Advocacy & Safety - Driver Charged - Violated Three Foot Law

Actually, it was a Hit-and-Run. But since the car hit the bike, the driver must have been closer than three feet, logically.

The cyclist was quick-thinking enough to leave a DNA sample on the car, which is what got the driver arrested.

Link:

http://wbal.com/article/85677/2/template-story/Driver-Charged-In-Bicycle-Hit-And-Run-After-DNA-Testing

Wow, finally... it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Of course this is more than just a 3 foot violation... it is a hit and run... taken all together, the driver should lose their license.

Wow, finally... it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Of course this is more than just a 3 foot violation... it is a hit and run... taken all together, the driver should lose their license.
Knowing my relatives, if someone did that to me they would lose more than their license. I'm impressed that the police pursued the case. In OR and NorCal, it's a rare cop who would consider it a crime to run over a cyclist, at least based on a few score of discussions that I have had with the boys and girls in blue (and brown and green).

Wow, finally... it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Of course this is more than just a 3 foot violation... it is a hit and run... taken all together, the driver should lose their license.
Finally? This is how the 3' laws are used, but still very rarely - only with hard indisputable facts which means proof of contact.

http://azbikelaw.org/articles/ThreeFoot.html

Finally? This is how the 3' laws are used, but still very rarely - only with hard indisputable facts which means proof of contact.

http://azbikelaw.org/articles/ThreeFoot.html

Yeah finally... even you acknowledged "very rarely."

I was involved in a scenario where some people stuck their arms out the window of a car and hit me. Luckily the car they were in had a personalized plate, so I pulled over and called it in. Cops met me a bit further down the road and I filled out a complaint for assault. They caught up with the driver and called me after the fact -- they said the driver wasn't aware that people in their car had their hands out the window, thought they were passing with enough room (they weren't, obviously) (and besides, yeah, right :rolleyes:). I said I'd be happy enough if they were tagged for a 3' passing violation, which the cops were happy to do. Wish I'd remembered that it was also a hit and run, but at least the driver faced a civil fine and violation on their driving record.

I think one of the reasons they were willing to 'settle' for violation of 3' passing law was because the complaint I filed was a much more serious charge of assault...

Yeah finally... even you acknowledged "very rarely."
??

??

I said finally... as the 3 foot law is one of those things that isn't really enforced. You acknowledged this by saying rarely. We really are in agreement here.

Finally, a case that proves the benifit of leaving some DNA on a JAMs vehicle.

I hope the charges stick, not getting dropped in a plea bargain or unfairly judged lack of evidence. Even despite the DNA evidence.

So, can they read your DNA off snot rockets? If so, I've marked a lot of cars.

So, can they read your DNA off snot rockets? If so, I've marked a lot of cars.

:roflmao2: Now that is a cheap and useful way to leave a cyclist's DNA, after they have been hit.

Wow, finally... it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Of course this is more than just a 3 foot violation... it is a hit and run... taken all together, the driver should lose their license.

Agreed, down here in Florida we had a local cyclist get hit and killed by a motorist (after we had a 3' passing law passed) and to the best of my knowledge there still haven't been any charges pressed against the driver. Despite the fact that if a motorist strikes a cyclist that they've obviously have violated the 3' passing law.

Despite the fact that if a motorist strikes a cyclist that they've obviously have violated the 3' passing law.Well, except that the term "passing" usually has a specific legal meaning, and most collisions don't involve actual passing.

The devil would be in the details in how exactly the law was worded (I'm talking in generalities -- I certainly don't know all the 3' passing laws out there), but the only offenses that would usually count as passing would be a car overtaking the bike or *maybe* the car running over the cyclist from behind. (And that would be very iffy, as the car didn't actually pass the cyclist -- unless he ran him completely over.)

And in any case where there's actually a collision there's other laws that would also apply beyond the "3' passing law" -- unsafe passing (which might be named differently in your state) if nothing else. It's not like the "3' passing law" is actually needed to charge somebody with a collision -- there's *always* another charge that could be used.

But left hook, right hook, running a red light, failure to yield, door prize -- none of these are even remotely like passing.

Finally? This is how the 3' laws are used, but still very rarely - only with hard indisputable facts which means proof of contact.

http://azbikelaw.org/articles/ThreeFoot.html

Yup, it's a useless law (3 foot laws) because they are only enforced after someone gets seriously hurt or killed. They are never enforced any other time.

