Allister

Seriously? Safe passing distance is only a legal requirement under certain conditions? I think you should confirm that, because I thought otherwise.

Allister

That doesn't look like a bikelane to me. If it was, you should see something designating it as such within that stretch.

I'd probably ride on or about the white line there, preferring sitting a foot or so to the left of it. There's plenty of other lanes for other people to use to pass, I'd be encouraging them to use it. I've found even if they just do a partial lane change, they'll still pass you with plenty of room, but if they don't you've got a bit of leeway to the right.

If you really are concerned, it might be worth saying so at the local police station. That way, if you do start taking more of the lane and one of these cops has the audacity to pull you over for it, you'll at least have why you do it on the official record.

I-Like-To-Bike

Some might define minimum safe passing distance as not touching, especially if both vehicles are in adjacent marked lanes. You know a different minimum legal distance for that scenario? The minimum legal distance is certainly not any distance less than that claimed by a motorist or cyclist as their personal zone of comfort.

JeffB502

Here's the California law. There is no mention of lane lines being an excuse to pass somebody at an unsafe distance, but the California law is very vague. I guess the only way to know for sure if passing another vehicle on the white line is illegal would be to intentionally pass every police officer in the state in a 4 wheeled motor vehicle with your tires on the white line and see if the police officer pulls you over. Once pulled over, ensure the officer cites you by being a smart ass and telling the officer you don't think it'll hold up in court. Once cited, fight the ticket and see if the ticket holds up in court...if it does then you have precedent for the next time a police officer buzzes you with his tires on the white line . If it doesn't then you get to scare the hell out of police and other road users with no negative consequences. I can already guess at the result and don't suggest going out and buzzing police .

Here's another law that could apply...if the police officer's tires are on the white line and his mirror is sticking into the bike lane he's probably violating this section of the vehicle code:

I'm kind of wondering why the CHP says lane splitting is ok on a motorcycle/bicycle with the above section of the vehicle code on the books...seems pretty clear if a vehicle is lane splitting it's not within a single lane...

tippy

Edited: oops. Point I was about to make has already been brought up.

I-Like-To-Bike

Your precedent setting scenario in traffic court is worthy of a grinning icon since the precedent set for any future ticket recipient in traffic court is quite the funny fantasy.

Also funny is how the OP's concern for getting insufficient clearance of "less than 3 feet... often much less" has shrunk to the police car intruding into the so-called bike lane and buzzing the OP.

I take the OP's description of the incident to mean he actually observed the police car's track to be riding on the line after the close pass, not necessarily where it was when it was actually passing him. I've experienced many vehicles who after passing with sufficient/safe clearance merge/move right after passing all the way to the right hand side of the traffic lane. Where the motorists' wheels track AFTER passing is a non issue to the cyclist.

desertdork

That's a reasonable interpretation,,,from someone that wasn't there.

So there really is no such thing as "buzzing." We are either passed safely or clipped/struck.

I-Like-To-Bike

You were there, and that's the way you described it. Just as you in the OP stated that you were in a bike lane though the subsequent picture hardly looks like one. I responded to what you depicted in the OP, not what you might have been thinking about or meant to write. You were there, how close was the offending police car? Other than too close for your liking. Was it in the "bike lane" alongside you, or wasn't it?

JusticeZero

That is not a bike lane, that is a shoulder. You need to use an actual lane here.

Febs

The original post seems pretty clear. It says that the car was on the white line "as the officer passed." This is a violation of requirement of section 21658, which JeffB502 quoted above, that vehicles be "driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane," regardless of whether there is a bike lane or not. As others have noted, if the wheel of the vehicle is on the white line, then other parts of the vehicle (such as the mirrors) will be outside of the lane.

Note that the original post also indicates that the car passed so close that the OP had to struggle to maintain his line. This in and of itself would appear to violate the requirement of section 21750 that passing be accomplished "without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle." If the drafters of the statute had intended to limit the application of the statute to situations where the passing vehicle actually makes physical contact with the overtaken vehicle, they could easily have included language to that effect in the statute, but they did not so limit the language of the statute.

If the lane depicted in the picture is actually designated as a bike lane, the section 21209 would also apply:

As far as the issue of setting precedent goes, while traffic court cases usually do not lead to precedential decisions, there usually is a right of appeal from traffic court decisions, so it is possible that there is some precedent. Civil cases, however, often do result in reported decisions that establish precedent. One could find those decisions by going to a law library, looking up the relevant sections of the statute, and reading the annotations that follow.

I-Like-To-Bike

Yeah, you do that! Go look up the court cases and precedents for violations based on a report of someone who reported that a motorist's tire appeared to be on the line demarcating the traffic lane.

apricissimus 

A rarity (at least from what I encounter). A bike lane with room enough to pass other cyclists

Chris516

I think, the officers that are, in a cruiser or, an SUV, think that the 'greater good', matters more than, how close they are when passing a cyclist. Those on motorcycles are much more aware cognizant of passing at a safe distance.

genec

Welcome to CA... folks this is the sort of BL that our high speed arterials typically support...

Yup 55MPH right next to this pitiful suggestion of a BL.

Allister

Be grateful. 'Round these parts, they don't even let cyclists on such roads. Not that I've ever felt the need to.

Then again, we do have this...

https://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&h...02883507229934

Febs

I said nothing about "violations based on a report of someone who reported that a motorist's tire appeared to be on the line ..." But congratulations! You did a hell of a job of knocking down the strawman that you created!

My point is that precedential court cases interpreting motor vehicle statutes do exist, and that if you want to know what they say, you can find them using the annotations to the statute. I don't happen to the annotated California statutes handy, but I do have the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Annotated. The chapter of the Motor Vehicle Code relating to "Rules of the Road" takes over 275 pages in the main volume, plus another 11 pages in a supplemental volume. The actual provisions of the Vehicle Code take up perhaps 25 pages in total. The remainder of the volume is comprised of annotations to court cases interpreting the various provisions of the code.

uke

That's one of the hallmarks of a good bike lane. Fittingly enough, that one's in Copenhagen.



As is this.

uke

This one's got room for three!

desertdork

Just wanted to add some more info to the "bike lane vs shoulder" issue here...




The lane is actually marked as a bike lane, though the signs/markings are infrequent...almost as if they were an afterthought. Hell, by the sound of everyone here, the bike lane itself must have been an afterthought.

Definitely not Copenhagen.

I-Like-To-Bike

Exactly right about "be grateful" to have some space to ride without being directly in front of 55mph traffic, even if is not as wide as some cyclists might like to feel comfortable.

I do legally commute on such a road with no bike lane, and the the traffic lanes are not as wide as portrayed in the OP's picture. I need to because there is no other alternative road or street to my job site.

tomg

no.

crhilton

In Iowa they codified this and they require you to move over, if you can, for a vehicle on the shoulder.

Probably ridiculous though. I don't mind being passed on the highway by 65MPH traffic since I'm still 4-6 feet away on the shoulder. Maybe you don't have so much space?

I-Like-To-Bike

Are you responding to me? If so I can't figure out what you are trying to say in the first sentence. Who has to move to a shoulder in Iowa? And more importantly, what shoulder? You certainly don't mean the unpaved, river rock strewn, gravel pits at the side of state and local highways do you?