3 ms·
It was a summer night--right around dusk--circa 1996. I was driving on highway with one lane in each direction, the usual dotted yellow line in the middle (whic
by jackmaney 12y ago
It was a summer night--right around dusk--circa 1996. I was driving on highway with one lane in each direction, the usual dotted yellow line in the middle (which allows one to pass, as long as there's no danger of hitting oncoming traffic).
No other cars were in sight, but there were two bicyclists ahead: one near the right edge of the lane and the other near the center of the road (but still in the right hand lane). I carefully signaled and moved into the left hand lane, giving the cyclists as much room as possible.
As I passed them, I saw movement out of my right eye just in time for the nearest cyclist to swerve directly into my car, shattering the front passenger window and injuring herself horribly (a spiral fracture in one of her legs, broken hip, broken ribs, at least one shattered arm).
She and her family sued my auto insurance company and lost. It was determined that she was completely at fault. It was also discovered that she was drunk at the time of the accident.
If this idiotic law had been in effect at the time, the three foot barrier would no longer have existed as she swerved into the side of my car, and I would've been at fault.
So, a hearty "fuck you" to anyone who thinks this law is a good idea.
- 83457 12y agoyou are incorrect
- jackmaney 12y agoAccording to this law, the driver is responsible for maintaining a barrier of at least three feet when passing a cyclist. Motion is continuous. Therefore, by the Intermediate Value Theorem, if a cyclist crashes into a car, there will no longer be a three foot barrier. QED. Or, as the kids like to say it, nowadays: NO, U.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- anigbrowl 12y agoLaw does not work that way. Even if it did, this law allows for the existence of narrower gaps if the motor vehicle lowers its speed.