genec

I don't believe motorists even view us as a form of "transportation mutiny" but more often as some one out playing... recreating on "their roads" so to speak. I doubt many motorists realize how often a cyclist is commuting, just like they are.

Chris516

Motorcycles, in and of themselves, can't really be included in this synopsis. Yes they have two wheels and are seemingly just as vulnerable as cyclists'. But, Motorcycles are much faster than bicycles.

Chris516

Well, I used the phrase 'transportation mutiny' to sort of illustrate, that it doesn't matter to motorists, whether a cyclist is exercising and/or, actually going somewhere. They don't care which it might be. They just want cyclists out of the way.

This hostile thinking on the part of motorists, has been silently propagated by the U.S. Government. Courtesy of all bailouts of Ford, GM and Chrysler, who in turn while publicly pitching better fuel economy in their respective product lines, they don't want people to start using different forms of transportation for anything. A vehicle can do some things necessary, that can't be done on a bike. But even when something can be done on a bike instead, they don't want alternate forms of transportation to exist. They only accept it.

I know it may sound like I went off the deep end in my reply. I was thinking about how the hostility to cyclists is summarily systemic. Yes most cities/metropolitan regions have a 'public transportation' infrastructure. But that is as far as the acceptance goes. The hostility even extends to bus drivers. Yes they have a timetable for the route they are doing, but just like the regular motorist, they are hostile.

FunkyStickman

I'll take "3 feet" over nothing. At least then I have some course of restitution, however feeble it may be.

2wheelcommute

Correct. But usually it's a very subjective law that's hard to enforce if the driver says something like "he swerved right before I passed" or "I thought I gave him enough room." The standard law in the US outside of "three foot" jurisdictions is "safe passing distance," which is obviously a fairly subjective term that anyone who's spent a lot of time in court knows is hard to apply. What exactly is a "safe passing distance"? Well, here we all know that it's at least three feet, and probably even more depending on speed. But that's not laid out in the law, and people's opinions differ on what's "safe" (a lot of driver's I've been passed by clearly think it's perfectly safe to speed past while clearing me by 3 inches...). Let's be honest, the average person who doesn't cycle probably thinks that a foot or so is perfectly safe. So if there's a passing collision and the driver just "barely clipped" the cyclist (causing horrific injuries), it's much easier to argue that:

a. He was passing at a perfectly "safe" distance of 8 inches, but the bike suddenly swerved 8 1/2 inches. Or even

b. He thought he was passing at a perfectly "safe" distance of 8 inches, but his mirror was just a little bigger than he thought, so he misjudged and barely clipped the rider. You can't really fault him for misjudging by a few inches, can you? He really thought he had given the guy enough room...

Either of the above arguments under a normal "safe distance" law will either completely absolve the driver or at least eliminate any vehicular negligence claim (and certainly gross vehicular negligence). But when you have a "bright line" rule like a three foot law, it almost totally eliminates the arguments above. Reasonable minds can no longer differ on what a "safe distance" is--it's laid out right there in the law. So even if the bike swerved a foot to avoid a pothole, if you came in contact, you were obviously driving way too close. Even if you thought you were giving enough room when you were trying to give 8 inches, by doing so you were being negligent because the law says you needed to give three feet.

It sounds like a lot of work can be done in Austin (and elsewhere) to educate police about the three foot law. But what I'm saying is that if I'm in court regarding an injury during an unsafe pass, if there's a three foot law, it's a slam dunk for the cyclist virtually every time--almost as good as strict liability. If there's the normal "safe passing" law, it's a toss-up.

Rex G

In the context of this account, had the event occurred in Texas, the only clear violation of any traffic or criminal law was Disorderly Conduct - Abusive Language. The only traffic code violation that clearly applies to parking lots in Texas is "Backing Not in Safety." Had the 3-foot-rule been passed in Texas, (it was part of a bill that was vetoed) it would not have applied to an event such as yours.

