(AP Photo)
Here’s the news that caught my eye this past week…
– California Governor Jerry Brown has has vetoed a safe passing bill on grounds that the stipulation of passing bikes at 15 mph would cause backups and safety problems. Advocates are upset and confused. (*Note: I made a mistake in my critique of Gov. Brown’s reasoning that has since been edited out. I regret the error. — JM)
– In a last-ditch attempt to foster civility on their roads, authorities in Caracas, Venenzuela have deployed mimes to calm traffic.
– As Portland gears up for a bike sharing program, some cities with existing systems, like Chicago, are looking to expand bike sharing while other cities, like Duluth, MN, start thinking about installing bike share systems of their own.
– Bike shops are doing well, and not just in Portland. The Kingwood Observer highlighted a Houston-area shop, Sprockets Bicycles and More, which has been so successful that the shop owners regularly donate bike repair services to their local fire fighters.
– One province in the Philippines is attempting to promote bicycling by giving commuters who travel to work by bike a 30 minute grace period before they have to be at their desks.
– The University of Connecticut is now allowing students to check out bicycles from the library, just like they do books.
– Chicago has passed a law extending their texting and cell phone ban to people operating bicycles.
– The Times of India reported on a constable who caught two other police officers drinking on the job after the offending officers failed to notice him passing by on his bicycle.
– A tragic story out of New York of a 22-year-old man who died after being struck by two cars traveling in opposite directions while riding his bicycle.
– The New York Times discusses the cover of the 2012 Cinelli product catalog which ironically highlights the supposed “war between cyclists and motorists.”
– Speaking of “war,” when a BBC headline reads, “Are bicycles and cars in a war for American streets?” you know it’ll get some attention (the article features a few quotes from PBOT’s Mark Lear).
– Atypical parkinsonism, a disorder with symptoms similar to Parkinson’s disease but with different recommended treatment, is being diagnosed using patients’ ability to ride a bicycle.
– A 17-year-old young man in Des Moines is making headlines by beating older, more seasoned competitors after his mother encouraged him to take up cycling in his early teens.
– In Surrey, BC a judge found the use of a person’s thumb to be worth $116,060.91 after the thumb was broken in a car-bicycle collision where the person on the bicycle was found to be exactly 15% liable for the incident.
– Dave Weber rode his bicycle nearly 1100 miles in September and an 18-year-old from Whitchurch rode 2,000 miles in two weeks to raise money for his town’s youth center.
– Retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Douglass Adams is completing the last 221-mile leg of an 18,000-mile, 365-day bike ride to honor our military and their families.
– Police in the UK are looking for witnesses to an assault of a man on a bicycle who wasn’t struck by a car, but instead was allegedly pushed by a passenger leaning out a car window.
– Occupy Wall Street protesters peacefully demonstrated at Los Angeles’ “biggest block party,” CicLAvia, LA’s car-free equivalent of Portland’s Sunday Parkways.
– The city of Austin, TX was inundated with bicycle messengers attending the North American Cycle Courier Championships.
– In case anyone doubted the legitimacy of riding a bike in high heels, here are instructions on how to build your own cycling heels.
– And finally, how could we resist a blog post for men about how to wear skirts while biking, complete with fantastic illustrations.
Did you find something interesting that should be in next week’s Monday Roundup? Drop us a line.
re: 3 foot veto. The bill wasn’t written correctly and Brown vetoed based upon that. It should just state: 3 feet PERIOD, because that’s what we deserve. If there isn’t room don’t go. If there’s a slow down that’s on drivers to negotiate because, you know, driving is a privilege, not a right.
Jim,
Problem with just “3 feet period” is that there are roads where there isn’t enough room… That’s why I assume the speed differential language was put in. In Oregon, our “safe passing” law was compromised to only apply in places w/ speeds over 35 mph for similar reasons… as in, TriMet lobbied that it’d be impossible for them to give enough room in crowded situations like downtown. Our law also doesn’t apply if there are bike lanes present.
IMO, I think if there’s not room to pass safely, people just shouldn’t pass.
I can’t believe that the CA bill got that far and then got vetoed. If it wasn’t written correctly, then how/why did the legislature pass it?
How many laws get passed by legislatures, state and federal and are overturned on any number of issues?
It’s not unusual.
We over turn laws because they are unconstitutional pretty regularly.
The way I see it no matter how a passing law is written it is not only impossible to enforce but cops will not want to anyway.
The law would serve as a societal reminder and, as such, is an effective deterrent, as I see it. Much like verbiage in a DMV manual regarding cyclists’ rights.
“Bike lanes” were recently painted around SFO and are ludicrously bad, putting riders in danger even relative to the previous, non-marked road. Why? Because it was planned no doubt by non-cyclists.
When was the last time anyone saw a slim, trim, cyclist-member of the legislature? I suspect no one rides; at least not a vocal minority.
Yes, but it’s also impossible to enforce a speed limit completely, but when we all know it’s there and that there’s a possibility of enforcement we tend to drive closer to the speed limit than we otherwise would.
Egregious violations and repeat offenders are more likely to be punished where there’s a strict standard on the books; you can pass a cop on the freeway at 61mph and probably not get pulled over; blow by at 75 and flashing blue lights are in your future.
