Advocacy & Safety - Too much...

Colorado is hopefully putting a 3 foot law into effect. Our county sheriff is opposing it as it will just be too hard to enforce. :rolleyes: This is the same guy that wrote the bike hating crap on the county website.

The comments are ridiculous. More of the same old junk about taxing us, or license fees, or clown costumes, or whatever else crap they spew. I'm disheartened, I'll tell you. I don't know where this car entitlement stuff comes from.

Really, all I want to do is be able to ride from point a to point b and back again without fearing for my life or knowing that I, piloting a 30 pound vehicle, am paying way more attention than people piloting a 3000 pound vehicle.

I need to be cheered up. I need to know that not everyone hates me when they see me, because right now, that's how I feel.

Proposal to ease enforcement:

Get one of those flash flag sticks on the side of your bike (about 3 feet long) and put a 2 or 3 nails at the tip so they create a recognizable scratch pattern.

Its probably self enforcing at that rate... but if cops could also learn to regonize the scratch pattern...

down here in fla we have a 3ft law which makes it also legal and entitled, if i read it right, to occupy the center of any lane deamed legally unsafe for passing a cyclist. this means that one may travel no more than two abreast in any that is less than 14 ft in width

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

good luck with passage and enforcement...

as i've found, sometimes being cheered up is knowing that you're not alone

Since Florida went from the ambiguous "at a safe distance" to the specific "3 feet" I haven't seen any practical difference. The motorists who gave me plenty of room before still do; the ones who didn't still don't. I've never heard of anyone getting cited for this.

Law enforcement can't be everywhere. The only practical way I see to enforce this law is that it's one more thing to charge a passing motorist with if they hit the cyclist.

Just to keep you in the loop, this made it all the way through Senate today, House is next!

I'm thinking of mounting a camera on my bike, maybe then it'll catch the number of that truck...

So, laws only have value if they can be enforced by the police?

So, laws only have value if they can be enforced by the police?

Absolutely. An unenforced law (either by choice or inability) is only a suggestion. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't need the judicial system.

Absolutely. An unenforced law (either by choice or inability) is only a suggestion. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't need the judicial system.

Do you need someone watching over you all the time to make sure you do the right thing?

Do you need someone watching over you all the time to make sure you do the right thing?

No, but you have to face the facts.

1. Following the law doesn't necessarily mean doing 'the right thing.'

2. Most people don't follow laws simply because it's the law, especially when faced with even the slightest inconvenience. People follow the law because of perceived consequences. A law with no possible consequences is worthless.

Although I support a 3 foot rule out of principle as well as the potential for a driver to have another ticket tacked on to whatever they're getting if they hit a cyclist, in practice it IS difficult if not impossible to put into effect outside that.

So, laws only have value if they can be enforced by the police?

actually, I was recently run off the road in front of a deputy, I stopped and went back... anyway, when I talked to a Lt. about this, I was told that the "laws" "are guidelines and it was up to the deputy to decide what to enforce." this being said, I wish I'd written down his name etc. (hind sight), I now feel that it is within my rights to choose which "guidelines" I feel like following...

know your rights... am I still in the right thread?

We (Maine) passed a 3' law in the summer of 2007. Subjectively, I feel like it has made a difference in how much room I've given, but of course that's only anecdotal evidence. There could be other variables at play, like maybe I ride more assertively now than I used to, or I just plain don't remember what it was like before so I only think it's changed.

When we passed that, we also passed that it's legal for passers to cross a double-yellow if it's safe to do so, in order to give the cyclist his or her 3'. I'm convinced that helps too. I have some sections of my commute that are on a 2-lane road with no shoulder, so I have to ride into the lane a bit. (Some would take the middle of the lane, but that's another debate.) When the opposing lane is clear, about half of the passers pull way the heck over to the other side in order to give me, like, 10' of space. It's almost too much. Makes me nervous they'll eventually get tired of going to so much trouble, when they don't even really need to!

I agree it's not very enforceable. From a practical standpoint, I think the only way to really get ticketed for a traffic offense is to either have it directly observed by a law enforcement officer, or if it results in an accident and there are witnesses. Otherwise, it's just a "he said/she said" situation. Of course, a cop could conceivably observe a too-close pass while sitting there watching for speeders, but that's probably not even something they'd think about, or even notice if they saw it, unless it was pointed out to them.