The likely defense to a charge of unsafe passing is that the cyclist/driver/pedestrian did not maintain a steady course, so in absence of an unbiased witness, a conviction is not so easy, so the existence of a collision is not a slam-dunk for the cyclist in court.

I am not against 3-foot-rules, just pointing out that words on paper are not as important as social change. As long as it is socially acceptable to crowd smaller vehicles, it will happen. As I have said before, if a safe-passing-distance law is passed in Texas, I will enforce it.

Roughstuff

True, and I was gonna mention the speed thing. In addition they do weigh more and have much more stability from that weight and the heavier rotating tires. At the same time they are vulnerable, as bicycles are. Their larger profile makes them more vulnerable to winds and drafts, from traffic going in both directions.

Because motorcycles are viewed as a more 'legitimate' road user, most people completely enter the other lane while passing them on a 4 lane roadway. If this courtesy was shwon to bicycles it would help alot.

roughstuff

Digital_Cowboy

Well said, or even those who when on a multi-lane road straddle the line between the two lanes. Why the bloody hell can't they just move all the way into the other lane to pass?

genec

Bear in mind that motorcycles always "take the lane." On a motorcycle you typically ride in the left tire track the roadway thus ensuring that any passing motor vehicle has to move over to pass you.

Chris516

Exactly. I don't care how much it ticks motorists off. I will 'take the lane' and not stand for that straddling garbage anymore!!!!

genec

It really amazes me how different areas and different roads, even in the same town can have motorists with vastly different responses to "taking the lane." One three lane (each way) 50 MPH road I ride, that has a bike lane, on occasion requires that I take the lane due to maintenance trucks and the like that straddle the curb and BL. While traffic moves fast on that road, and I wonder at times if the last cars in fast traffic "train" will see me in time... I have never gotten harassed on that road, even though I am out of the BL and moving quite slow compared to the MV traffic. (up hill, as low as 10MPH)

Near my home is a 35MPH road, with two lanes (each way) and the curbs are lined with cars. I have to take the lane to stay out of the door zone, so I do... I am usually riding at about 18-20MPH on this fairly flat road, so not even that slow, relative to the MV traffic, yet I get harassed on a fairly regular basis on that road. There are no BL, so there really is no other place to ride.

Now the big differences.. the traffic density on the 35MPH road is heavy. There is lots of traffic... lots of bike riders use the sidewalks... (of course these are ninjas on 20 in. wheel bikes... ). The traffic density on the 50MPH road is light, but quite fast and variable... traffic comes in fast packs. There are no continuous sidewalks, and the only cyclists usually use the BL... when it isn't otherwise out of order. Apples and oranges as far as responses from motorists.

Digital_Cowboy

We need both T-Shirts and jerseys made up that say that.

Chris516

I totally agree. The main road just outside of the small town I live in, is a two-lane blacktop that has a 30MPH speed limit. While the road was the center of a small city as far back as the turn of the century and, previously the major thoroughfare, it is actually worse than the major four-lane state road built in the 1960's. The 30MPH road has speeders all the time, trying to beat the light in the center of town. The state roadhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20...ic_-_NB_01.JPG has a 40MPH speed limit, but I never get people speeding past me.

Chris516

But motorcycles don't get buzzed by angry motorists. They get respect because of the speed they can achieve.

Chris516

To me, the 3ft. law(s) amount/s to nothing. Because motorists don't pay attention.

