mrtuttle04

In Pennsylvania the law is 5' and most people follow it where I live.

contango 

Sure, maybe not exactly like that. There's always the idiot who has to cross the white line anyway but still insists on passing dangerously close.

I see the point about squeezing past without having to cross the line, I've also found that if I invite such a pass I'll tend to get it but up to a point the further out I ride the more space I get given. Obviously it only goes so far - if I were to be riding just inside the white line down the middle I wouldn't expect cars to run their wheels off the road to give me comparable space when passing.

contango 

5'?

That seems like an awful lot, especially on forest roads where it's not physically possible to give someone five feet.

mrtuttle04

I stand corrected. It is 4 feet. It also makes the "right hook" illegal.

PA passing bikes law - Morning Call

contango 

Even four feet could be tricky on some of the gravel roads in the mountains. On the rare occasions I see a cyclist on those roads, regardless of whether it's going the same way as me, I slow right down (to make a pass safer, as well as to avoid throwing excessive dust up off the road) but leaving four feet simply isn't possible. In theory it's good to have a law that explicitly requires safe passing on a more regular road but it's hard to take the law very seriously unless it carries a reasonable risk of being caught and a punishment that matters:

The key section for motorists states: "The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a pedalcycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the pedalcycle within not less than 4 feet at a careful and prudent reduced speed." Violations are summary offenses that carry a $25 fine.

Twenty five whole dollars as the fine for overtaking a bike within inches, and even then you only pay it if you're caught?

I'm also puzzled why a law is needed to prohibit a vehicle "making a sudden right turn directly in the path of a cyclist". Wasn't it already illegal to drive into another road user?


Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of things that make cycling safer. I'm just not sure that treating us as cyclists as some kind of special case is helpful when perhaps it would be better to highlight the ways we should be treated like other traffic.

kickstart

"The squeaky wheel gets the oil"
And some wheels squeak incessantly, because they are never satisfied as their agendas go far beyond safety or quality of life.

Targeted laws are necessary even if they seem redundant to make infractions enforceable and prosecutable.

mrtuttle04

Here is an accident that would not have happened if the truck had followed the 4 feet law. The reality is bicycles are a special case and must be treated as such.
Bicyclist fatally struck in Monroe Township - abc27 WHTM

contango 

The trouble always comes down to enforcement and measurement. If someone passes leaving only 3'11" they technically violate the law but that fact in isolation doesn't really say whether the pass was safe or not. I'd still rather someone passed me leaving 2' with a 10mph speed difference than passed 3' away with a 60mph speed difference.

If there was more willingness to take action in any incident that involved injury or death, whatever mode of transport was involved, we might not need special cases for cyclists.

So the 4-foot law didn't do much to help this particular cyclist. If it is as simple as "truck passed too close" (which isn't entirely clear from the article) then a more generic law that required adequate clearance would have done the job, as would a law that banned overtaking bicycles completely.

Somewhere is a happy medium between designating a precise clearance requirement and a bit of common sense.

FBinNY 

IMO (only an opinion) the problem with specific minimum passing separation laws is two fold.

1- if the distance is too wide such as the 5' law in PA, they become unworkable much of the time. 5' isn't needed or possible in cities such as Philadelphia. They may even set up legal issues for cities that create bike lanes, where 5' passing isn't possible. I can imagine a suit holding the city responsible in an accident because of a "defective bike lane".

2- the other problem is that often the minimum distance becomes the normal distance. If the law specifies a number, people can (and do) read that to imply that it's adequate all the time. We see the same problem with speed limits. The sign says 55mph, so people assume 55 is OK, and don't adjust when it rains. After they slide off the road, they'll say "gee, don't know why, I wasn't speeding".

The needed passing distance depends on speed and conditions. It also can vary by vehicle (3' with a car is very different than 3' with a log truck), or when there are crosswinds.

There is old law, saying the passing vehicle must yield and pass only when it can be done safely. NY hasn't changed the law for bikes and it still works fine.

BTW- I also find it interesting to hear cyclists that filter through tiny lane widths argue for minimum distance laws. Yes, I know it's different, but it's hard to keep it legally different.

kickstart

The minimum safe distance laws are like the keep to the right laws, they work together to address the issue of riders and drivers who lack the character or judgment to share the road safely, but doesn't strictly limit you to one course of action or obligate you to do something unsafe.

