RISKDR1

am I a glutton for punishment or what?

I was listening to public radio today and the discussion was about the effects of the new 3 foot clearance rule that is to go into effect tomorrow. A representative of the CHP and sheriff were commenting.

This is not a value judgement on the issue just my understanding of how it is to work. First, it is clear that there is no case where crossing the double yellow line is legal. That per the CHP response to a specific question. He said, absolutely not. Second, if the lane is wide enough for a car and a cyclist including the 3 foot clearance then you cannot ride two abreast. Of course we know that those lanes on that highway are not wide enough. In such a case then two cyclists have the right to take the lane even though they are slower than traffic and a car may NOT cross the yellow line to pass. However, when there are 5 cars behind the cyclists they MUST pull to the right and allow the cars to pass. Again, that is per the CHP guy. That could be a problem for everyone involved since the shoulder may be in bad condition not allowing the cyclists to pull over safely.

It is going to be interesting, especially on roads like the Angeles Crest hwy where there are going to be lots of situations where it will be illegal for cars to pass even a single cyclist since a case can be made for that road not being wide enough for a single cyclist and a car to pass without crossing the double yellow.

I suppose backed up cars can simply wait for the turnouts so the cyclists can pull over safely and let the 5 or more cars pass.

Pamestique 

My opinion? There aren't that many cars on the Highway... if I saw one trailing behind me, I would just stop my bike and let it pass and then continue my ride. The last thing I want is someone sitting behind me going 4 - 5 miles an hour (my speed up the hill) getting pissed off. The rule is about safety of the cyclist, not the cyclist's right to hog the road. There really should be enough room for the driver to pass the rider giving 3 ft. 3 ft is not that much distance.... for roads where that is impossible, the cyclist needs to ride with caution knowing full well the difficulty the driver/car is placed in... but I agree alot of these laws aren't well thought out... this is just another that probably should not have been passed.

SanDiegoSteve

I'll be shocked if any motorist gets a ticket for this one. If they enforce the double yellow it would be a shame as I see that as a sign of respect to the bike. I do that when driving and passing (3+ feet).

All that said, I won't ride any different with the law, I assume cars don't see me and won't pass safely.

hamster

The only situation where this law makes any difference, is if you're out on a road that isn't sufficiently wide to accommodate both a car and a bike, and there is a car directly behind you, and there is a police cruiser directly behind that car. So, almost never. And it gives the cops a new fine that they can slap on any driver who sideswipes a cyclist or hits a cyclist with a side mirror.

TrojanHorse

Actually, I think the only REAL difference this might make is to educate drivers to the fact that we are entitled to use roads and no, they can't just run us off the road because they feel like it - it'll cost them $30! This is one of those tickets a motorists might get in conjunction with something else, like actually hitting a cyclist.

Rick@OCRR

I hope I'm wrong but I don't see the new 3 foot rule making any real difference in the way either motorists or cyclists drive/ride.

Regarding Hwy 2, there are a plethora of turn-outs and since they didn't get chip-sealed like the actual roadway, they are lots smoother so on Angeles Crest I ride the turn-outs whenver possible thereby giving motorists more than ample room to pass.

Plus . . . there's really not much law enforcement that I've seen on Hwy2. An occasional Highway Patrol motorcycle is about it. I expect it will be cycling, motorcycling and cars/small trucks as usual on Angeles Crest.

Rick / OCRR

LGHT

I recall reading about a few riders on PCH taking the entire lane because it was unsafe to them to ride on the shoulder. Apparently someone called the CHP and said these hippies are going to get run down on PCH for taking the entire lane. The CHP officer pulled them over and wasn't even aware of the law and only let them go when they provided a copy of the CVC Division 11, Chapter 1, Article 4. The continued to ride on the highway (with a police escort) to avoid getting run over by angry motorist.

wcoastbikr

I rode a couple of times with coworkers during lunch at my previous job. One of the guys would do this on very busy streets including PCH. One of the streets was a major road that was about a mile long ~5% climb. He was crawling at maybe 8 mph taking up the entire right lane where cars are going 45-60mph. While it's legal, I think it's extremely stupid. On a street that fast many times cars are going too fast that when one moves over to pass around him, the ones behind may not see him and be going too fast to slow down. Especially when there are alternative, safer streets to take. The second time we went out a truck yelled and threw a soda at him.

Needless to say I stopped riding with them after the second ride.

He used to brag about how a cop pulled him over and how he told off the cop like you mentioned. Wouldn't be surprised if we're talking about the same person.

As for the law, it isn't going to change a thing other than being able to fine the driver an additional $30 when they hit someone. Just another law just like texting and driving. If you hit someone and they find out that the reason you hit someone was because you were on your phone, they'll tack on the ticket. How often do people actually get pulled over for using their phones while driving?

