Road and bicycle safety


With the introduction of the new “Three Feet for Safety Act” that goes into effect September 16, 2014, the Town will be actively communicating proper cycling etiquette and the rules of the road to both motorists and cyclists.

Known as the “Three Feet for Safety Act,” new state vehicle code section (21760) requires that a driver of a motor vehicle shall not overtake or pass a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on a highway at a distance of less than three feet between any part of the motor vehicle and any part of the bicycle or its operator.

Police Chief Dan Watson is urging all drivers in Mammoth Lakes to comply with the new law. “This law includes public streets and even if three feet is not possible, the motor vehicle must slow to a reasonable and prudent speed and only pass when no danger is present to the bicyclist. Failing to do so can incur a fine, regardless of a collision or not.”

Chief Watson also urges all bicyclists to comply with the rules of the road, including stopping for stop signs and pedestrians, riding as far to the right as practicable, and riding in single file. Bicyclists are also encouraged to use the Town’s extensive system of bike paths when possible. The Town will not be pursuing a local ordinance to implement the new law as the definition applied is very broad and includes all public streets. It should also be noted that currently the Town of Mammoth Lakes Municipal Code does not prohibit bikes on sidewalks.

Additional information about the “Three Feet for Safety Act,” including violations; can be viewed online at:

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) that details the factors behind traffic fatalities on our roads, in California (2011), the statewide percentage of bicyclist fatalities was 4.1% of all fatalities, which is nearly twice the national average of 2.1%.

FARS also identified that between 2009 and 2011, collisions between bicycles and motor vehicles are more likely to occur on local roadways than the State Highway System, and 85% of fatalities involving bicycles and 89% of severe injuries involving bicycles occurred on a local road compared to 57% of fatalities overall and 64% of severe injuries overall.

Supporting the passage of AB 1371 (Bradford) was the California Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO). From the CABO President’s point of view, “I support this bill because of my expectation, well hope, that incidences of antagonistic or clueless “buzz-backs”/scary close passing and hit from behind crashes will subside as people learn about the Three Feet for Safety Act.”

Local cycling advocate and Eastside Velo (ESV) President John Armstrong hopes that someday a sign will be erected upon entering Mono County that says “We Respect People on Bikes.”

ESV has over 200 active members who ride regularly throughout the Eastern Sierra. As an organization, they actively promote proper cycling etiquette and even have a short video on their website that promotes safe and responsible riding practices. Their Top 3 “Rules to Ride by…” are as follows:

1. Be courteous and share the road. Being courteous gains respect and helps make the roads safer for all cyclists.

2. Signal your intentions if you can safely do so. If you are turning, point in the direction you plan on going. If you are slowing, put your hand out behind you.

3. Be friendly. If someone is courteous to you and does the right thing, wave and smile. Everyone likes to be acknowledged for doing the right thing.

Please visit the ESV website ( to review the complete list of “Rules to Ride by.”

Armstrong hopes that common sense will prevail regarding the new “Three Feet for Safety Act,” but understands that the best strategy for cyclist’s safety is educating our motoring public.
“Many times on my bike I have been in a situation where a motorist does not slow down. The motorist powers onwards and forces a squeeze play with another vehicle and me, and guess who comes off the worst? Oftentimes I end up in the dirt or on the sidewalk.”

To facilitate effective education, Armstrong recommends cyclists and motorists pick up a copy of the new “Quick Guide to Smart Cycling” distributed by the League of American Bicyclists that will be available locally this fall. This full-color, 24-page Quick Guide covers just about everything you need to know to ride a bike safely and confidently, providing an easy-to-understand resource that appeals to all demographics: prospective bicyclists, novice riders, and even seasoned pros.
To read the Smart Cycling Quick Guide online, visit this link:
Mammoth Lakes Police Department Reserve Officer Mike Braun will be actively communicating proper cycling etiquette and the rules of the road to both motorists and cyclists within Mammoth Lakes this fall.

“Cyclists have the same rights and duties as drivers. They need to obey traffic signals and stop signs, and most importantly, need to ride with traffic, and use the rightmost lane headed in the direction they are going,” stated Braun.

