Advocacy & Safety - Editorial in Cali shooting down 3' rule

Sort of sad (http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/oped/ci_5191997). The author misses the point. Especially this:


Imagine some of our roads — what if it's a two-lane highway with no way to pass a bicyclist unless your vehicle crosses to the opposite side of the road. In fact, unlike current law, the proposed measure allows a car to cross over a double yellow line and enter a center turn lane to pass a bicyclist. Doesn't that increase the risk of a terrible head-on collision?

A cyclists life is disposable so long as there isn't a car to car or car to truck head on collision? Would we run over the cyclist to stay in our lane? Why not slow down and wait until its safe to pass?

Does a cyclist have the right to the lane in California?



I'm hoping something like this will happen here... out of our urban centers VT is a nice place to ride low traffic, friendly folks - but in any of the larger towns folks seem to like to buzz you as close as they can. Having a 3' law, while not perfect, is a good start to reminding drivers we have a right to the road. I'm not sure how enforceable it is... but at least it would be on the books that in theory bikes have rights, and deserve a little room on the road.

The same objections have been raised to the 3' passing law proposed in the Oregon Legislature this session.

Doesn't that increase the risk of a terrible head-on collision?

Only if the driver is brain dead.

Imagine some of our roads — what if it's a two-lane highway with no way to pass a bicyclist unless your vehicle crosses to the opposite side of the road. In fact, unlike current law, the proposed measure allows a car to cross over a double yellow line and enter a center turn lane to pass a bicyclist. Doesn't that increase the risk of a terrible head-on collision?
Tells me the author of the article is too dumb to understand to not pass when it's not safe. Also tells me that it's rediculously easy and inexpensive to get a DL in CA, as it is in the rest of the U.S. Absolute minimal training required.

Now that I think about it, I don't recall any info in the DMV driving handbook about cyclists at all when I first got my license in Cali. That was about 20 years ago. Does anyone know if there is anything in the new driver's handbooks these days about driving and cyclists? If not, maybe they should pass a law to get it in there.

Ignorance sucks!

What would be hilarious except that teh author is serious is that he argues the 3' rule is subjective, but current law saying passing at a safe distance is OK.

Now that I think about it, I don't recall any info in the DMV driving handbook about cyclists at all when I first got my license in Cali. That was about 20 years ago. Does anyone know if there is anything in the new driver's handbooks these days?

Ignorance sucks!
I don't bother with the handbook anymore.

I discovered the actual vehicle code on line a few years ago and haven't looked back.

Go to: dmv.ca.gov (http://dmv.ca.gov/)
Click on Publications (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/pubs.htm).
Scroll down until you find: 2007 California Vehicle Code (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vc.htm) (HTML); click on it.
That gets you to the index page.
For example, if you click on P (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vc_index_p.htm), you get to all topics that start with P, like PASSING.
Under PASSING, you can find:


Left side, use of, 21650, 21750

If you click on 21750 (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21750.htm), you'll find:


Overtake and Pass to Left
21750. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle or a bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle, subject to the limitations and exceptions hereinafter stated.


Replacing 21750 with the 3' law will buy us nothing in practice, and will arguably reduce the legal "safe passing distance" from something more than 3' to only 3' in some instances.

Tells me the author of the article is too dumb to understand to not pass when it's not safe. Also tells me that it's rediculously easy and inexpensive to get a DL in CA, as it is in the rest of the U.S. Absolute minimal training required.

Bingo!!!

And what ever is learned in that "minimal training" is barely retained, and often supplanted with false hoods and bad habits.

It truly amazes me that so many motorists (including the author) fail to realize that they must give way to those in front of them, or pass with caution, only when it is safe to do so.

The article is a mix bag. On one hand it has driver centric ideas that they some how HAVE to pass a cyclist. Even with on coming traffic. On the other, he does have a point. The law can't be inforced and there is already a similar law that exists. Seems more like a law that to push some kind of political agenda then to increase the safety of cyclists. Money should be better spent to actually see what the problem is, and the best and meaningful way to remedy it.

