Advocacy & Safety - why I think the 3 foot rule is a waste of effort

I was knocked off my bike the other day by an impatient driver in a parking lot.
Since I wasnt hurt and the driver was bigger than me I resorted to cursing.

Later I called the local police and asked whether there was any legal violation
and got some lame answers and was told it was probably an accident.

So my conclusion, The only way clueless uncaring or angry car drivers will
ever take responsibility is to have a strict liablity law like in Europe, where
the onus is on the motorist. After all if I had been injured, it would not
have made much difference to the police as they seem all too ready
to be apologists for motorists.

socal - ventura county

I'm confused, why didn't you contact the police immediately if you were riding legally?

Don't expect the cops to know every law off the top of their head. Since you were calling after the fact they probably just chalked it up to an accident. Because accidents do happen.

Some cops are better than others in what we feel is "doing their job". If you contacted them when the accident occurred, then maybe they would have taken it more seriously.

I concur with you. I got hit by a school bus from behind and though the accident report put the blame on the bus driver he was not issued a citation for the violation of the 3 foot law.

The 3-foot law just gives drivers another excuse -- "I thought I GAVE him 3 feet!" when the side mirror cracks a shoulder blade.

Passing vehicles should no closer than the normally accepted 'left-tire track' of any lane; lot harder to dispute.

And I am 100x100% in FAVOR of strict liability!!

The 3-foot law just gives drivers another excuse -- "I thought I GAVE him 3 feet!" when the side mirror cracks a shoulder blade.

Passing vehicles should no closer than the normally accepted 'left-tire track' of any lane; lot harder to dispute.

And I am 100x100% in FAVOR of strict liability!!

I'm not sure I see how it gives them an excuse: by definition, it would seem that any sideswiping crash during a pass would put them in clear violation of 3 foot laws. I think the problem is just police "interpreting" the law in a way that is favorable to the motorist, not the law itself.

Overall, I don't think these laws are very enforceable, except in case of crashes. The main "good" thing I think could come out of them is some possible publicity/education of motorists about how to properly pass a cyclist. But obviously they aren't even going to be educated if the police won't enforce the law even when it's clear it was violated.

The basic problem seems to be that there isn't a societal consensus that cyclists deserve to get only safe passes, and there is a lot of ignorance on the part of motorists about what constitutes safe passing. Just look at the recent Virginia debate over a failed proposal for a 3 foot passing law: lawmakers there opposed the bill on grounds including that "cyclists are scofflaws, and shouldn't be accomodated", and that the bill would make it impossible to legally pass at all on many roads because of narrow lanes. Apparently cyclists should just be put at risk with close passes rather than motorists be inconvenienced at all (apparently, slowing down and waiting until it's safe to pass isn't an option that entered lawmakers' heads). And motorists should be allowed to take out their aggression on all cyclists because some cyclists break the law. While attitudes like this persist, it's going to be hard to make headway. The only thing that will change this is sufficient numbers of cyclists on the roads, and that will just take time (perhaps with an assist from rising gas prices).

Usually a collision in a parking lot doesn't seem to draw much interest of LE, but no or little action taken by OP's LE doesn't make me feel that the 3 foot law is a waste of effort.

Last month, I reported a motorist to our local PD for passing within inches of me, and from my video, it almost looked like his mirror barely went under my flat bar end mirror.
The same motorist just happen to pass me a couple of days ago, but this time, with more than 3 feet of space, and I could see him make several glances into his rear view mirror after he passed me, it would seem that our local PD and the motorist may have had a conversation about close passing.

I was knocked off my bike the other day by an impatient driver in a parking lot.
Since I wasnt hurt and the driver was bigger than me I resorted to cursing.

Later I called the local police and asked whether there was any legal violation
and got some lame answers and was told it was probably an accident.

So my conclusion, The only way clueless uncaring or angry car drivers will
ever take responsibility is to have a strict liablity law like in Europe, where
the onus is on the motorist. After all if I had been injured, it would not
have made much difference to the police as they seem all too ready
to be apologists for motorists.

socal - ventura county

Ditto verbatim

Police rarely charge anyone in an accident on private property. If it is between two cars insurance info is exchanged and that is about it. If you gave the motorist's plate number and reported it as a hit and run they would have more than likely gotten involved.

I doubt a law for a public roadway is applicable on private property.

