Fit City

By Jim Morris

October 20, 2009 12:36 PM | Link to this

Ever wonder why bicyclists get run over? Think about blocking an entire lane, or an entire road, while riding at 20-30 miles an hour as cars and trucks, that get their worst fuel economy at that speed, are stacking up behind them. Usually bike riders don’t give a damn about courtesy towards those behind them.

Any bike rider not using an available bike trail ought to be excepted from this ordinance.

By Skepizzle

October 20, 2009 12:41 PM | Link to this

It is impossible to safely maintain a 3-foot clearance while passing cyclists on Shoal Creek Blvd. They ride two astride and hug the line for the multi-use lane. Passage of this law will essentially mean you can not pass cyclists or vulverable pedestrians, even while both are behaving legally. Shoal Creek is not the only road where it will be impossible to honor a three foot passing distance for all peds and bikes. That is why Perry vetoed the law, and why it should not be passed here in Austin.

By KMac

October 20, 2009 12:43 PM | Link to this

I am unconcerned about folks who pass closely. I am concerned in the extreme by folks who hit cyclists from behind because they are “…way too cavalier …eating breakfast, texting, changing the radio station” and who receive minimum sentences.

By C E`

October 20, 2009 12:59 PM | Link to this

So now what is a motorist supposed to do, roll down the window and ask the bicyclist to stop right there while he gets out and measures the distance between them? Most of the time I’ve seen cars have to drive close to a bike was because the bike was in the motorist’s lane! They often ride right on the bike lane line or ride two and three abreast and make cars cross over the center line to pass. How about writing some laws to require bicyclists to ride where they are supposed to and to take a road safety course? Motorists are required to learn the rules of the road, why aren’t bicyclists?

By D

October 20, 2009 1:00 PM | Link to this

One forgot to mention: going 1/4 of the speed limit on a busy road during rushhour weaving in and out of traffic, on and off the sidewalk…. this is what I see every morning commuting into downtown.

By Austin

October 20, 2009 1:03 PM | Link to this

And how will this work when aggressive and irresponsible bicyclists cut off a driver or weave in and out of traffic? Yes, it happens regularly in Central Austin.

By texasgardener

October 20, 2009 1:09 PM | Link to this

Last night on my way home from work downtown, a bicyclist was riding East on MLK away from downtown. She had earphones on, presumably to listen to music as she peddled, but my concern was that she wasn’t going to hear whatever was happening around her very well. Cars had to merge into the passing lane to avoid her in traffic, but she was oblivious to what was happening around her.

By Scott Unzicker

October 20, 2009 1:18 PM | Link to this

In a congested, urban-core environment, I would challenge the practicality of this ordinance. In addition, I would LOVE to see cops stringently enforce traffic laws on the bikers. How often do we see them blowing through stop signs, lights, etc.? If a driver of an auto does something illegal, his/her license plate can be written down and reported. What recourse do observers of bicyclists’ all-too-frequent flaunting of traffic laws have? None. Perhaps require an identifying plate of some sort so they can be reported?

By James

October 20, 2009 1:19 PM | Link to this

All road users need to responsible for their own safety. Forcing this requirement on to others is detestable.

By rj

October 20, 2009 1:53 PM | Link to this

Rotten law. Bad idea. Typical of the attitude,” I can do whatever I want to and you are to blame if I get hurt”. I’ve almost been killed because of the arrogance of some, not all cyclists, motorized or not. Their attitude of moral superiority is disgusting. I rode a bike for many years but that was long ago and it was a requirement to take a safety course and get a license plate for your bike before you were allowed on the street. I’d like to see that before any more laws or regulations concerning cyclists are passed. Get real. Safety goes both ways.

By catwoman2009

October 20, 2009 2:16 PM | Link to this

Why point out where the pro-bikers can register their support for this unfair ordinance? What about where the sane people who oppose this should register???? Such bias! Bicyclists should be required to ride single file before this idea is enforced.

By km

October 20, 2009 2:17 PM | Link to this

Bravo to those taking up for the motorist. Motorist pay taxes and other fees to be able to use the roadways. Bicyclist do not. Even on the 4 lane w/ turn lanes they tend to want to take over the road. Motorist going the speed limits up to 70 mph have to constantly watch bicyclists who encroach on the right lanes or ride to close to the white line. They ride two and I have seen up to 3 or 4 wide sometimes like they are just daring you to hit them. GO TO A PARK IF YOU WANT TO RIDE YOUR BIKE, AND LEAVE THE ROAD TO THOSE OF US WHO PAY TO USE IT. If you don’t like that then maybe we should require bicyclist to get a license plate, register their bike, equip them with headlights and blinkers and pay fees to ride on roadways. And lastly, STAY OFF ROADS SUCH AS 2222, VOLENTE, AND OTHER WINDING DANGEROUS ENOUGH ROADS.

