Advocacy & Safety - California 3 foot law vetoed again

For the second time in two years, Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday vetoed legislation requiring motorists to provide at least 3 feet of space between their vehicle and bicyclists they pass.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/09/gov-brown-vetoes-bill-restricting-how-motorists-pass-bicyclists.html

Hopefully, cyclists ride in front of his limo whenever he's driving somewhere that has a double yellow.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/09/gov-brown-vetoes-bill-restricting-how-motorists-pass-bicyclists.html

Hopefully, cyclists ride in front of his limo whenever he's driving somewhere that has a double yellow.

Even if that happens, he'll have a police escort up front running cyclists off the road.

Another major setback, by the time a 3 foot bill is passed by Brown, it'll be so watered down that cyclists will end up having to give motorists a minimum of 3 feet to pass.

Reading the article, it looks like the hang-up is that this law would have permitted crossing the double yellow line to facilitate 3 ft passing clearance.

I didn't even know it was illegal to cross a double yellow line when passing a cyclist. Happens all the time.

Reading the article, it looks like the hang-up is that this law would have permitted crossing the double yellow line to facilitate 3 ft passing clearance.

I didn't even know it was illegal to cross a double yellow line when passing a cyclist. Happens all the time.
Always illegal to pass over a double-yellow, AFAIK. I'd very much doubt anyone doing so to pass a cyclist would be cited, ever. As you say, happens all the time.

Surprise surprise-----------not really Calif is the most screwed up state in the union.

Geez, what's getting into Moonbeam in his old age? Still pining over Linda Rondstadt?

Governor of California's misguided 'deep pockets' concern (http://gov.ca.gov/docs/SB_1464_Veto_Message.pdf)

275647

Jerry thinks it would open the state up to liability in the event of a collision when motorists crossed the double yellow, despite the law only allowing it when it could be done safely. IMO There would be no culpability of the state.

Why isn't this a concern in other states that have the 3-foot law? Even here in Florida (the supposed cyclists-death capital of the U.S.) we have the law. http://www.floridabicycle.org/rules/bikelaw.html

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traffic_lanes.htm

Though it says no crossing a solid yellow line unless making a left turn, I've been told that you can maneuver around a hazard when safe to do so. Of course you would be sited if it was a blind pass or you if you passed while there was oncoming traffic.

Surprise surprise-----------not really Calif is the most screwed up state in the union.

Oh really? I guess all 37 million of us are stupid not to live in such an amazing state as Nebraska.

I trust Jerry, if he's thinking one more law is gong to end up costing more than it benefits he won't get an argument from me. I mean really...who's going to observe a 3 ft law that doesn't already yield to cyclists...no one.

Enforce the laws on the books, that's good enough for me.

Just remove the language that makes it legal to cross the double yellow and replace it with something along the lines of "when in a no-passing zone, the motorist will move as far to the left of the lane as practical and reduce speed as necessary to ensure safety". No passing zones are a small portion of the roadway and most are wide enough that even if you don't encroach on the double yellow, you can still leave at least a couple of feet if not a full three feet of passing space. As stated, a person encroaching the double yellow for the safety of a cyclist, while not endangering anyone else, isn't likely to get cited anyway. This would pass the 3-foot rule for 90+% of the roadways and still make high speed near misses citable in no-passing zones.

unfortunately, the continued irresponsibility of motorists has prompted highway departments everywhere to paint double yellow lines in more and more places. It has long been known that center lines reduce accidents because people become morons when they are behind the wheel. Pennsylvania made it legal to cross double yellow lines when passing a cyclist, but only when safe. I think that's a fairly good way of handling it. The law also says that passes have to be safe, which seems like a dumbing down of the law, but if that's what it takes, so be it.

Just remove the language that makes it legal to cross the double yellow and replace it with something along the lines of "when in a no-passing zone, the motorist will move as far to the left of the lane as practical and reduce speed as necessary to ensure safety".
Problem is, when one is on a narrow road (i.e. mountain roads, typically popular with cyclists), then it would be legal to pass super close.


unfortunately, the continued irresponsibility of motorists has prompted highway departments everywhere to paint double yellow lines in more and more places. It has long been known that center lines reduce accidents because people become morons when they are behind the wheel. Pennsylvania made it legal to cross double yellow lines when passing a cyclist, but only when safe. I think that's a fairly good way of handling it. The law also says that passes have to be safe, which seems like a dumbing down of the law, but if that's what it takes, so be it.