Um, I think a lot of you are confused. A three foot law moves us closer to "strict liability." Think about it--any time a car comes in contact with a cyclist while passing, there has been a per se violation of the three foot law. Whether or not the cops apply it consistently, there would really be no way to argue around it in court (traffic, civil, or criminal) if one party decided to press the issue. Take DX MAN's example: if you get whacked by a mirror, there can be no question of law that the three foot law was violated. Without the three foot law (and instead using the common but vague "safe distance" standard), the driver is much more free to claim they thought they gave you enough room. "Safe distance" is more or less subjective and gives drivers much more room to argue that they were driving reasonably, while "three feet" creates a bright line that's impossible to fudge--if there was contact, the law was violated. The three foot law also almost eliminates that "he swerved in front of me at the last second" argument--who is going to believe that the cyclist suddenly swerved three feet?

I know that if I ever get hit, I would be far more confident of my case with a three foot law than with the default "safe distance" standard. And in some important ways, the three foot law really is almost as good as European strict liability.

And, OP--what does your incident have to do with the 3 foot law anyways? We don't have one in California, so of course the cops wouldn't rely on it.

<---- Lawyer

We have an even better than three-foot law in OR. Motorists on high speed (over 35 mph) roads without bike lanes must give cyclists "room to fall" in the motorist's direction. In spite of that, about eight-teen months ago we had a cyclist run over on just such a road. The local sheriff's deputy didn't even cite the killer, in spite of the law spelling out that contact is a clear violation (duh). I would prefer strict liability because it bypasses the biases of pro-motorist cops (redundant?)

In fairness to the killer, he paid for his victim's funeral and even provided transportation to several of the victim's homeless friends. These expenses were quite a bit more than the $380 fine he would have gotten with the citation.

It is the strict liability for the heavier vehicle in accidents that is needed.
Probably this could just be added on like uninsured motorists for commercial
and individual drivers.
Cyclists are likely to be required to have insurance as the law would affect
all transport.

Usually a collision in a parking lot doesn't seem to draw much interest of LE, but no or little action taken by OP's LE doesn't make me feel that the 3 foot law is a waste of effort.

Last month, I reported a motorist to our local PD for passing within inches of me, and from my video, it almost looked like his mirror barely went under my flat bar end mirror.
The same motorist just happen to pass me a couple of days ago, but this time, with more than 3 feet of space, and I could see him make several glances into his rear view mirror after he passed me, it would seem that our local PD and the motorist may have had a conversation about close passing.

That's good to hear, not that you had a close pass, but that your LEOs actually spoke to the driver. It'd be nice if more LEOs would do the same thing.

What I would like to see happen with the various 3' laws is that they spell out that the faster the traffic the more space they need to leave between them and cyclists.

Set it as it currently is with 3' being the bare minimum amount of space that a motorist must leave between their vehicle and a cyclist (or other slow moving vehicle) but as the speed limit goes up that gap must be widened. I would also like to see posted speed limits strictly enforced.

Also along with the various anti-texting/cell phone usage laws. I would like to see them expanded to include ALL distractions within the car, i.e. shaving, applying makeup, changing clothes, drinking coffee/eating a full meal, engaged in "extracurricular" activities.

Somewhere along the way people forgot that driving a car is suppose to be job one. Way too many people think nothing about driving and multi-tasking.

I was knocked off my bike the other day by an impatient driver in a parking lot. Traffic laws typically don't apply to parking lots. So there will be no ticket, period.

As for "three foot passing rules" -- in general, they only cover passing. [I'm generalizing for the entire country here, as you haven't said where you live and I probably don't know the specific law there -- there could be exceptions.]

If somebody hits you from behind, or does a left hook, or right hook, or even if they change lanes into you -- that doesn't count, because it's not passing. On the bright side, in general these things are prohibited by other laws, so a ticket can be given out -- it just won't say "three foot passing violation".

And if somebody does pass you at less than three foot and there's a collision -- there's usually another law that the driver can be cited under ("failure to yield", "improper passing", "unsafe lane change", etc.) and the police will usually go for that rather than "three foot passing violation".

How do those laws work with private property with public access? And if traffic laws don't apply to private property than does that mean that stop signs and/or speed limit signs aren't enforceable at mall and what not parking lots? And what about all the disabled parking laws?

If say a private business is the only business in a particular parking lot does that mean that because it's private property that they don't have to post disabled parking spots?

The three foot rule is mainly useful for assigning blame after the fact. If someone whacks you with a side mirror while passing, they're automatically at fault. Or you'd think so. They'll probably claim you "swerved" and get off. The only way around that one is to have video evidence.

The three foot rule is mainly useful for assigning blame after the fact.I disagree. I think it's mainly useful for the lawmakers to give lipservice to cyclists without actually giving them a law that makes a difference (though it does seem to make the good drivers give you even more distance, but those are the guys who gave you 3+' anyways, and they are most drivers.)