Officer Braun also encourages cyclists to be predictable by making their intentions clear to everyone on the road. “Signal turns and check behind you well before making a turn or changing lanes.”

Above all, stay safe, stay visible and ride on the right!

For additional information regarding the new “Three Feet for Safety Act” and proper cycling etiquette, please call the Mammoth Lakes Police Department at (760) 934-2011 or contact Officer Braun at

Additional Info…


, , ,

51 Responses to Road and bicycle safety

  1. Ken Warner August 27, 2014 at 10:17 am #

    I found that the only thing that really works is paranoia. I figure everybody is out to get me and it’s up to me to stay out of the way. Expecting courtesy from motorists is simply fantasy.

    • Tom O August 27, 2014 at 7:21 pm #

      ‘paranoia’?..coming from you Ken, I believe it.

      • Ken Warner August 28, 2014 at 9:04 am #

        Charles wrote: “why not try to treat each other with a little more respect and common courtesy?”

  2. Charles O. Jones August 27, 2014 at 2:48 pm #

    Thank you to the Sierra Wave for posting this article.

    As both a motorist and a cyclist, I can say that both groups need to try a little harder to get along. Some motorists obviously have chips on their shoulders when it comes to cyclists on the road. And some cyclists seem to have very poor situational awareness when it comes to co-existing with motorists. Bottom line – we all have the right to use the roads, why not try to treat each other with a little more respect and common courtesy? Especially here in the Eastern Sierra where there is plenty of room for both groups to co-exist peacefully. Next time try waving at each other with all five fingers instead of just one.

  3. Philip Anaya August 27, 2014 at 7:11 pm #

    Totally agree with Mr.Jones and the five finger solution, LOL . There is plenty of respect and common courtesy everyday here in the Eastern Sierra, but not always on sharing the road. There is always the need for more cooperative attitudes as we make our way to our destinations. There are routes around our locales that could benefit from paving some of the shoulders for cyclists to better safely accommadate mutliple usage . Just wondering if the Cal Trans and Inyo and Mono Counties could identify and plan for this usage and seek grant funds to finance the widening of appropriate roads and paths . Repairs and repaving are a safety issue so lets add some asphalt to the shoulders as a matter of common practice and common sense .

  4. Ken Warner August 28, 2014 at 9:22 am #

    Benett Kessler August 26, 2014 at 2:16 pm #
    It’s not bias. It’s a dislike for useless, mean comments. Benett Kessler

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4

    DESCO August 26, 2014 at 5:38 pm #
    Maybe time to cut some people off. Free speech does not imply you can make mean, disparaging, offensive comments just to set someone off. That’s bullying. A lot of people do not want to join in what should be intelligent, civil dialog just to be insulted, consistently, by a few. There must be more than the few dozen regulars on this forum who would like to participate and possibly add a fresh, positive outlook to the discussion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Some just need to express it in a little more, searching for a word here, friendly manor. Not like you’re setting up for a bar fight.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0


    Benett Kessler August 26, 2014 at 9:00 pm #
    Thank you. I completely agree. Benett Kessler

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  5. Tinner August 28, 2014 at 1:41 pm #

    Unfortunately with the level of entitlement that exists in our society (or maybe its just here in California) there is not much room left for etiquette. There also seems to be some confusion between etiquette, common courtesy and respect; more so in the younger generation.
    I’ve been cycling at or slightly above the posted speed limit in and around town and for some reason some motorists feel a need to pass me. What the heck?
    I’ve seen cyclists riding 3 wide and in the lane of vehicle traffic, usually on weekends crazy enough. I think that level of entitlement or lack of a sense of self preservation originated down in Carlsbad, Ca.
    I will wave with all five fingers until its time to wave with only one.

    • billdsd August 29, 2014 at 12:27 am #

      Taking up an entire lane of traffic is not in any way a hazard or dangerous. It makes the bicyclists more likely to be noticed from a greater distance and gets drivers to change lanes to pass at a safe distance. Those both make the bicyclists safer.