I think double yellows in PA are advisory in all cases, including car-passing-car situations. It's only illegal when 'no passing' signs are posted.

Always illegal to pass over a double-yellow, AFAIK. I'd very much doubt anyone doing so to pass a cyclist would be cited, ever. As you say, happens all the time.

In ME, with the same bike safety legislation establishing a 3' passing zone and clarity regarding taking the lane and crossing lanes in left-hand turn situations, passing when safe to do so is specifically legal when cars are passing cyclists. This specific statute was done as a concession to MV drivers in the same spirit as the specific statute outlining how cyclists should legally approach a left hand turn at an intersection.

TLDR: Not always illegal to pass a cyclist where there's a double-yellow line; depends on state laws.

Oh really? I guess all 37 million of us are stupid not to live in such an amazing state as Nebraska.

I trust Jerry, if he's thinking one more law is gong to end up costing more than it benefits he won't get an argument from me. I mean really...who's going to observe a 3 ft law that doesn't already yield to cyclists...no one.

Enforce the laws on the books, that's good enough for me.

Trouble is, laws on the books aren't always enforced, and if there's an easier check mark on an accident report outlining where blame for a collision lies which gives cyclists at least a shot at not being always the Bad Guy, then we should support it. If you get hit, motor-vehicle driver can claim all kinds of things, but if they are cited at the scene with violating a state law, you've got a better shot in criminal or civil court.

I am Governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles and never frowns...

...
TLDR: Not always illegal to pass a cyclist where there's a double-yellow line; depends on state laws.
Same goes in CO


I am Governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles and never frowns...
Soon I will be president! :)

...if nothing else, laws providing for motorists to cross double yellow lines when passing bicyclists reduce friction between motorists and bicyclists.

motorists will be less likely to hang back in a no-passing zones, railing on the horn.

Jerry Brown's first two terms as CA Governor: CalTrans gets a bike division (promptly removed by Deukmejian) and college is free/nearly so.
JB's second incarnation: Screw cyclists. Why don't they just drive coal-powered cars since they get access to car pool lanes in them. Screw college students too.

He was twenty-five years ahead of his time during his first two terms. He's made up for that by being fifty years behind his time this go 'round. I miss Jerry Brown the Younger.

In his veto letter, Brown mentioned that Caltrans had proposed a remedy to reduce liability associated with crossing the double yellow line, but that the author was unwilling to amend his bill accordingly.

Does anyone know what Caltrans had suggested?
Why was the bill's sponsor unwilling to make the suggested amendment?
Why aren't we talking about this, as it appears to be the single obstacle in the path of success?

In his veto letter, Brown mentioned that Caltrans had proposed a remedy to reduce liability associated with crossing the double yellow line, but that the author was unwilling to amend his bill accordingly.

Does anyone know what Caltrans had suggested?
Why was the bill's sponsor unwilling to make the suggested amendment?
Why aren't we talking about this, as it appears to be the single obstacle in the path of success?

The author probably felt that the amendment would further weaken the bill's strength, making the bill just a painted up version of the current passing law. If the author chooses to introduce another bill next year, one only can speculate what the Cal Trans, CHP, or some other state agency's think tank objection will be.

Meanwhile, not slowing down greatly or changing lanes when passing an emergency or law enforcement vehicle on the side of the road can get you ticketed.

Meanwhile, not slowing down greatly or changing lanes when passing an emergency or law enforcement vehicle on the side of the road can get you ticketed.

Oh the irony!

The author probably felt that the amendment would further weaken the bill's strength, making the bill just a painted up version of the current passing law. If the author chooses to introduce another bill next year, one only can speculate what the Cal Trans, CHP, or some other state agency's think tank objection will be.

Any idea what that amendment would have been? I read the veto letter, and it seems that Brown is strongly hinting that Caltrans has a path to success, if someone will take it.

I'm trying not to be pedantic -- it seems other states have skinned this cat by permitting drivers to cross the double yellow in order to give 3 ft of clearance. What have they done to mitigate the risk of head-on collision lawsuits?

Any idea what that amendment would have been? I read the veto letter, and it seems that Brown is strongly hinting that Caltrans has a path to success, if someone will take it.

I'm trying not to be pedantic -- it seems other states have skinned this cat by permitting drivers to cross the double yellow in order to give 3 ft of clearance. What have they done to mitigate the risk of head-on collision lawsuits?

