Advocacy & Safety - Alabama considering "3 foot rule"

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2009/10/bicycle_safety_rolls_to_forefr.html

Just curious, how many states have actually put this into law? It seems that this would be difficult to enforce.

Louisiana has it, but how on earth would you enforce it? It would have to happen pretty much right in front of a cop, while they're looking... and even then, the cops don't even know the bike laws around here.

If you are hit, it was violated.

If you are hit, it was violated.

True

Actually, Florida State University had an interesting enforcement mechanism that they set up a while back. Have officer (plainclothes?) ride legally on the road, with a chalk line marking 3 ft. Any cars that encroach into the space get pulled over, and in their case got warned.

FWIW, I know TN has a 3 ft law, as well as a bunch of other states.

genec is correct. Only after the biker is hit can you enforce it. Otherwise it's one guy's word against another's. Like it always is. I contend most drivers want nothing to do with hitting anyone. New laws will make no difference to the small group of disturbed drivers who have sport scaring (even hitting) bikers. Ride a bike in traffic and you takes your chances; you can't legislate good behavior.

genec is correct. Only after the biker is hit can you enforce it. Otherwise it's one guy's word against another's. Like it always is. I contend most drivers want nothing to do with hitting anyone. New laws will make no difference to the small group of disturbed drivers who have sport scaring (even hitting) bikers. Ride a bike in traffic and you takes your chances; you can't legislate good behavior.

Yes, genec is correct. Indications from states that have adopted this law are that it is not easily enforceable, and comes into play more on a "post mortem" basis than on a preventive basis (i.e., if they hit you, they did not allow sufficient clearance).

Due to cyclist demand (myself excluded), Boise is in the process of trying to add this to our city ordinances. Because we have some narrow streets, the Boise Police want to add the verbiage "if possible", so they have some enforcement discretion. Of course, this implies that motorists have some divinely ordained right to pass cyclists unsafely if that is their "only" choice, so they can keep from being delayed by a few seconds. Cyclists apparently are not a worthy reason for motorists to have to inconvenience themselves by pressing the brake pedal.

Another proposal is to allow motorists to cross the double yellow line to give the cyclist 3 feet, but this is a violation of Idaho law. So it looks like this will need to be addressed at the state level if it is to be successfully adopted.

As for myself, I think we would get a better bang for the buck if we stop trying to create new unenforceable laws, particularly ones that attempt to treat cyclists as oppressed victims, and start actually enforcing the laws we already have on the books, especially for speeding.

Video.

I don't see how the 3' rule is less enforceable than any other rule of the road. It's simply a matter of whether a competent witness sees and reports. It certainly isn't any more or less enforceable by a rider than is the speed limit. In either case, in general, it's going to take a cop seeing the violation. Of course, no radar guns out there for the 3' rule.

I like the idea of it, because even assuming it is not enforceable, like most laws, its major effect is simply the public knowing about it. Another approach is to simply give bicycles the right of way, as they have, or used to have in Copenhagen.

The Illinois 3 foot law calls for passing at a safe distance, but not less than 3 ft.



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.

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2009/10/bicycle_safety_rolls_to_forefr.html

Just curious, how many states have actually put this into law? It seems that this would be difficult to enforce.

Ks, has a version of the law that requires 4' instead of 3'.

Enforcement of the law is a good question.

Not too long ago I had the opportunity to ask a St. Pete cop about this and was told that it was "subjective."

Actually, Florida State University had an interesting enforcement mechanism that they set up a while back. Have officer (plainclothes?) ride legally on the road, with a chalk line marking 3 ft. Any cars that encroach into the space get pulled over, and in their case got warned.

FWIW, I know TN has a 3 ft law, as well as a bunch of other states.

Talking with Joe from 3' please and RoadGuardian.com and he told me that there are plans on doing that in other areas of the state.

