State cycling group sides with AAA to stand in the way of cycling safety

Frankly, I expected a drivers’ organization to oppose California’s proposed three-foot passing law.

When it’s come up for a vote before, a number of organizations have stood in it’s way, from AAA and truckers groups to, inexplicably, the California Highway Patrol.

Even though safe driving — that is, not running over cyclists or forcing us off the road — would seem to be in everyone’s interest.

But I didn’t expect a state-wide cycling organization to oppose a commonsense law that would make California streets safer for everyone who rides them.

Then again, maybe I should have, considering that they’ve already come out against the Idaho Stop Law that would allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yields — a law that has proved remarkably successful in its home state, and is the envy and desire of cyclists around the country.

Myself included.

While everyone from the more mainstream California Bicycle Association to Mayor of Los Angeles support the bill, the California Association of Bicycling Organizations has come out strongly against SB 910. That bill, which recently passed the state Senate’s Transportation and Housing Committee on the 6-3 vote, would establish a minimum three-foot passing distance for drivers passing cyclists, as well as establishing a maximum 15 mph speed differential when passing closer than that.

According to CABO’s website, one reason they oppose the bill is that they don’t believe three feet is “measurable or enforceable in practice.”

Bullshit.

As it now stands, motorists are required to pass bicyclists at a safe distance without interfering with their safe operation. But there is absolutely no standard what a safe distance is.

While some drivers thankfully interpret it as giving cyclists a wide birth when they pass, others consider anything short of actually running over a rider to be perfectly acceptable. As virtually any cyclist who has ridden California roads for any amount of time can attest, it’s not the least bit uncommon to be passed with anything from a couple feet to mere inches of clearance.

Or to have a motorist squeeze by in same lane with so little margin for error that a simple sneeze on either party’s part could lead to a dangerous collision.

But under the existing standard, if you don’t actually get hit or knocked off your bike, it’s a safe — and therefore legal — pass. Even if it scared the crap out of you or made you struggle to avoid losing control.

And let’s not forget that the slipstream of a moving vehicle can sometimes be enough to make a cyclist lose control or knock you off your bike.

Despite their protestations, it’s actually the current vague standard that’s impossible to measure, giving drivers no guidance whatsoever as to how close they should or shouldn’t pass. And providing no objective standard for law enforcement, leading to judgment calls that can vary widely from one jurisdiction to another, and from officer to officer.

The three foot standard was never intended as an exact measurement. No one will ever pull out a tape measure to determine if a car is 35” or 37” from the cyclist being passed.

But any trained police officer should be able tell if a driver is passing significantly less than that. Just as any cyclist knows when a car is passing too close.

As a simple guide, the average adult arm is far less than three feet long. So if a cyclist could reach out and come anywhere near touching a passing vehicle, it’s in clear violation of the law. Under the current standard, though, it could come far closer as long as it doesn’t actually interfere with the operation of your bike.

The problem with that is that it allows no margin for error. Any unexpected action by either party could lead to a disastrous collision. Evidently, CABO has no problem with that, since they think the current standard is just fine, thank you.

Three feet merely provides, for the first time, an enforceable standard, giving motorists a yardstick — pun intended — to measure, not how close they should come, but the minimum distance they should stay away. And offers police a way to judge, without guessing, when a vehicle is too close.

Does it mean, as CABO suggests, that a three-foot law will encourage drivers to pass closer than they should under some situations, such as when driving large vehicles or travelling at high speeds?

You mean they don’t already?

Obviously, there are situations where more than three feet of clearance should be given. But I’ll gladly settle for 36 inches as opposed to the current standard of anything goes. And don’t forget, that’s a minimum standard; drivers are more than welcome to give more space when passing.

To be fair, though, I do agree with CABO on a couple points.

For instance, the proposed law contains an exemption allowing drivers to pass cyclists with less than three feet clearance, as long as they slow down to no more than 15 mph faster than the bike being passed.

In other words, if you’re riding at 15 mph, a driver wouldn’t have to give you three feet as long as they were travelling at no more than 30 mph.

