I just love this quote from the article … “”That will be very dangerous,” she said of the proposed four-foot law. “You might as well stop behind (the cyclist) and let the other car pass by” in the other lane before passing the bicycle.” — So apparently it’s not “dangerous” to buzz a cyclist but is “dangerous” to pass a legal, slower moving vehicle in a state approved manner. Insight: (1) Maybe it’s BEEN dangerous for the cyclist but not the driver and now the driver has to THINK before passing because someone other than the cyclist’s life is at risk. (2) Maybe this is why cyclists sometimes “take the road” because the driver’s don’t have the insight that with the current road width they are UNNECESSARILY risking the lives of the cyclist by passing too close. By “taking the lane”, the drive is now forced to consider when it is safe to pass or risk their own life.
I agree. Apparently, some folks only consider the danger to themselves of crossing into the oncoming traffic lane. The idea that a car should wait until it’s safe to pass a cyclist (for the cyclist’s well being) does not, it seems, occur to to them.
If this bill passes into law, it will, I fear, make little difference. The law is virtually unenforceable and cyclists will still be well advised to take the lane in situations where the lane is too narrow to share, in order to prevent unsafe passes. Fortunately, unlike most states, Pennsylvania law does not require cyclists to travel far to the right. There is ‘far to the right’ language in the PA statutes for slow-moving vehicles, but it is completely optional. Of course, that never stopped police from issuing tickets based on their misinterpretation of the law, nor does it prevent judges from making similar mistakes, but at least the law is technically on the side of the cyclist.
The roads are not paid for by bicycle taxes or fees, they are not designed with bicycles as the focus of use, and they are not primarily used by bicyclists.
Also, to say it is not a special interest law ignores the fact that the law includes special interest provisions. Bicyclists needn’t move over if there is traffic behind them and they are not going the minimum speed – yep – that’s a special interest provision! If the road is too narrow, rather than make the three, five, or eight cars wait the twenty minutes or longer to find a wider section of roadway to pass, make the cyclist pull over and be inconvenienced for a few seconds while they pass.
Better still, widen the roads and make paths for cyclists! There’s a revolutionary idea!
are you kidding me?!!!! I’ve been a Pa tax payer nearly my whole life…..regardless which form of transportation I choose to use.. And since a bicycle has been deemed a vehicle and is subject to the same penalties as a motorist…..a bicyclist who happens to be in front of you…..HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY!!!!!just as a vehicle in front of a cyclist HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY!!!
Roads aren’t paid for by drivers, not all the fuel tax and registration tax. Free travel is a basic human right. Travel by motor vehicle is considered a regulated privilege because of all the suffering, death, and destruction they cause when misused. The roads you pay for with fuel tax are called interstate highways, where you have lanes 12′ wide, gentle curves, gentle grades, and no at-grade crossings. All the other roads are paid for out of general funds. They don’t belong to you. How spoiled can you get?
The roads are not paid for by car taxes or fees either. The roads were indeed designed with bicycles as the focus of use – Google ‘good roads movement’ – maybe you’ll learn something. Roads are indeed primarily used by bicyclists – bicyclists are the only vehicle operators with the RIGHT to use their vehicle on the road. Drivers have only the privilege of road use – and only if they meet the criteria for operating a motor vehicle on the road.
Your ‘special interest comments are nonsense. Motorists aren’t required to move over either. There is no ‘minimum speed’ on any road where a bicycle is permitted to use the roadway. Minimum speeds exist on some freeways and limited access highways and cyclists are not allowed on these roads. The rest of the US road network has no minimum speed limit, and if a vehicle is operating reasonably close to its top speed in the conditions existing, it cannot be considered to be blocking traffic. If a vehicle – even a bicycle – is in front of you, he has the right of way and you must wait to pass safely – that’s the law.
If you want cyclists to stay off your roads, you should limit your car use to your roads, by which I mean the freeway – that’s why we paid for them in the first place – to keep motorists off ‘our’ roads.
It’s a shame that such a common-sense law is necessary, but apparently it is. Folks, just pass bicycles as you would any other vehicle — with care, and with the additional recognition that they are someone’s father or mother, child or grandchild. They’re just people trying to get to wherever they’re going, safely.
Safe passing laws are folly. How does a police officer even judge that a cyclist has been passed too closely? How would such a charge even stick? As far as I’m aware, this law has never once resulted in a ticket in any place it’s been instituted. It’s completely useless.