Perhaps the only real positive that might come out of such a law is to give notice to drivers that indeed cyclists do belong on the road.

Perhaps the only real positive that might come out of such a law is to give notice to drivers that indeed cyclists do belong on the road.
Why would changing the wording of some obscure section of the vehicle code to say "shall pass to the left at least 3 feet" instead of "shall pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of ..." give noticed to drivers of anything?

All this is much ado about almost nothing.

Why would changing the wording of some obscure section of the vehicle code to say "shall pass to the left at least 3 feet" instead of "shall pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of ..." give noticed to drivers of anything?

All this is much ado about almost nothing.

Well, around here, when any change is made to our local laws the news runs a story on all of the changes for a few consecutive nights.
So I guess changing the wording would put the fact they motorists should pass safely fresh in their minds.

you asked

Why would changing the wording of some obscure section of the vehicle code to say "shall pass to the left at least 3 feet" instead of "shall pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of ..." give noticed to drivers of anything?

All this is much ado about almost nothing.

Frankly it is not the change in wording, but the debate that was illustrated in the OP that gives notice. Simple public debate that motorists are going to follow for their own reasons.

The law doesn't even have to take effect.

Now that I think about it, I don't recall any info in the DMV driving handbook about cyclists at all when I first got my license in Cali. That was about 20 years ago. Does anyone know if there is anything in the new driver's handbooks these days about driving and cyclists? If not, maybe they should pass a law to get it in there.

Ignorance sucks!
Yes, there is a whole page in the driver's handbook.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm

The best response so far has been from a D.A.. It would make it easier to say someone wasn't passing at a safe distance. With what I see on the roads and parking lots today, anything but a collision is thought to be safe.

German traffic law has required motorists to give cyclists 1 meter (~40") of clearance when overtaking since I lived there as a kid (late 60s). I don't recall too many head-on collisions being attributed to this law, although I do recall motorists being very diligent about obeying this law, and waiting behind a cyclist for a safe place to pass if necessary.

German traffic law has required motorists to give cyclists 1 meter (~40") of clearance when overtaking since I lived there as a kid (late 60s). I don't recall too many head-on collisions being attributed to this law, although I do recall motorists being very diligent about obeying this law, and waiting behind a cyclist for a safe place to pass if necessary.

But the real difference is that Germany takes licensing procedures seriously, and drivers are actually trained. And because of this attitude the drivers themselves take driving more seriously. The law itself is not nearly as important as having trained, reasonable people behind the wheel. Not the ignorant, self righteous morons that are so prevalent on US roads.

In the US they hand out licenses like water, and there are so many unlicensed drivers that the cops can't keep up. 43,000 people every year die on our roads, and it's simply not a problem that seems to concern most people.

Az

The best response so far has been from a D.A.. It would make it easier to say someone wasn't passing at a safe distance. With what I see on the roads and parking lots today, anything but a collision is thought to be safe.

Totally agree with that. It is difficult if not impossible to enforce vague, ambiguous laws like that. Everyone's definition of "safe distance" is different, and I can guarantee a motorists definition is smaller than a bicyclists. The end result is exactly as you said that these laws do not get enforced unless someone actually gets hit.

Only if the driver is brain dead.

Aren't a lot of them?

Frankly it is not the change in wording, but the debate that was illustrated in the OP that gives notice. Simple public debate that motorists are going to follow for their own reasons.

The law doesn't even have to take effect.
I'd like to see it take effect here. Such a law may make it easier for the cyclist to go after the driver's insurance, and if someone is going to hit a cyclist because they didn't want to take the time to pass safely, why shouldn't they be cited and get extra points for their poor judgment? I know the police here would welcome anything extra they could cite a driver with, since unless you're intoxicated, traffic infractions are all you can get if you hit or kill a cyclist in Oregon.

Instead of/as well as posting here, why don't California posters nail His Numptiness to the wall in letters to the Editor.