My suggestion would be to suggest to your local LEO's that they do the same thing. Pick a stretch of road either with or without a bike lane. Although I think that in this case a bike lane might make it easier. And mark out (with chalk) a 3' buffer for about a block or so. Any driver who crosses the chalk line get's pulled over and lectured, if they repeat it during the time that they're out there they get ticketed.

As for myself, I think we would get a better bang for the buck if we stop trying to create new unenforceable laws, particularly ones that attempt to treat cyclists as oppressed victims, and start actually enforcing the laws we already have on the books, especially for speeding.


Bingo.

Talking with Joe from 3' please and RoadGuardian.com and he told me that there are plans on doing that in other areas of the state.

My suggestion would be to suggest to your local LEO's that they do the same thing. Pick a stretch of road either with or without a bike lane. Although I think that in this case a bike lane might make it easier. And mark out (with chalk) a 3' buffer for about a block or so. Any driver who crosses the chalk line get's pulled over and lectured, if they repeat it during the time that they're out there they get ticketed.
Or they could use the same type of device used by Ian Walker when he studied passing distances:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/5334208.stm
Have it wired to flash a light or send a message to a cop who's hidden down the road a little way whenever the distance is significantly less than 3' so the violator can be pulled over. Also have a video recording on the bike to prove that it wasn't weaving at the time.

That would make it easier to set up quickly in new areas since you wouldn't need to measure and mark new lines on the ground.

As with most traffic laws, the degree of actual enforcement will depend on how motivated the police are to do so - but this one doesn't seem much more difficult to enforce than other laws, such as speed limits.

Yes, genec is correct. Indications from states that have adopted this law are that it is not easily enforceable, and comes into play more on a "post mortem" basis than on a preventive basis (i.e., if they hit you, they did not allow sufficient clearance).

Due to cyclist demand (myself excluded), Boise is in the process of trying to add this to our city ordinances. Because we have some narrow streets, the Boise Police want to add the verbiage "if possible", so they have some enforcement discretion. Of course, this implies that motorists have some divinely ordained right to pass cyclists unsafely if that is their "only" choice, so they can keep from being delayed by a few seconds. Cyclists apparently are not a worthy reason for motorists to have to inconvenience themselves by pressing the brake pedal.

Another proposal is to allow motorists to cross the double yellow line to give the cyclist 3 feet, but this is a violation of Idaho law. So it looks like this will need to be addressed at the state level if it is to be successfully adopted.

As for myself, I think we would get a better bang for the buck if we stop trying to create new unenforceable laws, particularly ones that attempt to treat cyclists as oppressed victims, and start actually enforcing the laws we already have on the books, especially for speeding.

I can kind of understand how LEO's would think or try to say that it is hard to enforce such a law, but it shouldn't. IF there is a LEO on the road when a car passes a cyclist less then 3' (4' for Ks) it should be easy to "eyeball it" and determine that the car was closer then 3'.

Would it be possible to get them to increase it to 4' instead of 3'? Any chance of getting the "if possible" language dropped?

I don't know if that is really anymore safer then when motorists pass us closer then 3'

I have to agree that instead of passing new law after new law (that are just as less likely to be enforced as the old laws) that the better thing to do is to review ALL of the laws currently on the books. Repeal those that are no longer relevant, enforceable, or are unconstitutional. Then taking those that are left and either combing two or more or amending them so as to make them more up-to-date.

Even a hit is not evidence of a 3ft violation as 'the cyclist swerved more than 3ft', see this:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5366486&postcount=1

Or they could use the same type of device used by Ian Walker when he studied passing distances:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/5334208.stm
Have it wired to flash a light or send a message to a cop who's hidden down the road a little way whenever the distance is significantly less than 3' so the violator can be pulled over. Also have a video recording on the bike to prove that it wasn't weaving at the time.

That would make it easier to set up quickly in new areas since you wouldn't need to measure and mark new lines on the ground.

As with most traffic laws, the degree of actual enforcement will depend on how motivated the police are to do so - but this one doesn't seem much more difficult to enforce than other laws, such as speed limits.