If there's actually an collision of some sort there's always a better citation to give somebody than "passing closer than three feet". And again, the passing laws typically only apply while passing.


If someone whacks you with a side mirror while passing, they're automatically at fault.Unsafe passing. There's probably already a law against that where you live. Another one doesn't make it more illegal.


Or you'd think so. They'll probably claim you "swerved" and get off. The only way around that one is to have video evidence.But that's all about proving the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt". Giving another hard to prove law doesn't help here.

3 feet, 5 feet, ten feet, whatever. It will not change the fact that since bikes have two wheels and cars have four....plus a bit more mass, as folks have pointed out....you are riding a more vulnerable vehicle on the roadway. The same arguments can be used for motorcycles. Strict liability is an interesting discussion, but I reckon there are just as many reckless cyclists on our roadways as there are drivers (as a %) so I am not sure I support the idea.

roughstuff

I'm not sure I see how it gives them an excuse: by definition, it would seem that any sideswiping crash during a pass would put them in clear violation of 3 foot laws. I think the problem is just police "interpreting" the law in a way that is favorable to the motorist, not the law itself.

I agree. I get passed by many 3ft. violators. When it is two lanes on each side, and they are completely in the passing lane, I feel good about how they passed me. When it is just two lanes and they pass me straddling the center line, that is what gets' me upset.

Just because a bicycle is not as fast as a motor vehicle, is no reason to pass a cyclist like being a wood carver trying to smooth a new creation in their wood.

And in some important ways, the three foot law really is almost as good as European strict liability.


Well, except that drivers tend to get off by saying the bike swerved into them, which while being a problem with the application of the law, not the law per se, is less of an issue with strict liability.

Of course, strict liability goes far beyond passing, as well.

Well, except that drivers tend to get off by saying the bike swerved into them, which while being a problem with the application of the law, not the law per se, is less of an issue with strict liability.

Of course, strict liability goes far beyond passing, as well.

Yeah, I don't think that 3 foot laws are in any way comparable to a strict liability law. All they really represent is a codification of what safe drivers already should be doing routinely, because apparently it's too hard for some of them to figure out how to pass a cyclist without having it spelled out for them. Strict liability changes how crashes are handled by police and courts. 3 foot passing laws merely create a new crime that drivers can be charged with in addition to existing laws. There's a big difference.

Since I don't believe strict liability is a realistic political possibility most places in the U.S. anytime soon, maybe there are other things we could do. One that I think would be good would be to somehow upgrade the standards via which police officers investigate crashes. Does anyone know if there are any sort of codified standards for how they are supposed to do that? Because it seems like we hear a lot about police officers that fail to conduct a proper investigation, whether it's because of anti-cyclist bias or simple ignorance on their part of the mechanics of typical car-bike collisions. I mean, does anyone here seriously believe that cyclists routinely swerve in front of or into high speed motor vehicles? A lot of these "swerving" incidents are caused by things like motorists not staying in their proper lane while executing turns, and thus drifting sideways into cyclists. Police should realize that, instead of just believing the story of the negligent motorist when they don't understand what happened.

Um, I think a lot of you are confused. A three foot law moves us closer to "strict liability." Think about it--any time a car comes in contact with a cyclist while passing, there has been a per se violation of the three foot law.And I think you're confused. Any time a car comes in contact with a cyclist (or a car with a car, or a cyclist with a cyclist, etc.), passing or not, some other law has already been violated.


Whether or not the cops apply it consistently, there would really be no way to argue around it in court (traffic, civil, or criminal) if one party decided to press the issue.Well, except that most collisions don't involve passing, so all they have to do is argue that this situation didn't. An unsafe lane change could easily look exactly like passing too close -- and it could easily be argued that it was the cyclist who made the unsafe lane change, and without video or impartial witnesses, it's really hard to say who's right, at least beyond a "reasonable doubt". (A civil case has a lower burden of proof, so that could be easier.)

Here in Austin, I think the police have given out less than five tickets for violating our new 3' passing law since it was created like two years ago, and I don't think any of those tickets involve actual collisions -- if they did, the police would give out a better citation, such as failure to yield or unsafe passing.

I think the only way to actually get a ticket for this here is to buzz a cop on his bicycle, and then stop so he can ticket you.

You may think this moves us closer to strict liability, but certainly the police and courts don't seen to be treating it like it does.

It all boils down to, whether we as cyclists will:

1. Continue to expect 'emotional respect' from the motorized public at-large who just perceive us as a form of 'transportation mutiny', instead of using another form of transportation.