I don’t think so.

I don’t know of any objective way for a driver or law enforcement officer to know just what the speed differential is between any two passing vehicles.

And frankly, I don’t want a driver trying to squeeze by at 10 mph above my speed any more than I want one doing it at 20, 30 or 40.

Even at the slower speeds, it would do nothing to reduce the possibility that either party might swerve unexpectedly. So it would do little to reduce the risk of a collision, but merely limit the severity.

And personally, I’d rather not get hit at any speed, thank you,

We’re also in agreement that drivers should be allowed to briefly cross double yellow lines in order to pass a bike; many drivers — myself included — do that anyway. As long as the other side of the road is clear, there’s far less risk in briefly putting two wheels across the center line than in passing a rider too closely.

Others have argued that the failure to enforce similar laws in other areas suggests that it will fail here, as well. But it’s up to the cyclists and citizens in those states to get police to enforce the laws on the books, rather than our responsibility to avoid passing much needed laws.

After all, if the police somewhere else stopped enforcing their laws against armed robbery, that wouldn’t be a reason to take ours off the books.

There are provisions in the proposal that can and should be changed, and places where the wording could be tightened up to avoid unintended complications. However, there’s still plenty of time left to improve the bill before it comes up for a final vote.

But let’s face it. You don’t have to talk to many California cyclists to realize that our current law is a complete, abject and utter failure that puts every rider on our roads at needless risk.

And a three-foot passing law is a vital first step in correcting it.

35 comments

  1. I disagree with CABO on this 3ft. thing, but do agree with a couple points they make that you mention as well.

    On the matter of an Idaho stop law, I don’t know if you read their rationale on that, but I agree completely. The problem is not that we should let cyclists roll stops, the problem is we overuse stop signs, and use them incorrectly, frequently, and this contributes to low compliance by everyone. Having ridden in France for 60 miles through various towns and small cities along the Paris Roubaix route, and never once encountering stop signs, but instead many other intersection treatments, I am convinced the problem is not the law, but the engineering practice of using stop signs everywhere when other methods may be more appropriate, safer, and more efficient.

    • bikinginla says:

      I couldn’t agree more about roundabouts being preferable to stop signs; however, stop signs aren’t going to go away anytime soon. An Idaho Stop law would encourage riding and improve safety in the meantime.

      • Not sure how Idaho stop law would improve safety, is there any study on that? One of my concerns is the running of stop signs, legal or not, by cyclists, sparks this rage in comments on cycling like nothing else. I’m sure you’ve encountered plenty of angry comments about how cyclists rolling stops means cyclists don’t belong on the road.

        I feel like enshrining Idaho stop just becomes a way to let traffic engineers off the hook and work around bad choices, allowing the bad choices to remain in place. Roundabouts are also not the only alternative, there is the use of yield signs, there is a great TED talk on that, and ways to slow traffic at intersections.

        If we prioritize bicycle routes as places to change intersection treatment, it really wouldn’t take very long to make a lot of these changes in the places that effect cyclists the most.

        I hate frequent stop signs, and liked Idaho stop law idea for a long time, but I’m not so convinced it’s the right way to go now. American traffic engineering is a cobbled mess that I think needs to be confronted head on, and not by trying to create legal loop holes and exceptions.

        • The Trickster says:

          That’s one thing my parents were never able to figure out when we travelled over there. The overuse of stop signs.

          Its pretty simple here, unless the intersection happens to be pretty dangerous, or have bad sight lines but isn’t busy enough for traffic lights, a stop sign is used. Otherwise ‘Giveway’ (Yield) signs are far more common. Also on so major intersections large roundabouts are used instead.

          Result being we don’t seem to have quite the issues with people rolling stops – probably because we have very few of them.

  2. Digital Dame says:

    When I was learning to drive, I was taught that as you’re sitting behind the wheel, if the center line of the road can be seen just next to the left front fender of the car, you are roughly three feet away from it. Surely there is some similar standard to judge how far away you are from an object to your right?

