Originally Posted by
2wheelcommute
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.
And I think you're confused. Any time a car comes in contact with a cyclist (or a car with a car, or a cyclist with a cyclist, etc.), passing or not, some other law has already been violated.
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.
Well, except that most collisions don't involve passing, so all they have to do is argue that this situation didn't. An unsafe lane change could easily look exactly like passing too close -- and it could easily be argued that it was the cyclist who made the unsafe lane change, and without video or impartial witnesses, it's really hard to say who's right, at least beyond a "reasonable doubt". (A civil case has a lower burden of proof, so that could be easier.)
Here in Austin, I think the police have given out less than five tickets for violating our new 3' passing law since it was created like two years ago, and I don't think any of those tickets involve actual collisions -- if they did, the police would give out a better citation, such as failure to yield or unsafe passing.
I think the only way to actually get a ticket for this here is to buzz a cop on his bicycle, and then stop so he can ticket you.
You may think this moves us closer to strict liability, but certainly the police and courts don't seen to be treating it like it does.