2. Rest on our laurels courtesy of the 3ft. laws', by FRAP'ing, instead of being more insistent about our right to the road.

The three foot rule is mainly useful for assigning blame after the fact. If someone whacks you with a side mirror while passing, they're automatically at fault. Or you'd think so. They'll probably claim you "swerved" and get off. The only way around that one is to have video evidence.

Video evidence is the only way to go. It isn't subject to the mental meanderings of the human brain.

And I think you're confused. Any time a car comes in contact with a cyclist (or a car with a car, or a cyclist with a cyclist, etc.), passing or not, some other law has already been violated.

Well, except that most collisions don't involve passing, so all they have to do is argue that this situation didn't. An unsafe lane change could easily look exactly like passing too close -- and it could easily be argued that it was the cyclist who made the unsafe lane change, and without video or impartial witnesses, it's really hard to say who's right, at least beyond a "reasonable doubt". (A civil case has a lower burden of proof, so that could be easier.)

Here in Austin, I think the police have given out less than five tickets for violating our new 3' passing law since it was created like two years ago, and I don't think any of those tickets involve actual collisions -- if they did, the police would give out a better citation, such as failure to yield or unsafe passing.

I think the only way to actually get a ticket for this here is to buzz a cop on his bicycle, and then stop so he can ticket you.

You may think this moves us closer to strict liability, but certainly the police and courts don't seen to be treating it like it does.

Not just in Austin, but everywhere.

It all boils down to, whether we as cyclists will:

1. Continue to expect 'emotional respect' from the motorized public at-large who just perceive us as a form of 'transportation mutiny', instead of using another form of transportation.

2. Rest on our laurels courtesy of the 3ft. laws', by FRAP'ing, instead of being more insistent about our right to the road.

I don't believe motorists even view us as a form of "transportation mutiny" but more often as some one out playing... recreating on "their roads" so to speak. I doubt many motorists realize how often a cyclist is commuting, just like they are.

3 feet, 5 feet, ten feet, whatever. It will not change the fact that since bikes have two wheels and cars have four....plus a bit more mass, as folks have pointed out....you are riding a more vulnerable vehicle on the roadway. The same arguments can be used for motorcycles. Strict liability is an interesting discussion, but I reckon there are just as many reckless cyclists on our roadways as there are drivers (as a %) so I am not sure I support the idea.

roughstuff

Motorcycles, in and of themselves, can't really be included in this synopsis. Yes they have two wheels and are seemingly just as vulnerable as cyclists'. But, Motorcycles are much faster than bicycles.

I don't believe motorists even view us as a form of "transportation mutiny" but more often as some one out playing... recreating on "their roads" so to speak. I doubt many motorists realize how often a cyclist is commuting, just like they are.

Well, I used the phrase 'transportation mutiny' to sort of illustrate, that it doesn't matter to motorists, whether a cyclist is exercising and/or, actually going somewhere. They don't care which it might be. They just want cyclists out of the way.

This hostile thinking on the part of motorists, has been silently propagated by the U.S. Government. Courtesy of all bailouts of Ford, GM and Chrysler, who in turn while publicly pitching better fuel economy in their respective product lines, they don't want people to start using different forms of transportation for anything. A vehicle can do some things necessary, that can't be done on a bike. But even when something can be done on a bike instead, they don't want alternate forms of transportation to exist. They only accept it.

I know it may sound like I went off the deep end in my reply. I was thinking about how the hostility to cyclists is summarily systemic. Yes most cities/metropolitan regions have a 'public transportation' infrastructure. But that is as far as the acceptance goes. The hostility even extends to bus drivers. Yes they have a timetable for the route they are doing, but just like the regular motorist, they are hostile.

I'll take "3 feet" over nothing. At least then I have some course of restitution, however feeble it may be.

And I think you're confused. Any time a car comes in contact with a cyclist (or a car with a car, or a cyclist with a cyclist, etc.), passing or not, some other law has already been violated.