Being an obvious numpty, he won't understand your reasoning, but some of his readers must have IQs which reach double figures

Instead of/as well as posting here, why don't California posters nail His Numptiness to the wall in letters to the Editor.

Being an obvious numpty, he won't understand your reasoning, but some of his readers must have IQs which reach double figures

Yes, there are many of them, and they live in large houses far from work, making it necessary to drive cars. There are a lot of letters from cyclists hitting the papers, but the papers are forming the debate from the side of the motorized public. I'm not sure that any of the reporters has ever moved from point A to point B on a bicycle. Any that do usually are for removing bicycles from the roads completely for our own safety.

The 3' law would make it extra illegal to intentionally buzz a cyclist. Sounds like a good law if you ask me.

I agree. It takes away the ambiguity of "at a safe distance" and makes it a defined distance.

I agree. It takes away the ambiguity of "at a safe distance" and makes it a defined distance.

The problem is that a safe distance varies depending on speed differential and size differential between the vehicles in question. A large truck travelling at 100km/h (60MPH) passing a bicycle travelling at 20km/h (12MPH) jprobably requires about 3m(10') for a safe passing distance. A better wording would be "a safe passing distance or 3' whichever is greater", let the driver then decide, if 3' is insufficient he/she has two options, use a greater distance, or reduce speed to a point where 3' is sufficient. If you get passed 100 times, I would say, from personal experience, 40 drivers will change lanes, 58 will slow down, pass, then speed up again, and 2 will be jerks. The funny thing is, because the first two actions are so common, we don't even register most of them, it's the jerks you remember, which is why jerks seem to be much more prevelent then they really are. I wouldn't expect the ratio of decent passes to jerk passes will change much, because jerks are well, jerks, and unless you can some how rewire their personalities, they will remain jerks.

Somewhat true, however 3' mandates a minimum. Decent drivers will be decent even with an ambiguous passing distance requirement. Jerks will be jerks just to be jerks no matter what the law says, but in a situation like ax0n describes (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=267781) it snatches away the jerk's claim to safe distance.

In your large truck example, I've found about 3' to be adequate. They just appear to be more imposing because they're bigger. Being passed by a large truck is no more dangerous than being passed by a Carolla, probably less so, since the truck requires more stringent licensing and is more likely driven by a professional driver. The slipstream is noticeable, but overrated. However, the Carolla doesn't need to be within 3' of me either, if they're going 5 mph, or over, faster than I am.

Tells me the author of the article is too dumb to understand to not pass when it's not safe.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people fall into this category. I have actually witnessed a couple horrible accidents where it looked like an idiot pulled in front of a speeding car.

Multiple times when telling others about what I saw, I've heard people express sympathy for the person who caused the accident along the lines of "If he'd been waiting a long time to turn, I can see why he pulled out when he did." Translation: if someone gets tired of waiting, there is no need for common sense or safety. Speaking for myself, I have more sympathy for the person they pulled in front of who may have been severely injured or killed for doing nothing wrong.

Some people seem hardwired to think they should NEVER be held up by a cyclist. However, they'll wait 3 minutes for some idiot to turn left across a busy lane when he could have turned with a green at the light a block or two ahead. They understand if someone stops the car entirely in the middle of a rush hour lane to wait a minute for a parking spot which must be backed into.

For some reason, letting up on the gas for 20 seconds so that no one meets a violent death is too much to ask. But hey, we live in a society where restaurants have to take seriously the possibility of people suing them for getting fat after eating too much. I'm not sure how much we can expect.

Being passed by a large truck is no more dangerous than being passed by a Carolla, probably less so, since the truck requires more stringent licensing and is more likely driven by a professional driver.

Having acquired a commercial driver's license not too long ago, I was a little dismayed at just how easy the test was. My own view is that there are safe, skilled drivers to be found driving every size and type of vehicle, and there are dangerous idiots to be found driving every size and type of vehicle.

