Comments on: Is it time to update Indiana Bike Laws?

By: Max McCoy

Max McCoy — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 17:07:29 +0000

1 meter or 3 feet is not a safe distance for a motor vehicle that is in motion at any speed greater than 10 miles per hour to pass or be near a two wheeled vehicle of any means of propulsion.
You have no means of protection from impact from an automobile while on a bicycle like that afforded by the body of an automobile.
A bicycle is an unstable vehicle when encountering typical road or street hazards such as rocks, any kind of debis that might be in the roadway and of course pot holes or holes of any kind that might be in the pavement.
And it would be easy enough for such hazards to cause a bicyclist to lose control enough to momentarily change thier intended direction of travel to cause them to veer into the path of a vehicle that was intending to pass at a distance of only three feet.
Why don’t you ride your bicycle along the road and tell me that you don’t get an uneasy feeling when someone in an automobile passes you at 45 miles per hour only three feet away from your handle bars.
I, as a cyclists, am entitled to the complete width of my lane, from berm to centerline, and for an automobile to pass me while keep all or part of his vehicle in my lane is completely unsafe and I believe to be illegal as it is considered to an ” unsafe pass.”
Your mentallity has fatalities written all over it!

By: Paul Taylor

Paul Taylor — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:16:27 +0000

Just a note to the regular readers of this blog. ‘Paul’ and ‘Paul Taylor’ are two different people.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:27:16 +0000

I also disagree with making headphones illegal for bicyclists. If hearing is critically important to a person’s safety, we should make it illegal for the deaf to ride bicycles. I have a 40% hearing loss, should I be allowed to ride?

Let’s not get into the business of taking away personal choice and freedom. If I am doing something that will hurt others, then you can make a law to prohibit that, but if I am doing something to hurt myself, then educate me so that I know the dangers and let me decide on my own appropriate course of action.

If we need laws that make bicycling safe, then lets make a law that state and local governments can no longer build roads without paved shoulders or with curbs that force bicyclists to ride in the traffic lanes. If a road design forces riders into vehicle lanes, then require adjoining paths to separate riders and vehicle traffic.

Both of this summer’s fatal bike accidents were on roads that forced the riders into the traffic lanes. Cleveland Road has curbs at the edge of the traffic lane and Ash Road has no shoulder at all. If there was some place to ride other than in the vehicle lane, both of these fatalities would have been avoided.

By: Adam Bee

Adam Bee — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:04:48 +0000

If I were a judge, I would say that a bicycle is designed to pull a trailer

Sure, judges interpret laws, but once you’ve got a ticket it’s already too late for that. More importantly, it seems like poor legislative philosophy to write laws so vaguely that nearly every case of its application must be interpreted by a judge.

That certainly seems a bit stretchy. It’s more like the exact opposite. The only bike I’ve seen designed for a trailer is the Big Dummy.

I wonder if riding on pegs is allowed or prohibited under this law. I’d argue that seatposts are designed for trailers as much as handlebars are designed to sit on?

I also disagree with the headphone law, but not because it is discriminatory. Car drivers can’t wear headphones either. Bikes can be equipped with stereos, and some are.

The more important question is whether the benefit is greater than the harm. Surely there are some times and places where listening to music when riding isn’t going to hurt anything (say, the back roads of Montana for example). What evidence do we have that listening to headphones poses a risk to those who partake in it? It’s purely theoretical, and seems like puritanical zeal on the part of those who by habit don’t listen to music while riding.

I’m loath to outlaw any kind of riding that isn’t obviously harmful to others. Protecting citizens from themselves is not a proper function of free societies, and bikes are nothing if not free.

The last part is that it leads to a slippery slope which leads to cycling being banned from public roadways. You may think it’s too dangerous to ride with headphones. But nearly everyone thinks it’s too dangerous to ride in public roads at all. I mean, you could get hit out there in the road like that!

That all goes for helmets, too… I can’t support helmet laws until I see some evidence that they actually help more than they hurt.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:25:14 +0000

#14; that depends on the definition of “equipped”

and of course the definition of “person” to whom the commerce laws [UCC]are applied to……

By: sean murphy

sean murphy — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 00:34:27 +0000

I dont agree with the headphones law it takes is discrimating against us since most bikes cant have a stereo like cars and motorcycles. I this passes then I would like to see a law that bans all audio in any kind of vehicle as they can also distract the drivers as well.

By: Paul Taylor

Paul Taylor — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:59:32 +0000

Interesting thought. It’s my understanding that judges interpret laws.

If I were a judge, I would say that a bicycle is designed to pull a trailer, either via a special rear wheel skewer, a rear wheel stay, or the seat-post. Next, I would judge that when a bike is pulling a child trailer, it is properly and legally equipped for the purpose or carrying one or two passengers, in addition to the rider.

By: Adam Bee

Adam Bee — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:04:46 +0000

I just noticed this part:

Here is a law I would keep intact:
“9-21-11-4. Number of persons that may be carried on
bicycle.–A bicycle may not be used to carry more persons at one
(1) time than the number for which the bicycle is designed and
equipped.”

Sounds to me like it bans child trailers? Depends on the meaning of “carry”.

By: Adam Bee

Adam Bee — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:53:11 +0000

Interesting! That bicycleaustin.info site seems to have a lot going on that we could borrow for Bike Michiana. I especially like the "Justice" section which, among other things, keeps track of all the bike-car collisions in Austin and their consequences.

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:06:37 +0000

Paul, I reread the changes and I think your scope is sound and narrow. Bell changes, which bike police don’t even follow, is fine. I honestly don’t know what happens when a law gets put on table, as in so far as how the whole state will view it.
The headphone and the bell law changes seem on the outside of your narrow scope.
I’m glad this is being mulled over and pushed from a bikers perspective, instead of the other way around.

I followed the Austin Bike Helmet law changes in 1996, seems like they had a round two in 2006.
http://bicycleaustin.info/laws/helmet-laws.html
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A399577

I became interested in 1996 when a friend of mine living in Austin told me about a parade/protest was had after the law was passed. There was much opposition to the law, for some decent reasons. I personally thought they were crazy, of course you need a helmet! I still think a helmet is necessary for safety. But the arguments are strong against an law. (I just wanted to share)