Duane Behrens

This is a good thing. I was descending PV Drive East yesterday, hugging the white line on the right; there is no shoulder or bike lane here. I was passed by a motorist even as that motorist was meeting an oncoming car. There was perhaps 6" of clearance between me and his right fender. The intent of this law is to ask that and other motorists to simply slow down when they see a cyclist on the road ahead, until they can move to the left:


New state bike law require 3-foot buffer between cyclists, vehicles

FBinNY 

This might make more sense in a regional forum. Or you might mention which state. (California)

Duane Behrens

The law makes sense anywhere, which is why I posted it here. If other states adopt similar laws, lives will undoubtedly be saved. Here is the link again:

https://www.dailybreeze.com/governmen...lists-vehicles

FBinNY 

Your post seemed to be about the NEW 3' passing in California, which is why I said it made sense as a local post. OTOH of you want to post about 3' passing laws in general here's a link to the national scene, where over half the states already have a similar law.

Duane Behrens

Thank you for posting that link. I was both surprised and pleased that other states have adopted similar laws well in advance of California, a state that arguably has more cyclists than any other.

As someone else noted, you'd probably have to have a helmet cam and get a license plate in order to prosecute. Or maybe just a few co-riders with cell phones?

Something. Too many riders are killed or maimed by motorists who are simply unwilling to be inconvenienced by our presence and must teach us a lesson. "Passive-aggressive" can become "manslaughter" in a heartbeat . . . and often does.

jputnam

Realistically, given the exceptions to California's 3-foot-unless-it's-incopnvenient law, you'd need more than ironclad proof of a close pass. You'd need to prove that close pass didn't meet the law's requirements for passing at less than three feet of clearance, requirements that are essentially the same as the old passing-at-a-safe-distance law without a specified measurement. And then you'd need a prosecutor who cared enough to follow through, and a jury willing to convict a fellow motorist.

Chris516

Regardless of the fact, that this is about California. There will still be those motorists', who won't care, and will pass so close that you could 'reach out and touch someone'. I still see that daily in my state. People still have this 'me first' attitude, where they don't want cyclists' in front of them. Lets' not forget the ever popular 'Get The F*** Off The Road'.

Booger1

The intent is good...

Lets test the law out and take a ride through Laguna Beach on PCH on the weekend shall we?...Good luck with that....

We already have laws about passing safely.Why will this law work better than the ones we already have.....It won't.It's just more icing for the cake nobody eats.

If you want to be safer,put Faraday cages in cars......

noisebeam

Exactly. This law is not for motorists, it is to make cyclist feel better and to give them something to yell about when they let themselves get surprised by a close pass.

FBinNY 

Actually the law is an attempt to codify and establish a minimum standard for what is a safe passing distance. The law's in most , if not all, states have always made the passing vehicle responsible for passing safely, regardless of what was being passed. So in one sense it doesn't change anything, except codify the minimum distance.

I'm not a fan of these laws because all to often the minimum becomes the standard, and the issue isn't one of codifying a minimum distance, as much as it is one of driver education about sharing the road and passing safely. The safe distance depends on speed and circumstances. On busy streets in metro NYC I'm often passed with well less than 3' but at speeds where it's OK by me. OTOH if I'm passed by a tank truck doing 55 on the open road, 3' isn't going to cut it, especially on a windy day.

IMO- these laws are a copout by legislators who want to say they've done something, withour committing any resources to actually solve a problem.

noisebeam

Right. No need for 'actually'.

As to education, that is key and such a law is not needed and as you note has its downsides as well in establishing the minimum as the norm.

Education has to be done carefully as well, for example when 3ft law was passed in AZ many years ago cycling advocate established the slogan of the law as 'give cyclists three feet' and met w/reporter and the news story that resulted was that motorist must leave 3' of space on the of the road way for cyclist to use. I still to this day hear some people tell me that is what the 3' law means.

ItsJustMe

Traffic law is in place to place blame when something happens. So few people follow the law that saying that it has an influence on behavior vastly overstates its power.

It's there so that someone can be blamed.

I hear that Michigan is considering a FIVE foot law. I'm not really sure I agree with that - it would cause people to have to leave the lane in all cases around me, even in places where I'd be perfectly comfortable with a 3 foot inside the lane pass.

noisebeam

But in this case there is only blame needed if there is physical contact and if there is physicals contact then existing safe passing law was already violated.

