Um, I think a lot of you are confused. A three foot law moves us closer to "strict liability." Think about it--any time a car comes in contact with a cyclist while passing, there has been a per se violation of the three foot law. Whether or not the cops apply it consistently, there would really be no way to argue around it in court (traffic, civil, or criminal) if one party decided to press the issue. Take DX MAN's example: if you get whacked by a mirror, there can be no question of law that the three foot law was violated. Without the three foot law (and instead using the common but vague "safe distance" standard), the driver is much more free to claim they thought they gave you enough room. "Safe distance" is more or less subjective and gives drivers much more room to argue that they were driving reasonably, while "three feet" creates a bright line that's impossible to fudge--if there was contact, the law was violated. The three foot law also almost eliminates that "he swerved in front of me at the last second" argument--who is going to believe that the cyclist suddenly swerved three feet?

I know that if I ever get hit, I would be far more confident of my case with a three foot law than with the default "safe distance" standard. And in some important ways, the three foot law really is almost as good as European strict liability.

And, OP--what does your incident have to do with the 3 foot law anyways? We don't have one in California, so of course the cops wouldn't rely on it.

<---- Lawyer