Bobsk8

The new Georgia law requiring drivers to allow a 3 foot space when they pass a cyclist is already being used. A couple of days after the law went into effect, a motorist hit an avid cyclist from behind and he was killed. At first they let her go, but later charged her with the accident, and arrested her and used the law as one of the factors.
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/28439883/detail.html

2wheelcommute

So sorry to hear about the tragedy. But I'm glad to see that the three-foot law, in the hands of a competent prosecutor, is being used as a potent legal tool to pursue justice. Along with public education about the "three foot" standard, hopefully these standards will start to make a modest but important difference.

I'm looking forward to California adopting our own (which looks like it will happen within the next few months).

gpsblake

The problem with the 3 foot law is that it's not prosecuted until after an accident and after the few days it passes, everyone forgets about the law. In fact, in 7 days the law passed, she's the first one charged in the entire state of Georgia.

I would like to see SIGNS like "3 FOOT, IT'S THE LAW" in a yellow sign along with a visual instead of "SHARE THE ROAD" (or both).

She's being charged with 2nd degree vehicular homicide, following too closely, and failure to safely pass a bicyclist...

gpsblake

Signs like this will do wonders to educate the public.

DeadheadSF

That's making the assumption that the public will actually *read* them. Around here, they don't even stop for red lights half the time... what good is a sign?

JonnyHK 

fify

myrridin

Yeh, signs (such as stop signs or even red lights) are always obeyed by all vehicle operators...

twinquad

I don't think the 3-foot law is really significant here - she's being charged with homicide. Yes, she's also charged with violating the three foot law, but that's sort of like getting a mosquito bite along with a limb amputation.

sggoodri

I think that charging the motorists with failure to provide adequate clearance when passing is appropriate in many situations, but in others, where lane width and traffic conditions do not allow safe passing, a charge of failure to reduce speed may be the better way to frame the situation. Drivers who fail to reduce speed and wait, and instead try to squeeze past at high speed, are the ones most likely to seriously injure or kill cyclists. Drivers who reduce speed, wait for a safe opportunity, and then pass are much less likely to cause injury. Sometimes they do drift back over before fully passing, forcing the cyclist to take evasive action, but most cyclists would rather face this problem than the driver who clips them at 50 mph when there wasn't room to pass. It frustrates me to see the public always frame the issue in terms of how the driver executed the pass at speed rather than understanding that in many cases the pass should not have been attempted at that time and place.

EsoxLucius

Remember, these incidences are NOT ACCIDENTS, they are CRASHES!

Crash encompasses a wider range of potential causes for vehicular crashes than does the term accident. A majority of fatal crashes are caused by intoxicated, speeding, distracted, or careless drivers and, therefore, are not accidents. Most importantly, characterizing crashes as accidents, when a driver was intoxicated or negligent, may impede the recovery of crash victims by preventing them from assigning blame and working through the emotions related to their trauma. An accident is something that cannot be reasonably foreseen or predicted and cannot be avoided. It just happens. A crash, on the other hand, is the result of choices made and risks disregarded.

Wow, now I feel better!

dougmc

It's nice that the law is already being used, but running over a cyclist from behind usually does not violate any "3' passing" laws -- because it's not passing (passing typically has a specific legal definition, and that doesn't fit it. It violates other laws, granted, but not that one.)

(Of course, it's possible that the law enacted in Georgia is different than others elsewhere and it covers more than just passing -- but in general, passing laws don't cover being run over from behind.)

EsoxLucius

"...the operator of a motor vehicle, when overtaking and passing a bicycle that is proceeding in the same direction on the roadway, shall leave a safe distance between such vehicle and the bicycle and shall maintain such clearance until safely past the overtaken bicycle."

Clearly idiotic thinking. If the vehicle in question goes through a bicyclist when overtaking and passing it is still overtaking and passing. Obviously three feet of clearance was not provided when the motorist was overtaking in the example related in this thread and they certainly did not yield such clearance until they were past the overtaken bicycle. A clear violation of the HB101 Georgia law.

dougmc

Well, obviously the car has not overtaken the bicycle, because the bicycle is still in front of the car. (Unless the bicycle is *under* the car, but then the car still hasn't passed the bicycle. Now if the car has driven over the bicycle and left the scene, then maybe ...)

I can't find a definition of "passing" in Georgia law but considering that vague laws are generally to be interpreted in favor of the defendant (rule of lenity) -- it sounds like a charge that wouldn't stick if the defendant chose to actually defend against it. (Looking up the word passing in the dictionary says "Moving by; going past" -- but if you haven't moved by or gone past, you haven't passed.)

I'm not arguing that the law isn't violated when a cyclist is run over from behind -- I'm arguing that laws about passing generally would not apply, because the cyclist was not passed. People seem to think of these 3' passing laws as a "3' buffer zone all around the cyclist" that cars may not enter -- but that's certainly not what the laws say.

No, your position isn't idiotic -- it's more assuming that the law means what you think it means because that's what you think it should mean.

dahut

Hey, its better than nothing. It is certainly a start in the right direction.

Now word needs to get out to the motoring public about both the law and the actual penalties people receive if they violate.
We see as many as 1500 signs in a day - those of you who say a sign is of limited use are correct.

The WORD needs to made known. Can I get an Amen?!

EsoxLucius

In the absence of a definition in the law, standard dictionary definitions will apply. To go across or through is one definition. One does not consider just the verbage of the law in its application, legislative intent must also be considered. The motorist was in the process of overtaking and passing and they just didn't provide the required clearance when doing so, hence striking the bicyclist. HB101 was violated in this instance and that is why charges were brought citing it.

wnl256

I live in suburban Atlanta. Just got word from our LBS that one of their employees was buzzed on the ride in to work this morning. And the local town police pulled over the motorist presumably to issue a ticket for passing to close! I was very pleased to hear this news.