Your concerns about 5' are applicable even sometimes at 3'. If I am left biased, but still fully within some bike lanes between a thru lane and RTOL then the adjacent vehicle, especially if larger can not be fully in their lane and give me 3' of space. This is most notable if the motor vehicle is there first, I'll often pull up next to them with my shoulder ~18" from their passenger side mirror. By law they can't move forward on green until I do.

kickstart

You forgot the go-pro vigilantes.

noisebeam

Ha ha and the resulting BF video post.

As far as safe/3ft passing goes I find as cyclist I have much control over how close I get passed. Ride well away from shoulder, use a mirror and if a vehicle will soon pass with too little room, then move right. I haven't had a close pass I didn't allow since I started using mirror perhaps 8yrs ago.

Of course if I was filming, moving a bit right wouldn't give me any 'exciting' footage to post to BF.

mconlonx

In my state (ME), the 3' law was passed with another law specifically stating that it is legal for cars to pass cyclists over a double-yellow, no-passing line when safe to do so. Just to make it perfectly clear and appease MV drivers.

I filed an assault report when a driver passed too close and I was struck by passenger arms hanging out the side windows. Cop tracked them down by plate no. and they admitted the incident but claimed it was unintentional. When the cop started shrugging off the he-said, she-said accounts, I asked if he could tag them with a violation of the 3' passing law, which is what he did. $100 fine and driving infraction, but better than nothing. If I was in my right head, I would have pushed for hit and run misdemeanor, must show in court...

B. Carfree

The governor simply dug his heels in and wouldn't sign any safe passing law unless it was watered down to this point.

It's odd. This is the same governor who formed a bike division in the state highway department during his first two terms back in the '70s (killed off by his successors) and now he comes back as an anti-bike crusader. First he was ahead of his time, now he's hopelessly behind the times.

noisebeam

AZ law got weakened as well. It states that penalties do "not apply to a bicyclist who is injured in a vehicular traffic lane when a designated bicycle lane or path is present and passable."

I'd much rather be without the AZ version of this law as it suggests that it is not as bad to hit a cyclist when they are not in a bike lane, so much for left turns, etc.

spivonious

PA has a 4' law. I haven't noticed a change in motorist behavior, but they've always been mostly good in my area. I think it's just something extra the police can charge if a pass results in a collision.

rumrunn6

riding too far to the right only encourages a close pass

ItsJustMe

As with all things, this entirely depends on where you are. There are NO absolutes.

I ride right on the fog line or in the shoulder if there's one available, and I haven't been passed closer than 3 feet in YEARS. My biggest problem is people who think I need 2 lanes of space - they will wait behind me even when I'm to the right hand side of a 3 foot shoulder to the right of a 15 foot travel lane, hold up traffic for a long time, then pull over so far to pass me that they're in the oncoming lane's shoulder.

A couple of weeks ago, I had some nutjob come up behind me as I was approaching a blind hill with a torn-up right wheel track. I was in the center of the lane. He laid on his horn and kept on it all the way up and over the hill until it was clear to pass, and even as he passed me. But even he waited until there was visibility and fully changed lanes to pass.

I do have morons passing on blind corners and hills, but they still always give me at least 3 feet of room. THey just sometimes just about slam head-on into oncoming traffic doing so.

I'm well aware that the drivers in my area are not standard, I'm just pointing out that giving absolute advice to everyone in the world about how to ride a bicycle is guaranteed to be wrong for someone.

mr_bill

Odd how a CDL with a dashcam is never ever a vigilante.

-mr. bill

kickstart

More and more trucking companies are running dash cams, mostly parameter event triggered and after a DOT reportable incident. They're not intended for "run-and-tell-daddy" vigilante law enforcement usage, they're intended to show who's actually responsible for an incident, and internal "corrective" actions for triggered events that aren't incidents.
An important distinction is event cams are accessed and assessed by responsible parties, internal and official, not the operator, vigilante cams are used and edited at the sole discretion of the operator for personal gratification.

Chris516

Exactly!! That is why I 'take the lane'!!! Motorists' think AFRAP is absolutely on the right edge!! They don't think about a cyclist's safety or right to be on the road!!!!
If I lived in California, I would be up for it.

kickstart

Yet the overwhelming majority still make an obvious effort to do the right thing. Must be a burden to know and fret over what everyone thinks.