Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-29-12, 08:02 PM   #1
benjdm
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Bikes: Sun EZ-Speedster SX, Volae Expedition
Posts: 460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
California 3 foot law vetoed again

Quote:
For the second time in two years, Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday vetoed legislation requiring motorists to provide at least 3 feet of space between their vehicle and bicyclists they pass.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cali...icyclists.html

Hopefully, cyclists ride in front of his limo whenever he's driving somewhere that has a double yellow.
benjdm is offline  
Old 09-29-12, 10:41 PM   #2
dynodonn 
Senior Member
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 7,342
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by benjdm View Post
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cali...icyclists.html

Hopefully, cyclists ride in front of his limo whenever he's driving somewhere that has a double yellow.
Even if that happens, he'll have a police escort up front running cyclists off the road.

Another major setback, by the time a 3 foot bill is passed by Brown, it'll be so watered down that cyclists will end up having to give motorists a minimum of 3 feet to pass.
dynodonn is offline  
Old 09-29-12, 10:49 PM   #3
Daves_Not_Here
On your right
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southern California
Bikes: Specialized Roubaix Elite
Posts: 694
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Reading the article, it looks like the hang-up is that this law would have permitted crossing the double yellow line to facilitate 3 ft passing clearance.

I didn't even know it was illegal to cross a double yellow line when passing a cyclist. Happens all the time.
Daves_Not_Here is offline  
Old 09-29-12, 10:52 PM   #4
sudo bike
Bicikli Huszár
 
sudo bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Posts: 2,116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daves_Not_Here View Post
Reading the article, it looks like the hang-up is that this law would have permitted crossing the double yellow line to facilitate 3 ft passing clearance.

I didn't even know it was illegal to cross a double yellow line when passing a cyclist. Happens all the time.
Always illegal to pass over a double-yellow, AFAIK. I'd very much doubt anyone doing so to pass a cyclist would be cited, ever. As you say, happens all the time.
sudo bike is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 07:20 AM   #5
rydabent
Senior Member
 
rydabent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Cruiser
Posts: 5,858
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 232 Post(s)
Surprise surprise-----------not really Calif is the most screwed up state in the union.
rydabent is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 07:28 AM   #6
mprelaw
Senior Member
 
mprelaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Bikes:
Posts: 2,318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Geez, what's getting into Moonbeam in his old age? Still pining over Linda Rondstadt?
mprelaw is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 07:46 AM   #7
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Governor of California's misguided 'deep pockets' concern



Jerry thinks it would open the state up to liability in the event of a collision when motorists crossed the double yellow, despite the law only allowing it when it could be done safely. IMO There would be no culpability of the state.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg VetoMessage.jpg (86.0 KB, 17 views)
Bekologist is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 07:59 AM   #8
work4bike
Senior Member
 
work4bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlantic Beach Florida
Bikes:
Posts: 850
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 410 Post(s)
Why isn't this a concern in other states that have the 3-foot law? Even here in Florida (the supposed cyclists-death capital of the U.S.) we have the law. http://www.floridabicycle.org/rules/bikelaw.html
work4bike is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 08:21 AM   #9
curbtender
Senior Member
 
curbtender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SF Bay Area, East bay
Bikes: Marinoni, Kestral 200 2002 Trek 5200, KHS Flite, Koga Miyata, Schwinn Spitfire 5, Schwinn Speedster, Mondia Special, Univega Alpina
Posts: 3,995
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traffic_lanes.htm

Though it says no crossing a solid yellow line unless making a left turn, I've been told that you can maneuver around a hazard when safe to do so. Of course you would be sited if it was a blind pass or you if you passed while there was oncoming traffic.

Last edited by curbtender; 09-30-12 at 08:51 AM.
curbtender is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 08:41 AM   #10
FrenchFit 
The Left Coast, USA
 
FrenchFit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Bikes:
Posts: 3,102
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
Surprise surprise-----------not really Calif is the most screwed up state in the union.
Oh really? I guess all 37 million of us are stupid not to live in such an amazing state as Nebraska.

I trust Jerry, if he's thinking one more law is gong to end up costing more than it benefits he won't get an argument from me. I mean really...who's going to observe a 3 ft law that doesn't already yield to cyclists...no one.