Yup, it's a useless law (3 foot laws) because they are only enforced after someone gets seriously hurt or killed. They are never enforced any other time.

au contraire, i suspect more bicyclists are passed with a safer buffer by most motorists in states with recent safe passing legislation.

au contraire, i suspect more bicyclists are passed with a safer buffer by most motorists in states with recent safe passing legislation.

I doubt most motorists know these laws... any more than they know that bikes belong on roads.

Yup, it's a useless law (3 foot laws) because they are only enforced after someone gets seriously hurt or killed. They are never enforced any other time.
I have no idea what magic people seem to think those laws might have.

It's clear that 3-foot laws are basically unenforceable. Therefore, that can't be the reason for them.

Why might they be useful anyway?

I have no idea what magic people seem to think those laws might have.

It's clear that 3-foot laws are basically unenforceable. Therefore, that can't be the reason for them.

Why might they be useful anyway?

For the reason quoted in the original post - if you hit a cyclists you have violated the rule. The only defence would then be to prove that the rider did the traditional "suicide swerve". This would, admittedly, be of little comfort to the rider, but would give grounds for prosecution - assuming the local DA/police were prepared to use it, of course.

The only defence would then be to prove that the rider did the traditional "suicide swerve". .
That defense has already been used to get out of 3' law violation that killed cyclist who was riding in a shoulder that looks identical to a bike lane. Sept. 12 2007

For the reason quoted in the original post - if you hit a cyclists you have violated the rule. The only defence would then be to prove that the rider did the traditional "suicide swerve". This would, admittedly, be of little comfort to the rider, but would give grounds for prosecution - assuming the local DA/police were prepared to use it, of course.
No, I don't think that's it. Hitting a cyclist is a violation of some other law ("failure to control one's vehicle" or "unsafe passing") that already exists. That is, the 3-foot law isn't needed for that (it's actually kind of absurd that that would be the "violation").

Without a law that is specific about the distance, all that can happen endless arguments without any real authority about what the passing distance should be. All that you would get is a recommendation (and not even the same recommendation) that you'd be free to ignore.

if you hit a cyclists you have violated the ruleAgain, this is not automatically true. In fact, it's probably not true for most collisions, as most collisions don't involve passing.

It's generally not a "magic 3' buffer zone all around the cyclist that cars may not cross into" -- it's a "one may not come closer than 3' to a bicycle while overtaking (passing a slower moving vehicle going the same direction) it, except maybe under certain conditions (which depend on the specific law we're talking about)" thing.

And again, if there is a collision, there's already other laws that cover that -- this law would not be the only one.

The cyclist was quick-thinking enough to leave a DNA sample on the car, which is what got the driver arrested.




Wait...what?

Well, except that the term "passing" usually has a specific legal meaning, and most collisions don't involve actual passing.

The devil would be in the details in how exactly the law was worded (I'm talking in generalities -- I certainly don't know all the 3' passing laws out there), but the only offenses that would usually count as passing would be a car overtaking the bike or *maybe* the car running over the cyclist from behind. (And that would be very iffy, as the car didn't actually pass the cyclist -- unless he ran him completely over.)

And in any case where there's actually a collision there's other laws that would also apply beyond the "3' passing law" -- unsafe passing (which might be named differently in your state) if nothing else. It's not like the "3' passing law" is actually needed to charge somebody with a collision -- there's *always* another charge that could be used.

But left hook, right hook, running a red light, failure to yield, door prize -- none of these are even remotely like passing.

For better or for worse I think that a lot of people interpret the various 3' passing laws to mean not just passing but following as well.

Even if they don't if a motorist hits a cyclist that they are following and not passing then again they were very clearly following at too close of a distance to be able to avoid hitting said cyclist. Or ANY vehicle that happens to be on the road or even any pedestrian that happens to be on the road.

Sadly, though as we have seen time-after-time even when it is cut and dry that the motorist is at fault they still don't get charged with a crime when they strike and hurt/kill a cyclist. In that regard I really wish that the USA was more like Europe. Where even if the cyclist is at fault the motorist is still presumed to be more at fault simply by virtue of the fact that they were driving a car and had the higher responsibility to avoid crashes.

I doubt most motorists know these laws... any more than they know that bikes belong on roads.

+1,000,000

Today, while I was riding my bike out to the VA I had the occupants of a black pickup truck yell at me that bikes "didn't belong on road." It'd be nice if they'd learn that we are vehicles and that we have a right to be on the road.

