sbhikes

Our local Assemblyman in Santa Barbara is sponsoring a bill to make passing a cyclist with at least 3 feet clearance the law. Below is a quote from an email about it. I'm sure most of you will trash this idea, but if you're supportive, the bill number is included and you could write your own Assemblyperson in support of the bill if you like. Or if you're not supportive. Whatever.

By the way, before you start trashing the cyclist for where she was on the road you should know this:
1) it's difficult for two cars to pass on this road. There are no lines, there are no shoulders, the road is twisty and narrow.
2) the place where she was passed the road was half washed away from recent rains. All there was on one side was a sheer cliff. All there is on the other side is a vertical wall.
3) the road is in horrible condition. You base your position on the potholes. Sometimes there are more holes than road.
4) the road is very popular with cyclists. It would not be an unusual experience to pass several any day of the week.
5) Kendra was killed by a truck driver hauling asphalt up the road for the purpose of doing road repair for the forest service. He was (or should have been) a professional driver.

DCCommuter

We have a 3-foot law here. I would say that no one except for cycling advocates is aware of it, and it has no measurable impact on driver behavior. That said, I think it's a good law, and we should work to make it a national standard.

Here's an interesting article on the subject: https://www.velonews.com/news/fea/9283.0.html

zonatandem

3 ft. law in Arizona too. Gives us a bit of legal clout methinks!

oboeguy

Naturally I think at least 3ft of clearance is important and a law about it is good to have on the books, but I doubt it will change anything. It's pretty much unenforceable if someone passes within 1 inch to 2 feet and 11 inchces of a cyclist.

DigitalQuirk

So, what do they expect; that motorists will get out a tape measure and check the distance between them and the cyclist? How is this going to be enforced; are police going to use laser tape measure guns to check clearance? More importantly, how will this law be any more effective than the old one? Clearly the truck didn't pass at a safe distance, because the cyclist is dead. Typical; knee-jerk reactionary law without a whole lot of thought put into it. Why not simply designate such a road as a "No passing allowed" zone, using existing laws?

LittleBigMan

I think it's a great idea, and already a standard in many places.

I don't know if it's a law or not, but I'd also like it to be made clear to motorists that crossing a double-yellow line to pass a cyclist ok, if traffic allows.

The Seldom Kill

I can see what you're getting at here and have to agree that this was my first reaction. Stupid and uneforceable. You're certainly not without point and it is one that does need to be looked into.

However, 3ft has a lot of advantages over "safe distance". "Safe distance" is something that is subjective and depends not just on the drivers perception of distance, but also the drivers opinion of their own driving skills. Many an accident has been caused solely because of a driver's inability to appreciate their own vehicle handling skills. There is also a failure to appreciate cyclist skill level. 3ft holds a far lower level of subjectivity. Sure you might think 2ft is three foot, but you're far less likely to mistake 6 inches as 3ft.

I appreciate that driver awareness and driver compliance are issues but we need to look at what we teach new drivers as well as. Teaching 3ft cannot be a bad thing can it?

flipped4bikes

I really don't think having a yardstick taped to the bicycle is the intent of the proposed law. I would hope (fat chance) the spirit of the law would be: give the cyclist room when passing! Also, what's wrong with establishing a standard that people can understand?

ghettocruiser

Does this also mean bikes aren't allowed to pass cars within three feet?



That's not a loaded question.

MacG

I wish that in addition to specifying a minimum distance, these laws would clearly state that the safe distance needs to increase with greater speed differentials. 3 feet is fine on bisy downtown streets with 25mph traffic, but being buzzed by a semi going 55mph at 3 feet would be downright dangerous. Again, there is no good way to define what a safe distance is at different speeds, and there is no good way to enforce such a law, but if it was at least on the books, motorists would possibly be at least more aware of the need for tailoring of clearance based on the conditions.

Two weeks ago when I was biking home from work in a mini blizzard, I actually had a driver follow behind me for over a quarter mile on a two-lane road with no shoulders. I eventually waved him around me once there was a good straight section of road. He crossed all the way into the far lane to pass me and even used his turn signals to make the lane changes. We need more people like this.

Similarly (or not), I was biking back home from the Sibley Bike Depot on Monday night and had a car full of joyriders buzz me at high speed while baring on the horn. Along this stretch, Robert Street has two fully marked lanes in each direction, a central suicide lane for turns, sidewalks, and no useful shoulder, so I was riding in the middle of the right lane at about 15mph. They gave me less than a foot of clearance from my (wide) handlebars to the car's side mirror. I was lit up like a christmas tree and I could tell by their behavior that they had not only seen me, but had singled me out for their treatment. The car sped around a corner and disappeared on side streets before I could catch up to get the license plate or I would hopefully have taken the matter somewhere by now.

noisebeam

I've wondered that. The way the AZ law is written, it is OK. My wondering however is due to setting precident (and this is whether or not there is a law). If we cyclists want and expect 3ft, are we not setting a bad example and giving motorists the idea it is OK to be closer than 3ft if we push the distance closer?