By DarbyRides

October 20, 2009 2:21 PM | Link to this

Some here make some valid points about cyclists being required to follow the rules of the road. As far as putting an end to that: 1) cyclists should educate themselves (or be required to before buying a bike) 2) law enforcement needs to deter it, instead of just talking about it. The same goes for the car drivers. If they understood how dangerous it is to ride a bicycle on a sidewalk, to the public and to the cyclist then they would be seeing both sides. Also if they got passed in their car by another driver who was closer than 3 feet they would feel violated. Now try that on a bicycle, where you can die if you just get brushed slightly. Otherwise make your cities build realistic bikepaths or lanes.

By Pam LeBlanc

October 20, 2009 2:25 PM | Link to this

KM, I’m a bicyclist and I certainly pay taxes and other fees. Catwoman, you’re right. Anyone can stop by City Hall to register support or non-support of this ordinance. But this is my fitness blog and I’m a cyclist, and as a cyclist I’m in favor of the 3-foot safe passing law. I get tired of repeating this, but both cyclists AND motorists break the law every day. (See anyone speeding or rolling through a stopsign on a car lately?) Both should be responsible for their actions.

By PD

October 20, 2009 2:29 PM | Link to this

I agree that cyclists should be expected to adhere to traffic laws, just like everyone else—and I’m aware that many cyclists do not. I see plenty! So perhaps some kind of bicycle licensing system is a good idea. But why all of the aggression towards cyclists in general, when many follow the rules with as much frequency as most on the road? This law is just protecting those of us who have felt threatened by cars who can’t wait 15 seconds for a better opportunity to pass. I’m sure there are some cases in which the law doesn’t work for practical reasons (for ex. Shoal Creek)—but if people are required to keep cyclists safe, I just don’t see how that can be a bad thing.

By DC

October 20, 2009 2:32 PM | Link to this

As to the question of licensing and not having a right to the road bicyclist didn’t pay for. Don’t you realize that most of them also have cars, usually if they can afford a real bike they also have 2 or 3 cars but chose to ride their bikes? I am quite certain the number of them who have not paid any road taxes (you know the bridge and road tax) is slim-to-none. That is such a tired and uninformed argument. Headlights are required in most municipalities, and blinkers on a vehicle the size of a bicycle are less safe than hand signals. The law recognized the bicycle as a vehicle of conveyance and as such they are not safe to use sidewalks (children the exception). By the way, doesn’t it make sense that if the path of travel has the word “walk” included in it (sidewalk), then one should keep their bicycle off of it?

By Bull

October 20, 2009 2:39 PM | Link to this

Typical motorist attitudes. “I might not be able to pass a cyclist on some roads, meaning that I’ll have to wait an extra 30 seconds!!!” “Bicyclists don’t pay taxes like I pay taxes with my car!” and “Bike riders don’t obey the law like I do! Sometimes I have to stop texting and put down the latte AND the mascara to make sure I don’t hit them, such arrogance!” Folks just don’t understand and don’t want to learn.

By Himes

October 20, 2009 2:42 PM | Link to this

And if the biker or bikers move out onto the middle what? Will the 3’ be measured from the car to the biker or from the biker(s) to the car? You get the point…bikers can shove cars onto oncoming traffic if the car tries to maintain the 3’between. And what about those bikers on no-bike-lane roads? Lots of biking fools ride on these small roads in Austin where no such 3’ are possible. Fine THEM if they even go on such roads.

By Bigger Boat Rule

October 20, 2009 2:44 PM | Link to this

If the bikes would just stay in teh bike lanes where they belong, none of this will be an issue. IE GET OFF THE F* ROAD!

By oh_no

October 20, 2009 2:46 PM | Link to this

Oh, the horror. I have to allow 3 whole feet when I pass cyclists? That might cost me 10-20 seconds! How will I win my race home?

