Illinois passes bill requiring 3-foot clearance while passing

[Tom Bombadil]

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/couriernews/news/719009,3_1_EL30_A1BIKELAW_S1.article

Note the statistics from 2006 - 9 bicycle-vehicle accidents per day and 26 bicycle deaths, in Illinois alone.

[slim_77]

Glad they made an entire story of it. Couldn't find it anywhere in the Chicago Tribune.

edit: link to the full text of law. clicky. (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=095-0231)

[Bekologist]

Astonishingly, at least one Bike Forums A&S safety nannies is critical of three foot minimum passing laws because he thinks they send the wrong message to the public. :eek:

[John E]

Astonishingly, at least one Bike Forums A&S safety nannies is critical of three foot minimum passing laws because he thinks they send the wrong message to the public. :eek: What would this person propose instead? Personally, I strongly support the 3-foot passing law and would apply it to all vehicles moving at greater than pedestrian speeds.

[Bekologist]

It's been written he thinks its all golden out there on the roads if a bicyclist is properely positioned and throwing the right combination of superVC buttwaggles and steely-eyed glares to the motorists.

[Az B]

While this is a good thing, let's not get too excited. Without proper driver training and police enforcement, it really means next to nothing.

Az

[joejack951]

What would this person propose instead? Personally, I strongly support the 3-foot passing law and would apply it to all vehicles moving at greater than pedestrian speeds.

Since Bek's memory must be failing (again), the reason to be against a 3 foot passing law, which would take the place of a "safe distance" law, is that it might encourage motorists to only try and give 3 feet when often more is necessary, such as at higher speeds. I personally do not want to be passed at 3 feet by someone going 50mph more than me, especially not a vehicle on the larger side. No reasonable person would pass a pedestrian that close and I'd prefer not to do anything to make people feel that it's ok to pass a cyclist that close.

[Bekologist]

you so vigorously defend your mentor the safety nanny, joe!

I beleive the statue would encourage motorists to give AT LEAST 3 feet of passing clearances the way you intrepret it.

It puts 3 feet MINIMUM passing into the drivers' manuals. You think that's worse than educating motorists to simply 'pass safely?' and it also gives weight in the eventuality of bicyclist/motorist accidents. If a bike is hit by a passing vehicle, proving fault in the accident will be easer to ascribe to the motorist.

Do you OFTEN ride roads with 50MPH speed differentials and why do you feel a 3 feet minimum passing law WOULDN'T get you better treatment from motorists? You really believe a 3 foot passing law would get more motorists passing less safely? :D

[Recycle]

The Illinois 3 foot law does not replace the "safe distance" requirement, it adds to it.

The law reads:
(d) The operator of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle or individual proceeding in the same direction on a highway shall leave a safe distance, but not less than 3 feet, when passing the bicycle or individual and shall maintain that distance until safely past the overtaken bicycle or individual.

That same bill added the words "and safe" as bolded in the next section on road position:

Sec. 11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on roadways -Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable and safe to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under the following situations:
1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle, motorized pedal cycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or
2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or
3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, motorized pedal cycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.


The 3 foot passing minimum also appears to help define "substandard lane width" in item 3 of the road position section.

[joejack951]

I beleive the statue would encourage motorists to give AT LEAST 3 feet of passing clearances the way you intrepret it.

"At least 3 feet" still can be interpretted as "3 feet is OK."

It puts 3 feet MINIMUM passing into the drivers' manuals. You think that's worse than educating motorists to simply 'pass safely?' and it also gives weight in the eventuality of bicyclist/motorist accidents. If a bike is hit by a passing vehicle, proving fault in the accident will be easer to ascribe to the motorist.

Why not put something into the driver's manual about the reasons for passing at a safe distance? Simply saying 3 feet minimum does nothing to encourage motorists to give cyclists plenty of space. If a cyclist is hit by a passing vehicle, OBVIOUSLY the pass was NOT made at a safe distance. Having the 3 foot standard does nothing, although it could give a motorist an out who thought he was passing a cyclist at 3 feet but passed closer and the resulting wind blast caused the cyclist to crash.