I have no idea what magic people seem to think those laws might have. It's clear that 3-foot laws are basically unenforceable. Therefore, that can't be the

reason for them. Why might they be useful anyway?

I do feel that way at times.


For the reason quoted in the original post - if you hit a cyclists you have violated the rule. The only defence would then be to prove that the rider did the traditional "suicide swerve". This would, admittedly, be of little comfort to the rider, but would give grounds for prosecution - assuming the local DA/police were prepared to use it, of course.

I wish they would use it more often, instead of 'looking the other way'.

au contraire, i suspect more bicyclists are passed with a safer buffer by most motorists in states with recent safe passing legislation.

Disagree, almost no one knows the law even exists here in South Carolina. Not a single person in my family was aware of the law when I mentioned it to them. If the law is to be effective, I think replacing those "share the road" signs with "3 foot, it's the law" signs would make the law much more effective and make the public much more aware of them.

Disagree, almost no one knows the law even exists here in South Carolina. Not a single person in my family was aware of the law when I mentioned it to them. If the law is to be effective, I think replacing those "share the road" signs with "3 foot, it's the law" signs would make the law much more effective and make the public much more aware of them.
3ft laws are often misunderstood or interpreted especially when condensed to a memorable one liner. For example there were several cases in AZ of newspaper articles (even those intending to be pro-cyclist) and even more cases in letter to editor, that explained that the 3ft law means that cyclists should ride in the 3ft right most side of the road and motorist should give that space to them.

What else could 'Give cyclists 3 feet' or '3 foot, it's the law' mean?

^^^


Arizona got credit in the league's national ranking for having a law that gives bicyclists a 3-foot minimum space at the right edge of the road to ride. Even without bike lanes, bicyclists are entitled to ride in the street and motorists are required to give them at least that 3 feet of space.

[QUOTE=njkayaker;13766619]No, I don't think that's it. Hitting a cyclist is a violation of some other law ("failure to control one's vehicle" or "unsafe passing") that already exists. That is, the 3-foot law isn't needed for that (it's actually kind of absurd that that would be the "violation").

Except you get absurd cases like the one where a dimwitted 19 year old thought it was ok to download a new ringtone while driving. She then drifted onto the shoulder where a cyclist was riding, hit and killed him with her [I]driver's side door[I] and was charged with "improper lane usage" by the idiot DA rather than dangerous driving. Same DA also said that it wasn't a road where you would expect to see a cyclist (sic). In short, cyclists need all the help they can get.

Except you get absurd cases like the one where a dimwitted 19 year old thought it was ok to download a new ringtone while driving. She then drifted onto the shoulder where a cyclist was riding, hit and killed him with her [I]driver's side door[I] and was charged with "improper lane usage" by the idiot DA rather than dangerous driving. Same DA also said that it wasn't a road where you would expect to see a cyclist (sic). In short, cyclists need all the help they can get.There probably isn't a charge called "dangerous driving". "Reckless driving" is probably the charge you're thinking of, but there's likely a number of requirements that must be met before the DA can charge somebody with it and reasonably expect to get a conviction -- and if the driver was simply doing something that many of the jurors are likely to do on a regular basis, a conviction might be difficult. Same probably goes for manslaughter.

I'm guessing that "improper lane usage" is just another minor traffic violation -- same as violating most of the 3' passing laws out there. It doesn't really matter which of the minor traffic violations the DA uses (but they often can't go for several of them at once due to the Constitutional ban on double jeopardy) -- so he picks something, the driver gets his $200 fine and that's it -- at least until a civil case comes in, and that's a totally different issue.

At least the DA charged him with something -- many don't even bother.

I'm not really interested in debating what charges would be appropriate in the situation you gave -- I don't know the details, and I'm not the DA. But the reality is that if the same driver had killed a pedestrian, or a motorcyclist or a driver in another car in the same manner -- the charges probably wouldn't be very different. You generally need to be doing something really over the top to qualify for "manslaughter", "reckless driving" or "negligent homicide" -- being drunk, drag racing, evading the police seem to be the usual culprits. Texting is getting up there, but it's not really there yet. But downloading a ring tone -- while probably as bad as texting -- may not even be explicitly illegal (It would depend on the local laws.)

Either way, it's not like the DA you mentioned "needed" a 3' passing law to give him appropriate charges.

But downloading a ring tone -- while probably as bad as texting -- may not even be explicitly illegal (It would depend on the local laws.)
It's not a "hands free device" and he may have been texting to do the downloading.