      The delusions of entitlement are completely from motorists who think that they shouldn’t have to move into the next lane to pass a bicyclist.

      California has no law prohibiting bicyclists from riding side by side, or even mentioning bicyclists riding side by side. It’s legal.

      California does have a dangerous and discriminatory keep right rule for bicyclists, CVC 21202 but even that law has exceptions and conditions which satisfy the exceptions in either CVC 210202(a)(3) or (a)(4) or both apply most of the time on most roads, which means that bicyclists can usually use the full lane and should do so because it’s safer for them.

      • Charles O. Jones August 29, 2014 at 9:16 am #

        If you truly believe the sense of entitlement exists only with motorists then you are living in a fantasy world. I have been riding consistently since the early 80’s, I have raced on the road, off road and triathlon. Some of the behavior I have witnessed from my fellow cyclists is nothing short of embarrassing, not to mention utterly foolish.

        • billdsd August 29, 2014 at 12:40 pm #

          Bicyclists have a right to ride on the road. That’s the law.

          Bicyclists usually have a right to use the full right most travel lane. That is also the law.

          When people accuse bicyclists of being self entitled, it’s almost always due to the fact that the accusers do not understand, much less accept, those two facts. They believe that they are entitled to not deal with bicyclists on the road. The law does not support and does in fact contradict that belief. They are the ultimate in self entitled.

          Yes, I see some bicyclists do stupid things. So? I see motorists do stupid things all the time too. In fact I see stupid things from motorists a lot more often, though that’s mostly because there are a lot more motorists.

          • Charles O. Jones August 29, 2014 at 1:47 pm #

            I’m well aware of the laws regarding cycling. Laws do not negate the need for common sense and common courtesy among different road users.

            Another poster mentioned Rock Creek Canyon. RCC is windy and narrow with many blind corners. It is a perfect example of a place where your strategy could get you killed. And dead is dead regardless of what the law says. So you and your buddy can ride shoulder to shoulder in places like RCC if you so choose, But I’ll choose a bit more common sense and hopefully live to ride another day.

  6. Joe August 28, 2014 at 2:16 pm #

    My biggest gripe are the cyclists grouping up two, three or more wide without care of motorized traffic coming up on them and the hazards that presents to oncoming traffic. As if their conversations are more important than their safety! I honk and inevitably I get a one finger solution or they just laugh amongst each other.

    • billdsd August 29, 2014 at 12:31 am #

      Riding side by side makes bicyclists more visually noticeable from a greater distance and it gets motorists to move entirely into the next lane to pass. Both of these things make the bicyclists safer.

      Riding side by side is safer. You imagine that it’s less safe. You’re wrong.

      Honking at them is rude. Why are you surprised that they react rudely to your rudeness?

      It’s also a violation of CVC 27001(b). Look it up.

      • Joe August 29, 2014 at 9:25 am #

        You can cite all the codes you like but that won’t protect you from death or injury as a result of lack of common sense. While driving at a legal speed down Rock Creek Canyon Rd a turned a corner and there were two bicyclists riding side by side. Fortunately there was not another vehicle coming up the road at the same time for all to obvious reasons. Oh but wait, this makes bicyclists safer. Get real.

        • sugar magnolia August 29, 2014 at 11:01 am #

          Hey Joe, if you had hit one of the cyclist, you would have been at fault. A driver can only drive as fast as he/she can see ahead and allow time to react.
          Not an easy law to follow as far as I’m concerned, but that is the law.

          • billdsd August 29, 2014 at 5:30 pm #

            Actually it’s a very easy law to follow. Even when I was young and had a tendency to drive too fast, I still always made sure that I had space to stop — especially around blind curves. Twice I avoided collisions around blind curves with disabled vehicles with no difficulty.

            When I am approaching a blind curve I always think about the possibility of a disabled vehicle on the other side of it. That makes it pretty easy to slow down.

            It’s not a race. It’s a journey.