I'm not sure what was involved in the amendment, and the media has not received any word either according to this article.

http://roadwarrior.blogs.pressdemocrat.com/15364/governor-rejects-3-foot-rule-for-drivers-when-passing-bicyclists/

"Brown didn’t elaborate on Caltrans’ plan, and Caltrans officials were unavailable for comment Friday evening".

TLDR: Not always illegal to pass a cyclist where there's a double-yellow line; depends on state laws.
I was referring to "in California", as that's the subject at hand.

Problem is, when one is on a narrow road (i.e. mountain roads, typically popular with cyclists), then it would be legal to pass super close.

That is a problem and, unfortunately, a reality without a practical solution on many narrow roads. When you get into lakes country around here you have a lot of quick rises and falls through rolling hills with many turns and very narrow roads with almost no shoulders. The double yellows are mostly on hills and blind turns so to be over the double yellow is just asking for collision. There is also enough traffic, especially on summer weekends, that even if crossing the double yellow was legal, oncoming traffic would often prevent it. To make things worse, the state is adding 12" wide rumble strips to the white line on many turns and sometimes along entire highways. The closest thing to safe is for riders to stay far right and be as visible as possible and for drivers to slow down and to take even more caution in areas with double yellows on blind hills and corners. Close passes (hopefully not "super" close) may be unavoidable at times but can still be accomplished with reasonable safety if everyone is on the same page. I've said it before, if we would all act like we had each other's back instead of like we were in each other's way, we'd all be happier and safer.

The only real solution would be to widen the roads and/or install bike lanes in high risk areas, but that is unlikely to happen in this economy unless a road is already scheduled for repaving with improvements. I am glad to see that on the highways that are being repaved, they are leaving wider, smoother shoulders. It used to be, and still is on some older roads, that 10 inches right of the white line was a 6" dropoff into loose gravel leading to a steep ditch.

I am Governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles and never frowns...
Props for the DK reference! I had the same song running through my head as I was reading the posts.

I'm trying not to be pedantic -- it seems other states have skinned this cat by permitting drivers to cross the double yellow in order to give 3 ft of clearance. What have they done to mitigate the risk of head-on collision lawsuits?I really don't see the problem, it's not as if everywhere these yellow lines are painted are in areas of complete blind spots for drivers. Some areas will require a motorist to wait before they can pass safely, and that should be made clear to the motorist, that it is their responsibility to ensure it's safe to pass. Also cyclists are not the only obstruction that require motorists to cross the double yellow lines; it's not as if motorists have never been in a situation which required them to cross the double yellows, it's not just a cyclists thing. We as a people really need to demand some common sense and not bow down to idiots. http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2008/05/25/faq-can-they-cross-the-double-yellow-line/

Jerry Brown listens too much to lawyers; he should be providing leadership, in this case he's clearly not.

please take the political conversation to the Politics and Religion forum or we will move this thread there.

I think double yellows in PA are advisory in all cases, including car-passing-car situations. It's only illegal when 'no passing' signs are posted.

That's the first I've heard that.

Driver's Manual:
A double, solid yellow centerline shows the center of a twoway road. Even if it is not marked with a NO PASSING sign, passing by traffic traveling in either direction is not allowed on roads marked in this manner.

Props for the DK reference! I had the same song running through my head as I was reading the posts.

Me, too.

Must have been a real hardship for punk bands not too long ago, trying to riff off this song, finding something to rhyme with with Governor Schwarzenegger...

I was referring to "in California", as that's the subject at hand.

Noted. Just that in my state, and I assume many others, 3' passing laws have language that outlines safe passing for MV drivers over double-yellow lines in such a situation...

Y'know what's really great about 3' passing laws? They are one-way. Cars have to pass us with 3' of space. We are insanely lucky the laws are not worded to exclude bikes passing cars closer than 3'....

As far as cyclists with 3' rule, most of California (if not all) obeys this rule. Not sure why the complaint.

Always illegal to pass over a double-yellow, AFAIK. I'd very much doubt anyone doing so to pass a cyclist would be cited, ever. As you say, happens all the time.

If anything,they'll probably cite the cyclist for "causing an obstruction" or some such BS.

California über alles...

As a motorist, I often cross the double line when passing cyclists. It's hard to have "respect for the law" when the law is idiotic.

since some people can't stop posting OT political stuff (deleted, btw), I'm closing this