  3. BikingBrian says:

    Once I was buzzed (deliberately passed closely) while riding in the rightmost lane of a multilane road. The rightmost lane was narrow, so I (legally per the exceptions to CVC 21202) rode in the center of the lane so as to discourage too close passing within in the same lane. Traffic was light, and the motorist had plenty of time to change lanes, but instead chose to straddle the lanes and buzz me. I confirmed this through subsequent replay of helmet camera footage (though the quality was not sufficient to get a license plate number).

    If the above were witnessed by a police officer, he would easily have cause to site the motorist under current law. The current law is not a failure, it is the enforcement and education of such that is the problem.

    “Clarifying” a safe distance as being at least 3 feet wouldn’t have changed anything for that motorist, he was going to get as close as he could without hitting me to send me a message, and siting the motorist would be no easier under a 3-foot law. (And if you add the speed differential business to the mix, it would be harder, because the motorist could simply argue that he was passing at less than the 15 mph differential.)

    On another note, CABO has not opposed previous versions of 3-foot laws over the years. They have only gone on record in opposition to this particular version with the speed differential wording. CBC reported that AAA and CABO might be open to supporting this bill if amended.

    • bikinginla says:

      You’re right, Brian, the current law is sufficient for those kind of vehicular assaults like you experienced — and which I have far too many times myself — although the penalty is way too small to act as a real deterrent. And as you experienced, the chances of having a police officer witness the act is pretty close to nil.

      I’m far more concerned with the typical motorist who isn’t trying to send a message, but just get past the rider in front of them. Far too many think a single foot, or even less, is sufficient to squeeze by. A three foot law sets a very clear standard any driver can understand.

      Had CABO’s website said they would support the proposed law without the speed differential, I would have been in agreement with them, and would not have written this piece. However, the first three points in their statement make it very clear they oppose a three-foot law, as well. If they drop that opposition, we’re on the same side.

      And by the way, you do offer a very well thought-out take on opposing the proposed law. While I respect your position — and agree with some of what you’ve written — I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bath water.

  4. [...] State cycling organisation sides with AAA to mount in a approach of cycling … [...]

  5. The author writes: “Three feet merely provides, for the first time, an enforceable standard, giving motorists a yardstick — pun intended — to measure, not how close they should come, but the minimum distance they should stay away. And offers police a way to judge, without guessing, when a vehicle is too close.”
    .
    An enforceable standard? That would be funny if it weren’t so outrageously false. If the officer wasn’t there to see a violation, the point is moot, which is the case over 99% of the time, and in those rare cases where an officer witnesses a close pass, how is an officer to determine, without guessing if the passing distance was 35”(2’11″) instead of 36” (3′)? This is not a rhetorical question. Do they have to use a laser range finder, or glue ultrasound transceivers on every vehicle and/or bicyclist. The difference between 35” and 36” is 1 part in 36, and this is not easy to judge as an absolute distance by eye. So what on Earth is meant by “a way to judge, without guessing”?? I find this phrasing, without any supportive measurement methodology, to be highly intellectually offensive ideological prose. The author of this piece is substituting his own ideology for anything resembling rational analysis. Such knee-jerk appeals to what the author refers to as “common sense”, are in reality a display of ignorance of enforcement practices, the effect of traffic laws, and an utter failure to recognize that existing passing law is vastly superior to the CBC’s proposed law.

    Three foot laws are misguided attempts to patch the effects of FTR laws on enforcement practices. Most car-bike collisions of the sideswipe or hit from behind variety do not result in a motorist citation, because it is much easier to simply blame the cyclist for violating the FTR law (CVC 21202) and either cite the cyclist for CVC 21202 (thus severely undercutting any chance the cyclist can seek redress in civil court), or not cite the motorist or cyclist.