      • Marty S August 29, 2014 at 10:13 am #

        Honking alerts others to their whereabouts. Since when is that rude? It is rude when the bikes make no effort to move a little closer to the side especially then sharing a narrow road with vehicles.

      • Marty S August 29, 2014 at 10:28 am #

        CVC 27001(a) allows for the use of horns to warn others. Consider the sound of my horn as a warning.

        • billdsd August 29, 2014 at 5:32 pm #

          A warning of what? A warning that you intend to endanger them?

          The law says that the only legal use of the horn is to ensure safe operation.

          What you’re doing is not that. It’s harassment.

      • erik simpson August 29, 2014 at 10:38 am #

        I have to say you don’t seem to get it. It isn’t that it’s illegal to ride side-by-side, but that it’s inconsiderate. When I’m riding the last thing I want is an irritated driver behind me. I’ve seen those situations too often that a driver passes bikes ‘taking the lane’ where it isn’t safe to pass. Sure, the driver is wrong, but that’s faint comfort if he swerves back into you.

        • billdsd August 29, 2014 at 5:34 pm #

          Which is more inconsiderate?

          1. Endangering someone’s life because you passed too close in the same lane.

          2. Causing someone to have to move over to pass or wait a few seconds for a safe place to move over to pass.

          Choice 1 could result in the death of a person. It’s the end of the world for them.

          Choice 2 means that a driver suffers a trivial and short term inconvenience.

          • erik simpson August 30, 2014 at 7:50 am #

            I wouldn’t want to assume the driver will choose your option 2. It might be that he’ll just pass anyway. I’ve seen it happen and have been forced off the road. Good luck to you.

          • billdsd August 30, 2014 at 6:40 pm #

            You misunderstand.

            By riding at the edge of the road, bicyclists encourage motorists to make choice number 1. I have had many close passes while riding on the edge of the road because some motorists think that small clearances when passing bicyclists is OK. It isn’t OK.

            By using the full lane, bicyclists make it clear to overtaking traffic that it’s not safe to pass within the same lane and so they are making choice 2 for the motorist. It’s kind of like a dance, and the bicyclist is leading.

            I rarely get close passes when using the full lane. Once drivers have their vehicle half way into the next lane anyway, the natural tendency is to move all the way over. In those rare cases when I still get a close pass, I also am usually treated to a single finger extended outside of the driver’s side window — because the driver passed close with malicious intent. The driver’s who pass close when bicyclists are riding far right are doing it more out of cluelessness than malice. They are also far more common than the malicious ones that pass close when bicyclists use the full lane.

  7. John Barton August 28, 2014 at 2:23 pm #

    South Barlow lane has a nice pedestrian/bike path yet numerous riders must think they are too important to ride on a bike path. This presents a hazard for everyone. I also see ample riders riding outside of the designated bike lanes and inside of the vehicle lane on Line St. I asked a rider once why and he said there is too much debris in the bike lane creating a hazard for the road bikes and their skinny tires. If I were a cyclist I would be more concerned about distracted drivers clipping me with a side view mirror or worse than I would be about small rocks and bottle caps in the bike lane.

    • billdsd August 29, 2014 at 12:34 am #

      It’s not safe for bicyclists to ride more than maybe 8mph on paths that include pedestrians.

      A lot of sport cyclists ride at speeds in excess of 20mph on level roads. That is simply not reasonable on a path with pedestrians.

      Bicyclists have a right to use the road. That’s the law. It’s CVC 21200(a).

      Bicyclists don’t have to ride in bike lanes when there is any condition present which makes it unsafe to do so. That’s the law. It’s CVC 21208(a)(3).

      How about you just move over to pass, just as you do with slow moving motor vehicles? Why can you move over for motor vehicles but not bicyclists? Why the double standard?

      • John Barton August 29, 2014 at 9:34 am #

        I sense that Bill uses the one finger solution at will quite often and when it’s not waving at motorists he’s pointing it at everyone else citing codes verbatum. BTW, it is likewise rude for cyclists to not make an effort to go single file temporarily to make for safer motorist passing conditions. Pedestrians also walk on roadways. Do you slow down to 8mph to provide for their safety, afterall, since they may legally walk in the bike lane?