I-Like-To-Bike

Facts, evidence and/or clarity are never needed on A&S by the simple-headed mob to reach a conclusion or verdict about who is the guilty culprit.

mrtuttle04

I will admit that the artical does not make it entirely clear that the truck passed to close. However, if the accident did happen because the truck passed to close, it is because the truck driver violated the law not because it is a bad law. As for your call for a generic law they do not work and are uneforceable. That is why we have specific speed limits rather than laws that so do not drive too fast.

mrtuttle04

I based my conclusion on the facts given. I am the first to admit that not all the facts are out and my opinion may change. That doesn't make me simple headed mob, that makes me a thinking person. If additional facts come out, then I am willing to reconsider my opinion. Calling me a simpleheaded mob implies that I am advocating something based on incomplete facts. I am just using this incident to stimulate conversation about bicycle passing laws.

noisebeam

I don't get close passes unless I invite them.

FBinNY 

This proves nothing either way. I posted in detail on the other thread, but crosswinds or the windage off the front could have destabilized the rider causing him to veer. On windy day (reports were it as windy) this could have happened even at great separation.

Without knowing the specific details, it's too soon to say the truck passed too close (in terms of law). In fact, this may show how minimum distance laws fail because the safe distance isn't fixed depends on conditions.

mrtuttle04

I did not say it proved anything. I stated an opinion.

FBinNY 

I'm sorry I misread you. I thought your statement that the accident wouldn't have happened if the truck had followed the 4' law, pretty much implied that you believed he didn't.

Opinion or not it was written as an assertion of fact. My response was simply to point out that the accident was entirely possible even if the driver was well over 4' out from the bicyclist. So absent evidence, the accident doesn't prove he broke the law.

Keith99

Excluding cars passing on the right when they are making a right turn at a stop light I can't recall any passes within 6".

zonatandem

Arizona is 3 feet.
In over 300,000 miles of bicycling (single and tandem) have been hit 4 times.
Each time the driver was ticketed. One lost his license for 90 days (drunk) another got his restricted license revoked.
Am 81 years old and still ride 100+ miles a week on the road.

contango 

So how do you measure whether the driver violated the law? If the only way to show the law was violated is the presence of a dead cyclist the law achieves very little.

Speed limits only go so far to ensure safety and even then a speed can be objectively measured. Even then the speed limit is a one-size-fits-all approach that makes no allowance for conditions. Just because the sign says "Speed limit 70" doesn't mean it's safe to drive at 69mph in freezing fog in the dark when you're tired, nor does it mean it's unsafe to drive at 95mph on an empty straight interstate in a well maintained car in good conditions.

How would a law requiring a minimum passing distance be enforced? If a cyclist says the driver was too close and the driver says they weren't too close, how do you break the deadlock? Even if you have video footage the driver would have to be way too close for it to be useful, and if the fine is $25 it's hard to see a court taking the time to hear a case for such a trivial fine.

Frankly if the fine for overtaking a cyclist close enough to endanger their life is less than the fine for throwing trash out of the car window I'd rather not have the law at all.

mr_bill

Here's a set of zero foot (in X and Y) passes. Still much less than three feet (in Z).


-mr. bill

SumoMuffin

In my experience people most often give either too much or too little space. Too much meaning they go into the other lane too far risking a collision with oncoming traffic. In the last week I've had two instances where the passing car got way too close to oncoming traffic passing in a blind area. In the past few weeks I've only had two very close passes one within 2', one seemed to be less than 1'. I rarely see people execute perfect passes.

Chris516

Why should it be allowed, that a cyclist be passed so closely. Either within the lane, or by a motorist straddling two lanes. Practically negating cyclists' being legitimate road users. Some motorists' go much slower than the speed limit. Yet, They are not treated with such disdain that, they get passed so close a sideview mirror would snap off. So cyclists' should be given equal respect.

Farmer Dave

Don't know, don't care. Just got back from Perú for being there half a year. Coming back from there the U.S. traffic is as well behaved as a nun.

Chris516

As in, U.S. traffic is far less severe. Than it is made out to seem?