The AZ law:
28-735. Overtaking bicycles; civil penalties

A. When overtaking and passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction, a person driving a motor vehicle shall exercise due care by leaving a safe distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle of not less than three feet until the motor vehicle is safely past the overtaken bicycle.

B. If a person violates this section and the violation results in a collision causing:

1. Serious physical injury as defined in section 13-105 to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars.

2. Death to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars.

C. Subsection B of this section does not apply to a bicyclist who is injured in a vehicular traffic lane when a designated bicycle lane or path is present and passable.

The real burn on this law is of course Subsection C. Especially what 'path' means.

Al

baiskeli

I think thats great but the problem is enforcement. We have a 3 foot law here and people pass me within mere inches (even when I am in the bike lane, drivers feel free to straddle the bike lane).

Brian Ratliff

The bill gives a voice to a problem. That, in and of itself, is a good thing. As for the enforcibility, you can say the same (that it is unenforceable) about any right of way law on the books, from the "first come, first served" at a 4 way stop to the car who cuts off another car when coming out of a driveway.

So the law will give some publicity to the subject of close passing, and might even deter some moterists who simply did not know any better. It will also give amunition to the cyclist (or next of kin) who gets into a rear end accident or is forced off the road into the ditch. A cyclist who is clipped by a mirror can show the judge a picture of the bruise and can use the law to argue that the motorist did not allow the proper passing distance.

LittleBigMan

I think that the law applies to motorists only. But if a cyclist passes (especially on the right) a motorist closer than 3 feet and is involved in a collision, since the motorist was not passing the cyclist, but the other way around, the motorist would not be violating the 3 foot clearance law.

LittleBigMan

Subsection C is stupid. Period.

If a motorist does not exercise due care in passing a cyclist safely, and injures or kills the cyclist, the fact that the cyclist was not using the path or bike lane is irrelevant.

webist

Irrelevant, except of course, in AZ.

The AZ law apparently would prefer that you not hit a cyclist. It just won't cost you money if you hit one when there's a bike path nearby. I can hear the excuse now.

I'm sorry officer. I wouldn't have him the bike except that I was looking to see whether or not there was a passable bike path.

The law is kind of new. I haven't seen much difference yet.

genec

I assume this is a state wide bill... right?

webist

The AZ law is. Yes.

sbhikes

The CA one is, yes.

I think it mostly gives you some clout after the fact, were you to be injured or suffer property damage.

It may give you some protection before the fact, too. If anybody's ever heard of the 3 feet law and they're faced with a situation like what Kendra faced, where there wasn't 3 feet to spare, then maybe they won't even try to pass.

genec

Thanks for that info.... perhaps any of us in CA should write our local rep and suggest support for the bill.

genec

You sure the bill is right? I found this:
https://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/...ntroduced.html

and the text reads:

BILL NUMBER: AB 1941 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT


INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Nava

FEBRUARY 1, 2006

An act to amend Section 2900 of the Vehicle Code, relating to
vehicles.



LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 1941, as introduced, Nava California Traffic Safety Program.
Existing law provides for the California Traffic Safety Program in
state government, which provides for, among other things, the
surveillance of traffic for detection and correction of high or
potentially high accident locations.
This bill, instead, would provide for the surveillance of traffic
for identification and correction of high or potentially high
accident locations.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


SECTION 1. Section 2900 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
2900. There is in this state, the California Traffic Safety
Program, which that consists of a
comprehensive plan in conformity with the laws of this state to
reduce traffic accidents and deaths, injuries, and property damage
resulting from accidents. The program shall include, but not be
limited to, provisions to improve driver performance, including, but
not limited to, driver education, driver testing to determine
proficiency to operate motor vehicles, and driver examinations and
driver licensing, and provisions to improve bicyclist and pedestrian
education and performance. In addition, the program shall include,
but not be limited to, provisions for an effective record system of
accidents, including injuries and deaths resulting from accidents;
accident investigations to determine the probable causes of
accidents, injuries, and deaths; vehicle registration, operation, and
inspection; highway design and maintenance including lighting,
markings, and surface treatment; traffic control; vehicle codes and
laws; surveillance of traffic for detection
identification and correction of high or potentially high
accident locations; and emergency services.

tippy

Alabama Code:
Section 32-5A-263
Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

(b) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

(c) Wherever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway.

(Acts 1980, No. 80-434, p. 604, §12-105.)
****

"... adjacent to a roadway ..."

I'm hoping the definition of "path" means bike lane and does not include sidewalk.

Good Luck,
d.tipton

sbhikes

Perhaps the details define what "among other things" is, and maybe that's where the 3-feet part is included. It's the same Assemblyman and the same number. Perhaps, since it's still being worked on, he's trying to add that in. The accident happened only last month. I wish I had better details.

MarkS

Per the history, it looks like AB 1941 has already been printed and is going to the floor in early March. Maybe Nava forgot to get around to actually doing the bill? There's a link on his site for the Bill, and when you click through you see a little form for submitting comments. I'm using the little form to write him, though it would be more effective if someone from his own district did that.

California passes something like a 1000 new laws a year. You probably can't put your trousers on in the morning without violating two or three statutes and edicts.

jimmuter

It's sad that people are so dense that 'safe distance' needs to be further explained.