Do you OFTEN ride roads with 50MPH speed differentials and why do you feel a 3 feet minimum passing law WOULDN'T get you better treatment from motorists? You really believe a 3 foot passing law would get more motorists passing less safely? :D

I do often ride roads where there's the potential for a 50mph speed differential and I do not think a 3 feet minimum law would make any difference in how I am passed. Do you think motorists will suddenly decide to study the applicable cyclist laws in the vehicle code when this law is passed? Even if a motorist does read the law, do you want them remembering "3 feet" or "safe"? I'd prefer the latter. I certainly don't expect them to remember all the little intricacies of the wording of the law. Hell, the cops around me don't even know the law that well. But they've always passed at a safe distance :)

[Bekologist]

except when they're pulling you over and ticketing you :D

[joejack951]

except when they're pulling you over and ticketing you for riding too far right than practicable :D

Too far left ;) The officer was completely in the left lane when he pulled next to me.

[dynodonn]

While this is a good thing, let's not get too excited. Without proper driver training and police enforcement, it really means next to nothing.

Az


+1

[CommuterRun]

Illinois passes bill requiring 3-foot clearance while passing

I think it's a good law, but you won't see much difference on the road. I didn't when FL did the same thing a couple years ago. The drivers who were passing with a safe separation will continue to do so, the cagers who didn't still won't, regardless what the law says.

[JeffB502]

From the article: Some drivers will move all the way over into another lane when passing a bicycle, which is a nice gesture but unnecessary and possibly dangerous to the driver. I'm just wondering...is the writer trying to imply that it's safer to give a 3 foot passing distance than a full lane? How could it be dangerous to move fully into the next lane to pass a cyclist? This statement seems to be an opinion from the writer that the 3 foot passing law will discourage motorists from making "unnecessary and possibly dangerous" complete lane changes to pass cyclists.

Riding a 55mph road on a regular basis, I have been passed by full size tractor trailers traveling near the speed limit, probably at about 3 feet, and that is a little too close for comfort, especially if I'm riding into the usual 15mph or so headwind. I really like the wording of the actual law, but I hope the message given to the general public doesn't get dumbed down to the point where people only get the "3 foot passing distance" part of it and not the "safe distance" part.

[joejack951]

From the article: I'm just wondering...is the writer trying to imply that it's safer to give a 3 foot passing distance than a full lane? How could it be dangerous to move fully into the next lane to pass a cyclist? This statement seems to be an opinion from the writer that the 3 foot passing law will discourage motorists from making "unnecessary and possibly dangerous" complete lane changes to pass cyclists.

Riding a 55mph road on a regular basis, I have been passed by full size tractor trailers traveling near the speed limit, probably at about 3 feet, and that is a little too close for comfort, especially if I'm riding into the usual 15mph or so headwind. I really like the wording of the actual law, but I hope the message given to the general public doesn't get dumbed down to the point where people only get the "3 foot passing distance" part of it and not the "safe distance" part.

Exactly my point. I didn't read the article otherwise I probably would have caught the same statement. As you have stated, that's completely the opposite attitude that motorists need to have. It's just as important to not have motorists thinking that way on a 2 lane road as it is on a 4 lane road.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

While this is a good thing, let's not get too excited. Without proper driver training and police enforcement, it really means next to nothing.

Az


They have that law in Fl, too.
Insert 500 roflmao smilies -----here-----.


Thank goodness for lanes ! At least we get 20 inches or so :beer:

[gattm99]

We were talking about that while riding Saturday Morning. While I don't see it having much of an effect it does put bicycle saftey into the publics view for a moment, and I can't really see how it could hurt.

At the very least it at least reminds some people we are legally allowed on the roads.

[noisebeam]

it does put bicycle saftey into the publics view for a moment,

Which is why there needs to be a continuous reminder of safe passing laws (which already exist outside of any 3ft law).

I have more than several times heard the AZ 3ft law being interpreted as 'Give cyclist 3ft of space [on the right side of the road]' Twice by cyclists!