It's possible that it wasn't strictly texting and thus "technically" allowed (which means that technology moves faster than the law!).

What else could 'Give cyclists 3 feet' or '3 foot, it's the law' mean?

I think signs like this one might help.

http://www.bikewalkmississippi.org/BWMS/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/state-law-3-feet-minimum-graphic-fb-300x250.jpg

But I agree, educating the public on exactly what this means is going to be the key in making it effective. I think we all agree the goal is to make roads safer for us bicycling on them.

I think signs like this one might help.

http://www.bikewalkmississippi.org/BWMS/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/state-law-3-feet-minimum-graphic-fb-300x250.jpg


Looks like cyclists better ride further right so motorist have that 3ft ;)

A better sign/slogan for the three foot laws would be one that simply says "Stay Three Feet away from Cyclists."

Give cyclists 3 feet, sounds too much like cyclists can have a three foot chunk of pavement.

I need to tape a yard stick with a flag to my side....kind of like an outrigger.

As stated earlier, before we start educating drivers of the 3' passing rule, let's start educating drivers that cyclists have the same right to be on the road as drivers...ask your co-workers if they think it is law that cyclists have the same rights as vehicles on the road;

i personally think that if all drivers knew that and cyclists practiced FRAP, most of the bicycles/vehicles conflict would be resolved (of course, unless drinking/texting/distracted driving is involved!)

As stated earlier, before we start educating drivers of the 3' passing rule, let's start educating drivers that cyclists have the same right to be on the road as drivers...ask your co-workers if they think it is law that cyclists have the same rights as vehicles on the road;

i personally think that if all drivers knew that and cyclists practiced FRAP, most of the bicycles/vehicles conflict would be resolved (of course, unless drinking/texting/distracted driving is involved!)

Most if not all here feel as you do, that we need more and stricter drivers education. And as many of us have said starting in the classroom and at an earlier age. And that drivers education classes need to teach new drivers that cyclists DO in fact have a legal right to be on the road.

Uh, you do know that in a lot of areas that FRAP isn't always the safest road position for a cyclist to take. As sadly that is where debris from the travel lanes end up. That is also where home owners/renters tend to put their garbage cans for pick up. Cars are often parked there.

Cyclists need all the help they can get.

Yes. But at the same time, cyclists' need to be absolute in their legal right to be on the road. In addition, cyclists' need to plan accordingly for a driver potentially not seeing them. So that means, bright reflective attire(no dark clothing), proper lighting, good lane position that would account for a potential mishap by a motorist, and no distractions(like riding with a Walkman).

As stated earlier, before we start educating drivers of the 3' passing rule, let's start educating drivers that cyclists have the same right to be on the road as drivers...ask your co-workers if they think it is law that cyclists have the same rights as vehicles on the road;

i personally think that if all drivers knew that and cyclists practiced FRAP, most of the bicycles/vehicles conflict would be resolved (of course, unless drinking/texting/distracted driving is involved!)

FRAP is subjective, as to what part of the lane, the cyclist feels will generally guarantee their safety. So if a cyclist(like myself), feels that 'taking the lane' will guarantee their safety on the road pursuant to the traffic code. Then they will 'take the lane'. Because, Even 'taking the lane' falls within FRAP. Because the practicality of one's lane position, is not for a motorist to decide.

exactly...FRAP also means taking the lane when it's the safest...if i am making a left turn, i will signal and take the lane well in advance of the intersection (same if there are parked cars, or in a blind curve) - however, on a clear straight road, i will be well to the right, allowing all faster vehicles (including any faster cyclists) to pass me without any inconvenience (and hopefully, allowing me 3' of breathing space!)

FRAP is subjective, as to what part of the lane, the cyclist feels will generally guarantee their safety. So if a cyclist(like myself), feels that 'taking the lane' will guarantee their safety on the road pursuant to the traffic code. Then they will 'take the lane'. Because, Even 'taking the lane' falls within FRAP. Because the practicality of one's lane position, is not for a motorist to decide.

Agreed, but sadly there are not only motorists, but cyclists here who feel that we cyclists are not always the best ones to choose/decide where it is and isn't safe for us to ride. As evident by those members here who think that FRAP means that we cyclists need to ride in the gutter pan, or hug the curb or stay in the bike lanes even when said bike lanes endanger our safety/lives.

exactly...FRAP also means taking the lane when it's the safest...if i am making a left turn, i will signal and take the lane well in advance of the intersection (same if there are parked cars, or in a blind curve) - however, on a clear straight road, i will be well to the right, allowing all faster vehicles (including any faster cyclists) to pass me without any inconvenience (and hopefully, allowing me 3' of breathing space!)