Chris516

Hmm...I might put that on the back of my cycling jacket.

genec

This is where I go into a long diatribe about vehicular cycling and how speed differential really is an issue... but I won't, as this thread is not about vehicular cycling... or is it?

mnemia

I think it's partly due to speed and partly due to lane position and perceived "predictability" of motorcyclists vs. bicyclists. Motorcyclists regularly and predictably hold a further left lane position, so motorists know what to expect. Cyclists are less predictable, when taken as a whole group (and consider that most motorists don't differentiate between different styles or types of cyclists in their minds). There are a lot of sidewalk and gutter bunny riders out there, and worse, a lot of salmon, ninjas, and other garbage riders who make up their own rules for riding. Hence, there is a lot of confusion in most motorists' heads about what to do when they encounter a cyclist taking the lane: they've been "trained" in their expectations by a lot of bad and unpredictable cyclists (although we should acknowledge that fear of motor vehicle traffic is a prime reason for why garbage riders ride that way). Unpredictability leads to stress, poor decision-making, and even aggression.

On the other hand, I do believe that speed matters. I find I get a lot more respect when I'm riding fast (over, say, 20 mph), all other things being equal. I believe that at some point, there is a crossover in motorists' heads and we move from being classified as "stationary" objects to "moving objects", and that that improves their decision-making skill because they are then more likely to apply their more developed skills at driving around other moving vehicles.

So, I think a combination of factors are in play. We probably need better facilities to deal with streets with heavy volume and high speed differentials. But we also need to develop some stronger social norms about how both cyclists and motorists will share limited road space. I don't believe education is particularly effective at doing that, so the only thing that may work is more cyclists on the road as well as good "modeling" of good riding skills and courtesy. I've found that my own "proper" cycling has an influence on the other riders and motorists I encounter daily, or so it seems to me. If enough people do that, it will become normalized via social influences, just like any human behavior.

High Roller

In descending order of harassment frequency/intensity:

1. I receive the most hostility when riding on a narrow-laned, 2-lanes-in-each-direction road where there is a bi-directional bicycle side path on one side of the road. I refuse to ride the path contraflow because it is a deathtrap at intersections. My theory is that the motorists feel they have forfeited part of their paychecks to buy me this path to play on and, by god, I should jolly well be using it and not getting in their way.

2. Next comes roads with bike lanes, when I need to leave the bike lane to achieve an acceptable level of safety due to parked cars, obstructions, visibility, debris, approaching intersections, etc. See #1 for my explanation of the psychology involved.

3. Next comes narrow-laned roads in general, oddly enough even when there is more than one lane in each direction, where the motorist must move at least half-way into the adjacent lane to pass me.

4. Next is probably roadways with sidewalks, where the great majority of people riding bicycles are seen doing so on the sidewalk.

I receive the least hostility when riding on roads with a wide outside lane, no bike lane and no sidewalks, where I can choose a safe line which still allows motorists to overtake me without moving too far, if at all, out of the lane.

mnemia

I do agree that some of the hostility is based on motorists' expectations of the behavior of bicyclists based on motorists' skewed perceptions about our "right" to use the road. But I would also point out that most of this ranking is also consistent with my hypothesis about predictability: what gets them agitated is a lack of predictability in how cyclists will behave in a given situation and how they will be expected to respond (I also think this lack of predictability is part of what makes us as cyclists get so frustrated by the behavior of motorists). In your more "hostile" situations, there is probably more variance between your "skilled" riding behavior and the behavior of many other cyclists they see. So, they don't understand what you're doing and why, and they get frustrated and aggressive because they don't how they should respond. Remember that most people don't actually think their actions through while driving; they merely act almost unconsciously based on their previous training and experience in similar situations.

Digital_Cowboy

I've noticed that too, the higher the speed the better behaved that they seem to be. Like a couple of years ago when I was coming home from Tampa, Gandy Blvd which is normally at least two lanes in each direction was down to the just the right lane. There was no room for anyone to safely pass me, and there was no place for me to safely pull over and let them pass. When it finally opened back up to two lanes everyone politely pulled over into the left lane and passed me. No one honked at me or attempted to unsafely pass me or anything.

sggoodri

My state has a 2' passing law; if 3' passing legislation were introduced, it would almost certainly be amended by the rural conservative legislators to place new restrictions on where bicyclists may ride, such as creating new mandatory shoulder-use and bike-lane-use requirements and bicycle-specific FRAP laws, which we don't have now.

