spoke50

https://blog.al.com/breaking/2009/10/...to_forefr.html

Just curious, how many states have actually put this into law? It seems that this would be difficult to enforce.

FunkyStickman

Louisiana has it, but how on earth would you enforce it? It would have to happen pretty much right in front of a cop, while they're looking... and even then, the cops don't even know the bike laws around here.

genec

If you are hit, it was violated.

spoke50

True

Ngchen

Actually, Florida State University had an interesting enforcement mechanism that they set up a while back. Have officer (plainclothes?) ride legally on the road, with a chalk line marking 3 ft. Any cars that encroach into the space get pulled over, and in their case got warned.

FWIW, I know TN has a 3 ft law, as well as a bunch of other states.

Old Town

genec is correct. Only after the biker is hit can you enforce it. Otherwise it's one guy's word against another's. Like it always is. I contend most drivers want nothing to do with hitting anyone. New laws will make no difference to the small group of disturbed drivers who have sport scaring (even hitting) bikers. Ride a bike in traffic and you takes your chances; you can't legislate good behavior.

High Roller

Yes, genec is correct. Indications from states that have adopted this law are that it is not easily enforceable, and comes into play more on a "post mortem" basis than on a preventive basis (i.e., if they hit you, they did not allow sufficient clearance).

Due to cyclist demand (myself excluded), Boise is in the process of trying to add this to our city ordinances. Because we have some narrow streets, the Boise Police want to add the verbiage "if possible", so they have some enforcement discretion. Of course, this implies that motorists have some divinely ordained right to pass cyclists unsafely if that is their "only" choice, so they can keep from being delayed by a few seconds. Cyclists apparently are not a worthy reason for motorists to have to inconvenience themselves by pressing the brake pedal.

Another proposal is to allow motorists to cross the double yellow line to give the cyclist 3 feet, but this is a violation of Idaho law. So it looks like this will need to be addressed at the state level if it is to be successfully adopted.

As for myself, I think we would get a better bang for the buck if we stop trying to create new unenforceable laws, particularly ones that attempt to treat cyclists as oppressed victims, and start actually enforcing the laws we already have on the books, especially for speeding.

ItsJustMe

Video.

danarnold

I don't see how the 3' rule is less enforceable than any other rule of the road. It's simply a matter of whether a competent witness sees and reports. It certainly isn't any more or less enforceable by a rider than is the speed limit. In either case, in general, it's going to take a cop seeing the violation. Of course, no radar guns out there for the 3' rule.

I like the idea of it, because even assuming it is not enforceable, like most laws, its major effect is simply the public knowing about it. Another approach is to simply give bicycles the right of way, as they have, or used to have in Copenhagen.

Recycle

The Illinois 3 foot law calls for passing at a safe distance, but not less than 3 ft.

Digital_Cowboy

Ks, has a version of the law that requires 4' instead of 3'.

Enforcement of the law is a good question.

Not too long ago I had the opportunity to ask a St. Pete cop about this and was told that it was "subjective."

Digital_Cowboy

Talking with Joe from 3' please and RoadGuardian.com and he told me that there are plans on doing that in other areas of the state.

My suggestion would be to suggest to your local LEO's that they do the same thing. Pick a stretch of road either with or without a bike lane. Although I think that in this case a bike lane might make it easier. And mark out (with chalk) a 3' buffer for about a block or so. Any driver who crosses the chalk line get's pulled over and lectured, if they repeat it during the time that they're out there they get ticketed.

Old Town

Bingo.

prathmann

Or they could use the same type of device used by Ian Walker when he studied passing distances:
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...et/5334208.stm
Have it wired to flash a light or send a message to a cop who's hidden down the road a little way whenever the distance is significantly less than 3' so the violator can be pulled over. Also have a video recording on the bike to prove that it wasn't weaving at the time.

That would make it easier to set up quickly in new areas since you wouldn't need to measure and mark new lines on the ground.

As with most traffic laws, the degree of actual enforcement will depend on how motivated the police are to do so - but this one doesn't seem much more difficult to enforce than other laws, such as speed limits.

