oystercatcher

I was knocked off my bike the other day by an impatient driver in a parking lot.
Since I wasnt hurt and the driver was bigger than me I resorted to cursing.

Later I called the local police and asked whether there was any legal violation
and got some lame answers and was told it was probably an accident.

So my conclusion, The only way clueless uncaring or angry car drivers will
ever take responsibility is to have a strict liablity law like in Europe, where
the onus is on the motorist. After all if I had been injured, it would not
have made much difference to the police as they seem all too ready
to be apologists for motorists.

socal - ventura county

exile

I'm confused, why didn't you contact the police immediately if you were riding legally?

Don't expect the cops to know every law off the top of their head. Since you were calling after the fact they probably just chalked it up to an accident. Because accidents do happen.

Some cops are better than others in what we feel is "doing their job". If you contacted them when the accident occurred, then maybe they would have taken it more seriously.

Paul L.

I concur with you. I got hit by a school bus from behind and though the accident report put the blame on the bus driver he was not issued a citation for the violation of the 3 foot law.

DX-MAN

The 3-foot law just gives drivers another excuse -- "I thought I GAVE him 3 feet!" when the side mirror cracks a shoulder blade.

Passing vehicles should no closer than the normally accepted 'left-tire track' of any lane; lot harder to dispute.

And I am 100x100% in FAVOR of strict liability!!

mnemia

I'm not sure I see how it gives them an excuse: by definition, it would seem that any sideswiping crash during a pass would put them in clear violation of 3 foot laws. I think the problem is just police "interpreting" the law in a way that is favorable to the motorist, not the law itself.

Overall, I don't think these laws are very enforceable, except in case of crashes. The main "good" thing I think could come out of them is some possible publicity/education of motorists about how to properly pass a cyclist. But obviously they aren't even going to be educated if the police won't enforce the law even when it's clear it was violated.

The basic problem seems to be that there isn't a societal consensus that cyclists deserve to get only safe passes, and there is a lot of ignorance on the part of motorists about what constitutes safe passing. Just look at the recent Virginia debate over a failed proposal for a 3 foot passing law: lawmakers there opposed the bill on grounds including that "cyclists are scofflaws, and shouldn't be accomodated", and that the bill would make it impossible to legally pass at all on many roads because of narrow lanes. Apparently cyclists should just be put at risk with close passes rather than motorists be inconvenienced at all (apparently, slowing down and waiting until it's safe to pass isn't an option that entered lawmakers' heads). And motorists should be allowed to take out their aggression on all cyclists because some cyclists break the law. While attitudes like this persist, it's going to be hard to make headway. The only thing that will change this is sufficient numbers of cyclists on the roads, and that will just take time (perhaps with an assist from rising gas prices).

dynodonn 

Usually a collision in a parking lot doesn't seem to draw much interest of LE, but no or little action taken by OP's LE doesn't make me feel that the 3 foot law is a waste of effort.

Last month, I reported a motorist to our local PD for passing within inches of me, and from my video, it almost looked like his mirror barely went under my flat bar end mirror.
The same motorist just happen to pass me a couple of days ago, but this time, with more than 3 feet of space, and I could see him make several glances into his rear view mirror after he passed me, it would seem that our local PD and the motorist may have had a conversation about close passing.

Chris516

Ditto verbatim

Mr Danw

Police rarely charge anyone in an accident on private property. If it is between two cars insurance info is exchanged and that is about it. If you gave the motorist's plate number and reported it as a hit and run they would have more than likely gotten involved.

I doubt a law for a public roadway is applicable on private property.