No police force is going to make this kind of effort. (as you already noted) Flashing lights and hidden cops for a couple of bikes once in a while? I don't think so. Not trying to hurt your feelings, prathmann, but this is too much work for the return. If you could guarantee that each stopped bike would have a kilo of crystal meth secreted in the frame, the hogs might go for it. Anything less, no.

I don't see how the 3' rule is less enforceable than any other rule of the road. It's simply a matter of whether a competent witness sees and reports. It certainly isn't any more or less enforceable by a rider than is the speed limit. In either case, in general, it's going to take a cop seeing the violation. Of course, no radar guns out there for the 3' rule.

I like the idea of it, because even assuming it is not enforceable, like most laws, its major effect is simply the public knowing about it. Another approach is to simply give bicycles the right of way, as they have, or used to have in Copenhagen.

True, but what good is the 3' law IF the general motoring public doesn't know about it? I turn off my computer and count add up the number of PSAs I have seen here in St. Pete about the 3' law.

If we pass a law like this, there needs to be an educational period immediately afterward to inform the public about it. Doing something like what was mentioned earlier about having a plainclothes cop riding a bike with a 3' buffer zone marked out in chalk, with a warning issued to those who violate it the first time. And then several times a year to remind them.

Or they could use the same type of device used by Ian Walker when he studied passing distances:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/5334208.stm
Have it wired to flash a light or send a message to a cop who's hidden down the road a little way whenever the distance is significantly less than 3' so the violator can be pulled over. Also have a video recording on the bike to prove that it wasn't weaving at the time.

That would make it easier to set up quickly in new areas since you wouldn't need to measure and mark new lines on the ground.

As with most traffic laws, the degree of actual enforcement will depend on how motivated the police are to do so - but this one doesn't seem much more difficult to enforce than other laws, such as speed limits.

Very interesting article.

On a tour a few years ago, I went thru Ohio, which I believe passed a 3 foot rule a while back. I found drivers to be quite accomodating, on a variety of roads and situations. I was on the Lincoln Highway (or HighwayS, as there seem to be quite a few of 'em).

roughstuff

Hmmmm, I had no idea that Louisiana had a 3 foot rule. I suppose this includes the big mirrors that stick out at least 12" past the actual side of the vehicle. I never been hit by the mirrors, but when a diesel pickup is rumbling up,I always picture those mirrors whomping me.They are spring loaded I guess, but they still give me pause.

Charlie

No police force is going to make this kind of effort. (as you already noted) Flashing lights and hidden cops for a couple of bikes once in a while? I don't think so. Not trying to hurt your feelings, prathmann, but this is too much work for the return. If you could guarantee that each stopped bike would have a kilo of crystal meth secreted in the frame, the hogs might go for it. Anything less, no.
As previously noted, the Florida State police have already made such an enforcement effort using marked lines and videos - this just seemed like an alternate and likely easier way to do it. Especially if 3' laws become common enough for some company to sell an easy to install and use kit for the police.

And there wouldn't be any "stopped bike" - the bikes in either case are ridden by cops or volunteers. It's the cars passing too close that are stopped.

The problem with enforcing this is that if taken to court, how do the police prove the passing distance was < 3 feet? OK, with the chalk line the could have objective measurements, but outside of that I think they'd have about as much chance of making a conviction stick as if a cop wrote out a ticket for speeding just on his eyeball estimation of your speed.

OK, if he sees someone doing 60 in a 25 zone, he can write a ticket, but without a RADAR lock or a following speed, if he's smart he'll write it for reckless driving, not mentioning a speed. But if a cop tries to write a ticket for 40 in a 25 zone, and has no mechanical evidence, the ticket probably won't stick.

Same with writing a ticket for passing 2 feet away from a bike.

Not saying I wouldn't welcome such a law in my state. If nothing else, pulling people over and warning them might do some good, and it does provide a clear violation to cite the driver with if they clip a cyclist.

They can also cite unsafe passing which doesn't require a distance or speed measurement.

