Evan Plews

I agree. I too was under the impression that there was a "3ft" law here in Oregon. The current law is bogus because without a metric or distance anything goes. Once again it appears that our silly political system has wasted considerable time and $$$ creating ANOTHER law that will likely do more harm that good.

The worst part about this is that many drivers lack good spacial perception and often drive towards the left anyway. Especially when on a two-way road. They seem to believe they are in the middle of the lane which they are not.

Bottom line is that regardless of the "laws" we could be dead if someone is a car or truck isn't paying attention in which case none of it will matter to us. I think the best offense is good defense on the bike and modeling safe driving around bicycles when in our cars.

If we all slow WAY down and give double the space to cyclists when WE drive, maybe other drivers will take notice and begin behaving the same!

Evan Plews

www.evanplews.com

503-949-4879

________________________________
> From: chunkeluvr@comcast.net
> To: obra@list.obra.org
> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:58:17 -0800
> Subject: [OBRA Chat] Re; 3 foot law
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> With all due respect to our lawmakers, I think that
> not designating a number ie; 3 feet, etc. to this passing
> law and wording it as " a safe distance" assumes motorists
> know or care how much is enough when passing. Seems that the "I
> thought I was giving them enough room when I passed " plea could be
> sucessfully argued in court. Ha, if it only were to ever get that far. I'll
> never know because the woman who right hooked me only briefly stopped
> and when persued by a witness, ran several stop signs to avoid being
> caught.Just sayin'.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/

Shane Y. Gibson

Chipp wrote:
> With all due respect to our lawmakers, I think that not designating a
> number ie; 3 feet, etc. to this passing law and wording it as " a safe
> distance"

I thought there was a clarification to this law on the books, which
(paraphrasing) states something like "safe distance is determined by the
height of the rider", i.e. when us rickety riders fall over sideways for
no apparent reason, you must maintain a distance away from the rider
equal to the height of the rider. That provides a visual reference that
*can* be measured and argued in court, as opposed to something requiring
common sense, which ironically is rather uncommon...

v/r
Shane

--
Wicked Race Director
Wicked Adventure Racing, LLC
http://www.WickedAR.com/

"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature,
nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding
danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life
is either a daring adventure or nothing." ** Helen Keller **

Chipp

With all due respect to our lawmakers, I think that not designating a number ie; 3 feet, etc. to this passing law and wording it as " a safe distance" assumes motorists know or care how much is enough when passing. Seems that the "I thought I was giving them enough room when I passed " plea could be sucessfully argued in court. Ha, if it only were to ever get that far. I'll never know because the woman who right hooked me only briefly stopped and when persued by a witness, ran several stop signs to avoid being caught.Just sayin'.