2wheelcommute

Um, I think a lot of you are confused. A three foot law moves us closer to "strict liability." Think about it--any time a car comes in contact with a cyclist while passing, there has been a per se violation of the three foot law. Whether or not the cops apply it consistently, there would really be no way to argue around it in court (traffic, civil, or criminal) if one party decided to press the issue. Take DX MAN's example: if you get whacked by a mirror, there can be no question of law that the three foot law was violated. Without the three foot law (and instead using the common but vague "safe distance" standard), the driver is much more free to claim they thought they gave you enough room. "Safe distance" is more or less subjective and gives drivers much more room to argue that they were driving reasonably, while "three feet" creates a bright line that's impossible to fudge--if there was contact, the law was violated. The three foot law also almost eliminates that "he swerved in front of me at the last second" argument--who is going to believe that the cyclist suddenly swerved three feet?

I know that if I ever get hit, I would be far more confident of my case with a three foot law than with the default "safe distance" standard. And in some important ways, the three foot law really is almost as good as European strict liability.

And, OP--what does your incident have to do with the 3 foot law anyways? We don't have one in California, so of course the cops wouldn't rely on it.

<---- Lawyer

B. Carfree

We have an even better than three-foot law in OR. Motorists on high speed (over 35 mph) roads without bike lanes must give cyclists "room to fall" in the motorist's direction. In spite of that, about eight-teen months ago we had a cyclist run over on just such a road. The local sheriff's deputy didn't even cite the killer, in spite of the law spelling out that contact is a clear violation (duh). I would prefer strict liability because it bypasses the biases of pro-motorist cops (redundant?)

In fairness to the killer, he paid for his victim's funeral and even provided transportation to several of the victim's homeless friends. These expenses were quite a bit more than the $380 fine he would have gotten with the citation.

oystercatcher

It is the strict liability for the heavier vehicle in accidents that is needed.
Probably this could just be added on like uninsured motorists for commercial
and individual drivers.
Cyclists are likely to be required to have insurance as the law would affect
all transport.

Digital_Cowboy

That's good to hear, not that you had a close pass, but that your LEOs actually spoke to the driver. It'd be nice if more LEOs would do the same thing.

Digital_Cowboy

What I would like to see happen with the various 3' laws is that they spell out that the faster the traffic the more space they need to leave between them and cyclists.

Set it as it currently is with 3' being the bare minimum amount of space that a motorist must leave between their vehicle and a cyclist (or other slow moving vehicle) but as the speed limit goes up that gap must be widened. I would also like to see posted speed limits strictly enforced.

Also along with the various anti-texting/cell phone usage laws. I would like to see them expanded to include ALL distractions within the car, i.e. shaving, applying makeup, changing clothes, drinking coffee/eating a full meal, engaged in "extracurricular" activities.

Somewhere along the way people forgot that driving a car is suppose to be job one. Way too many people think nothing about driving and multi-tasking.

dougmc

Traffic laws typically don't apply to parking lots. So there will be no ticket, period.

As for "three foot passing rules" -- in general, they only cover passing. [I'm generalizing for the entire country here, as you haven't said where you live and I probably don't know the specific law there -- there could be exceptions.]

If somebody hits you from behind, or does a left hook, or right hook, or even if they change lanes into you -- that doesn't count, because it's not passing. On the bright side, in general these things are prohibited by other laws, so a ticket can be given out -- it just won't say "three foot passing violation".

And if somebody does pass you at less than three foot and there's a collision -- there's usually another law that the driver can be cited under ("failure to yield", "improper passing", "unsafe lane change", etc.) and the police will usually go for that rather than "three foot passing violation".

Digital_Cowboy

How do those laws work with private property with public access? And if traffic laws don't apply to private property than does that mean that stop signs and/or speed limit signs aren't enforceable at mall and what not parking lots? And what about all the disabled parking laws?

If say a private business is the only business in a particular parking lot does that mean that because it's private property that they don't have to post disabled parking spots?

ItsJustMe

The three foot rule is mainly useful for assigning blame after the fact. If someone whacks you with a side mirror while passing, they're automatically at fault. Or you'd think so. They'll probably claim you "swerved" and get off. The only way around that one is to have video evidence.

dougmc

I disagree. I think it's mainly useful for the lawmakers to give lipservice to cyclists without actually giving them a law that makes a difference (though it does seem to make the good drivers give you even more distance, but those are the guys who gave you 3+' anyways, and they are most drivers.)