By Sean Maguire

October 20, 2009 2:49 PM | Link to this

I find it surprising that so many drivers are upset about another traffic law when every day I see them disregarding laws that already exist, e.g. talking on cellphones in a school zone, running readlights…

If anything, this law can call attention to the continuing problem of cyclists needlessly dying on the streets of Austin. I have been riding on city streets in urban traffic for over 30 years, and I realize my own safety is my responsibility, but it’s time for the mindless drivers out there to become more aware of the importance of sharing the roads with cyclists.

By keith

October 20, 2009 2:58 PM | Link to this

This will only empower the nazi-bicyclists to push even more to get their way. The law already says that THEY have to follow the same traffic laws that cars have to follow, yet they feel that they can run a red light, cut through traffic to run that red light, riding their bike on the sidewalk and whatever other violation that they can commit. Instead of coddling them, enforce the laws that they continue to violate

By John in Austin

October 20, 2009 3:02 PM | Link to this

it’s unbelieveable how cold-hearted and mean-spritied the “get your bike off the road” crowd is. If these cyclists were your children, siblings, etc would you have us treat them like a rodent and just roll right over them? Slow down, give us a little space and have a nice day. Texas state law gives cyclists and other non-auto extensive rights to public roads. We all pay taxes, so ease up a bit, ok?All we’re asking is for to put down your phone and pay attention.

If nothing else, think about those who are left behind, like little Kylie Breuhler when both her parents are killed by sloppy, in attentive driving.

By Jeff

October 20, 2009 3:03 PM | Link to this

Why wouldnt you want to give Cyclist some space? All you people in cars I know you never break the law right? Even going 5 mph over the speed limit is the same thing as a cyclist riding 2 abrest or rolling through stop signs. All the folks that drive and encounter cyclist need to put yourself in our shoes and get on your bike, so maybe next time you are late to get your nails done or get the kiddos to soccer you can make somebody’s day and give them the space they deserve. GIVE US 3 FEET! Thanks Pam!

By Pam LeBlanc

October 20, 2009 3:05 PM | Link to this

Keith, I assume you’ve never seen a motorist run a red light, speed or do anything illegal? Point is both parties are guilty and we all need to work toward a solution. Also, it is legal to ride on a sidewalk in the city of Austin except in downtown and along Guadalupe near the UT campus.

By Pamela in ATX

October 20, 2009 3:08 PM | Link to this

I am dismayed at how much dangerous aggression people have for cyclists based on the comments. That is all.

By elvis

October 20, 2009 3:08 PM | Link to this

I’ll be there to register my support for the ordinance. The next step will be to completely ban the use of cell phones while driving.

By 3 feet

October 20, 2009 3:09 PM | Link to this

As long as cyclists are also REQUIRED to keep the 3 feet, then it shouldn’t be a problem. However, I’ll bet the police don’t give a ticket to cyclists who cut to the front of the line of cars at a stoplight. They aren’t keeping their 3 feet distance then but seem okay with it. Quit trying to cut in line. I’m sure you don’t do the same at the grocery store just because you may have less items than they do. Wait your turn means stop cutting in line.

By aclu

October 20, 2009 3:11 PM | Link to this

Although, motorists run red lights, you don’t see them complaining that they deserve the right of way when they do it.

By Scott

October 20, 2009 3:12 PM | Link to this

If enacted, it will only last until someone important on their way to something important gets hung up behind some two-wheeled rolling roadblock where there isn’t 3 feet available to pass. And rolling roadblocks there will be aplenty. They do it now without the three foot buffer.

By Jeff

October 20, 2009 3:13 PM | Link to this

Once again Pam is setting the record straight! Thanks for the column Pam I read it everyday, and thanks for educating the car people.

By vague

October 20, 2009 3:14 PM | Link to this

As if 3 feet isn’t vague. Most people couldn’t tell you how much 3 feet is. You realize that’s like a little more than 1 arm’s length, right? Do you think that’s enough room cyclists? I’ll bet that if you have a car within 3 feet, it would still make most of you swerve away from the car.

By Jim

October 20, 2009 3:39 PM | Link to this

Note to the idiot I’ve seen flying down south Lamar in the dark around 7:00 and taking a left on a red light onto Barton Springs - I think it’s cute that you have your morning coffee but blowing red lights in the dark and cutting across 2,3, or 4 lanes of traffic with not lights, reflectors, or reflective clothing. I’ve seen you so this 3 time in the last 3 weeks and your cheating death but not for long. Of course it will probably be blamed on the car.