One other thing you can do, though, and I have, is if you get the license number of the car, you can file a police report. Won't do that much, due to the "he said/she said" problem, but if you're lucky, the officer taking the report may promise to contact the registrant and let them know about the law. (At least that's what they say.) Or, in the case of a commercial vehicle, if you get a vehicle number (usually in big numbers on the back of the truck), you can contact the company and let them know about it. In both cases where I've followed through on this, I ended up talking to someone who sounded pretty sympathetic and said they'd definitely say something to the driver about it. So at least that's a little bit of driver education happening, one incident at a time.

We just had another 9 year old killed because of cell phone use while driving. This makes the second 9 year old killed in the last 3 months. We have another bill being pushed through the legislature that will ban cell phone use while driving and people are pissed about it! Dear lord... The car is king. It's pathetic. Do we really need to be multi-tasking while hurtling through space in a 5000 pound vehicle? It makes me sick that so many people think it's fine... It makes me even sicker that these same people ***** about the fact that if this law goes through, bicyclists won't have to do the same thing. Is logic not taught in our schools anymore? Really, I'm as much of a danger to others as a distracted motorist?

We just had another 9 year old killed because of cell phone use while driving.

Would a 3 foot law have helped?

Would a 3 foot law have helped?

I'm hoping that the law banning cell phone use while driving will...

I'm thinking of mounting a camera on my bike, maybe then it'll catch the number of that truck...

I already do that (http://bikesafer.blogspot.com) and we DO have a 3 foot law and it rarely makes any difference. Many cops don't even want to look at the video. I mainly use the cameras in case a cop cites me for "obstructing traffic", or if I get hit, then I have proof that I was not in the wrong.

The one thing the 3 foot law does do is gives a specific minimum lane width for taking the lane.

What I mean by that is, if my bike is 2 feet wide and cars need to give a minimum of 3 feet of clearance, if the car is 7 feet wide and the lane is 11 feet, you can do the math and see that in that situation there is no legal way the car and bike can share the lane. 5 feet for me and the bike and 7 feet for the car is 12 feet if the lane is only 11 feet wide, there is no legal way the car can share the lane with the bike. That scenario also assumes the cyclist is riding right on the edge of the roadway, which is often not safe to do.

The State of Wisconsin Department of Transportation recommends riding 3 feet away from any obstacles, so if there is a dangerous drop off or no shoulder etc., you can expand the minimum lane width by 3 feet. Meaning if you are on a road with no shoulder, you can legally take a lane that is 14 or 15 feet wide if the same 7 foot car is trying to pass you, which effectively means any lane. I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV so this isn't legal advice. It just seems simple math to me.

I'd rather have the 3 foot law than not have it even if it rarely gets enforced. One thing at a time. Get the law first then work on getting in enforced.

One way I'm trying to do that is to equate it with another new law in Wisconsin called the "move over" law. If you are on a multi lane road and pass an emergency vehicle or road work vehicle, you must either slow significantly or move over one lane. I know that law is being enforced, we just need to let the police know that we are just as vulnerable to close passing drivers as they are.
Bikesafer
Jeff

Since Florida went from the ambiguous "at a safe distance" to the specific "3 feet" I haven't seen any practical difference. The motorists who gave me plenty of room before still do; the ones who didn't still don't. I've never heard of anyone getting cited for this.

Law enforcement can't be everywhere. The only practical way I see to enforce this law is that it's one more thing to charge a passing motorist with if they hit the cyclist.

Iowa is trying to have the same thing passed right now during our Legislative Session. But instead of 3' it is 5'. There are also other parts to the bill, not just for passing. For example honking and opening doors. The Senate version has passed the committee and will now go to the floor to be debated. Still waiting for word on the House version to see what happens.

This law is not so much going to prevent motorists from passing too close, etc. Kind of like a speed limit is unable to prevent someone from speeding. What is designed to do is make drivers aware there is a law and if they do violate it and collide with a cyclist there are stiffer penalties. Or if they violate it and are seen/caught by law enforcement doing so even if they do not collide with a cyclist there are stiffer penalties, like with a speed limit.

Our county sheriff is opposing it as it will just be too hard to enforce.

There's another argument to be made for passing these laws: they get reported on the news. (and, though I think your sheriff's an idiot, the more he complains about the law the more press it gets). NC, as I understand it, has a 2-foot law. I'll be honest...until I started commuting full-time I didn't know we did--and I was a cyclist! How many drivers do you think are aware of that law???

Now imagine we tried to pass a 3-foot law. The news reports would go, "The NC State legislature is considering expanding the minimum passing distance law from 2 feet to 3 feet". Sure, everyone would be up in arms...but people would also hear we had a 2-foot law.

IF there is a 3' law (as there is here in Maine) and IF two cyclists were riding two abreast on the shoulder, could they be ticketed for not providing enough space while passing?