That's true. However, it has been my experience that, as a group, drivers of vehicles requiring a CDL are the most courteous and professional on the road.

Why would changing the wording of some obscure section of the vehicle code to say "shall pass to the left at least 3 feet" instead of "shall pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of ..." give noticed to drivers of anything?

All this is much ado about almost nothing.

There might be a weak relationship between changing of the law, discussion of such changes in public forums--newspapers for instance--and driver education/notice of the law. Of course, this is speculative.

Personally, I prefer the explicit 3' distance than a "safe distance". It avoids the human element involved in interpreting "safe distance".

Having acquired a commercial driver's license not too long ago, I was a little dismayed at just how easy the test was.

It may be easy but it is probably more difficult than the standard drivers license.

I can't speak for anyone in California.

But the "what if the cyclist drifts closer and then *I* get a ticket" argument would come off as lame in a grade 6 debating class.

Either way, if such a law were ever passed here it would be unenforced and ignored, as are almost all other traffic laws.

Either way, if such a law were ever passed here it would be unenforced and ignored, as are almost all other traffic laws.
The only way it will be used in is post accident. But so can the existing safe pass vehicle & bicycle law.

In AZ which has had this law >5yrs it has only been used twice and in both cases post fatality.

Al

Perhaps we need to actually tell motorists the law!

The only way it will be used in is post accident. But so can the existing safe pass vehicle & bicycle law.

In AZ which has had this law >5yrs it has only been used twice and in both cases post fatality.

Al

I believe it ... regarding when it will be and was enforced. Even so, making the distance explicit makes the law easy to interpret and--presumably--easier to find the driver guilty.

Other than the previous post that mentioned differential in speed--I am still thinking whether it is the right measure--can anyone else describe situations where three feet is not enough clearance?

I was thinking of situations where weather comes into play. But I am unsure how I would clearly define those situations.

Perhaps we need to actually tell motorists the law!

There is a long list of things that need to be told and explained to the population. :D

Question: Others have expressed an opinion for stricter controls over auto licenses. That is, to make it more difficult or set the driver education bar higher for an auto license. Do you also think that one should have a cycling license to ride on the streets?

There is a long list of things that need to be told and explained to the population. :D

Question: Others have expressed an opinion for stricter controls over auto licenses. That is, to make it more difficult or set the driver education bar higher for an auto license. Do you also think that one should have a cycling license to ride on the streets?

Regarding the license, no, however I do think that just as we teach kids how to properly cross streets when they are young, we should also teach the basics of traffic cycling... just as much as we eventualy teach sex education.

It baffles me that while driving is a life long activity, we somehow feel that 6 weeks of seminar like training is enough.

For me it all stop making any sense when some puke got $$$$$ because the coffee cup wasn't safety labeled and they burnt themselves...(you know it), while driving..

Perhaps we need to actually tell motorists the law!
Most people don't take legal advice offered by strangers they encounter on the street very seriously. Besides, when was the last time you saw all the drivers obeying the law? Take the speed limit. Everyone knows what it is, and there are signs everywhere. Yet most people drive too fast anyway.

Most people don't take legal advice offered by strangers they encounter on the street very seriously. Besides, when was the last time you saw all the drivers obeying the law? Take the speed limit. Everyone knows what it is, and there are signs everywhere. Yet most people drive too fast anyway.

Sorry I meant the royal "we." Although I do carry cards to give to motorists lest they are totally unaware of the law.

Yes the speed limit and rolling stop signs are prime examples of problems that should not be overlooked. They should be enforced.

Most people don't take legal advice offered by strangers they encounter on the street very seriously. Besides, when was the last time you saw all the drivers obeying the law? Take the speed limit. Everyone knows what it is, and there are signs everywhere. Yet most people drive too fast anyway.

Although people still consider the law when choosing their actions. Using the speed limit as an example, I think people will drive slower in a 30 mph zone than in a 55 mph zone.