    The root problem is cyclists, and cycling advocates buying into the edge riding mentality, assuming cyclists belong at the edge and letting motoring organizations and police treat us as second class drivers through discriminatory laws like CVC 21202. Then of course cyclists need “protection” from the too close passing that such edge riding encourages. Of course the rational solution is to repeal the FTR law and give cyclists the same rights to control lanes as motorcyclists or any other drivers. Think about it; the driver of a larger and more robust vehicle (motorcycle) is given full lane use protection from motorists, and the driver of a smaller and less robust device (bicycle) is forced justify lane control and can be cited any time a police officer thinks a cyclist doesn’t have the right to control a lane. The problem is that we give police the tools of discrimination (CVC 21202 and CVC 21208), and the very existence of these discriminatory laws undercuts what would normally be the positive effects of CVC 21750, precisely because these discriminatory laws give police an out to absolve motorists of fault.

    This point is essential, so I will restate it in different words:
    When a car driver hits a motorcyclist, there is no law like 21202 that can used to cite the motorcyclist for being “too far leftward in the roadway”, so the only enforcement question is whether or not the car driver violated 21750, and in the absence of other evidence, the onus is on the car driver to justify why they hit the motorcyclist.

    OTOH, when a car driver hits a bicyclist, the presence of CVC 21202 places the onus on the bicyclist to justify that they had a right to be at the place in the roadway (and not further right) where the motorist hit them, and unless the police believe that this onus doesn’t apply, the question of whether the motorist was at fault doesn’t even enter into the discussion, and adding the best possible wording for 3’ provision to CVC 21750 doesn’t change the onus placed on the bicyclist or the default enforcement practice. This essential point is completely lost on nearly all 3-ft law supporters.

    It is this second class, edge riding status, that is literally allowing motorists to get a free pass when hitting cyclists.

    The core problem is the built-in legal discrimination against cyclists, and until it stops, patching discriminatory laws with additional discriminatory laws that are of logically bizarre (safe passing or 3′ min or 15mph speed differential) construction, just makes the discriminatory mud thicker and deeper.

    Frankly, I’m disgusted by the bike advocate cheerleading for stupid and misguided laws while real discrimination is left on the books.

    We have seen the enemy, and it is us (collectively).

    • bikinginla says:

      Glad you think I’m the enemy Dan. I’ll keep cheerleading for stupid and misguided laws, while you keep attacking people trying to keep cyclists safe.

      If you bothered to read my post before responding, you would have seen that I answered your non-rhetorical question. No one will ever attempt to enforce this law by determining that a driver passed 35.5″ from a bike instead of 36; to insist they would is a cheep rhetorical trick, simply setting up a straw dog just so you can knock it down; I would think that beneath you.

      While no one can measure 36″ with complete accuracy from a distance, they can easily see that two feet or less of passing distance is less than three feet, and act accordingly.

      And next time you visit or anywhere else, try to be a little more respectful of people you disagree with.

  6. Joe Mizereck says:

    So sad.

    Look, seventeen states and a growing number of cities have seen the wisdom and value of having such a law on the books. This value isn’t found in giving motorists tickets, but rather, in using the law as a tool to help educate motorists on what is considered a safe passing distance–at least 3 feet please. A clear, concrete frame of reference that helps motorists negotiate around cyclists from the rear.

    The bottom line here is: will a law that helps motorists understand how they are to safely pass cyclists from the rear save lives? The answer is yes. Let me repeat…YES. And to be honest with you I think it is absolutely ridicuous that CABO would seek to deny California cyclists of this protection.

    I have heard all the above arguments before…but, not from organizations dedicated to serving the interests of cyclists…this is disturbing…and when I see Dan Gutierrez involved in offering the reasoning for opposing the law and serving on the CABO board, it makes sense. Please, don’t be suffocated into believing what Dan has to say is true. He is wrong about this. He knows it. You should know it and anyone who really thinks this through will know it.

    Come on California…you have a great opportunity at your finger tips…get it right and make it happen. A 3 Foot Law will save cyclists’ lives…enough said.

    Joe Mizereck
    Founder, The “3 Feet Please” Campaign

    PS Dan, don’t even try to engage me in one of your long senseless rebuttals, I haven’t got time for you…I’m busy trying to save some lives.