By Ted

October 20, 2009 3:59 PM | Link to this

Ok, I have lived in Austin my whole life, (53 years) I have been one of the folks on bicycles and also on Foot. Not everyone on a bike is a fool, but I see them every day on roads that do not offer a place for them as well as those that do. I watch as they ride within 6 inches of the white line that borders there lane. I already have to move over, sometimes into the oncoming lanes to avoid them. I say set the rules whatever they may be for both the drivers and the riders. Then ticket those that do not follow the rules. Don’t ask me to move 3 feet from the rider until you state where the rider should be. Otherwise the bike traveling on the edge of the lane or down the middle of the traffic lane will force traffic to become backed up and cause more accidents than they will prevent. I’m all for drivers being safe out there. I’m just as much for the bike riders to be safe as well. Make the rules clear for them. They are to STOP for stop signs, Red Lights, Yeild to oncoming traffic, stay off the sidewalks, etc. When they do not follow the rules, punish them as you would a driver that operates in the same manner. Then make this 3 ft rule or whatever else you see fit. Until you are willing to make the playing field equal for all parties, Keep them off the street.

By Mr. T

October 20, 2009 4:06 PM | Link to this

I’m an avid cyclist, but it still drives me crazy when a bike cuts to the front at a red light and jumps in the middle of the lane (usually while wearing headphones and riding a cruiser style bike). Arrrgh.

By Cutting_in_line

October 20, 2009 4:10 PM | Link to this

“I’ll bet the police don’t give a ticket to cyclists who cut to the front of the line of cars at a stoplight.” In most cases, that is actually the safest and most proper thing for cyclists to do at a stoplight. It increases the cyclist’s visibility to cross-traffic at the intersection. Hence the “bike boxes” that are now appearing in many large cities. It’s not a competition… it’s just a commute.

By Jeff

October 20, 2009 4:15 PM | Link to this

Police to give out tickets to Cyclist I have know a few people that have paid fine for traffic violations. Anytime you get a ticket on a bike its a non moving violation so the fine is always reduced! So there ya go Ted.

By Pam LeBlanc

October 20, 2009 4:15 PM | Link to this

A quick point: The proposed ordinance states that motorists can either A, pass in a different marked lane, or B, give at least 3-feet in clearance as they pass in the same lane. A marked bike lane is considered a different lane, so vehicles don’t have to give additional clearance beyond it.

By Spandex

October 20, 2009 4:19 PM | Link to this

THUPER!!!

By Bear51

October 20, 2009 4:30 PM | Link to this

Can’t believe I’d ever agree with Rick Perry, about anything, but, really, do we need this law? I already give cyclists 2.9 feet —- you mean I’ll have to move over another 2 inches to be legal? (Except on Hamilton Pool Road, where there’s no shoulder at all for the weekend warriors, the ones who so love to “challenge” motorists by riding two or more abreast, thus forcing the driver to choose between plowing into the bikers, slamming on the brakes and possibly getting rear-ended, or moving over to the opposite lane and taking his chances with on-coming traffic around a blind curve.)

As a quid pro quo, how about banning cyclists from roads and country lanes like Hamilton Pool Road, which lack proper bike lanes?

By colorado kool aid

October 20, 2009 4:31 PM | Link to this

Will the cyclist have to provide the same 3’ of clearance when they pass a vehicle? As much of a problem as cars create by passing a biker, the bicyclists who insist on passing cars between the car and the curb create a problem too. If the car has to provide 3’ of space, so should the bike … or they shouldn’t be passing car traffic.

As for columnist Pam — I see motorists run stop signs and lights, but NEVER at the rate bikes do. I have lived in 3 VERY friendly biking communities and I have NEVER seen a bike stop for a stop sign or red light. Never in Austin, Portland Oregon or Aspen Colorado. NEVER … can you say the same thing about cars??

By tired of it

October 20, 2009 4:34 PM | Link to this

Seriously, all I ask is that bicyclists follow basic traffic laws. Daily in my car commute to Mopac from downtown, traveling along Colorado and down through 3rd/San Antonio, a bicyclists IGNORES basic traffic laws. My favorite is the complete disregard for 4-way stops.

Now, the previous commenter is right in that some cars violate traffic laws, too, but they are held accountable by moving traffic violation fines/tickets. I’ve yet to see anyone hold a bicylist accountable and issue a ticket. They want “equal rights” but really this 3’ ordinance is frankly a special right that the community as a whole (cyclists) haven’t demonstrated they deserve.