So reminding motorists about laws governing cyclists--in my opinion--would have an effect on how they drive around cyclists.

Around here I routinely see city buses going over the double yellow because of parked cars.

Not to mention occasional city buses passing with 3" clearence, rather than 3'



Ed

Heres a thought provoker though: I'm riding on a two lane road and the motorist has no way to pass safely whilst also leaving a 3' margin.

Should I:

a) Wave them through when there's no oncoming traffic, accepting they'll pass <3' away
b) Stop at a suitable place and let the traffic go past

Some may argue, particularly against option B, but on mountain roads, there are often specific instructions for slow traffic to use turnouts and allow other vehicles to pass. Of course it would be a pain, but it is antisocial (illegal?) to impede traffic.

I have routinely used option A, and frequently this results in a courteous nod from an appreciative driver:- now everyone gan get along and feels better.

Ed

Why do people keep insisting that a 3' law cannot be enforced? There are all types of range finders in use today. Commercial ones for measuring the size of a room, military laser ones for measuring the distance to the enemy and so forth. It would be simple to make a laser range finder that could be mounted on a bike and sold to police departments. One cop rides the bike in plain clothes, measures the distance of each passer, when one gets too close, the cop calls ahead to a marked police car and the lawbreaker gets ticketed.
Give a few tickets, put it on the nightly news and it will have an impact.

Heres a thought provoker though: I'm riding on a two lane road and the motorist has no way to pass safely whilst also leaving a 3' margin.

Should I:

a) Wave them through when there's no oncoming traffic, accepting they'll pass <3' away
b) Stop at a suitable place and let the traffic go past

Some may argue, particularly against option B, but on mountain roads, there are often specific instructions for slow traffic to use turnouts and allow other vehicles to pass. Of course it would be a pain, but it is antisocial (illegal?) to impede traffic.

I have routinely used option A, and frequently this results in a courteous nod from an appreciative driver:- now everyone gan get along and feels better.

Ed

I started a thread (with a poll) about this a while back. My personal tactic is based on experience that motorists have no problems passing a cyclist by crossing over a double yellow assuming the sightlines are decent, and I do not object to them doing that. When I believe it's obvious that they can pass but they choose not to, I will wave them around. If they still refuse to pass and traffic is starting to build up behind them, I will pull over at the first safe location. If it's just them behind me, they can sit there for as long as they want :) On these types of roads, if you give the motorist even the hint of the option that they don't need to cross the centerline to pass, a significant portion will do everything possible to not cross the centerline even if it means passing much closer than 3 feet. If you make it blatantly obvious that they need to cross the centerline to pass (riding at least to the left of the right tire track to as far left as the left tire track) the vast majority will completely change lanes. Any bozos who decide to not leave much space are easily dealt with by shifting right to create more space if needed (space that's only there if you started out far enough left though).

It is illegal to impede traffic and California's law is similar to Delaware's in this respect. Impeding traffic is quantified as going below the normal and reasonable speed of the roadway and having 5 or more vehicles behind you on a roadway having only one lane for each direction (note that on a 2 lane each way road, it's not legally possible to impede traffic). Once you meet these criteria, you should pull off the roadway either at a spot specifically for this purpose or at the first safe location. I consider wide driveways usable locations as well as minor cross streets where I can turn right then u turn and turn right back onto the road. I've very rarely had to do this but a few times a year I find myself on a road with lots of traffic in both directions and so I do my duty as a slow moving vehicle and pull over.

Why do people keep insisting that a 3' law cannot be enforced? There are all types of range finders in use today. Commercial ones for measuring the size of a room, military laser ones for measuring the distance to the enemy and so forth. It would be simple to make a laser range finder that could be mounted on a bike and sold to police departments. One cop rides the bike in plain clothes, measures the distance of each passer, when one gets too close, the cop calls ahead to a marked police car and the lawbreaker gets ticketed.
Give a few tickets, put it on the nightly news and it will have an impact.

Wow, interesting idea.