  7. Joe expresses insecurity: “PS Dan, don’t even try to engage me in one of your long senseless rebuttals, I haven’t got time for you…I’m busy trying to save some lives.”
    .
    Anyone who felt his position was sound would not launch preemptive personal attacks, and instead focus on the issues. Joe simply attacked me; he didn’t offer any insight or information relevant to California. He’s just a 3-ft law carpetbagger from another state, sniping at those of us who live and advocate and educate in CA. We do this preceisely because we value the lives of cyclists above promoting misguided and dangerous feel-good ideology masquerading as safety.

  8. BikinginLA wrote: “Glad you think I’m the enemy Dan.”
    .
    Too bad you’re happy to oppose rational laws.
    .
    BILA: “I’ll keep cheerleading for stupid and misguided laws, while you keep attacking people trying to keep cyclists safe.”
    .
    You got the first part correct, the second part is true only if trying, means giving the appearance of safety, while increasing hazards and complexity of enforcement.
    .
    BILA continued: “If you bothered to read my post before responding, you would have seen that I answered your non-rhetorical question. No one will ever attempt to enforce this law by determining that a driver passed 35.5″ from a bike instead of 36; to insist they would is a cheep rhetorical trick, simply setting up a straw dog just so you can knock it down; I would think that beneath you.

    While no one can measure 36″ with complete accuracy from a distance, they can easily see that two feet or less of passing distance is less than three feet, and act accordingly.”
    .
    Even 2′ is at best guestimable, not measurable, so it is still not enforceable. How would the officer prove it in court? This you have not answered, and the logic of the law allows the motorist other outs, by claming that his speed differential was less than 15 mph, and that the pass was safe. Since 3′ is not an absolute minimum, it’s not even close to being enforceable, even if it was measurable (which it isn’t). There’s a reason you don’t see numerical clearance minimums specified in traffic law, such metrics are not enforceable. And the obfuscatory 15 mph speed differential when or conjuncted with a 3′ minimum and safe passing prose creates an ugly or conjunct that will create many ways for lawyers to argue against a police officers’ decision.

    Had the CBC/City of LA, simply added a 3′ minimum for bicyclists in 21750, the law would have been fairly innocuous. The logically tortured bill from Lownthal and committee is terrible and should be killed as soon as possible.
    .
    BILA: “And next time you visit or anywhere else, try to be a little more respectful of people you disagree with.”
    .
    What I wrote was appropriate respect. I have much contempt for those of you that actively work to reduce cyclists rights, increase their liability, and make it more dificult for injured cyclists or the families of the deceased to seek redress in the court system.

    Neither you or your carpetbagging accomplice has addresed the issue of why cyclists are given lesser rights than other drivers and how this creates a prejudicial presumption of fault that renders any bicyclist specific passing law, effectively moot in practice.

    • bikinginla says:

      Dan, do you even know the meaning of the term carpet bagging? I challenge you to explain how that term applies to me, or anyone else who supports a three-foot passing law.

      And for future reference, you are more than welcome to disagree with anything I or anyone else writes on here. But any further personal attacks, against myself or anyone else, will get all your comments deleted.

      Same rules go for anyone else, so don’t think you’re special.

      • I didn’t refer to you as a carpetbagger, just the accomplice in support of the three foot law. Context matters.

        • bikinginla says:

          No, you merely smeared the reputation of a respected bicycle safety advocate — a term I would have also used to describe you 24 hours ago. As his “accomplice,” you are saying that I am either a carpetbagger myself, or worse, someone who is willing to sell out his own kind in support of the carpetbagger’s goals.

          As you said, context matters.

          • How could a California native be a carpetbagger 24 hours ago, or ever? That sentence just doesn’t parse.

            Respectable bicycling advocates don’t snipe out of state and make personal attacks like Joe did.

            Regarding my statement, here is what I wrote: “Neither you or your carpetbagging accomplice has addresed the issue of why cyclists are given lesser rights than other drivers…”
            the adjective carpetbagging was describing Joe, not you. The context of accomplice was suppport for 3-ft laws.

