Comments on: Legislative Report 2/17/10 http://www.vabike.org/legislative-report-21710/ Advocacy, Safety, & Education Sat, 04 Feb 2012 00:25:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Nate Ayers http://www.vabike.org/legislative-report-21710/comment-page-1/#comment-7055 Nate Ayers Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:39:55 +0000 http://www.vabike.org/?p=2798#comment-7055 This whole subject of "enforceablility" is a joke. State code 46.2-816 is "Following Too Closely", a common charge when a motorist rear-ends another motorist. But how can a police officer determine how close is too close without an accident occurring. Perhaps this law needs to be removed from the Code of Virginia because it's not enforceable except in cases of traffic crashes. Same could be said for the 3 feet law. Not enforceable unless a cyclist gets hit from behind. This whole subject of “enforceablility” is a joke. State code 46.2-816 is “Following Too Closely”, a common charge when a motorist rear-ends another motorist. But how can a police officer determine how close is too close without an accident occurring. Perhaps this law needs to be removed from the Code of Virginia because it’s not enforceable except in cases of traffic crashes. Same could be said for the 3 feet law. Not enforceable unless a cyclist gets hit from behind.

]]> By: Matt http://www.vabike.org/legislative-report-21710/comment-page-1/#comment-6865 Matt Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:41:36 +0000 http://www.vabike.org/?p=2798#comment-6865 UPDATE: Del. Rust's response: "I did not support HB1048 and SB 566 because of the practical objections raised by persons after it left the committee. The major objections to the bill included the difficulty of enforcement and the width of the travel lanes which would require a passing vehicle to enter the opposing lane. The committee felt this was an educational issue and both the Department of Motor Vehicles and the representatives of the bicycling community agreed to work together for the next year to attempt to improve the situation." UPDATE:
Del. Rust’s response:

“I did not support HB1048 and SB 566 because of the practical objections raised by persons after it left the committee. The major objections to the bill included the difficulty of enforcement and the width of the travel lanes which would require a passing vehicle to enter the opposing lane. The committee felt this was an educational issue and both the Department of Motor Vehicles and the representatives of the bicycling community agreed to work together for the next year to attempt to improve the situation.”

]]> By: Matt http://www.vabike.org/legislative-report-21710/comment-page-1/#comment-6863 Matt Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:16:18 +0000 http://www.vabike.org/?p=2798#comment-6863 How were Del. Rust's comments relevant? Was he speaking in opposition to the bill? He's my delegate (and I have contacted him), so I'd like to know - especially after his unexpected opposition to 1048 on the floor. It's a pity that, like many others, some of our elected representatives see the irresponsible actions of some bikers as justification for denying proper protection to all bikers. It's also ridiculous that this can even be brought up this way - as if cyclists were a special breed given to lawbreaking - when so many drivers break the law on the regular basis. Vehicles don't break laws... people do. How were Del. Rust’s comments relevant? Was he speaking in opposition to the bill? He’s my delegate (and I have contacted him), so I’d like to know – especially after his unexpected opposition to 1048 on the floor.

It’s a pity that, like many others, some of our elected representatives see the irresponsible actions of some bikers as justification for denying proper protection to all bikers. It’s also ridiculous that this can even be brought up this way – as if cyclists were a special breed given to lawbreaking – when so many drivers break the law on the regular basis. Vehicles don’t break laws… people do.

]]> By: Nate http://www.vabike.org/legislative-report-21710/comment-page-1/#comment-6832 Nate Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:46:04 +0000 http://www.vabike.org/?p=2798#comment-6832 I look forward to laws that will make the roads safer every year. Even if we lost the 3 foot passing law, hopefully the hands-free cell phone law will pass and maybe they will sharpen the teeth on the "texting while driving" law. As a police officer, I would also argue that the 3 foot law IS enforceable. Sure you can't tell the difference between 2 feet and 3 feet without a measuring tape, when observing a motorist pass a cyclist too closely. But you can tell the difference between 3 inches and 2 feet... especially if it's a difference between 3 inches and 3 feet. I've had motorists pass me and their mirrors graze my handlebars. That is NOT 2 feet! Of course, I was also hit from behind. That wasn't 2 feet of clearance either. I look forward to laws that will make the roads safer every year. Even if we lost the 3 foot passing law, hopefully the hands-free cell phone law will pass and maybe they will sharpen the teeth on the “texting while driving” law.

As a police officer, I would also argue that the 3 foot law IS enforceable. Sure you can’t tell the difference between 2 feet and 3 feet without a measuring tape, when observing a motorist pass a cyclist too closely. But you can tell the difference between 3 inches and 2 feet… especially if it’s a difference between 3 inches and 3 feet. I’ve had motorists pass me and their mirrors graze my handlebars. That is NOT 2 feet! Of course, I was also hit from behind. That wasn’t 2 feet of clearance either.

]]>