benjdm

https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cali...icyclists.html

Hopefully, cyclists ride in front of his limo whenever he's driving somewhere that has a double yellow.

dynodonn 

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.

Daves_Not_Here

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.

sudo bike

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.

rydabent

Surprise surprise-----------not really Calif is the most screwed up state in the union.

mprelaw

Geez, what's getting into Moonbeam in his old age? Still pining over Linda Rondstadt?

Bekologist

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.

work4bike

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. https://www.floridabicycle.org/rules/bikelaw.html

curbtender

https://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.

FrenchFit 

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.

Myosmith

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.

unterhausen

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.

degnaw

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.

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.

mconlonx

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.

mconlonx

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.

telkanuru

I am Governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles and never frowns...

lubes17319

Same goes in CO

Soon I will be president!

Bekologist

...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.

B. Carfree

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.

Daves_Not_Here

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?

dynodonn 

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.

Dchiefransom

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.

dynodonn 

Oh the irony!

Daves_Not_Here

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?

dynodonn 

I'm not sure what was involved in the amendment, and the media has not received any word either according to this article.

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

"Brown didn’t elaborate on Caltrans’ plan, and Caltrans officials were unavailable for comment Friday evening".