Say I bet they could do the same thing for speeding motorists too...

It is illegal to impede traffic and California's law is similar to Delaware's in this respect. Impeding traffic is quantified as going below the normal and reasonable speed of the roadway and having 5 or more vehicles behind you on a roadway having only one lane for each direction (note that on a 2 lane each way road, it's not legally possible to impede traffic). Once you meet these criteria, you should pull off the roadway either at a spot specifically for this purpose or at the first safe location. I consider wide driveways usable locations as well as minor cross streets where I can turn right then u turn and turn right back onto the road. I've very rarely had to do this but a few times a year I find myself on a road with lots of traffic in both directions and so I do my duty as a slow moving vehicle and pull over.

One of the issues with roads, is that most drivers see the speed limit as a minimum, and the maximum something a little (or a lot) faster. This means that if you abide by the speed limit law, often you are also impeding traffic who want to break that law, so who does the cop charge the guy abiding by the speed limit, or the 15 impatient yahoos behind him that want to go faster?

So if we have a road where the speed limit is 40km/h (~25MPH) and your on your bike going 35km/h (~22MPH) are you legally impeding traffic? This is where the law stops being black or white and starts becoming a shade of gray. Now, what if your driving your car, at 35km/h when the speed limit is 40km/h, are you still impeding traffic? Well the guy behind you who wants to go 70km/h (~43MPH) on that stretch, thinks you are impeding him! So, it becomes a cops call, give you a ticket for impeding traffic, or wait until Yahoo decides to endanger life and limb by passing (usually too close if your on a bike), and then exceeding that speed limit.

It is illegal to impede traffic and California's law is similar to Delaware's in this respect. Impeding traffic is quantified as going below the normal and reasonable speed of the roadway and having 5 or more vehicles behind you on a roadway having only one lane for each direction (note that on a 2 lane each way road, it's not legally possible to impede traffic). Once you meet these criteria, you should pull off the roadway either at a spot specifically for this purpose or at the first safe location. I consider wide driveways usable locations as well as minor cross streets where I can turn right then u turn and turn right back onto the road. I've very rarely had to do this but a few times a year I find myself on a road with lots of traffic in both directions and so I do my duty as a slow moving vehicle and pull over.

Impeding traffic does not apply to bicycles. This has been proven in court. It's in the BF archives someplace....

One of the issues with roads, is that most drivers see the speed limit as a minimum, and the maximum something a little (or a lot) faster. This means that if you abide by the speed limit law, often you are also impeding traffic who want to break that law, so who does the cop charge the guy abiding by the speed limit, or the 15 impatient yahoos behind him that want to go faster?

So if we have a road where the speed limit is 40km/h (~25MPH) and your on your bike going 35km/h (~22MPH) are you legally impeding traffic? This is where the law stops being black or white and starts becoming a shade of gray. Now, what if your driving your car, at 35km/h when the speed limit is 40km/h, are you still impeding traffic? Well the guy behind you who wants to go 70km/h (~43MPH) on that stretch, thinks you are impeding him! So, it becomes a cops call, give you a ticket for impeding traffic, or wait until Yahoo decides to endanger life and limb by passing (usually too close if your on a bike), and then exceeding that speed limit.

Turning off roadway by slow-moving vehicle.

On a 2-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, behind which 5 or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section, a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

The above is the actual text of the law. One could try to argue that because people normally drive 40mph in the 25mph zones that someone driving at 25mph is impeding traffic. I'd like to see them tell that to a cop though. Personally, if I am going within 5mph of the speed limit, I'm not too concerned about being cited for impeding traffic. I've had a guy behind me pulled over for honking at me for going below the speed limit when there was no safe place to pull over. I was doing about 15 in a 35 at the time.

It really is a judgement call on the part of the slow moving vehicle operator. If I felt my life was being endangered by some impatient idiot, I'd pull over immediately. If someone's just honking, I'll wait until it's a little more convenient for me.

Note that all of this applies only on roads with one lane for each direction.