That is now a common gross misinterpretation that can only be prevented thru public awareness campaigns. The alternate is to not have a 3ft law and instead focus on safe passing awareness which is less likely to be mis-stated.

Al

[richardmasoner]

(A wasted opportunity to discuss real bike advocacy by descending yet again into name calling. *sigh*)

3 foot passing laws are a distraction from real issues of cyclist safety and waste of political capital. I'm in agreement with Paul Dorn, who writes (http://bikecommutetips.blogspot.com/2007/01/more-on-ab-60-3-foot-passing.html) (regarding a similar 3 foot law in California) that "this bill will offer negligible improvement for bicyclists, and is a distraction from more pressing priorities. AB 60 is a trifling piece of legislation for California's bicycling community, which has many legislative needs and, sadly, minimal political clout."

Read more about his and other's views on the 3 foot law at his Bike Commute website (http://bikecommutetips.blogspot.com/2007/01/more-on-ab-60-3-foot-passing.html). Paul is former director of the California Bicycle Coalition, served on the board of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, and was involved in the early days of San Francisco Critical Mass. In case you have any unwarranted suspicions, Paul is also a committed advocate of facilities for cyclists.

[richardmasoner]

For those who believe the myth that a hit-from-behind is prima facie evidence of violation of the 3 foot law: In many hit-from-behind reports, (1) the responding police take statements from the motorist only, even when the cyclist survives; (2) the motorist statement is invariably "He swerved right in front of me!"; and (3) if the cyclist survives, the police tickets the cyclist for impeding traffic.

[genec]

For those who believe the myth that a hit-from-behind is prima facie evidence of violation of the 3 foot law: In many hit-from-behind reports, (1) the responding police take statements from the motorist only, even when the cyclist survives; (2) the motorist statement is invariably "He swerved right in front of me!"; and (3) if the cyclist survives, the police tickets the cyclist for impeding traffic.

And what would you expect the motorist to say? "Oh no, he was right there, but I clipped him anyway?" :rolleyes:

[genec]

Which is why there needs to be a continuous reminder of safe passing laws (which already exist outside of any 3ft law).

I have more than several times heard the AZ 3ft law being interpreted as 'Give cyclist 3ft of space [on the right side of the road]' Twice by cyclists!

That is now a common gross misinterpretation that can only be prevented thru public awareness campaigns. The alternate is to not have a 3ft law and instead focus on safe passing awareness which is less likely to be mis-stated.

Al

Apparently motorists forget all the laws they were taught earlier in life as soon as they turn the key... I've noticed several signs around here stating: "Must stop for pedestrians in crosswalk" and "Must stop for pedestrians before turning." These are not unusual intersections... but apparently motorists have "not stopped" in the past... and must be constantly reminded.

[noisebeam]

Apparently motorists forget all the laws they were taught earlier in life as soon as they turn the key... I've noticed several signs around here stating: "Must stop for pedestrians in crosswalk" and "Must stop for pedestrians before turning." These are not unusual intersections... but apparently motorists have "not stopped" in the past... and must be constantly reminded.

Forget is a problem, but just as bad and in this case worse is misinterpretation. Whenever I ask non-cyclists about if they know the 3ft law about 1/3 of them tell me that it means giving cyclist 3ft of pavement space on the side of the road.

So this mis-interpretation creates a worse effect for cyclists who are not using the 3ft margin of the road then if the law (or really the marketing of the law) had not happened at all.

Al

[genec]

Forget is a problem, but just as bad and in this case worse is misinterpretation. Whenever I ask non-cyclists about if they know the 3ft law about 1/3 of them tell me that it means giving cyclist 3ft of pavement space on the side of the road.

So this mis-interpretation creates a worse effect for cyclists who are not using the 3ft margin of the road then if the law (or really the marketing of the law) had not happened at all.

Al

arrrg. Yet again the laws are interpreted by the minds of those that feel they own them... There is no solution. But then again without 3 foot laws... it's "get on the sidewalk." :rolleyes:

[DPN]

While this is a good thing, let's not get too excited. Without proper driver training and police enforcement, it really means next to nothing.

Az


Arkansas passed a 3 feet clearance law about 6 months ago.