Just remember that as numerous members here have said time-and-time again that most motorists give us as much room when passing as we leave ourselves to our right.

3ft laws are often misunderstood or interpreted especially when condensed to a memorable one liner. For example there were several cases in AZ of newspaper articles (even those intending to be pro-cyclist) and even more cases in letter to editor, that explained that the 3ft law means that cyclists should ride in the 3ft right most side of the road and motorist should give that space to them.

What else could 'Give cyclists 3 feet' or '3 foot, it's the law' mean?

"...What else could 'Give cyclists 3 feet' or '3 foot, it's the law' mean?" noisebeam

Well...hypothetically and informally, I think it could mean that if someone were to drive their car close enough and past someone on a bike that the person on the bike were able to simply extend their hand...and key the car... . That's too close.

Actually, that really would be too close. About 1' too close. I measured wrong. My arm, shoulder to finger tips is about 24". So really, my rough estimation would be that if someone on a bike were to extend their arm and fingers towards a car someone drives past them, the person's fingertips should be no closer than a foot from the car.

A better sign/slogan for the three foot laws would be one that simply says "Stay Three Feet away from Cyclists."

Give cyclists 3 feet, sounds too much like cyclists can have a three foot chunk of pavement.

I agree... Genec, is there actually a 3' law in California. I was riding home this evening on a 25mph residential road that is a main, two lane road to town with narrow bike lanes on each side. I was in the bike lane and some guy in a smaller car drove by not more then a foot away and then pulled back into the traffic lane.. he had no reason to do that except to maybe scare me, or? Lots of twisted minds out there.

"...What else could 'Give cyclists 3 feet' or '3 foot, it's the law' mean?" noisebeam

Well...hypothetically and informally, I think it could mean that if someone were to drive their car close enough and past someone on a bike that the person on the bike were able to simply extend their hand...and key the car... . That's too close.

You are viewing this as a cyclist who can fill in the missing information because you already know this is referring to passing distance.

[/B][/U][/COLOR]

Agreed, but sadly there are not only motorists, but cyclists here who feel that we cyclists are not always the best ones to choose/decide where it is and isn't safe for us to ride. As evident by those members here who think that FRAP means that we cyclists need to ride in the gutter pan, or hug the curb or stay in the bike lanes even when said bike lanes endanger our safety/lives.

Exactly

You are viewing this as a cyclist who can fill in the missing information because you already know this is referring to passing distance.

I'm not sure I completely understand your reply, but in actual use of the road, for a person driving a car, gauging and maintaining a 3' distance between their car and a cyclist on the road isn't really so difficult. Most people with some experience driving, probably have quite a good sense of what a 3' distance between their car and another motor vehicle is...even if they don't particularly associate the distance with a numerical measurement...because they generally don't want to get any closer to another car out of fear of a collision and damage to either of the two vehicles.

Laws that specify distance with a numerical figure, between car and bike traffic are probably a good idea even if citations aren't being written...hopefully, some are being written without a collision prompting them... for offenses of that type. Such laws codify what should be part of common sense use of the road.

A couple days ago, a car passed me about 2' away. Speed and speed differential was no more than about 12mph, didn't appear to be an intimidation move, but it was unsettling to me, and I wish the person driving wouldn't have done it. I could have easily moved over a few inches and rapped on the car window to let them know I was there...but I'd rather not do that. One of the best things that could possibly happen, is if mainstream discussion about what constitutes a safe passing distance between motor vehicles and cars were a bit higher profile.

I'm not sure I completely understand your reply, but in actual use of the road, for a person driving a car, gauging and maintaining a 3' distance between their car and a cyclist on the road isn't really so difficult.Remember, these laws are generally only about passing, not a 3' distance at all times.

But beyond that, motorists are quite bad at maintaining a 3' distance from something -- but they know this (at least subconsciously) and most really really really don't want to strike a cyclist -- so they don't bother trying to stay 3' away from you. Instead, most stay 6' (laterally) or more from you, and far more than that if behind unless everybody is stopped, just to be sure. Most people pass at a safe distance, 3' law or not -- the question is "does the law affect those who normally wouldn't?"

The same to you





























http://www.herfree.com/avatar.php