        • sugar magnolia August 29, 2014 at 11:17 am #

          I think you are confusing bike lanes and shoulders. Shoulders are multi-purpose areas of a road (not a traveled lane though). On shoulders, pedestrians are suppose to walk opposite of traffic…..and they typically stay to the left (right of the travelling public). A cyclist should have room to pass the pedestrian without any risk to the other and it really helps that the pedestrian can see the cyclist coming so they don’t unwittingly step into the cyclists path. When a bike lane is on a street, pedestrians are not legally able to walk in the bike lane if there are alternative pedestrian areas.

          On multi-purpose bike/pedestrian paths, many are set up to have pedestrians walk opposite of bikes. Unfortunately, many do not, such as the new path in Mammoth. The new bike/walking path in Mammoth is not safe to ride a bike on.

          Many pedestrians take up the entire path with dogs, leashes, strollers or with just multiple people. The cyclist is suppose to slow, announce their presence, and pass slowly. Sounds great in theory, but it doesn’t work. What happens is instead of staying where they are, or taking a step to the right, they typically step to the left, into the only clear path the cyclist had, so they can turn and look at the cyclist. Most often, the pedestrians are actually on BOTH sides of the path, so you can’t say ‘on your right or left’.

          Unless the path is unusually quiet, I ride on the street. Such a shame as it’s a wonderful path….it just needed to have cyclists and pedestrians move in different directions. Big fail on whoever designed it.

          • billdsd August 29, 2014 at 1:01 pm #

            I avoid shared paths for the same reason.

            It should be noted that CVC 530 excludes the shoulder from being part of the roadway (though it is part of the highway, as are adjacent sidewalks).

            CVC 21650 exempts bicyclists from it’s prohibition from traveling on shoulders. Bicyclists have the option of riding on shoulders but they are not required to do so. They have a right to travel on the roadway due to CVC 21200(a).

            CVC 21650.1 requires bicyclists who are riding on shoulders to ride in the same direction as traffic in the adjacent travel lane.

        • billdsd August 29, 2014 at 12:56 pm #

          CVC 21966 says that pedestrians may only walk in the bike lane if and only if there is no adequate adjacent pedestrian facility. When I see a pedestrian in the bike lane, I move into the travel lane, usually leaving at least 5 feet of clearance; often more. I don’t like to pass close to pedestrians because it’s not safe for either of us.

          I rarely ride on sidewalks or other places that typically have significant number of pedestrians. In the rare cases that I do, I slow down to a safe speed of maybe 5-8mph.

          Passing bicyclists in the same lane is usually unsafe because it usually involves passing too close, even when they are riding on the edge of the lane because most lanes are too narrow for that.

          What is wrong with changing lanes to pass a bicycle?

          • Pedro August 30, 2014 at 11:59 am #

            I slow down and wait to safely pass all slow moving vehicles, including bicycles. I also expect slow vehicles to follow code and use turnouts. If the lane is wide enough you could also allow me to share it if I’m not acting like I want to hurt you. Lane splitting is legal as has been pointed out.

          • erik simpson August 30, 2014 at 2:06 pm #

            Thank you, Pedro. When I’m on my bike I try to acknowledge drivers who have clearly cut me a little extra slack. It’s appreciated.

          • billdsd August 30, 2014 at 6:50 pm #

            Pedro, it’s good that you drive like that and it is appreciated. You are also in the majority. Most motorists don’t want to endanger bicyclists.

            Unfortunately, the minority that pass close is still too large. The bulk of these do it because they are trying to stay in their lane and they just don’t realize how dangerous it is to pass close.

            The large majority of lanes are too narrow for passing within the same lane. A standard outside lane is 12 feet wide. If you have a Ford Superduty pickup, one of the best selling pickups, which is 8.5 feet wide and you have a bicyclist that is 2.5 feet wide, that leaves 1 foot of passing distance if they are both on the edge of the lane. That’s not adequate. It also doesn’t take into account that riding or driving on the edge is dangerous due to risks with the edge of the road or the adjacent lane. You need some space on either side, preferably at least a foot. Buses and semis and other large vehicles can be 9 feet wide. 12 feet isn’t even close to wide enough to allow safe passing within in the same lane.