Correct. But usually it's a very subjective law that's hard to enforce if the driver says something like "he swerved right before I passed" or "I thought I gave him enough room." The standard law in the US outside of "three foot" jurisdictions is "safe passing distance," which is obviously a fairly subjective term that anyone who's spent a lot of time in court knows is hard to apply. What exactly is a "safe passing distance"? Well, here we all know that it's at least three feet, and probably even more depending on speed. But that's not laid out in the law, and people's opinions differ on what's "safe" (a lot of driver's I've been passed by clearly think it's perfectly safe to speed past while clearing me by 3 inches...). Let's be honest, the average person who doesn't cycle probably thinks that a foot or so is perfectly safe. So if there's a passing collision and the driver just "barely clipped" the cyclist (causing horrific injuries), it's much easier to argue that:

a. He was passing at a perfectly "safe" distance of 8 inches, but the bike suddenly swerved 8 1/2 inches. Or even

b. He thought he was passing at a perfectly "safe" distance of 8 inches, but his mirror was just a little bigger than he thought, so he misjudged and barely clipped the rider. You can't really fault him for misjudging by a few inches, can you? He really thought he had given the guy enough room...

Either of the above arguments under a normal "safe distance" law will either completely absolve the driver or at least eliminate any vehicular negligence claim (and certainly gross vehicular negligence). But when you have a "bright line" rule like a three foot law, it almost totally eliminates the arguments above. Reasonable minds can no longer differ on what a "safe distance" is--it's laid out right there in the law. So even if the bike swerved a foot to avoid a pothole, if you came in contact, you were obviously driving way too close. Even if you thought you were giving enough room when you were trying to give 8 inches, by doing so you were being negligent because the law says you needed to give three feet.

It sounds like a lot of work can be done in Austin (and elsewhere) to educate police about the three foot law. But what I'm saying is that if I'm in court regarding an injury during an unsafe pass, if there's a three foot law, it's a slam dunk for the cyclist virtually every time--almost as good as strict liability. If there's the normal "safe passing" law, it's a toss-up.

I was knocked off my bike the other day by an impatient driver in a parking lot.
Since I wasnt hurt and the driver was bigger than me I resorted to cursing.



In the context of this account, had the event occurred in Texas, the only clear violation of any traffic or criminal law was Disorderly Conduct - Abusive Language. The only traffic code violation that clearly applies to parking lots in Texas is "Backing Not in Safety." Had the 3-foot-rule been passed in Texas, (it was part of a bill that was vetoed) it would not have applied to an event such as yours.

The likely defense to a charge of unsafe passing is that the cyclist/driver/pedestrian did not maintain a steady course, so in absence of an unbiased witness, a conviction is not so easy, so the existence of a collision is not a slam-dunk for the cyclist in court.

I am not against 3-foot-rules, just pointing out that words on paper are not as important as social change. As long as it is socially acceptable to crowd smaller vehicles, it will happen. As I have said before, if a safe-passing-distance law is passed in Texas, I will enforce it.

Motorcycles, in and of themselves, can't really be included in this synopsis. Yes they have two wheels and are seemingly just as vulnerable as cyclists'. But, Motorcycles are much faster than bicycles.

True, and I was gonna mention the speed thing. In addition they do weigh more and have much more stability from that weight and the heavier rotating tires. At the same time they are vulnerable, as bicycles are. Their larger profile makes them more vulnerable to winds and drafts, from traffic going in both directions.

Because motorcycles are viewed as a more 'legitimate' road user, most people completely enter the other lane while passing them on a 4 lane roadway. If this courtesy was shwon to bicycles it would help alot.

roughstuff

I agree. I get passed by many 3ft. violators. When it is two lanes on each side, and they are completely in the passing lane, I feel good about how they passed me. When it is just two lanes and they pass me straddling the center line, that is what gets' me upset.

Just because a bicycle is not as fast as a motor vehicle, is no reason to pass a cyclist like being a wood carver trying to smooth a new creation in their wood.

Well said, or even those who when on a multi-lane road straddle the line between the two lanes. Why the bloody hell can't they just move all the way into the other lane to pass?

True, and I was gonna mention the speed thing. In addition they do weigh more and have much more stability from that weight and the heavier rotating tires. At the same time they are vulnerable, as bicycles are. Their larger profile makes them more vulnerable to winds and drafts, from traffic going in both directions.

Because motorcycles are viewed as a more 'legitimate' road user, most people completely enter the other lane while passing them on a 4 lane roadway. If this courtesy was shwon to bicycles it would help alot.

roughstuff

Bear in mind that motorcycles always "take the lane." On a motorcycle you typically ride in the left tire track the roadway thus ensuring that any passing motor vehicle has to move over to pass you.

Well said, or even those who when on a multi-lane road straddle the line between the two lanes. Why the bloody hell can't they just move all the way into the other lane to pass?

Exactly. I don't care how much it ticks motorists off. I will 'take the lane' and not stand for that straddling garbage anymore!!!!

Exactly. I don't care how much it ticks motorists off. I will 'take the lane' and not stand for that straddling garbage anymore!!!!

