the bike lanes and push Annapolis for more funding for the painting of the lanes. Getting back to the St. Paul St. study, I would be curious as to if it was a bicycle messenger who originally requested the study that Dr. Love conducted. From my experience I have found the bike messengers to be the main offenders of poor bike riding skills, and it would be fitting if a messenger is who requested to see how close motorist are coming to them. Here’s a thought, for anyone who might think that bicyclists are being picked on when spoken about in this light: suppose there was a young teenager traveling on St. Paul St., with a driver’s education instructor, when one of these knucklehead messenger cyclists is speeding down St. Paul, weaving through traffic (after all, he/she must keep on schedule making the deliveries), and cuts off the teenager, while he/she is learning how to drive. We usually hear about how every cyclist is a brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter, etc., and that is very true, and something to always be mindful of. At the same time, every motorist is also a husband, etc. etc. etc., even those who might be learning how to drive. This is where being a considerate cyclist comes into play.
    It’s because of my personal experiences while driving down St. Paul St. that I saw the 3 foot law post in the forum, and thought: “here is an opportunity to have other bicyclists look outside the box”.  When I was sitting at the bike symposium, this was not the proper venue to discuss topics such as where is the study done on the behavior of cyclists going down this same stretch of road? Primarily, because the symposium needs to stay on time and not be bothered with someone critiquing their study (or lack of a comparative study).  Due to my own experiences traveling down St. Paul St., and the fact that I saw more negative behavior on the part of cyclists, than of motorists, that is why I had to scratch my head and ask: “what’s wrong with this picture?” Now, to be fair to those who ask why the two issues have anything to do with each (the Dr. Love study and the behavior of cyclists), I can understand why there would be confusion, not knowing where I’m coming from on this. Before anyone chimes in with the usual comments about 2 ton vehicles are no match for cyclists, and bad behavior of cyclists don’t mean that motorists have the right to run down motorists, I get it, I get your point, but at the same time, it’s ridiculous to think that anyone would imply that’s the case here. Nobody is saying that it’s okay for motorists to run down cyclists, period. Even when I would see cyclists riding wacky down St. Paul St., I never even once thought that I would like to see someone run down the cyclist who’s riding badly, that’s ridiculous to even think. Instead, I simply shook my head, thinking about poorly he/she is making other cyclists look in the eyes of the other motorists around me. This leads me to the next topic, the sand box.
The sand box
    We should all learn to play nice in the sandbox together. For those who had difficulty understanding why I put cyclist education and motorist education in the same post (I think most of you get it already), here’s the gist of it. Some individuals seem to want to look at motorists as the big mean bully on the block. It’s the old thinking of: “It’s us against them, the cyclists (victims), against the big Meany bully’s (motorists)”. Okay, using this analogy, let’s move over to the sandbox (let’s say that the roads are equivalent to sandboxes).  Alright, a group of kids are playing together in the sandbox, and at some point a disagreement ensues, and one of the bigger kids (motorist) roughs up one of the smaller kids (cyclist). The parents (police) come over, break it up, and try to get to the bottom of what happened. Let’s say that it turns out that the bully instigated the incident, and the police punish the bully by making him/her sit in the time out chair, maybe take away some allowance. Now, instead of that being the end of how it turns out, wouldn’t it be nice to also have the parents speak to the victim and determine if there is anything that could have gone differently to avert such a bad outcome in the future (no, we’re not blaming the victim!). The victim might indicate that he was caught up in a moment of happiness and was flinging sand around (similar to a cyclist riding wacky down St. Paul St.), and some of the sand accidently flew into the eyes of the bully. Ah hah; while we can’t excuse the bully for his/her actions (he/she still shouldn’t be bullying others, regardless), this tidbit of information can be useful in teaching the victim (cyclist) how to lower the chance of being bullied in the future. Knowing what might have sparked the response from the bully, by the victim flinging sand (or by biking wacky), can keep the peace in the sandbox when the two play in the sandbox the next time. If we use this example on the St. Paul St. area, where cyclists and motorists must also play nicely together, it should be easier to see why I think it’s equally important to educate cyclists and motorists, not just one or the other. In cases where cyclists can find other sandboxes (roads) to play in, where there might be less of a problem with bullies (motorists), it seems like “IF” there was a better alternate route, why not avoid the stress. Of course, this is not always feasible, in which case, it’s important to learn how to play better together; after all, we do have to share the roads together. As much as it would seem like living in our own little “Pleasantville”, if motor vehicles were done away with, unfortunately, they’re here to stay. We can’t UN-invent anything, including vehicles, sorry for the bad news. Even after the final drop of fossil fuel is squeezed from the soil, we will have moved on to electric cars or hydroplane vehicles, etc. In other words, since we’re stuck sharing with other vehicles, forever, it’s best we all just try to learn how to get along and play nicely.