Instead of these ‘feel good, do nothing’ pieces of legislation, what states need to do is repeal the ‘far to the right’ laws that prevent cyclists from choosing a position in the roadway that’s safest for the situation – a right that all vehicle operators except cyclists have. They also need to repeal mandatory bike facility use laws, which have the same effect of making roads less safe for cyclists by restricting their right to choose how to ride. Until these laws are repealed, cyclists can never be truly safe on the roads.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I just love this quote from the article … “”That will be very dangerous,” she said of the proposed four-foot law. “You might as well stop behind (the cyclist) and let the other car pass by” in the other lane before passing the bicycle.” — So apparently it’s not “dangerous” to buzz a cyclist but is “dangerous” to pass a legal, slower moving vehicle in a state approved manner. Insight: (1) Maybe it’s BEEN dangerous for the cyclist but not the driver and now the driver has to THINK before passing because someone other than the cyclist’s life is at risk. (2) Maybe this is why cyclists sometimes “take the road” because the driver’s don’t have the insight that with the current road width they are UNNECESSARILY risking the lives of the cyclist by passing too close. By “taking the lane”, the drive is now forced to consider when it is safe to pass or risk their own life.
I agree. Apparently, some folks only consider the danger to themselves of crossing into the oncoming traffic lane. The idea that a car should wait until it’s safe to pass a cyclist (for the cyclist’s well being) does not, it seems, occur to to them.
If this bill passes into law, it will, I fear, make little difference. The law is virtually unenforceable and cyclists will still be well advised to take the lane in situations where the lane is too narrow to share, in order to prevent unsafe passes. Fortunately, unlike most states, Pennsylvania law does not require cyclists to travel far to the right. There is ‘far to the right’ language in the PA statutes for slow-moving vehicles, but it is completely optional. Of course, that never stopped police from issuing tickets based on their misinterpretation of the law, nor does it prevent judges from making similar mistakes, but at least the law is technically on the side of the cyclist.
First rate idiocy.
The roads are not paid for by bicycle taxes or fees, they are not designed with bicycles as the focus of use, and they are not primarily used by bicyclists.
Also, to say it is not a special interest law ignores the fact that the law includes special interest provisions. Bicyclists needn’t move over if there is traffic behind them and they are not going the minimum speed – yep – that’s a special interest provision! If the road is too narrow, rather than make the three, five, or eight cars wait the twenty minutes or longer to find a wider section of roadway to pass, make the cyclist pull over and be inconvenienced for a few seconds while they pass.
Better still, widen the roads and make paths for cyclists! There’s a revolutionary idea!
-Bartleby
are you kidding me?!!!! I’ve been a Pa tax payer nearly my whole life…..regardless which form of transportation I choose to use.. And since a bicycle has been deemed a vehicle and is subject to the same penalties as a motorist…..a bicyclist who happens to be in front of you…..HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY!!!!!just as a vehicle in front of a cyclist HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY!!!
Roads aren’t paid for by drivers, not all the fuel tax and registration tax. Free travel is a basic human right. Travel by motor vehicle is considered a regulated privilege because of all the suffering, death, and destruction they cause when misused. The roads you pay for with fuel tax are called interstate highways, where you have lanes 12′ wide, gentle curves, gentle grades, and no at-grade crossings. All the other roads are paid for out of general funds. They don’t belong to you. How spoiled can you get?
The roads are not paid for by car taxes or fees either. The roads were indeed designed with bicycles as the focus of use – Google ‘good roads movement’ – maybe you’ll learn something. Roads are indeed primarily used by bicyclists – bicyclists are the only vehicle operators with the RIGHT to use their vehicle on the road. Drivers have only the privilege of road use – and only if they meet the criteria for operating a motor vehicle on the road.
Your ‘special interest comments are nonsense. Motorists aren’t required to move over either. There is no ‘minimum speed’ on any road where a bicycle is permitted to use the roadway. Minimum speeds exist on some freeways and limited access highways and cyclists are not allowed on these roads. The rest of the US road network has no minimum speed limit, and if a vehicle is operating reasonably close to its top speed in the conditions existing, it cannot be considered to be blocking traffic. If a vehicle – even a bicycle – is in front of you, he has the right of way and you must wait to pass safely – that’s the law.
If you want cyclists to stay off your roads, you should limit your car use to your roads, by which I mean the freeway – that’s why we paid for them in the first place – to keep motorists off ‘our’ roads.
It’s a shame that such a common-sense law is necessary, but apparently it is. Folks, just pass bicycles as you would any other vehicle — with care, and with the additional recognition that they are someone’s father or mother, child or grandchild. They’re just people trying to get to wherever they’re going, safely.
Safe passing laws are folly. How does a police officer even judge that a cyclist has been passed too closely? How would such a charge even stick? As far as I’m aware, this law has never once resulted in a ticket in any place it’s been instituted. It’s completely useless.
Instead of these ‘feel good, do nothing’ pieces of legislation, what states need to do is repeal the ‘far to the right’ laws that prevent cyclists from choosing a position in the roadway that’s safest for the situation – a right that all vehicle operators except cyclists have. They also need to repeal mandatory bike facility use laws, which have the same effect of making roads less safe for cyclists by restricting their right to choose how to ride. Until these laws are repealed, cyclists can never be truly safe on the roads.