It really amazes me how different areas and different roads, even in the same town can have motorists with vastly different responses to "taking the lane." One three lane (each way) 50 MPH road I ride, that has a bike lane, on occasion requires that I take the lane due to maintenance trucks and the like that straddle the curb and BL. While traffic moves fast on that road, and I wonder at times if the last cars in fast traffic "train" will see me in time... I have never gotten harassed on that road, even though I am out of the BL and moving quite slow compared to the MV traffic. (up hill, as low as 10MPH)

Near my home is a 35MPH road, with two lanes (each way) and the curbs are lined with cars. I have to take the lane to stay out of the door zone, so I do... I am usually riding at about 18-20MPH on this fairly flat road, so not even that slow, relative to the MV traffic, yet I get harassed on a fairly regular basis on that road. There are no BL, so there really is no other place to ride.

Now the big differences.. the traffic density on the 35MPH road is heavy. There is lots of traffic... lots of bike riders use the sidewalks... (of course these are ninjas on 20 in. wheel bikes... ). The traffic density on the 50MPH road is light, but quite fast and variable... traffic comes in fast packs. There are no continuous sidewalks, and the only cyclists usually use the BL... when it isn't otherwise out of order. Apples and oranges as far as responses from motorists.

Exactly. I don't care how much it ticks motorists off. I will 'take the lane' and not stand for that straddling garbage anymore!!!!

We need both T-Shirts and jerseys made up that say that.

It really amazes me how different areas and different roads, even in the same town can have motorists with vastly different responses to "taking the lane."

I totally agree.:notamused: The main road just outside of the small town I live in, is a two-lane blacktop that has a 30MPH speed limit. While the road was the center of a small city as far back as the turn of the century and, previously the major thoroughfare, it is actually worse than the major four-lane state road built in the 1960's. The 30MPH road has speeders all the time, trying to beat the light in the center of town. The state roadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2006_07_24_-_355@Bouic_-_NB_01.JPG has a 40MPH speed limit, but I never get people speeding past me.

Bear in mind that motorcycles always "take the lane." On a motorcycle you typically ride in the left tire track the roadway thus ensuring that any passing motor vehicle has to move over to pass you.

But motorcycles don't get buzzed by angry motorists. They get respect because of the speed they can achieve.

I'll take "3 feet" over nothing. At least then I have some course of restitution, however feeble it may be.

To me, the 3ft. law(s) amount/s to nothing. Because motorists don't pay attention.

We need both T-Shirts and jerseys made up that say that.

Hmm...I might put that on the back of my cycling jacket.

But motorcycles don't get buzzed by angry motorists. They get respect because of the speed they can achieve.

This is where I go into a long diatribe about vehicular cycling and how speed differential really is an issue... but I won't, as this thread is not about vehicular cycling... or is it?

But motorcycles don't get buzzed by angry motorists. They get respect because of the speed they can achieve.

I think it's partly due to speed and partly due to lane position and perceived "predictability" of motorcyclists vs. bicyclists. Motorcyclists regularly and predictably hold a further left lane position, so motorists know what to expect. Cyclists are less predictable, when taken as a whole group (and consider that most motorists don't differentiate between different styles or types of cyclists in their minds). There are a lot of sidewalk and gutter bunny riders out there, and worse, a lot of salmon, ninjas, and other garbage riders who make up their own rules for riding. Hence, there is a lot of confusion in most motorists' heads about what to do when they encounter a cyclist taking the lane: they've been "trained" in their expectations by a lot of bad and unpredictable cyclists (although we should acknowledge that fear of motor vehicle traffic is a prime reason for why garbage riders ride that way). Unpredictability leads to stress, poor decision-making, and even aggression.

On the other hand, I do believe that speed matters. I find I get a lot more respect when I'm riding fast (over, say, 20 mph), all other things being equal. I believe that at some point, there is a crossover in motorists' heads and we move from being classified as "stationary" objects to "moving objects", and that that improves their decision-making skill because they are then more likely to apply their more developed skills at driving around other moving vehicles.

So, I think a combination of factors are in play. We probably need better facilities to deal with streets with heavy volume and high speed differentials. But we also need to develop some stronger social norms about how both cyclists and motorists will share limited road space. I don't believe education is particularly effective at doing that, so the only thing that may work is more cyclists on the road as well as good "modeling" of good riding skills and courtesy. I've found that my own "proper" cycling has an influence on the other riders and motorists I encounter daily, or so it seems to me. If enough people do that, it will become normalized via social influences, just like any human behavior.

