Re:Sharrows, the bicycle infrastructure that doesn’t work an...
by pmiller2 on Sunday December 13, 2020 @04:33PM
(#25410507)
Right, that's why the word "could" is in there. All of the crimes I mentioned have an element of either intent or fault attached to them. Coming close to someone, even at speed, without intending to do any harm is not "attempted murder" or assault in any form. This is fortunate, because to pass a cyclist, one often is forced to come within a few feet of them to accomplish the maneuver.
Re:Sharrows, the bicycle infrastructure that doesn’t work an...
by jessaustin on Sunday December 13, 2020 @04:47PM
(#25410644)
... to pass a cyclist, one often is forced to come within a few feet of them to accomplish the maneuver.
Somehow I'm reading "within a few feet" as "six inches". IME bicycles are much narrower than automobiles. If it's safe to pass an automobile, it's safe to pass a cyclist while leaving at least eight feet.
If it's not safe to pass, don't pass.
Re:Sharrows, the bicycle infrastructure that doesn’t work an...
by pmiller2 on Sunday December 13, 2020 @05:15PM
(#25410906)
Sounds like you're a little biased when you're reading "within a few feet" as "six inches."
Re:Sharrows, the bicycle infrastructure that doesn’t work an...
by jessaustin on Sunday December 13, 2020 @09:21PM
(#25412822)
I'm biased by experience. Why did you write "within"? Three feet is an acceptable distance to allow if you're traveling less than 40mph. Less than three feet is not.
This seems beside the point? Above you seemed to imply it is inherently challenging to pass a cyclist. That is only the case if one attempts to pass in inappropriate situations. Cyclists have at least as much right to the road as motorists have.
There's an additional constraint of acting negligently. If you're going 45 on a road where the speed limit is fifty and someone sprints out in front of your car, you won't be convicted of vehicular manslaughter (assuming obviously that you didn't have time to react).