And, good on you, all you bike lovers who say you follow traffic laws. Tell me where you’re riding as I’ve yet to witness any biker put their foot down or come to a complete stop at a 4-way stop and the weaving in and out of cars to beat the light or run through the light that’s red just because there aren’t cars coming the other direction is both ridiculous and stupid.

If law enforcement held them to the same standards, I’d get it. Until they do, we don’t need another law.

Thanks, but no thanks.

By Rumble Time

October 20, 2009 4:42 PM | Link to this

Hey Jim, I would love to have a discussion with you in front of Austin City Hall tomorrow (Wednesday) at 6 pm.

By Amused in Austin TX

October 20, 2009 4:42 PM | Link to this

Sorry folks, I know I’m gonna hear about this from others when I say this, but here it is:

A bicycle is a toy.

Just because some goober manages to turn this into a commute option to work doesn’t mean they are above regular auto traffic or the traffic laws. It doesn’t have the structural integrity or safety devices a street-legal auto has. Spend all the money you want on ultralight frames and helmets and tight colored pants that you want, it’s still a bicycle, and you still have to follow the rules. And basic physics still apply to you.

I will take bicycles seriously when the bicyclists start acting serious about properly using the motorways like everyone else.

By Pam LeBlanc

October 20, 2009 4:49 PM | Link to this

Amused, I may be a Goober (I rode my bike to work today) but I certainly don’t think I’m above the law.

By concerned

October 20, 2009 4:51 PM | Link to this

Why is it that cyclists believe they dont have to follow traffic laws? I regularly see them sailing through intersections “against” a red light, and moving in and around cars creating safety hazards.

By pgun

October 20, 2009 5:05 PM | Link to this

Bicyclists should be required to register to ride on our roads. I cant take a vehicle on our streets without proper registration and mandatory insurance. Why do bicyclists get off so easy on these mandated regulations? Any idiot can now hop on a bike and hit the streets with no safety course, registration, or insurance?

By FixiesSuck

October 20, 2009 5:15 PM | Link to this

I am a cyclist, and I always take back streets where possible. These IDIOTS on their “fixies” act like they own Guadalupe by campus. You IDIOTS are giving the rest of us a bad name. Quit blowin’ thru stop signs and intersections, riding down the yellow line, next to cars, and what’s worse, you do it when there’s even a damn BIKE LANE available!!!!!@#!#!@#!@# If you get hit, you DESERVE it!!!@#!@#! And as for the idiot students that can’t ride, TAKE THE BACK STREETS PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By followtherules

October 20, 2009 5:36 PM | Link to this

Cyclists, get off the mopac bridge south of 360. there’s a reason they prohibit cyclists riding on mopac. keep doing it and youll figure out the hard way. people riding bikes blowing through stopsigns and lights should have their licenses revoked/suspended, if they cant obey the rules on a simple machine like a bike, what makes them competent enough to do it in a 1 ton machine.

By acoker

October 20, 2009 5:42 PM | Link to this

I’m a motorist and a cyclist. I observe the rules when doing both. I too am irritated when I see cyclists who don’t follow the rules just as I am when I see motorists do the same. If this law passes and it causes me some inconvenience, at least I’m still alive to complain about it like many of you on this blog. I’m in favor of this law and I bet the person that hit the tandem bike and left a 7 year old without parents wishes they had made a habit out of giving some additional clearance to cyclists.

By Fawn

October 20, 2009 7:05 PM | Link to this

If we could just get motorists off the cell phones and get them to pay attention. When I drive I am on alert for runners and cyclists. We pay taxes and have every right to use the highways and by ways of this great state. Your reward for staying fit shouldn’t be death by inattentive driver.

By atxbiker

October 20, 2009 8:00 PM | Link to this

3 foot law would be great.
Car drivers break the law all the time via seatbelts, speed, safe distance behind other cars, turn signals… running red lights.. etc. Those laws are mostly for motorist safety.

Also, the running lights thing has nothing to do with a 3 foot law. other states have laws that allow cyclists to use stop signs as yield signs.. seriously. And guess what, worst case the cyclist crashes into you.. your car is dinged.. he may be dead.. so really, the running the red light thing is a stupid safety thing for the cyclist.. not sure why motorists are so mad.

