[Fwd: HB 3040]

[Eric Struckhoff]

Dear old husky pals,

Yeah, I'm lurking, but I thought I'd forward this response re: anti-bike
legislation.  Sounds like good news.

Cheers,

Eric Struckhoff
Lawrence, KS

"Swenson, Jan" wrote:

> For your information, as Co-Chair of the House Transportation Committee,
> Representative Ruth Fisher does not plan on giving this bill a public
> hearing which means it should NOT go anywhere...
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> Jan Swenson
> Executive Assistant to
> Representative Ruth Fisher
> (360) 786-7930
> swenson_ja at leg.wa.gov
> -------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Struckhoff [mailto:ecs at ukans.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 2:14 PM
> To: Fisher, Rep. Ruth; Mitchell, Rep. Maryann

> Honorable representative,
>
> I'm writing in response to the recent introduction of HB 3040 to your
> House committee, a bill restricting the rights of legitimate road users in
> the great state of Washington.  As a happy resident of Issaquah and of
> Seattle from 1991 to 1997, I thrilled in the scenery of both urban and
> rural Washington, where my 150-200 weekly miles of cycling brought me into
> contact with the people, nature, and beauty of a state unsurpassed in its
> opportunities for outdoor recreation.  I commuted, raced, trained, toured,
> and shopped by bike, and so it was with great dismay that I read of the
> introduction of HB 3040 to your House Transportation Committee.
>
> Cyclists in Washington are currently
> governed by the same laws as every other state in the union, granting the
> same rights and invoking the same responsibilities as motorists, with the
> exceptions that cyclists are required to ride as far to the right as
> practicable and that cyclists may ride two abreast in a single lane.  The
> first of these exceptions acknowledges the generally higher speeds of
> motorized traffic, which must move into oncoming lanes when passing  where
> only one lane exists; the second recognizes the social aspects of cycling
> in a group, but more importantly allows cyclists to form a group half the
> length of a single-file line, an important safety consideration when
> passing distance or sight distance is limited.  Furthermore, the idea that
> a single person in a vehicle which takes up the entire lane should have a
> greater privilege to the road than two persons cycling side by side and
> taking up half the lane or less is to confer rights to persons based not
> on their status as persons, but based on their choice of machine.  Surely,
> our laws are written with an eye toward the rights of each person, not
> those of the person with the largest vehicle!  As for the idea that
> two-abreast cyclists create a hazard to overtaking traffic, I'd be curious
> to know the exact nature of said hazard.  In fact, no hazard exists
> without the presence of high-speed cars.  I've yet to hear of anyone
> complaining about being hit or nearly hit from behind or head-on by a
> cyclist--it's collisions with cars we're worried about.  Perhaps some
> measure of abatement could be found regarding motorists' behavior instead?
>
> But this is not about drivers' responsibilities, is it?  HB 3040 drives
> home this point by, rather than emphasizing motorists' responsibility to
> overtake safely, where the road is clearly visible and free of traffic,
> with due regard for the safety of overtaken and oncoming traffic, instead
> removing otherwise legitimate users of the road who by their very presence
> give cause for simple caution and, yes, reduction of speed.  It is this
> last concept that I think is at the root of HB 3040.  A cursory study of
> statistics regarding law-abiding cyclist and motorist behavior on the road
> will reveal that the hit-from-behind accident often feared by those who
> would pass bills like HB 3040 is but a tiny fraction of a percent of
> car/bicycle collisions, simply because to fail to see one or more
> human-sized objects in the road in front of a car requires such a colossal
> act of inattention and/or negligence!  To remove cyclists to the sides and
> shoulders of roads, where trash, glass, debris, storm grates, rumble
> strips and dead animals accumulate, would be to admit that courtesy,
> caution, and attentive driving are too much to ask of our motoring public.
>
> Instead of removing even the smallest requirement of these important
> social qualities from the list of those expected--nay, demanded--of those
> who choose to operate motor vehicles, why not strengthen the language of
> existing laws to place greater responsibility on drivers.  After all, who
> is responsible for ensuring that the car does no harm: the driver?  Or do
> we instead make it society's duty to stay out of the way?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Eric C. Struckhoff
> President, Lawrence Bicycle Club Racing
> Lawrence, KS
> 785.841.8879 eve
> 785.864.3940 day
> ecs at ukans.edu