Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

There's two ways to ensure that you aren't inadvertently running afoul of drinking and driving laws: you can either not drink, or wait a large amount of time after drinking before you drive.

Same with passing bicycles - you can give them so much more than three feet that there's no chance that you're within three feet of them, or not pass them until there is that much room.

Three feet is the minimum. The expectation isn't that drivers should try to get as close to three feet without going over.

What's the problem with using a breathalyzer? Seems like a good investment if you want to drive after drinking often.

France mandated breathalyzer kits in all cars a few years ago, although it has since been suspended[1].

[1] http://www.thelocal.fr/20130124/france-motorists-drivers-sus...

Hear, hear. There have been times that I'm certain the cyclist I was waiting to pass was annoyed that I wasn't passing in city traffic but the law says three feet so I give them three feet. In the main it's because if I passed with less than three feet and something happened, including the cyclist losing control, I would, of course, be crucified by law enforcement and the cyclist, assuming they survived the incident.

I do the same thing. To me, a cyclist is a "car" in the sense that regardless of their actual road position I treat them like they're taking up the entire lane and look for a window to overtake them.

I guess in my head, I assume that a cyclist could hit a rock at any moment, fall over, and get caught under my tires. So I treat the situation like that is a realistic scenario even if perhaps it is not.

I wish cyclists would cycle more centrally in their lane. Cycling near the curve just results in bad drivers thinking they can ride side by side with a cyclist which they should not be doing...

Close distance passing may be more tolerable for experienced and fully competent cyclists, but it's still unnecessarily risky. And the risks are much higher for those with less sure bike handling skills: new and casual riders, and the very young. It's not uncommon to see these kinds of riders wobbling back and forth, "salmoning" their way down the road, obviously lacking good situational awareness.

There are just so many reasons why it's a good idea to give cyclists a wide berth, but perhaps they all come down to this: The extra space provides a more adequate margin for error in the event of unforeseen and emergency circumstances, for both driver and cyclist.

Following too close is rarely enforced, and it is a big problem. It appears like technology might help mitigate this one, radar-based systems are becoming more standard and several systems are designed to warn when you travel too close for a given speed. Additionally radar based cruise control means that even if you DO travel too close, the faster reaction of the system might avert a collision.

The grandparents wasn't questioning whether it makes sense to give warnings, he was questioning whether we really want officers on the street making gut-level decision about how sorry they think the driver was.

I think this policing behavior is a mistake, but yours is the strongest argument for it. It actually makes me question the idea of judges trying to assess remorse.

Also, I would say there is a big difference between judges in court room and officers on the street. In a court room, the judge is going to have a substantial amount of time to assess the defendant, he's going to give the defendant feedback on the sorts of signals he's sending, and he's going to explicitly give the chance to demonstrate remorse to defendants who might think it's inappropriate, or don't have that sort of personality, or whatever. The officer on the street is just making a gut-level call which I don't trust; I think it would be dominated by things like how attractive the person is (both men and women), how generally agreeable/social they are, etc.

Also, remorse is usually used to lessen sentencing, but it's not typically used to decide if the defendant gets punished at all.

Because it's asking the enforcers to become the judges. There's good reason those powers remain separate.

Well red light cameras can capture license plates, so all we need to achieve parity is legally require front and back license plates on bicycles. Seems reasonable, eventually inspection stickers too. Want to make sure brakes work, has working lights. More like motorcycle requirements perhaps?

Edit: just to frame, I did not watch the youtube video you linked to, I was just brainstorming out loud and I don't think anyone should run red lights

I like the thought of it, but I have a lot of fun hobby project ideas already. Realistically the amount of work it would take to make something good is a lot more than $200 of my time. But if one person makes 100 of these, maybe it's worth $20,000 of their time.

If I make my own it's getting hooked up to a can of spraypaint, not to a camera. b^)

Thanks, but it doesn't really match what either I or the article described. I'm not trying to measure a distance. I'm trying to prove to my city planners and my elected representatives that many drivers on particular routes are unsafe.

Laser would end up hitting a driver in the eye and causing a wreck.

They should. If you choose to pass a motor vehicle that is driving in front of you, and it's legal, you would cross the center line to do it. In Maryland, bicycles are considered vehicles so they should be accorded all the rights and responsibilities that go along with that designation. If the law says to give them three feet, you give them three feet even if you have to wait for the clearance to do it. I agree that bikes should have their own dedicated lanes but in the interim we have to deal with the law as it is. I used to drive a truck; I'm kind of a stickler for the rules.

Edit: As an aside, I'd rather have a bicyclist ride in the center of the lane as opposed to the side. I've had too many close calls where cyclists swerved out of the way of an opening door and closed the gap quickly.

This tool is not arbitrary.

> If you decide to ride in the middle of a lane while on a bike, should the car drive in the other side of the road to pass you?

Where I live, bicycles are vehicles. They are vehicles, and vehicles have the right to use the entire lane; Especially when there are no bicycle lanes.

I agree that it would be great to have segregated bike lanes everywhere, but realistically that's not going to happen any time soon.

They should. A bike is a slow-moving vehicle (like a tractor or horse-drawn carriage) and when you pass a slow-moving vehicle, you should not do it in their lane (exception -- bicycles and motorcycles may lane-split). You should do it just like passing a car (or a tractor, or a horse-drawn carriage) -- in the other lane.

In some jurisdictions it is even legal to cross a double yellow line to pass a bicycle, so you don't have that excuse.

You mean dedicated debris, door, and parking lanes? Bike lanes are a restriction on cyclists.

Why should they pass you? Or rather, why would it be any different than a slow driver?

This seems arbitrary and dangerous. A car being passed may not notice the passing cyclist in his mirrors, and attempt a lane change. Forcing the 3 foot buffer on the cyclist as well gives a chance for both cyclist and car to notice and avoid the collision.

well, yes. i'm mostly a pedestrian, not on either side here.