It's been a lethal summer for Sonoma County cyclists with five people killed since mid-May and many more injured in altercations with cars.
The latest incident occurred on Thursday when a Santa Rosa man was run over by a driver who chased him onto a golf course. The driver has been arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon while the cyclist recovers from a broken wrist.
But a new bill aims to reduce altercations between cars and bikes by requiring drivers to give bicyclists at least three feet of clearance when overtaking them from behind the same lane.
The legislation--SB1464-- has already been approved by the California Senate and will be considered by the state assembly next. Proponents say it gives drivers a clear, measurable and objective standard for how to pass bicyclists safely and helps prevent cyclists from being hit from behind, the leading cause of cyclist fatalities.
But is it enough? Or do cities need to do more to improve infrastructure for cyclists and charge motorists who hit bike riders? (So far only two Sonoma County drivers have been charged.) And will creating a minimum distance between cyclists and cars help prevent accidents?
Share your thoughts in the comments below.
I suggest we get our kids on bikes and people will watch-out more because their kids also are on bikes. Just like we started seat belts education and trash pick-as a kids' new activity. Involve your family and you own it. Road safety is too important and getting everyone out and about on bikes is vital for health and the planet.
I can tell you that the new law is helpful insofar as I no longer worry about getting cited for crossing a double yellow line to give bicyclists a wider berth. I DO worry about getting smacked head-on by a car coming from the other direction. As to the "creep feeling" -- get used to it. You're sharing narrow country roads with vehicles that outweigh you by a factor of 20. I grew up driving a farm truck that weighed 10 tons, fully loaded. It is not easy to keep a vehicle like that inside a 12-foot lane on a curvy country road under the best of circumstances. They don't have the ability to swerve around bicyclists, to stop quickly, or to dart back into their lane to avoid oncoming traffic. Simple physics.
The right thing to do is for the woman to step up and turn herself in. We will be on the lookout for this driver. Someone saw her and this will jog their memory and duty.
There is no easy answer. Instead of putting funds into bike lanes we chose to dump unknown amounts of money into a rail system. Our culture is car-focused which is unfortunate on many levels. My cynical attitude after 4 decades of driving is that drivers are a hapless bunch. Cyclist awareness should be a stronger focus on drivers license tests. Cycling groups/clubs promoting safe cycling courses and rides will help. My 16 year-old son rides the roads of Petaluma and I pray everyday that he is safe. We have conversations about the actions of both negligent drivers (he’s getting his drivers license) AND careless cyclists. Responsibility is “the ability to respond” and it falls on both the drivers in cars and cyclists (including motorcycles). I think the biggest factor over all is to SLOW DOWN! PLEASE!
---Car Driver and Sometimes Pedestrian
Everyone needs to just SLOW down and PAY ATTENTION. To all of you who think roads are ONLY suppose to be for cars, well how do you explain then how the LAW says cyclist must USE the ROADS not the sidewalks??? SHARE the ROADS that we ALL PAY for and quit being SELF- CENTERED JACKASSES!!!
Perhaps more infrastructure is called for, but more education for both drivers and perhaps a license for cyclists is also needed. Perhaps local law enforcement should issue more citations to bicyclists who put themselves and others at risk with this behavior. I agree that motorists should be very careful around cyclists, I always give cyclists as much space as possible, yet I can't help but be irritated when, it is always assumed that the person driving a car is at fault when there is an incident with a bicycle.
but if a motor vehicle and pedal driven cycle collide, the vehicle will always win. Not a matter for discussion. When I rode, I was not careful, I admit. I did not obey traffic laws. Now, I see more and more cyclists doing so, and carefully watching for vehicles, which is great. The last thing ANYONE wants is to hurt or worse a cyclist or motorcyclist - so we ALL need to take it easy. careful cyclists lately,
@David: So If the last thing anyone wants is to hurt someone else then expain to me the reasoning of the hit & run offenders leaving their victims on the roadside injured & dying while they go off to the store for milk or because they were late for work ??? Do you even read the papers or watch the news?.. Do you even live in this community?...yeah take it easy yourself.. I always obey the rules when I ride. I wish everyone would! There are many drivers out there who enjoy bullying others!!...and dont care if they hurt or kill someone !!!.. Be part of the solution- NOT part of the Problem!!!
Perhaps they were built with cars as the dominant design requirement, but the fact that you can walk, skate, ride, cycle, horseback-ride, or dance with an advertising sign on any non-interstate road or highway is an indication that roads are made for people, not specifically and only for cars*. That's why it is incumbent on all road users (cyclists included - I know some of those guys who seem to act as if the road is "made for bikes" too) to share the road and share is in way that is safe and polite. Roads are a common shared resource. S * The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 (AKA the Interstate Highway Act) was the first, and so far only, law that created roads specifically for cars. Unless there is no reasonable alternative (e.g for peds, bikes and horses), only specific types of vehicles are allowed on those roads. But, that is not what we are talking about here.
for reckless driving.
Ps- I choose not to ride my bike often in town due to unsafe conditions. Just a matter of time before becoming a statistic.