            I live in a city and most of the roads I ride on have multiple lanes. There’s never a legal, much less practical reason to use turnouts on multi-lane roads.

            On two lane roads (one lane each way), the law only requires turning out when passing is illegal or unsafe and there are 5 or more vehicles backed up behind and there is a safe place to turn out. I’ll turn out for one but I don’t legally have to until there are 5 or more.

          • Pedro August 31, 2014 at 12:18 am #


            I understand the turnout rules, but people that wait for five cars are usually idiots. A big rig going up a grade is going to cause more problems if they slow down, but most everyone else should use them more.

            Ya, the only place all this should be an issue is two lane roads. If I’m in my pickup and I can’t pass safely I don’t. If I’m on my motorcycle and three bicyclists are abreast and don’t go to right hand single file to let me split the lane they are idiots impeding traffic and breaking minimum speed law.

            You want some examples of bicyclist entitlement syndrome around here. At least four separate instances of bicycles parked in roadway making repairs or resting, and I mean off their bikes. Failure to stop at intersection and crossing oncoming 65 mph traffic to turn onto 395. Using support vehicles driving 15mph with hazard lights flashing in 55 mph zone twice. All on Lower Rock Creek Rd. in the last year or so.
            And don’t get me started with people parking 6 inches from the edge of the road tot take a photo or jogging in groups in the middle of the lanes when the shoulder is 30 ft wide.

            I’ve driven almost all types of vehicles on the road. I’ve been hit by cars three times on a bicycle. One my fault, one car’s fault, and one we were both idiots. So, I know some of the dangers. My own delusional experience tells me that entitlement is not confined to motorists. Thing is if everyone would just play by the rules we already have we wouldn’t need a new “safety act”.

          • billdsd September 1, 2014 at 4:24 pm #

            Indeed. If people would obey the law and have a little consideration we wouldn’t need so many laws. For decades now, CVC 21750 has required maintaining safe distance when passing anyone or anything. Unfortunately, too many motorists and law enforcement officers define safe passing distance as anything that doesn’t involve contact. That’s a problem.

            We needed the 3 foot law in order to get a legal definition of safe passing distance because too many people don’t have enough sense to realize that that really is a bare minimum. Anyone who has ridden a bike and been passed by a car going 40mph within a foot knows that it’s quite scary. I have never heard of a motorist being cited for violating CVC 21750 in one of these cases and as someone active in bicycle advocacy, I probably would have if they were happening. I hear about a lot of other tickets. Before I studied bicycle safety I rode far right all the time and I got close passes like that on a regular basis. Now that I take the lane when the law allows, close passes are rare for me.

          • Mark September 2, 2014 at 12:00 pm #

            We are a society that picks and chooses which laws we will obey.

    • roger August 29, 2014 at 11:34 am #

      John Barton, The most dangerous place to ride – statistically- is the bike path.

      • billdsd August 29, 2014 at 12:52 pm #

        Actually, sidewalks are more dangerous than bike paths.

        Proper bike paths don’t intersect with the travel of motor vehicles. Sidewalks do.

  8. erik simpson August 28, 2014 at 3:23 pm #

    I heartily concur with complaints about thoughtless (sometime deliberately aggravating) behavior by cyclists, but as a road cyclist myself, I have to defend riding in the traffic lane when riding further to the right is not practicable. Small debris is not a minor problem with road bike tires. A sudden flat is sometimes a serious thing.

    • billdsd August 29, 2014 at 12:36 am #

      A sudden flat can cause a crash, especially if it’s to the front wheel.

      Even if it doesn’t cause a crash, it forces you to stop and fix the flat which takes a lot of time. Bicyclists shouldn’t have to lose a lot of time just because some motorists think that they are too important to move over to pass.