            You are someone who is willing to remove legislative protection by supporting a law that removes the safe passing provision of 21750 and instead allows a motorist to pass within inches at high absolute speed but with a speed differential of less than 15 mph. If you want to call this selling out, I’ll accept your phrasing, however, I did not use the term “your own kind”, since I’m not sure what it means in the context of this discussion. “Your own kind” could refer to you and Joe, and not all CA cyclists. Do notice that I refer to the effect of your advocacy on all CA cyclists for the purposes of discussing this proposed CA law.

            • bikinginla says:

              As you said, context matters. Read it again — I said Joe is a respected bike safety advocate, and prior to your rude and insulting responses on here, I would have considered you one, as well.

              And don’t go acting like the wounded victim here — you’re the one who started by attacking me; Joe just tried to cut you off before you could attack him; either he detected the tone in which you addressed me, or he’s dealt with you before.

              I know exactly what your context was. I also know exactly what a carpetbagger is, and what being carpetbagger’s accomplice implies.

              If you don’t like it when people take offense at what you say, I suggest you choose your insults more carefully.

  9. MikeOnBike says:

    From the original post: “To be fair, though, I do agree with CABO on a couple points. For instance, the proposed law contains an exemption allowing drivers to pass cyclists with less than three feet clearance, as long as they slow down to no more than 15 mph faster than the bike being passed.”

    This is really the core of CABO’s objection to the April 26 amendment of SB910. This is a fatal flaw that you could (actually) drive a truck through.

    The effect of SB910 (as amended April 26) is to redefine “safe distance” to be a MAXIMUM of 3 feet under most conditions, with NO minimum.

    This is exactly the opposite of what a 3-foot law is supposed to do. It obliterates the existing “safe distance” law and replaces it with a rule that is nearly impossible for a motorist to violate.

    It’s surprising that CABO is the only cycling organization that noticed this change in the April 26 wording and raised an objection. Every cycling organization should be opposed to this impostor of a 3-foot law that does the exact opposite of what it claims.

    • MikeOnBike says:

      Does anybody other than Dan have a response to my previous comment?

      • bikinginla says:

        Mike, I agree that the 15 mph rule exemption doesn’t make any sense, and should be removed from the bill. I suspect it was added in order to avoid the same opposition from truckers and the CHP that killed previous attempts to pass a three-foot bill. However, as you point out, it does take the teeth out of the protective cushion the law is supposed to have.

        However, my preference is to amend the bill to remove that provision, rather than throw the baby out with the bath water.

        I would argue with your contention that the 15 mph rule is CABO’s main objection to the bill, however. If that is the case, the post on their website was extremely poorly written. The first three points are objections to a three-foot law or support the existing undefined standard; it’s not until the 4th point that the 15 mph exemption is even mentioned, and then in only two of the seven points.

        If your only real objection is to the 15 mph exemption, then we are in agreement. However, until CABO clarifies that on their website, I will continue to be in disagreement, and disappointed that they oppose a law that I firmly believe will protect my own safety, as well as that of other cyclists, and which most cyclists seem to favor.

        I might also add that I appreciate the manner in which you and Brian have stated your opposition to what I wrote. I truly enjoy hearing from people who disagree with me, because I can learn a lot more from such comments than I do from people who share my views.

  10. Man on bike wrote: “The effect of SB910 (as amended April 26) is to redefine “safe distance” to be a MAXIMUM of 3 feet under most conditions, with NO minimum.”
    .
    Yes, this is one of the fatal flaws. The other problem of defining a speed differential is that it is not tied to any absolute speed, so let’s say I’m flying at 46 mph down a steep hill, and a motorist passes me at 6″ lateral clearance at 60mph, a 14 mph speed differential; this would not be a violation of the proposed passing law.

    Support for this atrocious wording is huge insult to all the cyclists who ride on hills, mountain roads and canyon highways throughout the state. Even 3′ at this high absolute speed/14mph differential, would be highly hazardous to cyclists. This is one of the fundamental problems with fixed minimum distance passing laws. Instead we should be eliminating the tools of discrimination by repealing discriminatory laws, so we can then work to train police to enforce encroachment under existing 21750 as they do for motorcyclists, who are legally entitled to control a lane without jsutification.