Enforce the laws on the books, that's good enough for me.
FrenchFit is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 09:05 AM   #11
Myosmith
Lover of Old Chrome Moly
 
Myosmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NW Minnesota
Bikes:
Posts: 2,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just remove the language that makes it legal to cross the double yellow and replace it with something along the lines of "when in a no-passing zone, the motorist will move as far to the left of the lane as practical and reduce speed as necessary to ensure safety". No passing zones are a small portion of the roadway and most are wide enough that even if you don't encroach on the double yellow, you can still leave at least a couple of feet if not a full three feet of passing space. As stated, a person encroaching the double yellow for the safety of a cyclist, while not endangering anyone else, isn't likely to get cited anyway. This would pass the 3-foot rule for 90+% of the roadways and still make high speed near misses citable in no-passing zones.
Myosmith is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 09:10 AM   #12
unterhausen
Randomhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Bikes:
Posts: 14,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
unfortunately, the continued irresponsibility of motorists has prompted highway departments everywhere to paint double yellow lines in more and more places. It has long been known that center lines reduce accidents because people become morons when they are behind the wheel. Pennsylvania made it legal to cross double yellow lines when passing a cyclist, but only when safe. I think that's a fairly good way of handling it. The law also says that passes have to be safe, which seems like a dumbing down of the law, but if that's what it takes, so be it.
unterhausen is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 11:03 AM   #13
degnaw
Senior Member
 
degnaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bellevue, WA
Bikes:
Posts: 1,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myosmith View Post
Just remove the language that makes it legal to cross the double yellow and replace it with something along the lines of "when in a no-passing zone, the motorist will move as far to the left of the lane as practical and reduce speed as necessary to ensure safety".
Problem is, when one is on a narrow road (i.e. mountain roads, typically popular with cyclists), then it would be legal to pass super close.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unterhausen View Post
unfortunately, the continued irresponsibility of motorists has prompted highway departments everywhere to paint double yellow lines in more and more places. It has long been known that center lines reduce accidents because people become morons when they are behind the wheel. Pennsylvania made it legal to cross double yellow lines when passing a cyclist, but only when safe. I think that's a fairly good way of handling it. The law also says that passes have to be safe, which seems like a dumbing down of the law, but if that's what it takes, so be it.
I think double yellows in PA are advisory in all cases, including car-passing-car situations. It's only illegal when 'no passing' signs are posted.
degnaw is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 11:28 AM   #14
mconlonx 
Nobody
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 7,356
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1445 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sudo bike View Post
Always illegal to pass over a double-yellow, AFAIK. I'd very much doubt anyone doing so to pass a cyclist would be cited, ever. As you say, happens all the time.
In ME, with the same bike safety legislation establishing a 3' passing zone and clarity regarding taking the lane and crossing lanes in left-hand turn situations, passing when safe to do so is specifically legal when cars are passing cyclists. This specific statute was done as a concession to MV drivers in the same spirit as the specific statute outlining how cyclists should legally approach a left hand turn at an intersection.

TLDR: Not always illegal to pass a cyclist where there's a double-yellow line; depends on state laws.
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 11:31 AM   #15
mconlonx 
Nobody
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 7,356
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1445 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrenchFit View Post
Oh really? I guess all 37 million of us are stupid not to live in such an amazing state as Nebraska.

I trust Jerry, if he's thinking one more law is gong to end up costing more than it benefits he won't get an argument from me. I mean really...who's going to observe a 3 ft law that doesn't already yield to cyclists...no one.

Enforce the laws on the books, that's good enough for me.
Trouble is, laws on the books aren't always enforced, and if there's an easier check mark on an accident report outlining where blame for a collision lies which gives cyclists at least a shot at not being always the Bad Guy, then we should support it. If you get hit, motor-vehicle driver can claim all kinds of things, but if they are cited at the scene with violating a state law, you've got a better shot in criminal or civil court.
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 12:28 PM   #16
telkanuru
Senior Member
 
telkanuru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Allston, MA
Bikes: Trek 720 (touring, 1981 (?) model); Trek 7.3
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am Governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles and never frowns...
telkanuru is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 12:34 PM   #17
lubes17319
Chronic 1st-timer
 
lubes17319's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Lakehood, CO
Bikes: ...take me places.
Posts: 1,137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
...
TLDR: Not always illegal to pass a cyclist where there's a double-yellow line; depends on state laws.
Same goes in CO

