3-foot law for California

[haaseg]

One last thing that caught my attention: When you said you left 3 feet between your front bumper and his rear wheel, if you meant you were directly behind him, you were not only misunderstanding the intent of the 3 foot rule, you were tailgating the cyclist, which is much more dangerous than passing him with 2' on the side (in my opinion).

LoL - what is it with everyone and half-quotes in this thread (and from the original article compared to the actual bill). I said "right-front" bumper. I was trying to express that the distance was on a diagonal.

Had I been parallel with the bicycle, there would have only been 2 feet between my car and the bicycle. I decided that this was not sufficient room to pass safely. I remained to the left and behind the bicycle so that at any given time there was at least 3 feet between any part of my car and any part of the bike. I actually gave him more like 4 feet to be honest.

[urbanknight]

Thanks for clarifying. "right-front" wasn't clear to me whether that part of the bumper was right behind him or behind and to the side. That's why I included a qualifier in my comment instead of assuming anything.

By the way, I think I found that intersection (In Orange, right?). Although the bike lane breaks up, the total width stays the same. So, if there wasn't enough room for you, that cyclist must have drifted out into your zone going through the intersection. Your point still makes sense though, as there are plenty of roads out there that get narrower and wider.

[haaseg]

Yeah, I was looking at that too. I usually go through that intersection at least 2x by car (daycare run) and 1x by bike every day and I've been paying more attention this week than most. For one thing, the intersection is like 6 or 7 lanes wide on each side - it's kind of a monster. I think what happens is that the lane I was in tends to get squeezed - the cars to the left tend to be right on the line and even drift to the right abit as they go across, and cyclists angle for the bike lane on the other side.

For references, here's a link: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=irvine...ornia&t=h&z=21

There is one specific traffic pattern where this can become an issue too... if you have a situation where you have a right-turn only lane. Now a lot of them in this area actually still have the bike lane buffer "inside" of the right-turn lane, which is awesome. But still there are some where you are lane-splitting the car going straight and the car turning right. At that point, sitting on a red light, you may have at most 2 feet between the car on either side. Since on the whole, a bicycle comes off the line a lot fast than a car - unless the bicyclist intentionally moves to the right, the car is going to get stuck behind him.

Either that or the rule needs to be amended to say that a bicycle can travel no faster than 15mph when crossing an intersection, and I don't think many roadies would like that (myself included). However, I imagine that a majority of the bicyclists (commuters on hybrids, MTBs, kids going to school, etc.) are going to be going slower than that anyway.

[ZippyThePinhead]

Nice law. Enforcement is another story.
Have had that law in AZ for years. Cyclists still get hit/killed by car and no tickets issued in most instances..

Exactly. Legislators think that passing a new law is the solution for everything.

It's illegal to talk on a cell phone without hands-free equipment while driving, yet I see folks doing exactly that several times each day. I'm not on the road that often, too... I drive less than 10K miles/year. Now that the fine for using a cell phone while driving is significant (it was a much smaller fine before, and as a result the law wasn't being enforced), the law is being enforced when law enforcement *wants* to enforce it. It's basically become yet another tool for LEOs to use when they want a reason to stop someone, and/or a source of revenue for state and local governments.

[socalrider]

Yeah, but look at how effective the cell phone law has been.

+1 on that, I see drivers all day on there phone. I'm sure if you polled them they fall into the camp "I didn't know that's the law" or "I don't care I need to take this call"

[Mr. Beanz]

Yeah, but look at how effective the cell phone law has been.

That was the point of my comment.

[urbanknight]

That was the point of my comment.

[haaseg]

So in the end when Jerry vetoed it, he cited concerns about the 15mph provision - specifically noting that bicycles can easily move near or at 15mph and cause long lines of cars.

I'm honestly not sure how I feel about his opinion being so close to mine, but there you go...

[weshigh]

So I kept this in mind this morning while I was driving my car for a change, and there was one section where I found it immediately an issue.

Going Westbound at the intersection of Culver and University, the bicycle lane disappears at the intersection and becomes a straight/right-turn lane. I was at the front of this lane at a red light and I bicycle pulled up on my right. The car in the lane next to me was close to the white line. As the light turned green I tried to keep the new law in mind. The lane may be more narrow here, but coming across the intersection, there was no way I could give the bicycle 3 feet without risking hitting the car to my left. So I lagged behind him the length of the intersection until the bike lane resumed. I was going about 19mph trying to keep 3 feet from my right-front bumper to his rear wheel. There were about 10 angry drivers behind me and at least 2 of them were honking at me.

