Originally Posted by
sudo bike
I was under the impression that most 3 ft laws had an exemption where it is not necessary if you completely change lanes, including bike lanes.
I assume that's the basis it's being challenged on.
They do, he's being absurd about it. 3 feet is a little extra in some circumstances (like when you're just going faster than me), but if you're in a car and I'm on a bike: I'd better not be able to touch your car while you pass. I don't care how slow you go, most drivers can't accurately judge small distances on the right side of their car.
There is some hidden truth in his concern though: These things have a real political cost. It isn't rational, it's democracy. People will perceive the bike safety bill as giving something to bicyclists, and they'll want something back eventually.
When Iowa tried to pass its the bill died in committee. The final straw was the addition of a requirement for any person on a bicycle to wear 50% or more hunter orange. That bill was going to require 5 feet (which I think is excessive, although at 60mph I expect 5 feet or more).
I'm not saying don't go for it OP. Just watch out for backlash. There will be talk about bicyclists giving something up to get their "new" rights. As if they didn't already have the right to not be run down.