ARS 28-725 (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/00725.htm) "passing to be completed without interfering with the safe operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle overtaken."

and

ARS 28-723 (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/00723.htm) "The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the vehicle at a safe distance"

Does anyone remember the name of the thread that talked about the college here in Fl that did the 3' buffer with chalk? I've been searching for it, but haven't been able to find it.

Never mind, I finally found it.

Thank you everyone.

colorado has the 3ft rule...several drivers have been sent warning letters since the rule came in but no tickets have been issued as it is just a new law

True, but what good is the 3' law IF the general motoring public doesn't know about it? I turn off my computer and count add up the number of PSAs I have seen here in St. Pete about the 3' law.

If we pass a law like this, there needs to be an educational period immediately afterward to inform the public about it. Doing something like what was mentioned earlier about having a plainclothes cop riding a bike with a 3' buffer zone marked out in chalk, with a warning issued to those who violate it the first time. And then several times a year to remind them.

Absolutely. Every new law need to be publicized or it has little or now effect. That's why it is typical to have an adjustment period where only warnings are issued. Local media usually cooperate to get the word out.

As previously noted, the Florida State police have already made such an enforcement effort using marked lines and videos - this just seemed like an alternate and likely easier way to do it. Especially if 3' laws become common enough for some company to sell an easy to install and use kit for the police.

And there wouldn't be any "stopped bike" - the bikes in either case are ridden by cops or volunteers. It's the cars passing too close that are stopped.

I see. I must have misread earlier post. But now what I understand is the cops are baiting violators? Like on a prositute sting where they sting Johns? That's entrapment. I don't dig that one bit.

Sometimes you get lucky...see...

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=555079

Most people don't even know about the 'law", and unless you get lucky like I did, with a sympathetic LEO, it will seldom be enforced. Since that day I haven't seen any evidence of enforcement.

I thought about having a jersey made with the phrase "3' LAW" in big letters on the back...

DPN

genec is correct. Only after the biker is hit can you enforce it. Otherwise it's one guy's word against another's. Like it always is. I contend most drivers want nothing to do with hitting anyone. New laws will make no difference to the small group of disturbed drivers who have sport scaring (even hitting) bikers. Ride a bike in traffic and you takes your chances; you can't legislate good behavior.

While that is all true... the publicity of establishing a 3 foot rule does make the law abiding public aware of at least the minimum space we would desire.

As far as the "disturbed drivers" there is nothing that will change their lot, except jail time.

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2009/10/bicycle_safety_rolls_to_forefr.html

Just curious, how many states have actually put this into law? It seems that this would be difficult to enforce.

States with a "3-foot rule" (or a corresponding distance) as of this date:

Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nw Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.

A total of 13 states. Texas enacted such a law this past June, but it was vetoed by their crackpot governor.

As Genec noted, it ought to be easy to enforce: if there's a collision betweena car and cyclist, then somebody violated that rule. But in nearly all cases since their enactment, law enforcement officers have been distinctly reluctant to cite anybody for this violation, noting that they needed to actually see the act, despite a dead or crippled cyclist lying on the pavement at their feet.

But in nearly all cases since their enactment, law enforcement officers have been distinctly reluctant to cite anybody for this violation, noting that they needed to actually see the act, despite a dead or crippled cyclist lying on the pavement at their feet.

Without witnesses how can one be sure how the cyclist ended up in the path of the vehicle?

If the cop didn't see it, it didn't happen. I wish someone would explain why a cop even bothers to show up.

Without witnesses how can one be sure how the cyclist ended up in the path of the vehicle?


Mitchxout:

"If the cop didn't see it, it didn't happen. I wish someone would explain why a cop even bothers to show up."

This is no different from any other traffic infraction. When the cop shows up he/she collects information, including witness statements. It is amazing what people admit to.

Here's a classic example in a completely different context:

Cop questions a guy about the dope he found in his pocket.

Idiot says, "It's not mine. I was just holding it for my friend."

He's just confessed to possession with intent to deliver, a much more serious crime than simple possession.