It really amazes me how different areas and different roads, even in the same town can have motorists with vastly different responses to "taking the lane." . . .
In descending order of harassment frequency/intensity:

1. I receive the most hostility when riding on a narrow-laned, 2-lanes-in-each-direction road where there is a bi-directional bicycle side path on one side of the road. I refuse to ride the path contraflow because it is a deathtrap at intersections. My theory is that the motorists feel they have forfeited part of their paychecks to buy me this path to play on and, by god, I should jolly well be using it and not getting in their way.

2. Next comes roads with bike lanes, when I need to leave the bike lane to achieve an acceptable level of safety due to parked cars, obstructions, visibility, debris, approaching intersections, etc. See #1 for my explanation of the psychology involved.

3. Next comes narrow-laned roads in general, oddly enough even when there is more than one lane in each direction, where the motorist must move at least half-way into the adjacent lane to pass me.

4. Next is probably roadways with sidewalks, where the great majority of people riding bicycles are seen doing so on the sidewalk.

I receive the least hostility when riding on roads with a wide outside lane, no bike lane and no sidewalks, where I can choose a safe line which still allows motorists to overtake me without moving too far, if at all, out of the lane.

In descending order of harassment frequency/intensity:

1. I receive the most hostility when riding on a narrow-laned, 2-lanes-in-each-direction road where there is a bi-directional bicycle side path on one side of the road. I refuse to ride the path contraflow because it is a deathtrap at intersections. My theory is that the motorists feel they have forfeited part of their paychecks to buy me this path to play on and, by god, I should jolly well be using it and not getting in their way.

2. Next comes roads with bike lanes, when I need to leave the bike lane to achieve an acceptable level of safety due to parked cars, obstructions, visibility, debris, approaching intersections, etc. See #1 for my explanation of the psychology involved.

3. Next comes narrow-laned roads in general, oddly enough even when there is more than one lane in each direction, where the motorist must move at least half-way into the adjacent lane to pass me.

4. Next is probably roadways with sidewalks, where the great majority of people riding bicycles are seen doing so on the sidewalk.

I receive the least hostility when riding on roads with a wide outside lane, no bike lane and no sidewalks, where I can choose a safe line which still allows motorists to overtake me without moving too far, if at all, out of the lane.

I do agree that some of the hostility is based on motorists' expectations of the behavior of bicyclists based on motorists' skewed perceptions about our "right" to use the road. But I would also point out that most of this ranking is also consistent with my hypothesis about predictability: what gets them agitated is a lack of predictability in how cyclists will behave in a given situation and how they will be expected to respond (I also think this lack of predictability is part of what makes us as cyclists get so frustrated by the behavior of motorists). In your more "hostile" situations, there is probably more variance between your "skilled" riding behavior and the behavior of many other cyclists they see. So, they don't understand what you're doing and why, and they get frustrated and aggressive because they don't how they should respond. Remember that most people don't actually think their actions through while driving; they merely act almost unconsciously based on their previous training and experience in similar situations.

It really amazes me how different areas and different roads, even in the same town can have motorists with vastly different responses to "taking the lane." One three lane (each way) 50 MPH road I ride, that has a bike lane, on occasion requires that I take the lane due to maintenance trucks and the like that straddle the curb and BL. While traffic moves fast on that road, and I wonder at times if the last cars in fast traffic "train" will see me in time... I have never gotten harassed on that road, even though I am out of the BL and moving quite slow compared to the MV traffic. (up hill, as low as 10MPH)

Near my home is a 35MPH road, with two lanes (each way) and the curbs are lined with cars. I have to take the lane to stay out of the door zone, so I do... I am usually riding at about 18-20MPH on this fairly flat road, so not even that slow, relative to the MV traffic, yet I get harassed on a fairly regular basis on that road. There are no BL, so there really is no other place to ride.

Now the big differences.. the traffic density on the 35MPH road is heavy. There is lots of traffic... lots of bike riders use the sidewalks... (of course these are ninjas on 20 in. wheel bikes... ). The traffic density on the 50MPH road is light, but quite fast and variable... traffic comes in fast packs. There are no continuous sidewalks, and the only cyclists usually use the BL... when it isn't otherwise out of order. Apples and oranges as far as responses from motorists.

I've noticed that too, the higher the speed the better behaved that they seem to be. Like a couple of years ago when I was coming home from Tampa, Gandy Blvd which is normally at least two lanes in each direction was down to the just the right lane. There was no room for anyone to safely pass me, and there was no place for me to safely pull over and let them pass. When it finally opened back up to two lanes everyone politely pulled over into the left lane and passed me. No one honked at me or attempted to unsafely pass me or anything.

