Comments on: H5074 – PBC Recommendations

By: George Redman

George Redman — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:48:05 +0000

Mark,

While checking out the bike rout signs in the cityThey were well placed,
well read,and easy on the eyes for enhancing the city.The only danger are the pot holes along the way and should be repaired as soon as possable..
Sorry, i’m unable to make the meetings at this time:)

By: Alan Barta

Alan Barta — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:27:07 +0000

While you’re at it, you might as well introduce much needed legislation to force AMTRAK, businesses, cities, state, towns and wherever public is supposedly invited to visit to maintain “in good working order” bike racks in adequate numbers and unobstructed sidewalk approaches in all new plans (and retrofit existing within last 10 years, since it has been federal law).

Dave’s, Shaws, Stop&Shop and most markets except Whole Foods all lack bike racks. Consequently, you should boycott them, as I do. If enough cyclists were to vocally boycott, or resort to the tactic of carrying bike in inside a carriage and telling people why, eventually you’ll see some racks.

There’s a growing national trend for pedestrians to be run over in parking lots. In fact, it’s the most likely place to be killed walking. Mainly this is due to improper layout of parking without sidewalks. Why? To pack in as many cars as possible at least cost.

These intentional and/or negligent safety hazards could easily become the basis for class action civil suits, when the cures are so simple they should be mandated in all zoning law throughout state.

By: Bike-To-Brown » Blog Archive » H5074 Hearing Today!

Bike-To-Brown » Blog Archive » H5074 Hearing Today! — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:01:51 +0000

[...] for bicycle legislation. Over at the Providence Bicycle Coalition blog, you can read about the proposed changes and the history of this [...]

By: Mark Dieterich

Mark Dieterich — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:45:40 +0000

Howard, we talked about this and decided the intent of the law was to have 20 square inches of “persistence of vision” reflective area. For instance, a wheel reflector spinning around at a normal bicycle speed would provide plenty of reflective area. Honestly, we ran out of time to make every single edit we might have wanted to, our main focus was the larger law change.

By: Howard Panken

Howard Panken — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 23:43:17 +0000

31-19-10 e requires 20 square inches of reflective material. Is that possible on a normal bicycle?

By: Mark Dieterich

Mark Dieterich — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:40:19 +0000

Sorry, it was in the previous post:

4pm in room 205 of the State House.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:27:56 +0000

Mark, what time is the hearing, and in what room? I don’t see mention of that in your post.

By: State Laws and Biking at GC:PVD | Greater City: Providence

State Laws and Biking at GC:PVD | Greater City: Providence — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:17:17 +0000

[...] to their blog, For the most part, the changes to existing laws are minor edits to bring them more in line with [...]

By: Alan Barta

Alan Barta — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:07:40 +0000

Do appreciate the some rewording of a few existing statutes, but “as near as practical to road edge” is still subject to undue interpretation. Should be something like “right 1/3 of travel lane unless encumbered”.

I will still pass on the left, just like a vehicle. For bicyclists like me, STOP signs = YEILD signs. Red lights = STOP signs. Otherwise, I can’t even get through many intersections safely with the way they’ve rigged the lights. And there’s so many STOP signs on side streets, you might as well walk. Who has the contract for producing them all, somebody’s cousin?

By: Alan Barta

Alan Barta — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:01:16 +0000

Need a provision to educate law enforcers to this change. What exactly constitutes a violation? In other words, bicyclists must DIE before anyone is fined. I’d prefer it would have some clause against ATTEMPTS at murder, like close buzzing or intentional cut offs.