I got some good news today, the soundly trounced the bad news. While I tried to report an officer for passing to close. The county police officer who had previously told me, the department's policy was, they had to be there to believe it. Was, according to the department's IA division, flat out wrong, because they review videos' all the time. So, Welcome back helmetcam!!!!!!!!!

If the view from the police car's dash cam is like anything I've witnessed previously, it would be pretty hard to determine if they came within 3' of you. Most times the cameras don't seem set up to record anything but what is taking up the space in the center of the windshield - which makes sense as any vehicle they normally pursue/pull over would normally be directly in front of them.

DD

In California the police are not required to release video from dash or body cameras if its part of an investigation or complaint. Therefore, its vital that citizens have their own video proof.
Plus, if an officer is wrong there is a good chance his camera will have a technical malfunction or the batteries ran out.

So are we going to get the measuring tape out for everyone that passes us now? Were you hurt physically? If not, just let them know your point of view on the event. Frequently companies or organizations will not admit wrongdoing publicly. They don't know if you are a cop hater or a person looking to make money off a lawsuit.

It is very likely they will privately address the issue with the offending officer. In what manner they do that depends on whether you came off as a looney A$$hole or not.

Most departments have Internal Affairs or something similarly named. If you file a complaint then they do investigate it and that would include any evidence (like video) or documentation your provide them.

I guess I have an odd question for you. Do you react the same when a regular citizen violates the 3-foot rule or is it directed strictly at the police?

Aside from that, both officers were probably correct. In order to issue a traffic violation, most cities and departments won't take personal video and issue citations based on it. The officer has to witness the infraction in order to cite it. The other officer was correct in saying IA would look at the video.

If the officer is found at fault and in violation by IA then he/she won't be issued a citation. The officer would be disciplined internally (a write up) for violating department rules and regulations.

That is a broad question. So, The police have a greater responsibility to observe the 3t. law, while upholding the law. As for a motorist, they have a responsibility to observe the 3ft.
law. I can only get a video and submit it to the police.
I told IA I wasn't expecting a citation since I didn't have a video. But since I got the number of the squad car, direction we were traveling, and the time of day, if they would remind the officer. What the law is.

If admissible bodycam or independent cell phone recordings cannot result in convictions, sometimes not even indictments, against Law Enforcement (Police) Officers in lethal use of force situations, I have to wonder how useful video recordings will be in achieving success in litigating a 'close pass' type of incident.



I also am bemused at the o.p. becoming discouraged in the use of helmet cam recording when he believed that such evidence was not admissible in litigating encounters with LEO. Interesting to say the least.

That is what I was thinking, when they told me they had to 'see it to believe it'.

My discouragement, in a sense, I kept to myself, in the hopes. Since I was only dealing with the County police. Not the oodles of other law enforcement departments in the region. It just turns out, the IAD of the County police, said the original officer was wrong.

Something else to keep in mind:
I learned from experience that you cannot expect the cops to know all the traffic laws.
Be prepared to provide the state traffic code numbers to them when you file a complaint.
I keep a copy to the relevant codes in my wallet.

Also there may be relevant municipal codes. e.g. Boulder has a code prohibiting a motor vehicle from driving in a restricted lane, such as a bike lane.

IMO the 3' Passing Distance is one of the biggest distractions in all of cycling. Cycling fatalities and injuries continue to increase even as more of these statutes are passed. In my area cycling fatalities spiked 12% in just the last year! Close passes are unpleasant, but they are not fatal! Cyclists have died chasing down cars that "passed them too close" intending to do what they didn't even know. I should qualify that 'close passes are unpleasant'. IMO close passes are a necessity in most realistic cycling situations. Even out in the sticks its an issue, but speeds are usually higher.


When rural or suburban traffic is passing with speed diffs of 25mph and more, 3' is probably insufficient passing distance. But rural roads are not always any wider than those in town. If you are on a 45mph two lane... well you have a right to be there. I've done it. Many times. I'm still here because most drivers are not the murderous incompetents some of you think they are. I usually have to admit on reflection that even the passes I thought were close... well they obviously didn't result in any contact. I draw the line at contact. Any contact is too much. A low bar perhaps but one that works for me. 3' is an arbitrary figure. Hard to judge.

The damage was in stating an absolute distance figure to fit all speed situations. It should have been something more dynamic like "motor vehicles shall pass cyclists with as little speed differential as is practical". In Western Europe, known to be practical and progressive where bikes are concerned, the exact amount of distance that a car passes with is not the big concern. Speed is. An overtaking car must slow to at least 19mph when overtaking a cyclist. It is far more possible for an overtaking car to decelerate to that safe passing speed and slide by with only 18" clearance on a narrow 2 lane, than to try and find 3' somewhere (like the oncoming traffic lane!) or trail along behind the cyclist at 12mph or even less, till the cyclist can pull right. The Northern European solution does not seem like a bad compromise to me.