My state has a 2' passing law; if 3' passing legislation were introduced, it would almost certainly be amended by the rural conservative legislators to place new restrictions on where bicyclists may ride, such as creating new mandatory shoulder-use and bike-lane-use requirements and bicycle-specific FRAP laws, which we don't have now.

I prefer an alternative approach, of explicitly legalizing the already defacto standard practice of crossing a double yellow line to pass bicyclists when it is otherwise safe and legal to do so. All the other restrictions on passing based on slight distances, curves, oncoming traffic, etc. would still apply. Specifically, the law would be changed to eliminate the restriction on passing imposed by a double yellow centerline when the traffic to be passed is traveling less than half the maximum posted speed limit. Ohio already has such a law.

Such a law would likely be supported by the rural conservative legislators, who do this routinely to pass tractors, or drive tractors themselves.

Travel lanes here in NC are typically narrow, say 10 or 11 feet wide, with no shoulder. If you ask the local police about how a motorist should pass a cyclist, they throw up their hands and don't know what to say; they think it's currently illegal to pass a cyclist by crossing the double yellow. The motorists, in turn, feel that if the cyclist's position in the roadway and a minimum passing distance requires them to cross the double yellow to pass, but it's illegal to cross the double yellow, then the cyclist's position is wrong or the cyclist shouldn't be in the roadway. Both the police and the motorists transfer their frustration to the cyclist.

By making it clear that legaly passing of cyclists is expected to involve crossing the double yellow line, I think the pressure on motorists would be reduced, resulting in less road rage against cyclists, and police could start having more meaningful discussions about safe passing practices, such as waiting for oncoming traffic to clear and for sight distances to be adequate, rather than running away from the conversation.

Eventually, in a state where almost all travel lanes on important roads are narrow, the safe passing meme could become a very simple one: "Change lanes to pass."

I prefer an alternative approach, of explicitly legalizing the already defacto standard practice of crossing a double yellow line to pass bicyclists when it is otherwise safe and legal to do so. All the other restrictions on passing based on slight distances, curves, oncoming traffic, etc. would still apply. Specifically, the law would be changed to eliminate the restriction on passing imposed by a double yellow centerline when the traffic to be passed is traveling less than half the maximum posted speed limit. Ohio already has such a law.
This is a sensible modification to the law and something I have been lobbying for here in Idaho.

I started this thread to discuss strict liability which I advocate.
If the US implements strict liability it will simply be added to drivers liability insurance policies. Cyclists will likely be required to have some form of liability insurance and that is fine with me.

I am starting to see what google search delivers for the phrase. I think this blog has some
interesting points.
http://www.kimharding.net/blog/
scroll down a bit to active travel.

I started this thread to discuss strict liability which I advocateOK, but you did a pretty poor job with the title then -- the title says "why I think the 3 foot rule is a waste of effort", and then the situation you described almost certainly had nothing to do with a 3' [passing] law, at least as they exist in most of the US. (Really, it's not clear what 3' [passing] laws have to do with any of this.)

Car drivers do take responsibility (or are forced to, same difference), even without strict liability laws, when it can be shown that they are at fault in a collision. Same goes for cyclists, pedestrians, whatever. So your premise that "The only way clueless uncaring or angry car drivers will ever take responsibility is to have a strict liability law" is easily disproven. (Now, you could say that they don't take responsibility often enough, that would be a different matter.)

The anecdote you give is not really a good example of anything -- a minor bump in a parking lot, where nobody was hurt and damage was minimal at best (right?) ... the police aren't going to investigate that, and if you're smart you won't try to litigate based on it, so what exactly do you want him to take responsibility for? Hurting your feelings? With no damage and no injuries, would you like the police to hold him down and keep him quiet while you curse at him?

Had you been injured, the police might have investigated further (but even so, they're not going to ticket the guy, as most traffic laws apply only to roads) but you seem to have taken their unwillingness to investigate a non-event (especially when you called "later") to mean they wouldn't investigate a real event if called right away -- that hardly seems a reasonable extrapolation.

Also, strict liability as practiced in Europe regarding cars hitting cyclists or pedestrians is typically a civil matter rather than a criminal one -- so I wouldn't expect it to affect the police's actions regarding any collisions, but instead the discussions with the insurance company and any possible civil court proceedings.

That said, I'd say the chances of strict liability coming to the US as seen in Europe is approximately *zero*. Things would have to change here *greatly* for the US to even seriously consider that -- as it stands, here drivers are the normal people and everybody else is the weirdo. You'll need to change that somehow if you ever want this stuff to happen here.