This is exactly the problem. No doubt hitting a cyclist would constitute prima facie evidence of violation of this law–but that’s about the only kind of evidence that would be strong enough for a citation. So even with a law like this, cyclists would still have to get hit before any meaningful enforcement can take place. Additionally, killing a cyclist would still not be illegal; the infraction would be “failure to allow safe passing distance”. Oopsie.
the law can be largely aspirational and educational without being strictly enforceable. every once in awhile a police officer might actually observe the incident. and as noted, hitting the cyclist should be prima facie evidence the motorist was closer than three feet, but in that case you may have larger fish to fry than a class a misdemeanor. but i think telling motorists in a rather high profile way, “this is what we expect of you,” does have value.
i do not accept the argument that there could be a situation in which three feet would not work because there is not enough room. if the car is six or seven feet wide and the bike is two or three feet from the edge, you would need fourteen or fifteen feet of pavement. very few roads narrower than that, and if oncoming traffic and/or parked cars give you less than fourteen feet, the correct answer is do not pass.
Re: war between cars and cyclists, I did the Harvest Century this past weekend, and the only issue I had was someone getting frustrated that I stopped at a 4-way intersection (there were cars around, so of course I stopped).
I think it’s because I came up to the stop sign right after 2-3 other cyclists had gone through, but I didn’t want to be an ass and sprint through it without stopping, so I stopped and the young lady driving seemed a little perturbed by it, who knows why.
Overall though, 105 miles of riding through towns and countryside, and that was the *only* thing that could be considered an “issue”. I’m glad to be living here in the NW, that’s for sure. As often as you hear about problems, this is a pretty great place to be in terms of not having issues with drivers for the most part.
Regarding the $116, 060.91 thumb – it’s a shock to me to learn that Australia is as close as Surrey B.C. I suddenly have a hankering for Vegemite and Ice Hockey.
Thanks for the catch. I’ve corrected the article. But the combo of Vegemite and Ice Hockey sound like the start of an exciting evening!
Miming the roadway? Isn’t the world against using mimes? 😉
I think the US refused to sign on the Anti-Mime treaty.
Only land-mimes. Maybe they could help control harbor traffic?
Who doesn’t like naval mimes?
I just hope nobody hits one of those mimes… We all know that a mime is a terrible thing to waste.
Link to a page with the text of Cali Senate Bill 910:
http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/350254
It’s confusing to read and understand. Here’s the section of the bill that refers to the 15 mph speed:
“…(b) A driver of a motor vehicle shall not overtake or pass a
bicycle proceeding in the same direction on a highway at a distance
of less than three feet between any part of the motor vehicle and any
part of the bicycle or its operator, except that the driver may pass
the overtaken bicycle with due care at a distance of less than three
feet at a speed not greater than 15 miles per hour, if in compliance
with subdivision (a). …”
So, on a road whose width or other complications doesn’t allow a passing distance of 3′ from the cyclist, drivers may pass cyclists at a distance of closer than 3′, but only at a speed less than 15mph. Where roads allow the 3′ distance (wider roads or road conditions that allow passing the center lines.), drivers would be able to pass cyclists at faster rates of speed.
I see the scenarios that Gov Jerry Brown is visualizing, as reported in the LA Times and California Bike Coalition articles, (for which links are posted to today’s Monday Roundup), but I think his concerns are probably an over-reaction. Doesn’t seem likely that causing drivers to reduce speed to 15mph on narrow or roads that don’t allow passing, would particularly cause rear end collisions. Collisions might occur in the case of a very abrupt reduction in speed, but the bill doesn’t require that drivers abruptly reduce their speed.
The worst for drivers that might come out of this bills wording, is that drivers might have to travel along on some roads at 15mph for an unspecified distance. As many people are becoming increasingly aware, motor vehicles traveling on many types of streets, at speeds 15mph or not much greater than that, have a number of positive benefits. More likely than not, people that ride bikes, sensing that a long line of cars were backing up, or even one car being held up for a considerable period of time, would probably pull off the road when a safe opportunity to do so availed itself.
Correction: “…As many people are becoming increasingly aware, the result of motor vehicles traveling on many types of streets, at speeds 15mph or not much greater than that, has a number of positive benefits.
… 2012 Cinelli product catalog which ironically highlights the supposed “war between cyclists and motorists.”
Despite the existence of great animosity by a vocal minority of both cyclists and auto drivers there is no War.
The ironic ridiculousness of a giant robot cyclist running over cars and threatening pedestrians to me draws attention to the irrationality of calling any physical struggle between autos and bicycles a War.
Somehow the following quote seems applicable to the modern press’s blood lust for War:
William Tecumseh Sherman
“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”
Check out this excerpt from the NYTimes story:
“…The cover art on the 2012 product catalog (PDF) issued by Cinelli, the venerable Italian bicycle and bicycle parts maker, could be viewed as a declaration of war. …”
Now, go to the story, and take a look at the illustration:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/for-a-bicycle-catalog-artist-its-harmony-on-the-road-mayhem-on-the-canvas/
Oh yeah…could be viewed as a declaration of war, by who? It’s a cartoon of a big robot on a big bike riding over and squishing a much smaller car. Actually, I there are some folks that could ride over cars like the robot is doing, but the car wouldn’t get squished.
Did read something interesting from the Times story that I hadn’t picked up before: That business from fixie riders has helped Cinelli get back into the black. Yay! Cinelli has had some v-e-r-y beautiful bikes made in past. Nice bars and stems too.
It’s the self-satirization that is the most hilarious. The image depicts an imaginary bicycle riding monster from beyond our most FEARED NIGHTMARES!!!
The image is so far in to the realm of the impossible and realistically infeasible that the artist chose to set it in the era of very fictional 60s sci-fi/horror.
For the NY Times to be so obtuse as to not be aware that it is their ilk that is fostering and promoting a non-existent War just goes to reinforce the notion that the old model of journalism is dying and they are standing at Chicxulub.
I like the 36″ wheeled bikes for that.
Does the passing law apply to antelope?
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlesports/2011/10/10/cyclist-hit-by-antelope-despite-riding-in-bike-lane/