Experienced cops are very good at collecting evidence where they personally did not witness the event.

Mitchxout:

"If the cop didn't see it, it didn't happen. I wish someone would explain why a cop even bothers to show up."

This is no different from any other traffic infraction. When the cop shows up he/she collects information, including witness statements. It is amazing what people admit to.

Here's a classic example in a completely different context:

Cop questions a guy about the dope he found in his pocket.

Idiot says, "It's not mine. I was just holding it for my friend."

He's just confessed to possession with intent to deliver, a much more serious crime than simple possession.

Experienced cops are very good at collecting evidence where they personally did not witness the event.

Something else that needs/should to be kept in mind. And that is that whereas we (here in the USA) don't have nearly the saturation of CCTV cameras as they do over in the UK. We do have our share of them, plus almost every business has security cameras, as do ATM's, that may have picked up the infraction. Not to mention that riders can and do carry their own video cameras to record their journey. Which and should be used to help convince the cop in question that something did in fact occur.

And if I am not mistaken footage from the video cameras that riders carry is (should be) enough to cause the LEO's to take action. Particularly IF one can get the car's license plate number.

This is no different from any other traffic infraction. When the cop shows up he/she collects information, including witness statements. It is amazing what people admit to.

Are you belittling people for telling the truth? One time, I called the police on my neighbor for backing into and damaging my truck. They didn't see it though-her paint in my dent.
No ticket.


Here's a classic example in a completely different context:

Cop questions a guy about the dope he found in his pocket.

Idiot says,It's not mine. I was just holding it for my friend."

He's just confessed to possession with intent to deliver, a much more serious crime than simple possession.

"The idiot didn't admit to anything. He was stupidly trying to lie his way into an explanation while under alot of stress. So what you're really saying is the charge is trumped up for lying to an officer.

Are you belittling people for telling the truth? One time, I called the police on my neighbor for backing into and damaging my truck. They didn't see it though-her paint in my dent.
No ticket.



"The idiot didn't admit to anything. He was stupidly trying to lie his way into an explanation while under alot of stress. So what you're really saying is the charge is trumped up for lying to an officer.

Not at all 'belittling people for telling the truth.' You indicated that there was no reason for the cop to show up. I explained that the cops' getting witness statements, including party admissions, was a good reason for the cop to 'show up.'

The idiot DID admit to something, something worse that what he would have been charged with. Whether or not the idiot was telling the truth is something only god (and apparently YOU) can tell.

I'm having a hard time deciphering what you meant about paint and a dent in your anecdote about a specific incident that has nothing to do with the general case.

I'm having a hard time deciphering what you meant about paint and a dent in your anecdote about a specific incident that has nothing to do with the general case.

This was an example of why it's hopeless to call the police. It happened one night when I was sitting in my house and I heard my neighbor's car back into my truck. When I confronted her, she said she didn't do it. I called the police to show them my dented truck and the paint from her car. They also saw that she was still parked against my truck, except there was a about a paper's width distance between them. Both cops surmised that the vehicles were microscopically close, but they weren't actually touching each other. Furthermore, since they didn't see the accident, it didn't happen. They acted more like "insurance police" than anyone with an ounce of common sense.

This was an example of why it's hopeless to call the police. It happened one night when I was sitting in my house and I heard my neighbor's car back into my truck. When I confronted her, she said she didn't do it. I called the police to show them my dented truck and the paint from her car. They also saw that she was still parked against my truck, except there was a about a paper's width distance between them. Both cops surmised that the vehicles were microscopically close, but they weren't actually touching each other. Furthermore, since they didn't see the accident, it didn't happen. They acted more like "insurance police" than anyone with an ounce of common sense.

Assuming this is exactly what happened, it does not demonstrate your proposition that "it's hopeless to call the police." These particular officers may have been hopeless, but it does not prove the general case. You could have, or perhaps still can, file your own complaint directly with the prosecuting attorney's office.