The upcoming case for fellow BBC member
    In case anyone involved with fellow BBC member (Stuart) (legal team?) is reading this, I thought of something to consider, as far as (ONLY “part”) possible punishment for the guy who assaulted Stuart. In addition to what Stuart already has listed as possible punishment that he may receive, what about if “part” of the punishment would be that the guy has to ride once a week, every week, for a specified number of weeks, with a BBC group ride. Before responding with a knee-jerk reaction, sit back and think about how this would play out. First of all, I’d be willing to venture that the guy would have a new respect for what cyclists have to endure when out on the roads cycling, all the traffic, (possibly people yelling his way), etc. Don’t get me wrong, I AM NOT implying that the cycling group does a bully beat down on the bike rides, but, instead, I’m saying that the group of riders should NOT antagonize the guy at. Rather, why not show him how pleasant a group of cyclists can be, and how much fun cycling can be. Who knows, after the certain number of weeks were up, I wouldn’t be surprised if the guy became an avid cyclist himself, AND, maybe even relay to his friends (who may have shared his same beliefs about cyclists) how wrong he was in treating Stuart the way he did. In addition, I would save one of the last mandatory rides that he had to do for the court, for him and Stuart to maybe take the last ride together, along with other BBC members of course (unless things seem too hostile between the two), and sort of bury the hatchet. I know what some are thinking: “what are you crazy, did you hear what this guy did?” I know, and it might seem farfetched of an idea, but think of how nice it would be if it could be done, and it worked out as described above. If such a scenario weren’t even attempted, and the guy simply had to pay a fine, and/or did some jail time, would he have learned as much as he would if he had to go on a number of group rides with BBC members? I doubt it; in fact he may actually build up a deeper resentment towards cyclists. Another concern for some may be about not wanting to ride with him, and WHO would be assigned to take on the task? Well, that would have to be worked out, of course, but “perhaps” the court could appoint an off-duty (or on-duty) police bicyclist, if they felt it would be needed, depending on his anger management level. You never know, it could be that he would be okay to go by himself (with no escort), and a responsible group of BBC riders, who would have to sign his court papers stating that he did in fact participate in the rides (and behaved nicely).
    Feel free to tear apart my ideas above; they’re simply ideas, just trying to put a positive spin on a not so positive situation. That’s about it for my rant for now. In closing, for those who may have gotten the wrong impression out of my previous posts; does anyone remember back when BBC talk used to be in Yahoo? Well, back when we had Yahoo BBC talk, I posted a couple of quick responses when I heard the talk show host at the time (Chip Franklin) spewing hate-filled language about bicyclists on his air waves, which gave some cyclists a chance to call in to his show and respond. I believe that the League of American Bicyclists even contacted Chip about his tirades. Then, a few short years ago, the same radio station had another bicycle hating show host (she didn’t even try to hide the fact that she absolutely despised cyclists) (Sherrie Ellecker), who would go on about how terrible it was that bicyclists are taking over certain areas in Baltimore area. Fortunately, she is no longer on the air (not sure if it had anything to do with the rants about how terrible cyclists are).
    Anyway, to make a long story short, I’m not a bicycle basher, I just like to see both sides (all sides) get equal attention. While I think it’s great that strides are being made as far as ensuring motorists are being kept playing fair, I equally think that bicyclists shouldn’t be left off the hook. While cyclists can’t keep bullies from being bullies, they can help by not instigating (perhaps) by not adding fuel to the fire, and providing the spark that ignites their hostility.
Lindsay Sweet

Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.

Re: 3 Foot Law

Wow. You are saying a lot here. current/smile

I love your idea of helmet cams. I ride a 30+ mile commute every day from Hampden to Owings Mills. Motorists come very close to hitting me often. Many are on the phone or texting or have dogs in their laps. There is no bike lane or shoulder on most of these roads so I use safety vest and powerful lighting and I ride defensively. If I was hit while using a helmet cam and there was no 3 foot law, what should I do with my video recording?

I believe most motorists don't care or even notice the difference between responsible and irresponsible cycling. Riding bicycles in the street is akin to hoola hooping or playing frisbee in the street- it's all immature and if you were responsible you'd get out of the road. Lindsay, it's cool that you're into holding bad-behaving cyclists to a higher standard, but I don't think it makes one whit of a difference.

bobwag@gmail.com
4130 on 28's @ 15
http://randoramble.wordpress.com/

Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.
There are 0 guests and 0 other users also viewing this topic

Board Info

Board Stats
 
Total Topics:
4611
Total Polls:
8
Total Posts:
4000
Posts today:
6
User Info
 
Total Users:
3004
Newest User:
RandyBoothSP
Members Online:
3
Guests Online:
1018