Sure, laws matter ... generally, people want to obey the law. People want to do what's right.

But ... people need to be informed, which is lacking regarding the 3-feet-of-love laws.

Here's a guy in Florida that is taking this up in his own way -- offering 3 Feet cycling jerseys:

www.3feetplease.com (http://www.3feetplease.com)

More power to him!

IF there is a 3' law (as there is here in Maine) and IF two cyclists were riding two abreast on the shoulder, could they be ticketed for not providing enough space while passing?

My take on the 2 abreast law is that unless you're impeding traffic, it's okay to do. That doesn't mean the road has to be empty, it just means that car traffic can flow unimpeded by changing lanes, moving into the on-coming traffic lane, etc. With a 3 foot law, 2 abreast is still the same, but drivers are legally entitled to give you 3 feet of space.

There was some stink, a few months ago, when a sheriff made a mockery of the 2 abreast law. Bob Mionske covered it in his VeloNews column. This is the same sheriff.

I may have already stated this, sorry not venturing back right now...

The biggest problem that I see is like any other law, only those who are directly involed have any idea about what it is and what it means, ie. a 3 ft law as pertaining to cyclists is not well know, if at all to the motorists or law enforcment, and the media doesn't seem to care either.

The floridian selling 3ft please jerseys and shirts is, I think some how involved with http://www.floridabicycle.org/, maybe not, anyway I did read somewhere recently (probly http://www.bikejax.org/) that a commuter in Orlando I think got stop by DOT with video and had a nice conversation about the laws (yes, he got no citation).

If I read it right, in FLA we can take any lane that is less than 14 ft wide since one is required to ride 2 ft from the edge(?) of the road and are then given 4 ft from said edge to ride. Then we are given a required clearance of 3 ft for passing motorists, I count that as 7 ft right off no matter what, then add in the width of a motor vehicle. Then there is allowances for road conditions etc.

Sorry to be so long winded...

My point being, that we as cyclists need to get involved locally in order to educate everyone that we come into contact with as to what the laws are in the hope that they will follow them. Education is atleast as important as enforcement. That and its much too easy for people to maintain their driver's license. I'd like to see strickter enforcement of one's knowledge of the rules of the road...

as someone else said... I'm sick of the motorist's sense of entitlement!!!

I did read somewhere recently (probly http://www.bikejax.org/) that a commuter in Orlando I think got stop by DOT with video and had a nice conversation about the laws (yes, he got no citation).



You can read a transcript of that conversation here (http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2009/02/17/impeding-traffic-the-audio/). Unfortunately, the audio file isn't up anymore. But this link (http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2009/02/04/impeding-traffic/) goes to the video of him being pulled over and the total lack of traffic beforehand (cop tried to accuse him of impeding traffic).

That cyclist has been stopped a lot and was ticketed a few days ago in Port Orange. He doesn't live in Orlando, he lives over on the coast. Orlando are police are either more aware of cyclists right to the lane or less interested in bugging them.



If I read it right, in FLA we can take any lane that is less than 14 ft wide since one is required to ride 2 ft from the edge(?) of the road and are then given 4 ft from said edge to ride. Then we are given a required clearance of 3 ft for passing motorists, I count that as 7 ft right off no matter what, then add in the width of a motor vehicle. Then there is allowances for road conditions etc.


You read it right! Unfortunately, the police often don't... as you can see in the transcript.

So, laws only have value if they can be enforced by the police?

Yes, a law that goes unenforced is meaningless, as people routinely violate any law they think they can get away with for the sake of their own convenience.


Do you need someone watching over you all the time to make sure you do the right thing?

If everyone did this, people wouldn't need any laws to have a functioning society.

If I read it right, in FLA we can take any lane that is less than 14 ft wide since one is required to ride 2 ft from the edge(?) of the road and are then given 4 ft from said edge to ride.

Just curious, but where did you see this 2' requirement and 4' designation? I've never seen them anywhere in the state statutes. Is it a local ordinance?

Just curious, but where did you see this 2' requirement and 4' designation? I've never seen them anywhere in the state statutes. Is it a local ordinance?

It's not a requirement. It's also not in the statutes. It's the reasoning behind the 14 ft being a "standard" width and anything less not being shareable...
4 ft of operating space, 3 ft of buffer. Riding 2 ft in is sortof a general recommended distance from the edge.
Here's a diagram (http://www.floridabicycle.org/rules/bikelaw.html#wcl).