TrojanHorse

[QUOTE=wcoastbikr;17140463How often do people actually get pulled over for using their phones while driving?[/QUOTE]

I see it. A friend of mine actually got a ticket for sending a text while waiting at a red light. Technically you are still operating a motor vehicle I guess.

I've even seen cops riding their motorcycles between lines of cars looking down at the drivers, presumably to check for illicit phone use. You have perhaps noticed that the billboards in SoCal have changed from "no texting" to "no handheld cell use", although I'm not sure the law explicitly prohibits non-texting phone use. Some lady in northern California successfully defended her use of her phone's navigation application.

calamarichris

Why the rolling eyes? I hope your friend learned his lesson. I've been stuck behind several texting drivers at stoplights who had no idea that the light was green. And once, both of the drivers up front were texting when the light turned green, so there was no escape for any of us trapped behind.

Puraise gawd fur vict'ry that the cops are finally waking up! And the motorcycle is a terrific method for catching them! I see dozens of them every day.

TrojanHorse

OMG you had to wait a few seconds!

I hope you didn't honk at the tardy texters - that's illegal too.

I see tons of people talking on their handset while driving. If I had to guess, I'd say we're right back where we were before the original hands free laws were passed.

calamarichris

Nope, a few minutes. We had to wait until the next light. And everyone was honking, but the texting idiots didn't bother.
Sorry to hear you're apparently in favor of drivers texting, but ah well.

TrojanHorse

Well, you interpreted that completely wrong. Giving somebody a ticket for texting while stopped is a money grab - it's a stupid law. Texting while driving is incredibly dangerous, texting while stopped is rude. I'm against both but don't feel the need to have the police step in to police rude.

It's kind of like your argument against a cyclist taking the lane while riding up a mountain road. It's completely legal, but it's rude.

LGHT

The fines are a lot higher than you think. The minimum fine for a 1rst offense is $100 and what most people don't realize is tickets can have between 100-500% of overhead on top of that in various "fees". So your ticket may only be $100, but after processing fees, court fees, taxes etc etc you may end up actually paying close to $500 bucks. If you hit a bicyclist as of Tuesday the 16th AB-1371 adds an additional fine of $220. Again add in all those extra fees and the total find can be close to $1000.

You can read the the full Assembly Bill 1371 here Bill Text - AB-1371 Vehicles: bicycles: passing distance.

As far as enforcement I know a lot of people who have received no seat belt tickets, tickets for texting, and I have read more than 10 tickets have been given out already in OC by motorcycle cops who are enforcing the new law at a intersection used to enter a bike path.

calamarichris

a) I don't have any argument against cyclists being rude and casual about their own safety; they only make me look more courteous and less confrontational by comparison.
b) Texting while operating a motor vehicle (including while waiting at a stoplight) is happily both rude and illegal. (Haha--this friend who got cited for it isn't actually you, is it? )

Pamestique 

Has anyone seen the commerical for some luxury car where the driver is distracted thinking about work, or a date or whatever and the car has to basically tell the idiot to pay more attention? I say "dude if you are so distracted your car has to yell at you - STOP DRIVING!!!" As to sitting in a car texting... sorry its wrong. Just two weeks ago I saw a driver sitting at a light texting, the light turned green, he kept texting and the car behind honked. Texting driver was distracted and gunned the gas rearending the car ahead. I was late to work 'cause I could not wait to tell the police the idiot was texting. Text at a light, means the driver is in the habit of texting in the car and likely while driving. I frankly don't get why anyone does this... whose life is that important they have to be in constant communication with others? My friends and I are all too bust to be chatting back and forth all day long. Anyway just imagine those same drivers going up GMR... those are the same people who rules never apply to them, the 3 ft rule will matter to them not. It's only when a cyclist is injured or worse, killed, the rule will have any meaning.

So personally I will cycle like I always have, assuming car drivers are clueless and don't care and taken whatever caution I can...

GP

Maybe it was a really really really important text. https://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/the-3...f-2013#37dtvi3

GP

People texting while stopped at a light shouldn't get a ticket; they should get tased in the nuts.

calamarichris

Heh... not bad.

TrojanHorse

No ... not me. I was just pointing out that people do get tickets for texting after the other guy said he wasn't sure it ever happened.

Good news for you - your lack of texting at lights and while driving also makes you look more courteous and less confrontational, except for the honking at a light part.

There's no cell coverage for most of GMR. You're actually safer from texting drivers up there.

Make it happen!

In case it's not clear, I'm not a fan of distracted driving but the state can pass 4 billion laws and unless they communicate them and enforce them... nothing changes. Note the prevalence of texting while driving, or talking on a handset while driving. Just more stupid laws on the books that won't make a difference.

CuriousGeorge

When i first heard the law I rolled my eyes and thought "great another dumb law" then I read a quote from the guy that proposed it and he said it's pretty much a law that was written to bring awareness for safety to cyclists. No cop is gonna be driving around with a yardstick
It at least gets people talking and realizing the safety issue. I think it seems to be working.