Tom Bombadil

https://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/c...LAW_S1.article

Note the statistics from 2006 - 9 bicycle-vehicle accidents per day and 26 bicycle deaths, in Illinois alone.

slim_77

Glad they made an entire story of it. Couldn't find it anywhere in the Chicago Tribune.

edit: link to the full text of law. clicky.

Bekologist

Astonishingly, at least one Bike Forums A&S safety nannies is critical of three foot minimum passing laws because he thinks they send the wrong message to the public.

John E

What would this person propose instead? Personally, I strongly support the 3-foot passing law and would apply it to all vehicles moving at greater than pedestrian speeds.

Bekologist

It's been written he thinks its all golden out there on the roads if a bicyclist is properely positioned and throwing the right combination of superVC buttwaggles and steely-eyed glares to the motorists.

Az B

While this is a good thing, let's not get too excited. Without proper driver training and police enforcement, it really means next to nothing.

Az

joejack951

Since Bek's memory must be failing (again), the reason to be against a 3 foot passing law, which would take the place of a "safe distance" law, is that it might encourage motorists to only try and give 3 feet when often more is necessary, such as at higher speeds. I personally do not want to be passed at 3 feet by someone going 50mph more than me, especially not a vehicle on the larger side. No reasonable person would pass a pedestrian that close and I'd prefer not to do anything to make people feel that it's ok to pass a cyclist that close.

Bekologist

you so vigorously defend your mentor the safety nanny, joe!

I beleive the statue would encourage motorists to give AT LEAST 3 feet of passing clearances the way you intrepret it.

It puts 3 feet MINIMUM passing into the drivers' manuals. You think that's worse than educating motorists to simply 'pass safely?' and it also gives weight in the eventuality of bicyclist/motorist accidents. If a bike is hit by a passing vehicle, proving fault in the accident will be easer to ascribe to the motorist.

Do you OFTEN ride roads with 50MPH speed differentials and why do you feel a 3 feet minimum passing law WOULDN'T get you better treatment from motorists? You really believe a 3 foot passing law would get more motorists passing less safely?

Recycle

The Illinois 3 foot law does not replace the "safe distance" requirement, it adds to it.

The law reads:That same bill added the words "and safe" as bolded in the next section on road position:

The 3 foot passing minimum also appears to help define "substandard lane width" in item 3 of the road position section.

joejack951

"At least 3 feet" still can be interpretted as "3 feet is OK."

Why not put something into the driver's manual about the reasons for passing at a safe distance? Simply saying 3 feet minimum does nothing to encourage motorists to give cyclists plenty of space. If a cyclist is hit by a passing vehicle, OBVIOUSLY the pass was NOT made at a safe distance. Having the 3 foot standard does nothing, although it could give a motorist an out who thought he was passing a cyclist at 3 feet but passed closer and the resulting wind blast caused the cyclist to crash.

I do often ride roads where there's the potential for a 50mph speed differential and I do not think a 3 feet minimum law would make any difference in how I am passed. Do you think motorists will suddenly decide to study the applicable cyclist laws in the vehicle code when this law is passed? Even if a motorist does read the law, do you want them remembering "3 feet" or "safe"? I'd prefer the latter. I certainly don't expect them to remember all the little intricacies of the wording of the law. Hell, the cops around me don't even know the law that well. But they've always passed at a safe distance

Bekologist

except when they're pulling you over and ticketing you

joejack951

Too far left The officer was completely in the left lane when he pulled next to me.

dynodonn 

+1

CommuterRun

I think it's a good law, but you won't see much difference on the road. I didn't when FL did the same thing a couple years ago. The drivers who were passing with a safe separation will continue to do so, the cagers who didn't still won't, regardless what the law says.

JeffB502

From the article: I'm just wondering...is the writer trying to imply that it's safer to give a 3 foot passing distance than a full lane? How could it be dangerous to move fully into the next lane to pass a cyclist? This statement seems to be an opinion from the writer that the 3 foot passing law will discourage motorists from making "unnecessary and possibly dangerous" complete lane changes to pass cyclists.

Riding a 55mph road on a regular basis, I have been passed by full size tractor trailers traveling near the speed limit, probably at about 3 feet, and that is a little too close for comfort, especially if I'm riding into the usual 15mph or so headwind. I really like the wording of the actual law, but I hope the message given to the general public doesn't get dumbed down to the point where people only get the "3 foot passing distance" part of it and not the "safe distance" part.

joejack951

Exactly my point. I didn't read the article otherwise I probably would have caught the same statement. As you have stated, that's completely the opposite attitude that motorists need to have. It's just as important to not have motorists thinking that way on a 2 lane road as it is on a 4 lane road.

-=(8)=-

They have that law in Fl, too.
Insert 500 roflmao smilies -----here-----.


Thank goodness for lanes ! At least we get 20 inches or so

gattm99

We were talking about that while riding Saturday Morning. While I don't see it having much of an effect it does put bicycle saftey into the publics view for a moment, and I can't really see how it could hurt.

At the very least it at least reminds some people we are legally allowed on the roads.

noisebeam

Which is why there needs to be a continuous reminder of safe passing laws (which already exist outside of any 3ft law).

I have more than several times heard the AZ 3ft law being interpreted as 'Give cyclist 3ft of space [on the right side of the road]' Twice by cyclists!

That is now a common gross misinterpretation that can only be prevented thru public awareness campaigns. The alternate is to not have a 3ft law and instead focus on safe passing awareness which is less likely to be mis-stated.

Al

richardmasoner

3 foot passing laws are a distraction from real issues of cyclist safety and waste of political capital. I'm in agreement with Paul Dorn, who writes (regarding a similar 3 foot law in California) that "this bill will offer negligible improvement for bicyclists, and is a distraction from more pressing priorities. AB 60 is a trifling piece of legislation for California's bicycling community, which has many legislative needs and, sadly, minimal political clout."

Read more about his and other's views on the 3 foot law at his Bike Commute website. Paul is former director of the California Bicycle Coalition, served on the board of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, and was involved in the early days of San Francisco Critical Mass. In case you have any unwarranted suspicions, Paul is also a committed advocate of facilities for cyclists.

richardmasoner

For those who believe the myth that a hit-from-behind is prima facie evidence of violation of the 3 foot law: In many hit-from-behind reports, (1) the responding police take statements from the motorist only, even when the cyclist survives; (2) the motorist statement is invariably "He swerved right in front of me!"; and (3) if the cyclist survives, the police tickets the cyclist for impeding traffic.

genec

And what would you expect the motorist to say? "Oh no, he was right there, but I clipped him anyway?"

genec

Apparently motorists forget all the laws they were taught earlier in life as soon as they turn the key... I've noticed several signs around here stating: "Must stop for pedestrians in crosswalk" and "Must stop for pedestrians before turning." These are not unusual intersections... but apparently motorists have "not stopped" in the past... and must be constantly reminded.

noisebeam

Forget is a problem, but just as bad and in this case worse is misinterpretation. Whenever I ask non-cyclists about if they know the 3ft law about 1/3 of them tell me that it means giving cyclist 3ft of pavement space on the side of the road.

So this mis-interpretation creates a worse effect for cyclists who are not using the 3ft margin of the road then if the law (or really the marketing of the law) had not happened at all.

Al

genec

arrrg. Yet again the laws are interpreted by the minds of those that feel they own them... There is no solution. But then again without 3 foot laws... it's "get on the sidewalk."