Blah blah blah.. bottom line, its a safety law, its good. Seatbelt law, speed limit, seatbelt.. 3 foot law.. good.. some people will continue to ignore the law.. but if 10% more folks drive safer based on laws.. maybe 1 or two more folks will live..

Motorists have all the luxury.. give cyclists some slack.. heck if you follow the news, you’ll see motorist can randomly kill cyclists without any penalty.. just like deer..

By Wes

October 20, 2009 9:44 PM | Link to this

Every time something about cycling comes up in the press, the same old tired anti-cyclist statements come out. I’m one of the guys that teaches bicycle safety in Austin and in response to many of the claims made by motorists about cyclists following the law, some of you really should learn the law yourself. First, cyclists are allowed on Mopac. Second, cyclists are not obligated to use the bike lane. Third, cyclists are entitled to FULL use of the main travel lane. If a motorist can not safely pass, the motorist should slow down and follow the cyclist at a safe distance until it is safe to pass. Just like the motorist would react a slow moving car. If a cyclists took one of the bicycle safety classes that many of the motorists recommend (which I fully encourage by the way), I would teach the cyclist that their default lane position should be between the middle and the passenger side tire track in the rightmost lane that goes to their destination. What that means is that if they took the class, they would learn to control the main travel lane and force cars to pass them safely by changing lanes, just like a motorist would pass another slow moving motorist or motorcyclist. I would strongly discourage a cyclist from trying to share a lane that is too narrow to safely share, which are most in Austin. Crash data supports the above lane position as the safest position for a cyclist on the road. It places the cyclist in a position likely to be visible to motorists and discourages unsafe passing. Of course such a lane position also has the advantage of being legal. However, it will require motorists to slow down, which I’m sure will make some of you unhappy, but that’s what would be taught in a bicycle safety education class. Do you want more cyclists controlling the main travel lane? I do.

By Julia

October 21, 2009 12:23 AM | Link to this

There would be no need or discussion about a 3 foot passing law if all drivers were courteous and attentive.

Unfortunately, getting into the drivers seat makes many folks feel protected, powerful, in a hurry and anonymous.

Every time we get behind the drivers seat, it’s time to be responsible, considerate and alert. If we’d each focus on being a better driver instead of picking on others, we’d be more likely to live to see tomorrow and our neighbors on the streets whether on foot, on bike or in car will be there with us.

Julia

PS - I’d like to thank those responsible for getting new bicycle lanes on Braker Lane! I don’t ride on Braker Lane, but I do walk the sidewalks. I am very happy that the bike lanes will push noisy and dangerous car/truck/bus traffic just a little bit further from me and those I’m with.

By Kenneth Jones

October 21, 2009 5:52 AM | Link to this

The next time I hear someone say that Austin is a progressive city or about how Austinites are so cool, I’m just going to refer them to this blog and these comments. Cyclists don’t pay road taxes - Complete Mind Garbage - The laziest thinking possible! Motorist always obey traffic laws - Total Blindness to Reality! To you cyclists: I get the “taking the lane” in certain circumstances - like to pass parked cars - but why can’t you realize that riding 2 -3 abreast is just rude. As to this “cyclists who rush through red lights at busy intersections” mantra, well, that is just plain rude, stupid, and not conducive to remaining alive - But collectively - you guys - both sides - are just as redneck as the rest of the state you love to look down upon. Austin - Keep it Weird - What a joke! Austin - Just Another Redneck Texas City!

By Shawn

October 21, 2009 7:53 AM | Link to this

To everyone who talks about cyclists breaking the law as grounds for not being able to use the road: I see many more cars breaking the law every day than I do cyclists. By that logic all these cars should be removed from the road.

Regarding paying taxes to use roads, most cyclists own cars as well and have also paid vehicle registration and taxes.

For those who say cyclists need to stay on bike paths, sidewalks, etc., in Texas a bicycle is considered a vehicle and has the same rights and responsibilities as any other vehicle. This means they have the same rights to the road as any car does. It’s actually illegal to ride on the sidewalk in most areas.

By a cycling motorist

October 21, 2009 10:07 AM | Link to this

If there was a way to get from A to B using a segregated bike path I’d take that route every time. Over half the drivers on the road are too stupid to control their vehicles in a safe manner in the first place. I’m happy for the 3’ passing ordinance, but that won’t keep the large population of self-centered idiot motorists off their cell phones.