I can't tell it's made a difference at all. It won't be enforced anyway. With all the laws already NOT being enforced, why would I expect this one to be?

DPN

[richardmasoner]

And what would you expect the motorist to say? "Oh no, he was right there, but I clipped him anyway?"

That's exactly the point: Almost everybody will lie to protect themselves, yet the police almost always believe the motorist no matter what his statement was when it comes to collisions with cylists.

Brad Aaron at Streetsblog makes makes note of this here (http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/12/14/daily-news-to-deceased-cyclists-your-fault/) and here (http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/10/19/details-emerge-in-brooklyn-cyclist-deaths/).

[mikalo]

In this technological age, is there so kind of laser light to fit on your bike to show cars how much is 3 feet away from the bike? I'm thinking / dreaming of a kind of light saber, as in Star Wars movies, that would not be a weapon but just a highy visible horizontal line of light.

[maddyfish]

^^^^^^^When I ride with the wife I attach a homemade flag that sticks out to the left of my bike 33". It is a 3/8" steel rod with a homemade flag. It makes a TERRIBLE noise when a car hits it. Then I have to wipe all the paint off the end.
So it shows how far minimum to pass, and enforces it if they don't give that much room.

[BikEthan]

Whenever I ask non-cyclists about if they know the 3ft law about 1/3 of them tell me that it means giving cyclist 3ft of pavement space on the side of the road.Al

What the hell? By that logic you should be able to run over any cyclist not riding in the freaking door zone, or taking the lane for a turn etc...

It should be a lot harder to get a driver's license than it is, and there should be a LOT more education involved.

[noisebeam]

What the hell? By that logic you should be able to run over any cyclist not riding in the freaking door zone, or taking the lane for a turn etc...

It should be a lot harder to get a driver's license than it is, and there should be a LOT more education involved.

The situation isn't necessarily helped by this bumper sticker. The big words are what stand out. The key detail (the arrow, the small text) does not. What you can read in the attached thumbnail is what other drivers see when glancing at the bumper sticker.

And when one recites the slogan: Share the Street, Bikes Get 3 Feet - what that does sound like it means?

Al

[genec]

What the hell? By that logic you should be able to run over any cyclist not riding in the freaking door zone, or taking the lane for a turn etc...

It should be a lot harder to get a driver's license than it is, and there should be a LOT more education involved.

Oh it's going to be harder to get a driver's license... but not for the reasons you may want or expect. A thing called Real ID (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/secure_driver_s_licenses) is taking hold... something that is supposed to help prevent terrorism. Part of the 9/11 commission recommendations... because about 3000 people died. Apparently the death of 45,000 people annually doesn't mean a thing... and to me that is the greater terror.

[tomcryar]

I think it's a good law, but you won't see much difference on the road. I didn't when FL did the same thing a couple years ago. The drivers who were passing with a safe separation will continue to do so, the cagers who didn't still won't, regardless what the law says.



yeah, it really doesn't mean anything because there are no "enforcement rules", meaning that law enforcement personnel treat this law as such they would, say, jaywalking. It is meaningless. I grew up riding in the streets of Pittsburgh, and never did anyone "have" to bring up this subject. It was common knowledge to go with the flow, that is, "common sense"---which is so very sorely lacking in today's realm....

[CommuterRun]

Well, to clarify what I said earlier; I don't think it's as much a matter as LE not enforcing the law, as it is that there is never a LEO behind the car that does buzz me. They can't be everywhere, all the time.

I know some of the local law enforcement well enough to know that if they saw a driver do this, that driver would, at the least, be sitting through a roadside class on cyclist's Rights and the law.

[Hocam]

PA has this law and maybe 1/10 of cars follow it outside of the city, on quiet back roads.

[joejack951]

PA has this law and maybe 1/10 of cars follow it outside of the city, on quiet back roads.

Most of my riding is in PA (with smaller but not insignificant amounts of riding in Philly) and it's rare that someone passes me without completely or almost completely changing lanes, even on narrow 2 lane roads. Then again, as many here know, I tend to take up a lot of space :)