I have repeatedly tried the take "down the license number and call the police" route - for over 30 years of using human power as my primary means of local transportation. In many of the cases, the vehicular assault against me occurred while numerous aghast witnesses were present, and even came forward to the police to volunteer to testify. In each case, the police failed to take any action (except in one and that took a very public airing of the case to get them to take action).
So I began wearing a mirror. When it becomes clear a motorist intends to intimidate, I very conspicuously, dramatically initiate the international (and state) signal of slow or stop - left hand out & down to the left. I also happen to have my U-lock in that hand as I signal (I keep the U-lock on my left handle bar). If they wish to run into it, that is entirely their choice. If they choose to go around the legal signal, and instead take a wide berth, they are also choosing to save their mirror/windshield. And I get my health and my life. What a deal! Though I am a very respectful, law-oriented rider (to the point of ridicule by many of my cycling friends), making it clear that one will not be bullied benefits everyone.
Indeed, if you look at the League of American Bicyclists Effective Cycling curriculum (or BikeEd, or whatever it's called these days), it is all about bluffing and calling bluffs, all while following the law. Fellow League Cycling Instructors would probably take issue with this characterization, which is fine. They would probably claim that it is all about being visible, making one's intentions very clear and behaving as a vehicle driver. Again, that is right. But automobile vehicle drivers depend on the heft of their vehicle to provide, yup, bluff vis-a-vis all other road users out there. (Which, in addition to the reasons Alex gave, is why you have so many petite people out there flocking to SUV's.)
But in the end, even League doctrine completely depends upon the civility of the motorist. That small percentage which thrives on brutality and intimidation (i.e., those operating outside the bounds of civilization) need clear signals that one will not be intimidated. U-Locks as a part of legal signals serve that purpose quite well. I am only here today - and un-maimed - because I signalled a slow or stop in an emergency situation created by the assaulting motorist. And yes, at the speeds we are talking about around here, 35 mph+, coming within 3 feet of a cyclist creates an emergency, assaultive situation, so self defense is very much in order. At those deadly speeds a "slow down/stop" signal is a minimal action (would they say *de minimus* in legalese?) given the deadly results if one were to wait until one is dead sure that the car driver isn't going to murder you.
Luckily, I have not had to use the metallic "slow down/stop" tactic much in the last several years. I think that the swarms of us out there now - far in excess of the numbers of the early 90's - and the outspokenness of many of us out on the road has done a fair job at educating the, ahem, least thoughtful drivers out there. Even my wife (affectionately known as 'the silent one') has been known to read certain drivers the riot act. (Perhaps it has something to do with having to deal with the aftermath of automotive violence suffered by her patients day after day?)
And, perhaps just as significantly, as Joe hinted at, there have been some recent indications that the local law enforcement community (how's that for being nice?) are *starting* to take road violence against human powered transportation seriously. I can't help but think that some blunt questioning during the DA campaign (and other times) emanating from the bicycling community and maybe even a new mayor didn't help in making it a priority. I hope that the felony charges and jailing of murderous motorists begins to become routine starting with the recent jailing of the unlicensed SUV driver who ran down the tourist across from WHEDA.
The first question people usually ask me when I describe my road "encounters" contains a strong hint at victim blaming: Why do these incidents of road violence happen to you and it has never happened to me? Those who ask this own cars. They don't understand that when most of your miles travelled (and virtually all of your local miles) are by human power, the rates of incidents go way up. You ride in all weather, at night, and other less than ideal conditions. Car owners miss out on all this fun. But even car drivers need to think about all of the close-calls they've had out on the road, in their car, in situations created by other drivers. Most of their close calls are in cars, because most of their miles are in cars. Most of my close calls are on bike because most of my miles are on bike. And we know from the annual highway death tolls that everyone is exposed to violent driving, the mirage of safety within the confines of a car notwithstanding.
Finally, some people choose to suit up in thousands of pounds of automobile armor to ward off automotive violence. Others choose to use a legal signal backed up with a 2 pounds of steel. There is a question of scale and magnitude here. As in, why focus on the legal minutiae of a miniscule action of a harmless, completely exposed cyclist when so many tons of machinery are wielded so wantonly, maliciously and routinely as weapons?
-Mike
There is nothing special about the traffic regulation that requires a motorist to give at least three feet of clearance when overtaking a cyclist.
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