In downtown or a residential grid in the urban core, 3' is not possible under any conceivable circumstance. Why are cyclists getting worked up when a car slides by going less than 10mph faster at less than 3'? Where were they going to go? And don't say they should wait. If I paid good money for a car that can go 140mph there had better be a better reason than cycling advocacy to hold me to 12mph on a 30mph speed limit avenue. I can't tell anyone not to get upset when cars pass them in a manner they don't like, but I can suggest they revisit that. And for heaven's sake, don't confront drivers on the road! Do not lecture them, or kick their doors, or smash mirrors! That is road rage. No different from when two cars engage in it. Road rage can backfire, no pun intended. FWIW.

I don't understand why you'd expect a police department to just take your word for it in the first place. If cops did that do you know how many THOUSANDS of bogus complaints they'd get flooded with A DAY!?

There are people who simply hate all cops and would just make stuff up.

Even with a helmet cam, proving the 3 foot thing would be hard as camera angles make distance deceiving. And they don't always show who is in the wrong. If a car stars passing you at 5 feet away and you move left 3 feet, now the car is suddenly 2 feet away. Since the bike'helmet cam doesn't move in reference to the bike, the video will make it look like the car veered right when in fact you veered left. Dash/helmet/bike cams can be very deceiving with that stuff so police departments are correct to take them with a grain of salt.

As for this particular incident, were you in any real danger? Was the cop at 2.75 feet or was his door rubbing your tires? If he almost ran you off the road I can see being upset. If it veer into the 3' bubble by 6 inches, chill out. The first post has a strong "I don't like cops and will get one eventually" tone to it. If that wasn't intended, my bad. But it's coming across like that.

So to you it looks like *all* these cars veered *right* into me. And the *road*. And the *Cathedral* moved away from me.

It doesn't look like I got blown across the road by the wind?

Huh.


-mr. bill

There isn't always a handy Cathedral around to provide a fixed reference when an Escalade decides to cut you off on SR10 between mile marker 16 and 17. Paid up life insurance, and then you don't have to worry about your next of kin needing to win that Civil Wrongful Death litigation with only home movie grade recording equipment as the substance of Exhibit A.

So your opinion is every video ever made has adequate reference and scale to make judgement calls. Okay, that's fine. But I disagree. I hope that is fine too.

EDIT.......
I guess, mr_bill pulled his post I was commenting on..... So if my comment makes no sense, it was because of a hasty post that he made, which I guess makes my post hasty.

The frame size of the image is a determining factor. Also is the lens is wide angle or not. All of these things can distort what really happened.

Your image is pretty clear. Your bike moved towards the cars. But even then its' only clear because the video frame had the traffic lanes clearly visible as a frame of reference. If your camera was pointed up a little or it was darker, it might not be as clear.

Just because you have 1 example of really good video doesn't mean all video is reliable. I have a dash cam in my car. I've looked at a lot of the footage. Some of it just doesn't clearly show what really happened.

I've seen a demonstration with police body cams that are all the rage now because they are supposed to clearly show what happened when police respond. The video shows first is the body cam footage and it looks like 2 men are fighting. The second video is of the same period of time and it shows 2 men dancing. The first one looks like a violence encounter because of the limited field of view of the camera and how the other guy looked when close to the lens.

Video CAN be deceiving. It's not always. But sometimes it is.

Your video is clear. Not all video is.

When choosing a bike or dash cam, a wide field of vision is optimal as it shows more reference points to judge movement by. Even then...if it's dark...good luck being clear on who was in what lane.

-mr. bill

See? That video is less helpful....unless it's proof of that time you ride through a glowing green fallout cloud next to a nuclear meltdown. In which case....bravo for the video capture.

Very true. I have come across quite a few errant officers.

Every time a new change in the traffic law occurs. Officers should be told to brush up on the change.

might point it backwards. can be obvious if they were being courteous like this car or devious

And almost impossible to police. It's like giving someone chicken soup when they have a cold, it makes them feel better but won't help cure the illness.

I suspect that the main use of the 3' rule is to provide grounds for prosecution if a driver does hit you. They have, de facto, provably broken the law. Without such a law, the driver can say that he misjudged his position/the cyclist swerved and so on. And we all know that the likely outcome would be no further action. It would also prove useful in any civil action.

it can be considered "guidance" as-in, what is the proper way to pass a cyclist? they should cover that in driving school

but I really like protected bike lanes. saw some in D.C. made with temporary stanchions

not my picture



others were like this