If there's actually an collision of some sort there's always a better citation to give somebody than "passing closer than three feet". And again, the passing laws typically only apply while passing.

Unsafe passing. There's probably already a law against that where you live. Another one doesn't make it more illegal.

But that's all about proving the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt". Giving another hard to prove law doesn't help here.

Roughstuff

3 feet, 5 feet, ten feet, whatever. It will not change the fact that since bikes have two wheels and cars have four....plus a bit more mass, as folks have pointed out....you are riding a more vulnerable vehicle on the roadway. The same arguments can be used for motorcycles. Strict liability is an interesting discussion, but I reckon there are just as many reckless cyclists on our roadways as there are drivers (as a %) so I am not sure I support the idea.

roughstuff

Chris516

I agree. I get passed by many 3ft. violators. When it is two lanes on each side, and they are completely in the passing lane, I feel good about how they passed me. When it is just two lanes and they pass me straddling the center line, that is what gets' me upset.

Just because a bicycle is not as fast as a motor vehicle, is no reason to pass a cyclist like being a wood carver trying to smooth a new creation in their wood.

Pedaleur

Well, except that drivers tend to get off by saying the bike swerved into them, which while being a problem with the application of the law, not the law per se, is less of an issue with strict liability.

Of course, strict liability goes far beyond passing, as well.

mnemia

Yeah, I don't think that 3 foot laws are in any way comparable to a strict liability law. All they really represent is a codification of what safe drivers already should be doing routinely, because apparently it's too hard for some of them to figure out how to pass a cyclist without having it spelled out for them. Strict liability changes how crashes are handled by police and courts. 3 foot passing laws merely create a new crime that drivers can be charged with in addition to existing laws. There's a big difference.

Since I don't believe strict liability is a realistic political possibility most places in the U.S. anytime soon, maybe there are other things we could do. One that I think would be good would be to somehow upgrade the standards via which police officers investigate crashes. Does anyone know if there are any sort of codified standards for how they are supposed to do that? Because it seems like we hear a lot about police officers that fail to conduct a proper investigation, whether it's because of anti-cyclist bias or simple ignorance on their part of the mechanics of typical car-bike collisions. I mean, does anyone here seriously believe that cyclists routinely swerve in front of or into high speed motor vehicles? A lot of these "swerving" incidents are caused by things like motorists not staying in their proper lane while executing turns, and thus drifting sideways into cyclists. Police should realize that, instead of just believing the story of the negligent motorist when they don't understand what happened.

dougmc

And I think you're confused. Any time a car comes in contact with a cyclist (or a car with a car, or a cyclist with a cyclist, etc.), passing or not, some other law has already been violated.

Well, except that most collisions don't involve passing, so all they have to do is argue that this situation didn't. An unsafe lane change could easily look exactly like passing too close -- and it could easily be argued that it was the cyclist who made the unsafe lane change, and without video or impartial witnesses, it's really hard to say who's right, at least beyond a "reasonable doubt". (A civil case has a lower burden of proof, so that could be easier.)

Here in Austin, I think the police have given out less than five tickets for violating our new 3' passing law since it was created like two years ago, and I don't think any of those tickets involve actual collisions -- if they did, the police would give out a better citation, such as failure to yield or unsafe passing.

I think the only way to actually get a ticket for this here is to buzz a cop on his bicycle, and then stop so he can ticket you.

You may think this moves us closer to strict liability, but certainly the police and courts don't seen to be treating it like it does.

Chris516

It all boils down to, whether we as cyclists will:

1. Continue to expect 'emotional respect' from the motorized public at-large who just perceive us as a form of 'transportation mutiny', instead of using another form of transportation.

2. Rest on our laurels courtesy of the 3ft. laws', by FRAP'ing, instead of being more insistent about our right to the road.

Chris516

Video evidence is the only way to go. It isn't subject to the mental meanderings of the human brain.

Chris516

Not just in Austin, but everywhere.