I wonder if this can be sent through the Judicial Branch of state government?

Discussion in 'Activism / Safety' started by SUX VR40 Rider, Mar 11, 2010.

  1. SUX VR40 Rider

    SUX VR40 Rider New Member

    870
    0
    0
  2. Industry_Hack

    Industry_Hack Total noob (& forum admin) Admin Staff Tavern Member

    12,349
    651
    113
    Yawn.

    Legislation is not going to make the roads any safer.
     

  3. CTD50

    CTD50 DX's Biggest Member

    793
    0
    0
    Nor is that how the system works.

    Just because you're aggressively supporting this doesn't mean it's necessarily right, worthy, or possible. It doesn't mean that you can ramrod this thing through the grinding gears of government, either.
     
  4. SUX VR40 Rider

    SUX VR40 Rider New Member

    870
    0
    0
    It may not be how the system works but it is how it has been done in the past. There have been times when because of some ******* politician purposley stalling a bill from being debated or even voted on it was put before the Judicial Branch and made law. There have also been other times when the bill was not even brought before the House or Senate and put before the Judicial Branch and made law.

    I think if this bill is not debated and voted in this should be one of those times where it happens again.

    If it is thought that legislation can not make the roadways safer then I would love to see an explaination as to how it happened that Illinois roadways became safer after their Bicycle Safety Bill was passed into law. Legislation may not have been the only factor, but please explain how is it prior there were several deaths an injuries among syslists after being hit by motorists. When it was passed into law that number dropped significantly.
     
  5. rola643

    rola643 Two skinny Js Staff Member Admin Staff Mod Team Tavern Member

    20,801
    9,707
    113
    I hear ya Freemason and feel your passion. I don't think personally that legislation will make the roads any safer. Only individuals can do that :) Legislation won't make better or more attentive drivers. Laws on the books might help protect us if you can get local law enforcement to do there part and from what I have seen that can be tough on a good day. I am very fortunate in my local riding area that "most" respect us when we are out riding and generally give us plenty of room. Va. just lost out on a 3ft passing bill and some of the comments made by legislators are just plain scary- such as

    "Bicyclists are often law breakers, unworthy of any added protection under the law.”

    “Bicyclists are inconsiderate when they delay drivers from getting to their destinations, especially in narrow lanes or roads.”

    “Bicyclists should police themselves before coming in asking for added legal protections.” - Really ? Do we ask motorist to do this ????

    “A 3 ft. passing rule would inconvenience and hazard motorists by requiring them to move into the adjacent or oncoming travel lanes.”


    HB1048 defeated now it's time to get on board and support SB566 which includes Stop for Pedestrians in Crosswalks, seems to be courtesy to me, why do we need bills and laws for this ?

    2010 Legislative Summary | Virginia Bicycling Federation

    Three Feet to Pass — Why Such Resistance? | Virginia Bicycling Federation

    Sorry, just my .02 worth :D
     
  6. funetical

    funetical Slowin it up.

    4,299
    0
    0
    Why we are so inflexible in our positions when ultimately our lives are at risk is beyond me. Move to the right. Dismount if you have to. What gives them the right? Nothing, but you can't fight them if you're dead. As a community we need to be more reasonable in our demands and the world might stop hating us. Plus I hate to point it out but legislation exist if they hit us. It's assault with a motor vehicle, or vehicular man slaughter depending on whether or not they kill you. If scary names like that doesn't dissuade motorist from being jerks then what chance does any thing else have?
     
  7. Industry_Hack

    Industry_Hack Total noob (& forum admin) Admin Staff Tavern Member

    12,349
    651
    113
    Being dead but legally in the right is a very small consolation.
     
  8. funetical

    funetical Slowin it up.

    4,299
    0
    0
    For your survivors. For you it's none.
     
  9. hophead

    hophead New Member Tavern Member

    1,501
    1
    0
    One of the reasons that moving to the right won't work is because it's not always possible. Suppose that you are already riding in the right 1/3 of your lane and you are passed by a car. To move any further right might put you into the gutter or through debris that often litters the roadside.

    The passing vehicle whether it's a bike, car, truck, or whatever is responsible for passing in a safe manner at a safe time. To put equal responsibility on both the motorist and cyclist is ridiculous. How then would it even be possible to figure out fault in the event of a passing collision? You may as well not pass a law at all.

    Of course, courtesy dictates that the cyclist should position themself on the road in such a way as to allow a motorist to pass and move right when it's safe to do so. Often times only the cyclist will be able to see broken glass or a dangerous tire swallowing grate, so only the cyclist can decide when it's safe.

    That being said, like motorists, not all cyclists are courteous. There are some that feel that their right to ride on the road is absolute and screw everyone else who chooses to drive a car. That attitude really doesn't help our cause. It just makes motorists hate us more.

    I think that laws providing for safe passing distances are a good thing, but we need to do our part too.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2010
  10. funetical

    funetical Slowin it up.

    4,299
    0
    0
    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.
     
  11. Industry_Hack

    Industry_Hack Total noob (& forum admin) Admin Staff Tavern Member

    12,349
    651
    113
    If this passes, cyclists will be able to ride much more safely, ensconced in their secure bubble of legislation.
     
  12. wild

    wild Yesterday tired old man, Today retired old man

    4,311
    38
    48
    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
     
  13. funetical

    funetical Slowin it up.

    4,299
    0
    0
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2010
  14. Nigal

    Nigal YAY BAIKS! Tavern Member

    1,456
    4
    0
    Legislating from the bench is a horrible thing no matter what the special interest is.
     
  15. hophead

    hophead New Member Tavern Member

    1,501
    1
    0
    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.
     
  16. funetical

    funetical Slowin it up.

    4,299
    0
    0
    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.
     
  17. rola643

    rola643 Two skinny Js Staff Member Admin Staff Mod Team Tavern Member

    20,801
    9,707
    113
    "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
     
  18. funetical

    funetical Slowin it up.

    4,299
    0
    0
    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.

    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.

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

    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.