11–20 of 71 posts
What I find more interesting than the device is a quote from the officer, "Their attitude will determine whether I issue a citation. If they take it and just throw it on the seat, then I know I wasn’t effective. Then in that case I would issue a citation." Does this seem extremely subjective and arbitrary to anyone else?
If the police are measuring with ultrasonic rangefinders, then cars need them too. How are human drivers supposed to judge that distance? The article makes the analogy of trying to enforce speed limits without a radar detector. Fine, but cars have speedometers that give the driver the same information. We don't demand drivers just get a feel for how fast they are going.
I think the device is used partly as education, partly as a method for capturing the exact distance. It's less about "how far is three feet?" and more "I have proof you were closer than three feet".
California has the same law. This is a great way to get tools into the hands of police to help them enforce the law and educate drivers.
If the police are measuring with ultrasonic rangefinders, then cars need them too. How are human drivers supposed to judge that distance? The article makes the analogy of trying to enforce speed limits without a radar detector. Fine, but cars have speedometers that give the driver the same information. We don't demand drivers just get a feel for how fast they are going.
PA law is actually four feet, but given the width of bike lanes this is sometimes physically impossible.
If the police are measuring with ultrasonic rangefinders, then cars need them too. How are human drivers supposed to judge that distance? The article makes the analogy of trying to enforce speed limits without a radar detector. Fine, but cars have speedometers that give the driver the same information. We don't demand drivers just get a feel for how fast they are going.
I do it by overcompensating so there is no chance I am too close to the cyclist. If there is not enough room (e.g., oncoming traffic) then I wait until there is an opportunity. I can't see cars broadly introducing this technology before we're not the ones driving them. FWIW, I worked on a "citizen jury" that recommended the adoption of the one-metre passing rule in my state. The default opposition on the jury was "wh…
If the police are measuring with ultrasonic rangefinders, then cars need them too. How are human drivers supposed to judge that distance? The article makes the analogy of trying to enforce speed limits without a radar detector. Fine, but cars have speedometers that give the driver the same information. We don't demand drivers just get a feel for how fast they are going.