Quote:
Originally Posted by telkanuru View Post
I am Governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles and never frowns...
Soon I will be president!
lubes17319 is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 07:46 PM   #18
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
...if nothing else, laws providing for motorists to cross double yellow lines when passing bicyclists reduce friction between motorists and bicyclists.

motorists will be less likely to hang back in a no-passing zones, railing on the horn.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 08:03 PM   #19
B. Carfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Bikes:
Posts: 6,397
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Jerry Brown's first two terms as CA Governor: CalTrans gets a bike division (promptly removed by Deukmejian) and college is free/nearly so.
JB's second incarnation: Screw cyclists. Why don't they just drive coal-powered cars since they get access to car pool lanes in them. Screw college students too.

He was twenty-five years ahead of his time during his first two terms. He's made up for that by being fifty years behind his time this go 'round. I miss Jerry Brown the Younger.
B. Carfree is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 09:37 PM   #20
Daves_Not_Here
On your right
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southern California
Bikes: Specialized Roubaix Elite
Posts: 694
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
In his veto letter, Brown mentioned that Caltrans had proposed a remedy to reduce liability associated with crossing the double yellow line, but that the author was unwilling to amend his bill accordingly.

Does anyone know what Caltrans had suggested?
Why was the bill's sponsor unwilling to make the suggested amendment?
Why aren't we talking about this, as it appears to be the single obstacle in the path of success?
Daves_Not_Here is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 10:02 PM   #21
dynodonn 
Senior Member
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 7,342
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daves_Not_Here View Post
In his veto letter, Brown mentioned that Caltrans had proposed a remedy to reduce liability associated with crossing the double yellow line, but that the author was unwilling to amend his bill accordingly.

Does anyone know what Caltrans had suggested?
Why was the bill's sponsor unwilling to make the suggested amendment?
Why aren't we talking about this, as it appears to be the single obstacle in the path of success?
The author probably felt that the amendment would further weaken the bill's strength, making the bill just a painted up version of the current passing law. If the author chooses to introduce another bill next year, one only can speculate what the Cal Trans, CHP, or some other state agency's think tank objection will be.
dynodonn is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 10:08 PM   #22
Dchiefransom
Senior Member
 
Dchiefransom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Newark, CA. San Francisco Bay Area
Bikes:
Posts: 6,205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Meanwhile, not slowing down greatly or changing lanes when passing an emergency or law enforcement vehicle on the side of the road can get you ticketed.
__________________
Silver Eagle Pilot
Dchiefransom is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 10:10 PM   #23
dynodonn 
Senior Member
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 7,342
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dchiefransom View Post
Meanwhile, not slowing down greatly or changing lanes when passing an emergency or law enforcement vehicle on the side of the road can get you ticketed.
Oh the irony!
dynodonn is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 10:22 PM   #24
Daves_Not_Here
On your right
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southern California
Bikes: Specialized Roubaix Elite
Posts: 694
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynodonn View Post
The author probably felt that the amendment would further weaken the bill's strength, making the bill just a painted up version of the current passing law. If the author chooses to introduce another bill next year, one only can speculate what the Cal Trans, CHP, or some other state agency's think tank objection will be.
Any idea what that amendment would have been? I read the veto letter, and it seems that Brown is strongly hinting that Caltrans has a path to success, if someone will take it.

I'm trying not to be pedantic -- it seems other states have skinned this cat by permitting drivers to cross the double yellow in order to give 3 ft of clearance. What have they done to mitigate the risk of head-on collision lawsuits?
Daves_Not_Here is offline  
Old 09-30-12, 10:39 PM   #25
dynodonn 
Senior Member
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 7,342
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daves_Not_Here View Post
Any idea what that amendment would have been? I read the veto letter, and it seems that Brown is strongly hinting that Caltrans has a path to success, if someone will take it.

I'm trying not to be pedantic -- it seems other states have skinned this cat by permitting drivers to cross the double yellow in order to give 3 ft of clearance. What have they done to mitigate the risk of head-on collision lawsuits?
I'm not sure what was involved in the amendment, and the media has not received any word either according to this article.

http://roadwarrior.blogs.pressdemocr...ng-bicyclists/

"Brown didn’t elaborate on Caltrans’ plan, and Caltrans officials were unavailable for comment Friday evening".
dynodonn is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:36 AM.