If paint samples were taken, and they demonstrated that paint was transferred from her car to yours at the point of impact, you'd have an excellent case. I do not justify these officers in your case. Cops make mistakes all the time.
I'm simply stating that it is not 'hopeless' to call them.

I'm simply stating that it is not 'hopeless' to call them.

Paint samples? Those cops had their minds made up beforehand. I'm sure it wouldn't have been hopeless if YOU showed up, but you're 3000 miles away. Figuratively and literally.

This won't be popular, but what if the car is doing nothing wrong and the idiot on the bike impedes on the auto's space. Gets within 3 feet all by himself. Has hair across his butt that day and blames the car? We don't need this rule. Too one-sided. If you ride a bike you take your chances.

This won't be popular, but what if the car is doing nothing wrong and the idiot on the bike impedes on the auto's space. Gets within 3 feet all by himself. Has hair across his butt that day and blames the car? We don't need this rule. Too one-sided. If you ride a bike you take your chances.

Exactly why this law is difficult to enforce. While some members of these forums covet the "motorist is automatically at fault" laws adopted in some European countries, presuming guilt solely on the basis of the driver's vehicle class (four wheels or two) would probably not pass the constitutionality test here.

States with a "3-foot rule" (or a corresponding distance) as of this date:

Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nw Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.

A total of 13 states. Texas enacted such a law this past June, but it was vetoed by their crackpot governor.

Could provide the source of this information?

This won't be popular, but what if the car is doing nothing wrong and the idiot on the bike impedes on the auto's space. Gets within 3 feet all by himself. Has hair across his butt that day and blames the car? We don't need this rule. Too one-sided. If you ride a bike you take your chances.

The real issue is that cars and bikes are beside each other for a very short period of time, and 3' is an absolute minimum, most cars will give more to make sure they have at least the required space. It's tough to enforce unless the police officer sees the violation.

The real issue is that cars and bikes are beside each other for a very short period of time, and 3' is an absolute minimum, most cars will give more to make sure they have at least the required space. It's tough to enforce unless the police officer sees the violation.

Circumstances may occur (and often do) where the width of the road and parked cars or other objects funnel the traffic into tight passes. If eveyone converges on this choke point at one time the bike will come out the worse for wear and I do not believe it is anyone's fault. Sometimes life kicks you in the face. I would not sight the driver and I would not blame the bike.

P.S. Wogsterca, my wife just adopted a black cat off the streets that looks just like your avatar but this animal is "tropical thin" like all Key West cats. Now we have 3 cats and 2 dogs and she feeds about 10 others (cats) in the alley. Not good, but it's hard to say no.

Circumstances may occur (and often do) where the width of the road and parked cars or other objects funnel the traffic into tight passes. If eveyone converges on this choke point at one time the bike will come out the worse for wear and I do not believe it is anyone's fault. Sometimes life kicks you in the face. I would not sight the driver and I would not blame the bike.

I blame the bike. If you're approaching a choke point and it wouldn't be safe for a car to pass you, move left so it CAN'T pass you.

Could provide the source of this information?


Yes. Me.

This won't be popular, but what if the car is doing nothing wrong and the idiot on the bike impedes on the auto's space. Gets within 3 feet all by himself. Has hair across his butt that day and blames the car? We don't need this rule. Too one-sided. If you ride a bike you take your chances.

A three-foot rule does not nullify other traffic laws.

I blame the bike. If you're approaching a choke point and it wouldn't be safe for a car to pass you, move left so it CAN'T pass you.

I accept this is the proper thing to do if you agree with most cyclists. But I trust no driver in such a situation. When I see such a scene forming up ahead, I stop and let things clear out ahead of me. I understand VC biking but never put myself at the mercy of any car. My rides are a little slower but in all my life I've never fallen or been touched by a car in a town that is swarming with them 24/7.

We have it here in Pennsylvania. Enforcing it hard, but what it does is not waste the victim riders time with an allowable defense from the careless driver. It normally just makes it an automatic ticket which will result in the long run hopefully with more attentive drivers.