Now... I'm not angry at the bicyclist. I would have ridden the same way. And I figure - if you're going to have a clip-in accident and fall in front of a car this is exactly the scenario where it's going to happen. But normally, I would have just gone right past him giving him about 2 feet of clearance and everyone would have simply been on there way.


Also, did a bunch of extra reading last night and it seems like there are many regulations for bicyclists on highways that can help ensure 3 feet are possible - always ride as far to the right as possible while remaining safe, etc. Others have expressed their encouragement about new laws educating car drivers, but I have seen enough bicyclists endanger themselves by breaking existing laws. I don't know if I would change my vote even if I could - I think I would error on the side of believing that the existing law is sufficient enough.

I don't see why you just didn't pass him before he got to 19mph? You would have 0-15mph to get the pass made. Which isn't that difficult to do. And if he out accelerates you, well tough. You just wait your turn.

[haaseg]

You would have 0-15mph to get the pass made. Which isn't that difficult to do. And if he out accelerates you, well tough. You just wait your turn.

I don't know what race cars are next to your house, but I know when the light turns green I usually have the bike well over 15 and most of the way through the intersection before the cars catch up to me. As a matter of fact I don't think I've ever seen a car out-accelerate a bike unless the cyclist still had his water bottle up to his mouth with the light turned.

[haaseg]

I don't see why you just didn't pass him before he got to 19mph?

See - this is exactly the problem with the proposed law... nobody seems to have a clue how fast 15mph is with respect to either cars or bicycles, and no one has a clue about acceleration rates of various vehicles.

[weshigh]

See - this is exactly the problem with the proposed law... nobody seems to have a clue how fast 15mph is with respect to either cars or bicycles, and no one has a clue about acceleration rates of various vehicles.
....
I don't know what race cars are next to your house, but I know when the light turns green I usually have the bike well over 15 and most of the way through the intersection before the cars catch up to me. As a matter of fact I don't think I've ever seen a car out-accelerate a bike unless the cyclist still had his water bottle up to his mouth with the light turned.

I do have a clue about acceleration rates of various vehicles. I put in about 100miles a week riding to and from work across LA,Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and West Hollywood, so that means I'm mixed up with lots of traffic coming off of lights and stop signs almost every day. This morning on my commute I made sure to pay attention to my speed from stop signs and lights with regard to cars passing. There were multiple instances of cars passing me off the light/sign before I hit 15mph. For the ones that didn't, some it appeared to be the case that they were going slowly to let me proceed a head of them.

I don't try to go as fast as I can everywhere I ride at all times as I'm just trying to get to work and home safety. This morning I was hauling all my clothes in for the week, so I was a bit heavier loaded than normal, but I still think they could have passed me before 15mph.

It appears that you are faster than me off the line, which is great, but I also out accelerate other cyclists I encounter on occasion, so I don't think its that difficult for drivers to pass many of the cyclists before they hit 15mph. I am not saying your observations are not valid, but it appears by your statements that you haven't seen a lot of the different people riding bikes in traffic with regard to their acceleration speeds.

[urbanknight]

I don't know what race cars are next to your house, but I know when the light turns green I usually have the bike well over 15 and most of the way through the intersection before the cars catch up to me. As a matter of fact I don't think I've ever seen a car out-accelerate a bike unless the cyclist still had his water bottle up to his mouth with the light turned.

I'm with you there. I have had a few cars beat me through intersections, but they were very obviously lead-foot drivers or street racing the car next to them. If I know it's only 1 or 2 cars behind me, I usually move all the way over next to the crosswalk and pedal slowly while they pass before falling in line behind them.

It's sad that things get trashed because someone added a provision without fully thinking it through. No big loss, though, since it is still law to pass in a safe manner, and multiple legal cases have cited 3' as a minimum buffer zone for being "safe". I just liked the idea of it being quantified and brought to the attention of drivers.

[Ray R]

As much as I dislike Brown's policies on state parks, education, and now cycling safety, he has given us a new verb for our lexicon: "Jerry Brown, v.t. - to drive an automobile past a cyclist at a distance of less than three feet (syn. buzz); 'I just got Jerry Browned by that Prius.'"

[Doane]

Yea, I know, I've been out of the loop. Anyway, I had missed this and would have supported it, wish I had known about it. Read an article on Bikingbiz (click here)

You can send your comments to governor Brown here