[Industry_Hack]

If this passes, cyclists will be able to ride much more safely, ensconced in their secure bubble of legislation.

[wild]

We all know there are jerks out there thay get dam close just trying to scare you , or the big rig guy that gets right behind you and lays on the air horn. and dont let me forget the dump trucks that get nose to tale 3 or 4 of them in a row, the wind sure makes the bike go all over the place . Don't you just love going for a nice bike ride.
Ok I am off my Soap Box now

[funetical]

Originally Posted by Industry_Hack

If this passes, cyclists will be able to ride much more safely, ensconced in their secure bubble of legislation.

The world ends not in a bang, but with the squeal of tires and a stupid look on everyone's face. Legislation was a bystander.

[Nigal]

Legislating from the bench is a horrible thing no matter what the special interest is.

[hophead]

Originally Posted by funetical

So then Cyclist have a right to the road? I feel it's the responsibility of the person whose life is in danger to yield. Passing should not be done if not being able to be done safely we agree there, but if road is not in a condition that facilitates safe cycling common sense dictates you shouldn't be on it, in consideration to known road hazards not tires and other things that accumulate. It says you yield as far right as possible. But it should also read if you can't yield successfully you suffer the consequences of knowingly taking a risk. I'm not some sort of anti-bike biker I just think responsibility is shifted to much. I decide what paths I take with consideration to safety. My own. If that means I can't successfully navigate a road without putting myself or others in harms way due to what ever reason it may be even if that reason is the inconsideration of drivers on that particular road then I stay off that road. It's my responsibility to maintain my safety. Not the jerks in cars.

I agree with you 100%. I avoid roads that I don't feel are safe for me to ride on. I was commenting on the law and safe passing distance. I am simply saying that you CAN NOT pass a law that puts equal burden on the cyclist to stay right in a passing situation or on any vehicle being passed for that matter.

I also do not believe that a law to provide for a safe passing distance is a silver bullet that will prevent cyclists from being hit by passing motorists. There are laws against DUI, yet thousands are killed and injured on our roads every year by drunk drivers and those laws are vigorously enforced.

People in this country use their cars as mobile kitchens, offices, and vanities. Drivers, text, talk on the phone, eat, apply make up, shave, read, and spank their monkeys while driving. Until motorists in the US start using their cars for their intended purpose and ONLY for that purpose, we cyclists will NEVER be safe sharing the roads with them. I don't see this happening in my lifetime, so I will always ride the road as if I have a bulls-eye on my back.

[funetical]

Were else are you supposed to spank a monkey? I think when it comes to the as right as possible it puts an understanding in the mind of the motorist that they are doing there part I'm doing mine, but ultimately it will just enrage those who see us never far enough right. I don't see a solution in legislation like this. I think step one is pay your dues then ask for legislation. Until we support roads financially I don't think we are entitled to them.

[rola643]

Originally Posted by funetical

Until we support roads financially I don't think we are entitled to them.

"The Constitution limits the right of government to restrict the rights of citizens. That's really all it is. It says right in there that our rights are "inalienable and endowed by the creator." Part of our rights as citizens are the rights to the road.

But there is a common misconception that because the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not spell out the right to ride your bike, riding your bike must, therefore, be a privilege. And that privilege to ride your bike is kind of a pain for society at large, and so we should be happy and grateful to be shunted off to the side of the road. After all, they are being nice to us. They don't have to let us ride our bikes at all !

The word bicycle cannot be found in the Constitution, because bicycles had not yet been invented. And so, similarly, the right to ride a bike on the road is clearly spelled out elsewhere in that document and can be found in the phrase "freedom of movement." Just substitute the word horse or horse and bugy for the word bicycle and you can easily see that the framers intended very few limitations on the right of people to travel for work or pleasure on public roads. At the time that the Constitution defined the governments authority the power to limit travel on public roads, the vast majority of travel on those roads was by foot. And so pedestrians, horse riders, and hey wagons have "the most" right to the public roads"

Marla Streb - Bicycling Magazines Century Training Program

[funetical]

Originally Posted by rola643

"The Constitution limits the right of government to restrict the rights of citizens. That's really all it is. It says right in there that our rights are "inalienable and endowed by the creator." Part of our rights as citizens are the rights to the road.

We had roads though. Were are they in the constitution? Also in the constitution were does it say we are guaranteed rights by a creator? The quote is wrong or based off of many state constitutions that do use god. Also by this logic the government should provide us with everything we could possibly need. Medical Coverage for instance.

Originally Posted by rola643

But there is a common misconception that because the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not spell out the right to ride your bike, riding your bike must, therefore, be a privilege. And that privilege to ride your bike is kind of a pain for society at large, and so we should be happy and grateful to be shunted off to the side of the road. After all, they are being nice to us. They don't have to let us ride our bikes at all !

This isn't the reason for the misconception. So then were do they have the right to force inspection and registration on motorist? Let alone use tax dollars to support the roads. That's not in the constitution either.

Originally Posted by rola643

The word bicycle cannot be found in the Constitution, because bicycles had not yet been invented. And so, similarly, the right to ride a bike on the road is clearly spelled out elsewhere in that document and can be found in the phrase "freedom of movement." Just substitute the word horse or horse and bugy for the word bicycle and you can easily see that the framers intended very few limitations on the right of people to travel for work or pleasure on public roads. At the time that the Constitution defined the governments authority the power to limit travel on public roads, the vast majority of travel on those roads was by foot. And so pedestrians, horse riders, and hey wagons have "the most" right to the public roads"

That's stupid. What does that have to do with the current use of the road? Nothing? Oh yeah nothing.

Originally Posted by rola643

Marla Streb - Bicycling Magazines Century Training Program

Marla you're wrong. You also need a fact checker something awful. Unless this was taken out of context and meant to be applied to your specific state constitution, then I apologize.