On what basis does Ms. Norton claim that riding in winter is too dangerous? Has she tried it herself? Certainly drivers have killed fewer cyclists in winter than they have in summer.

Not only that, but I also have zero problems braking with both hands while having a banana or in one hand. Signaling with an object in one hand is so trivial that I can’t even imagine what she’s thinking. What’s difficult about signaling with a water bottle?

Why shouldn’t cyclists have more latitude than drivers? After all, it’s their skin on the line. Drivers kill each other much more often than they kill cyclists. A cyclist has never yet killed any driver.

I agree that the ID requirement is a bit silly, though.

Sometimes, problem is the cyclist

In response to the Jan. 30 Viewpoint regarding Bicycles and Safety, Senate Bill 553, this bill seems to put the burden of proof in case of an accident on the motor vehicle operator and not on an irresponsible bicyclist.

Allowing bicyclists to carry things in one hand, thereby making it difficult to brake and signal properly, is foolish and dangerous. There are backpacks and baskets for that purpose.

Allowing bicycles to cross an intersection on a red light as if it were a flashing red light gives bicycles much more latitude than automobiles. And how many parents are going to make sure their children have ID with them at all times when they ride? I am a cyclist, but I do not agree with these changes to the current law.

This is the time of year in Indiana when the weather becomes too dangerous for bicycles. Yet there are far too many bicyclists who think they are invincible and continue to ride in the snow. If it is dangerous to drive a car, it is life-threatening to ride a bike. Who is at fault if a cyclist loses control on ice or snow and is hit by a car?
Sharon Norton
South Bend

Before our bill was heard, we listened to testimony and discussion on the Red Light Camera bill, and a resolution stating that Indiana does not want prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. Interesting stuff.

When our bill was heard and discussed, there were only two negative comments.

1) A representative from the insurance industry spoke against a provision that exempts bicyclists from virtually any negligence. Without going into detail, I’ll just say that I consider this a technicality that crept into the wording, that we need to correct, and which we will correct. He also said that the bill had some good provisions. We had a nice chat with him in the hall after the hearing. He was a nice young man (young by by my standards), and is himself, a bicyclist.

2) One of the Senators on the panel had a discouraging statement during their discussion following our testimony. She said she had a problem with the 3-foot passing provision. She voiced the opinion that if she allowed 3-feet clearance, that would mean she might have to cross the center-line; I forget her terminology, but bottom line is, she didn’t think a bike and this new law should force her to cross a yellow center-line.

At the conclusion, the committee’s action was to hold the bill, which Sen. Broden had already told us would probably happen. In the next week, Sen. Broden will be able to file an amendment correcting the liability problem (and a sidewalk technicality also). Tim & Sen. Broden will get together to work out the language on those two issues. After that, we await a hearing on the amendment.

All in all, I was quite pleased, and I got a nice education on the legislative process.

The chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, Transportation, & Veterans Affairs is Senator Wyss; Sen. Holdman, who is a 2nd author of the bill, is a member of that committee.

Regarding Rep. Fry. A number of people have shared with me their e-mail exchanges between themselves and Rep. Fry. I’ve accumulated quite a collection which I am quietly holding. To Rep. Fry’s credit, he answers his e-mail promptly, and speaks his mind; that’s something we can’t say of all our elected officials.

Tim Mayer is checking to see if witnesses are needed/helpful at this early point in the bill’s journey.

“Thanks for your comments, but bikes in the street cause a dangerous situation.

Craig Fry”

Ironically, in my comments I asked him to note that the bill was not whether or not it was legal for a bicycle to be in the street, but an update to rules regarding this and rules regarding bicycles on sidewalks. I was very respectful, but I wish that he had some better logic in his response.