By cyclist/driver #837,842

October 21, 2009 3:57 PM | Link to this

I’m sick of other drivers who think some cop should magically appear any time a cyclist even thinks about getting on the road so they can cite them for whatever offenses they can find. Let’s apply that logic to a few commenter daily commutes in from the suburbs and see how well they enjoy it. My commute (and bike ride) would be much less enjoyable that way, but it might be fun to watch a few of these jokers down in traffic court go “but some biker” to try and get out of a ticket.

By Kay

October 21, 2009 4:04 PM | Link to this

I’m a cyclist and a motorist. I pay taxes. I agree that cyclists need to be required to follow the same laws for road use as motorists. I also believe the 3 foot law is a good one. Now, there will certainly be times when there just isn’t 3 extra feet of road space to be had, but whenever possible, give cyclists/pedestrians that small amount of a safe zone!

Cyclists can’t always bike on sidewalks—-it’s not allowed on most sidewalks downtown. Cyclists can’t always use roads with bike lanes or extra wide shoulders. When I ride, I try my best to use the safest route possible. But I’m also a cyclist who knows red lights mean stop and uses turn (hand) signals.

Motorists—-we are bigger than cyclists & pedestrians, we are more dangerous than cyclists. Just because it skeeves us all off, myself included, when you get stuck behind a slow cyclist taking up the full lane or worse, a slow cyclist riding south from downtown on S. 1st during rush hou, you can’t play chicken. Motorists can’t use their vehicles to show their anger, their aggression or to “teach the cyclist a lesson” by purposefully driving dangerously close to the cyclists. Would you rev your engine over & over while waiting for the woman pushing the baby stroller to exit the crosswalk?

By 331miles

October 21, 2009 4:15 PM | Link to this

I drive to work 3 days a week, and cycle 2. I assure you that we can all coexist on the roads. Is 3’ clearance truly that difficult to provide? We provide more than that to police per the law, and I haven’t seen anyone complaining about how it impacts their driving.

By Keith Byrd

October 21, 2009 4:32 PM | Link to this

Bicyclist are entitled to the whole lane… like it or not, motorists. If you want to rage, tell it to the orphaned little girl mentioned in the article.

Yes, there are jerks on bikes who don’t represent us well… does that give you the right to want kill all of us? Does a human’s life mean less than that mc muffin you are eating on the way to work? Do you rage as much against the motorist that acts poorly on the road? If not, why?

We deserve the road, just as much as you. And yes, I pay taxes on road maintenance as much as you do so I will use it the same as you.

If this law passes and you graze by me in your car, I will be calling the police. Bet on that.

By Drive on your best behavior

October 21, 2009 4:43 PM | Link to this

Kay’s got it right. No matter how much a road user might be bothering you or even breaking the law, we all have the responsibility to not endanger anyone else’s life when we use the roads. This ordinance rightfully reinforces that obligation we all bear. Be a grown-up, exercise patience, maturity and tolerance. The roads are public resources for all users, including vulnerable ones, whether you aggressive, self-centered, distracted drivers like it or not. Commit yourselves to safely using the roads, not to selfish, reckless, intolerant behaviors & attitudes.

By andy

October 21, 2009 4:55 PM | Link to this

My wife and I have one car. I have a bike that I use to commute every day. I am conscious of the cars on the road in the extreme. It is not too much to ask for respect on both sides here. The very few seconds a cyclist might delay a car cannot be traded for the threat of injury or death. I also find it hard to balance the “follow all the rules to the letter” folks with the “get out of my way, you’re too slow” folks. Though I do try to do that. Remember, please, that while you may see people do things you disagree with (on bikes, or in cars), most people you encounter are people with families just going about their day and would offer you the compassion and consideration they hope to receive in return.

By Dave

October 21, 2009 8:50 PM | Link to this

This law is not about cyclist’s rights. Rather, this is a question of an entitled populace that is unable to understand that EVERYONE in this country has the right to use our roads. There is a segment of the population so driven by their self involvement that the the right of others to have access to safe roadways is totally ignored. This is the case with all types of road users. The problem is that cyclists, road workers, the handicapped, etc don’t have the luxury of having a steel shell surrounding their egos. So, we make laws. Laws, laws and more laws. Yes, we need this law and yes, we need more regulations for cyclists using roadways. Ultimately what is needed is for everyone to take out their ear buds, shut off their iphones, put down the coffee and pay the price of freedom: respecting the rights, sovereignty and safety of everyone. Sorry if that’s inconvenient for some of you.