      • Joe August 29, 2014 at 10:20 am #

        You forgot to cite a code. There has to be one for flat tires and the consumption of time.

        • billdsd August 29, 2014 at 1:02 pm #

          Why does it not surprise me that an anti-bicycle person has no respect for what the law actually says?

          • Ken Warner August 29, 2014 at 3:43 pm #

            You can be dead right….

          • Joe August 30, 2014 at 1:21 pm #

            Bill- I am not anti-bike as I own a mountain bike and regularly ride it on streets and on dirt trails. I pointed out that laws should not replace etiquette and common sense. The laws will not guarantee your safety. Not all people anticipate blind curves by slowing down so I would not ride two wide down a road like lower Rock Creek. Road cyclists should assume all motorists are distracted, emotionally unstable, angry or under the influence of something and ride their bike accordingly, regardless of what codes may or may not say.

          • billdsd August 30, 2014 at 6:55 pm #

            Again, the blind curve thing doesn’t work the way that you think it does.

            When you are catching up to bicyclists on a curvy road, you tend to see them well before you reach them. If they go around a blind curve before you have a chance to see them, then they will be well past it by the time you catch up to them.

            The thing to remember here is that they are moving too. They are not stationary on the other side of that blind curve, as a disabled vehicle can be.

            The people who don’t account for disabled vehicles on the other side of blind curves should have their licenses revoked. It’s dangerous and it’s a violation of the basic speed law.

  9. Ken Warner August 29, 2014 at 1:42 pm #

    It’s encouraging to see such complete agreement on pragmatic rules of the road on how to integrate pedestrians, bikes, skateboarders, scooters, families with baby carriages, school buses, motorcycles, motorhomes, bucket loaders , bobcats, dog walkers with multiple dogs on and off leash, wild animals like bears and coyote and deer, 18 wheelers, street sweepers, lumber trucks, gas trucks, delivery vans, taxis, buses, trash trucks, people who are completely unfamiliar with a feet first culture. With such complete agreement on rules of the road, I can’t see any problems at all.

  10. Philip Anaya August 29, 2014 at 4:28 pm #

    The “Ignacio Way” is to avoid a collision when operating any kind of moving means of transportation whether that means moving to the left or right, being an auto ,cycle , moto ,drone whatever . Millions of miles of courtesy extended to one another . Perfect till a lapse in attention, in humanity.

  11. mono county local August 30, 2014 at 12:52 pm #

    I did not own a car so commuted on a bike – In the Sf bay area. I don’t remember cyclists getting all militant back then but we also did not wear lycra and special shoes.

    all this talk about “just move over into the other lane” as if all roads have two lanes in both directions and no traffic is EVER coming the other way tells me all about people who don’t actually live, drive and ride on narrow winding roads every day – not just for fun

    we should stop spending money to build bike lanes if the cyclists won’t use them due to debris and such – the shoulder of the road will be the same but at least it does not cost a bunch of extra moolah

    I came around a blind turn on Monitor Pass once to find three bicycles lying in the middle of the lane while the cyclists were standing on the dirt shoulder – “Hello – do any of you have an actual brain or is that just your head blowing bubbles?” or how ’bout “if someone runs over your bikes that is probably going to a lot more damage than getting some dirt on your chain
    and you will be forced to pay for the damage to my car” but instead I was so flabbergasted at the completeness of their stupidity that I swerved around the 20 – 50 grand? worth of toys honked the horn and flipped them off with all all five fingers –

    • Ken Warner August 30, 2014 at 8:05 pm #

      mono county local: Sadly, I find your story completely believable. I think there is something in the water….

  12. Trouble August 30, 2014 at 3:20 pm #

    Why do you have to wear a helmet if no one is supposed to get hurt?

    • Benett Kessler August 30, 2014 at 5:14 pm #

      Please, no rhetorical questions, Trouble. BK

      • Trouble August 30, 2014 at 7:47 pm #

        I would hate to confuse all our customers!


Leave a Reply

KSRW · 1280 N. Main St. Suite J · Bishop, CA 93514 · 760-873-5329
Positive Projections Web Design