Digital_Cowboy

I can kind of understand how LEO's would think or try to say that it is hard to enforce such a law, but it shouldn't. IF there is a LEO on the road when a car passes a cyclist less then 3' (4' for Ks) it should be easy to "eyeball it" and determine that the car was closer then 3'.

Would it be possible to get them to increase it to 4' instead of 3'? Any chance of getting the "if possible" language dropped?

I don't know if that is really anymore safer then when motorists pass us closer then 3'

I have to agree that instead of passing new law after new law (that are just as less likely to be enforced as the old laws) that the better thing to do is to review ALL of the laws currently on the books. Repeal those that are no longer relevant, enforceable, or are unconstitutional. Then taking those that are left and either combing two or more or amending them so as to make them more up-to-date.

noisebeam

Even a hit is not evidence of a 3ft violation as 'the cyclist swerved more than 3ft', see this:

https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...86&postcount=1

Old Town

No police force is going to make this kind of effort. (as you already noted) Flashing lights and hidden cops for a couple of bikes once in a while? I don't think so. Not trying to hurt your feelings, prathmann, but this is too much work for the return. If you could guarantee that each stopped bike would have a kilo of crystal meth secreted in the frame, the hogs might go for it. Anything less, no.

Digital_Cowboy

True, but what good is the 3' law IF the general motoring public doesn't know about it? I turn off my computer and count add up the number of PSAs I have seen here in St. Pete about the 3' law.

If we pass a law like this, there needs to be an educational period immediately afterward to inform the public about it. Doing something like what was mentioned earlier about having a plainclothes cop riding a bike with a 3' buffer zone marked out in chalk, with a warning issued to those who violate it the first time. And then several times a year to remind them.

Digital_Cowboy

Very interesting article.

Roughstuff

On a tour a few years ago, I went thru Ohio, which I believe passed a 3 foot rule a while back. I found drivers to be quite accomodating, on a variety of roads and situations. I was on the Lincoln Highway (or HighwayS, as there seem to be quite a few of 'em).

roughstuff

phoebeisis

Hmmmm, I had no idea that Louisiana had a 3 foot rule. I suppose this includes the big mirrors that stick out at least 12" past the actual side of the vehicle. I never been hit by the mirrors, but when a diesel pickup is rumbling up,I always picture those mirrors whomping me.They are spring loaded I guess, but they still give me pause.

Charlie

prathmann

As previously noted, the Florida State police have already made such an enforcement effort using marked lines and videos - this just seemed like an alternate and likely easier way to do it. Especially if 3' laws become common enough for some company to sell an easy to install and use kit for the police.

And there wouldn't be any "stopped bike" - the bikes in either case are ridden by cops or volunteers. It's the cars passing too close that are stopped.

ItsJustMe

The problem with enforcing this is that if taken to court, how do the police prove the passing distance was < 3 feet? OK, with the chalk line the could have objective measurements, but outside of that I think they'd have about as much chance of making a conviction stick as if a cop wrote out a ticket for speeding just on his eyeball estimation of your speed.

OK, if he sees someone doing 60 in a 25 zone, he can write a ticket, but without a RADAR lock or a following speed, if he's smart he'll write it for reckless driving, not mentioning a speed. But if a cop tries to write a ticket for 40 in a 25 zone, and has no mechanical evidence, the ticket probably won't stick.

Same with writing a ticket for passing 2 feet away from a bike.

Not saying I wouldn't welcome such a law in my state. If nothing else, pulling people over and warning them might do some good, and it does provide a clear violation to cite the driver with if they clip a cyclist.

noisebeam

They can also cite unsafe passing which doesn't require a distance or speed measurement.

ARS 28-725 "passing to be completed without interfering with the safe operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle overtaken."

and

ARS 28-723 "The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the vehicle at a safe distance"

Digital_Cowboy

Does anyone remember the name of the thread that talked about the college here in Fl that did the 3' buffer with chalk? I've been searching for it, but haven't been able to find it.

Never mind, I finally found it.

Thank you everyone.