Roger; I've seen that diagram and others like it before. The way I read your earlier post sounded like these distances were some mandated thing; my bad. The 2' from the road edge is the absolute minimum safe distance, and that is only if there are no obstructions or hazards along the edge of the road. This is a case where more is better.

Unenforced laws may not be followed much, but unknown laws are followed even less. I'd bet dollars to donuts that not 1 in 5 Florida drivers are aware of the 3' passing law, and not 1 in 10 are aware that a bike has a right to take a substandard lane. I wonder why the 3' passing law got about 10% of the news coverage that was given to the new law about changing lanes when approaching stopped police vehicles.
Someone here on BF has an avatar of a sign about bikes having full use of a lane. These should be planted on all streets under 14' in Florida, even if they have to be provided by some private organization. They are desperately needed here, as are signs informing drivers of the 3' passing law.

Just curious, but where did you see this 2' requirement and 4' designation? I've never seen them anywhere in the state statutes. Is it a local ordinance?
I'm still looking, I'm not sure now as to exactly where I saw what, but I did find a reference on page 17 of this pdf from fba http://www.floridabicycle.org/resources/pdfs/PEGLEG2008_7-31-08web.pdf


It's not a requirement. It's also not in the statutes. It's the reasoning behind the 14 ft being a "standard" width and anything less not being shareable...
4 ft of operating space, 3 ft of buffer. Riding 2 ft in is sortof a general recommended distance from the edge.
Here's a diagram (http://www.floridabicycle.org/rules/bikelaw.html#wcl).
Thanks another lnk for reference, doesn't get much clearer than that.


Roger; I've seen that diagram and others like it before. The way I read your earlier post sounded like these distances were some mandated thing; my bad. The 2' from the road edge is the absolute minimum safe distance, and that is only if there are no obstructions or hazards along the edge of the road. This is a case where more is better.
I would think that if the DOT calls 2 ft the "minimum safe" then that is a mandate, but like I said I'm still looking.

btw... sorry if the flo-ridas have hijacked this, 'twas not my intention, hope the discussion is helpful to all.

Unenforced laws may not be followed much, but unknown laws are followed even less. I'd bet dollars to donuts that not 1 in 5 Florida drivers are aware of the 3' passing law, and not 1 in 10 are aware that a bike has a right to take a substandard lane. I wonder why the 3' passing law got about 10% of the news coverage that was given to the new law about changing lanes when approaching stopped police vehicles.
Someone here on BF has an avatar of a sign about bikes having full use of a lane. These should be planted on all streets under 14' in Florida, even if they have to be provided by some private organization. They are desperately needed here, as are signs informing drivers of the 3' passing law.

I bet 1 in 10 Floridians are aware it's a state law they have to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk, and 1 in a 1000 know that every intersection has crosswalks extending from the public ROW whether or not they are marked, even if there is no sidewalk.

Even though the "move over" law got more news coverage, most motorists still don't know about it and still don't move over or slow down when there are emergency vehicles on the shoulder.

The problem with this state (and the whole US, I suspect) is that we require barely any competence or knowledge for driving a motor vehicle. It's an entitlement with very little responsibility attached to it anymore.

That said, I don't think any amount of publicity for the 3 foot law will change motorist behavior. There's 2 kinds of close passing - mindless and deliberate.

The mindless ones aren't thinking about a law or anything else, they're just squeezing by in the space available. Cyclists have a lot more control over that than most of them use. Should a cyclist get ample clearance no matter where he's riding? Of course! Reality - motorists are mindless, you have to be assertive if you want respect. (http://www.cyclistview.com/overtaking/index.htm).

The deliberate ones don't give a **** about the law. Our only defense against them is to leave plenty of usable pavement on our right.

In 67 miles today I think the average passing distance was 6-8 feet. There were a couple deliberate close passes and a couple mindless ones (because we left too much extra space in the lane). Got yelled at to get off the road by a guy in the left lane of a 4-lane road while we were in a bike lane. Got honked at by someone who passed easily in the left lane of another 4-lane road. Didn't get any flack from any of the motorists who had to slow a few seconds to pass safely.

I do love the Bikes May Use Full Lane (BMUFL) sign. I'd sure like to see some of them around here. It's about as unambiguous a TCD as we'll ever get! And maybe it will convince more cyclists to come off the edge of the road and ride like they mean it.

But the 3 foot law. Meh. I can think of better things to spend energy on.

Here's a guy in Florida that is taking this up in his own way -- offering 3 Feet cycling jerseys:

www.3feetplease.com (http://www.3feetplease.com)

More power to him!

Hey, that was my idea (http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/member/7/9/b/3/highres_5611155.jpeg)!!