Originally Posted by dougmc

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.

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.