I prefer an alternative approach, of explicitly legalizing the already defacto standard practice of crossing a double yellow line to pass bicyclists when it is otherwise safe and legal to do so. All the other restrictions on passing based on slight distances, curves, oncoming traffic, etc. would still apply. Specifically, the law would be changed to eliminate the restriction on passing imposed by a double yellow centerline when the traffic to be passed is traveling less than half the maximum posted speed limit. Ohio already has such a law.

Such a law would likely be supported by the rural conservative legislators, who do this routinely to pass tractors, or drive tractors themselves.

Travel lanes here in NC are typically narrow, say 10 or 11 feet wide, with no shoulder. If you ask the local police about how a motorist should pass a cyclist, they throw up their hands and don't know what to say; they think it's currently illegal to pass a cyclist by crossing the double yellow. The motorists, in turn, feel that if the cyclist's position in the roadway and a minimum passing distance requires them to cross the double yellow to pass, but it's illegal to cross the double yellow, then the cyclist's position is wrong or the cyclist shouldn't be in the roadway. Both the police and the motorists transfer their frustration to the cyclist.

By making it clear that legaly passing of cyclists is expected to involve crossing the double yellow line, I think the pressure on motorists would be reduced, resulting in less road rage against cyclists, and police could start having more meaningful discussions about safe passing practices, such as waiting for oncoming traffic to clear and for sight distances to be adequate, rather than running away from the conversation.

Eventually, in a state where almost all travel lanes on important roads are narrow, the safe passing meme could become a very simple one: "Change lanes to pass."

High Roller

This is a sensible modification to the law and something I have been lobbying for here in Idaho.

oystercatcher

I started this thread to discuss strict liability which I advocate.
If the US implements strict liability it will simply be added to drivers liability insurance policies. Cyclists will likely be required to have some form of liability insurance and that is fine with me.

I am starting to see what google search delivers for the phrase. I think this blog has some
interesting points.
https://www.kimharding.net/blog/
scroll down a bit to active travel.

dougmc

OK, but you did a pretty poor job with the title then -- the title says "why I think the 3 foot rule is a waste of effort", and then the situation you described almost certainly had nothing to do with a 3' [passing] law, at least as they exist in most of the US. (Really, it's not clear what 3' [passing] laws have to do with any of this.)

Car drivers do take responsibility (or are forced to, same difference), even without strict liability laws, when it can be shown that they are at fault in a collision. Same goes for cyclists, pedestrians, whatever. So your premise that "The only way clueless uncaring or angry car drivers will ever take responsibility is to have a strict liability law" is easily disproven. (Now, you could say that they don't take responsibility often enough, that would be a different matter.)

The anecdote you give is not really a good example of anything -- a minor bump in a parking lot, where nobody was hurt and damage was minimal at best (right?) ... the police aren't going to investigate that, and if you're smart you won't try to litigate based on it, so what exactly do you want him to take responsibility for? Hurting your feelings? With no damage and no injuries, would you like the police to hold him down and keep him quiet while you curse at him?

Had you been injured, the police might have investigated further (but even so, they're not going to ticket the guy, as most traffic laws apply only to roads) but you seem to have taken their unwillingness to investigate a non-event (especially when you called "later") to mean they wouldn't investigate a real event if called right away -- that hardly seems a reasonable extrapolation.

Also, strict liability as practiced in Europe regarding cars hitting cyclists or pedestrians is typically a civil matter rather than a criminal one -- so I wouldn't expect it to affect the police's actions regarding any collisions, but instead the discussions with the insurance company and any possible civil court proceedings.

That said, I'd say the chances of strict liability coming to the US as seen in Europe is approximately *zero*. Things would have to change here *greatly* for the US to even seriously consider that -- as it stands, here drivers are the normal people and everybody else is the weirdo. You'll need to change that somehow if you ever want this stuff to happen here.