  11. [...] this link: State cycling group sides with AAA to stand in the way of cycling … Posted in General Tags: actually-running, california, others-consider, perfectly-acceptable, [...]

    • The phrasing “State cycling group sides with AAA to stand in the way of cycling” is propaganda directed against CABO. I would write that “State Cycling Group opposes bill that removes existing legal passing protections for cyclists”

      • bikinginla says:

        Dan, I’m entitled to my opinion; you’re entitled to yours. I firmly believe that a three-foot law will make cyclists safer — my experience with the unsafe passing resulting from the current non-standard on the streets of L.A. proves to me the danger of the current law on a near-daily basis.

        I believe CABO’s opposition — which according to their own website goes far beyond the 15 mph rule — threatens my safety. You clearly disagree.

        That’s why we hold elections.

        And quite frankly, I’m long past giving a damn what you would write.

  12. [...] Some Cycling Groups Oppose 3-Foot Passing Law (Biking In L.A.) [...]

  13. Chris says:

    To me, this just looks like a CBC/CABO pissing match, and CABO is pissed they got left on the outside while CBC carried water from the get-go to get this legislation to where it is today.

  14. My name is Jonathan from Austin-Lehman Adventures, since we both love biking I thought I’d take a minute to tell you about our latest idea. In celebration of National Bike Month & to further support Wheels of Change (A non-profit providing mobility to those that need it most), Austin-Lehman Adventures is pleased to announce that for all new bookings in May, on any dedicated 2011 Bike Trip, we will donate $200 to WoC. ALA is excited to be packing out our 2nd container of used bikes, this one going to open a shop in Nairobi Kenya. Visit http://www.austinlehman.com for trips and details.
    This is a great cause and I would love if you could post something about it on your website or social media outlets! Here’s a link to our press lease if you want more info: http://3bl.me/578vp7

    Thanks

  15. MikeOnBike says:

    Chris and Jared (and others): What is your reaction to my comment above, which describes how the April 26 version of SB910 creates the exact opposite of a 3-foot law? (BikinginLA: Thanks for your May 8 reply.)

    What is the recommended process for dealing with a bill that has been amended to mean the opposite of what it claims?

    • Jared says:

      Oops, I should clarify. I like to cut tubes and make stuff hot with torches, and ride bicycles.

      As for the political side of things, I don’t know much. *Shrug*

      I’m just sayin’ that with all that pissing, there’s probably a lot of urine. If it really is a MAXIMUM 3 foot law, then that’s a bummer that the wording is so bad. Probably drafted by an intern who didn’t know what’s going on :).

  16. Craig says:

    Though I’m not fond of the 15 mph clause,(I have a video of a motorist passing me with our mirrors missing one another by an inch at close to a 15 mph difference) I feel that the SB910 bill is still a step in the right direction, and maybe at a later date the 15 mph exception can be addressed.

  17. As an act of civil protest I road my bike on the closed 405 freeway on sunday, see attached video and picture. I have never broken the law in my life and its not something I have any plan to do in the future but I feel like it is time that we stop spending so much time and effort on car culture and its never ending growth and start focusing on more realistic solutions to the transportation problems in Los Angeles. I was an avid Cyclist before my bike was confiscated and I plan to continue to be one as soon as I get it back.
    What I would like to see is the kind of effort and expense we put into shutting down and expanding this ten mile stretch of road, put into some thing like making a comprehensive train system (one that at least goes to the airport or one beach, any beach) and a net work of bike lanes that can be used by anyone, not just the impossibly fit, spatially aware and slightly crazy youths, that are the only ones capable of using the bike lanes we have now.
    Passive acceptance of the endless expanse of freeway is not a way for a great city like Los Angeles to be. Our lives shouldn’t all come to a crashing halt because we only have one option of reasonably getting around. The free way should be a convenience not a way of life. I propose we start to seriously think about the way this city works and how we can make it the great place it can be right now.
    http://www.etsy.com/listing/78316289/freemikesbike

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

5 × 3 =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

%d bloggers like this: