Is a law requiring drivers to pass bicycle riders by at least three feet a good idea?

On the front page of today's San Jose Mercury-News:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16570732.htm

In article ,
sally wrote:

On the front page of today's San Jose Mercury-News:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16570732.htm

"It is not known how many collisions statewide result from motor
vehicles passing bicycles."

So, no, it's not a good law. I highly doubt it is going to be enforced
with any regularity, either. Also, why single out bikes when safety
should apply equally to all passing traffic?

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

Doc O'Leary wrote:
In article ,
sally wrote:

On the front page of today's San Jose Mercury-News:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16570732.htm

"It is not known how many collisions statewide result from motor
vehicles passing bicycles."

So, no, it's not a good law. I highly doubt it is going to be enforced
with any regularity, either. Also, why single out bikes when safety
should apply equally to all passing traffic?


The reason it is a good law is it codifies a minimum standard for safe
passing, rather than relying on case-by-case judgments, at least in a
particularly egregious subset of passing incidents, those with clearly
less than a 3-foot margin.

Specificity and clarity in the law is a good thing. Without it, we
should simply dispense with the entire vehicle code, replacing it with
"1. All operators of vehicles shall behave in a safe and predictable
fashion." (Actually, that might work better than status quo, but it's
not the system we have.)

WRT enforcement: of course, it is difficult to enforce AB60 in all
cases. However, the books are full of good laws which are difficult to
enforce in call cases. In this case, at least, it will be clearly
demonstrable that there are some sections of roadway for which legal
passing is essentially impossible, and thus if there are collisions in
these cases, the driver is at fault for attempting an illegal pass.
Additionally, in the case of certain collisions, it may be much easier
to prove the driver failed to allow a 3-foot margin, than that he failed
to allow a "safe" margin.

Safety should be applied to all traffic, that is true. However, the
standard of safety differs between passing a cyclist, versus passing a
car. The two events are very different, the risks are very different,
like it or not.

Dan

Dan Connelly writes:

Doc O'Leary wrote:
In article ,
sally wrote:

On the front page of today's San Jose Mercury-News:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16570732.htm
"It is not known how many collisions statewide result from motor
vehicles passing bicycles."
So, no, it's not a good law. I highly doubt it is going to be
enforced with any regularity, either. Also, why single out bikes
when safety should apply equally to all passing traffic?


The reason it is a good law is it codifies a minimum standard for safe
passing, rather than relying on case-by-case judgments, at least in a
particularly egregious subset of passing incidents, those with clearly
less than a 3-foot margin.

I believe there is a similar law in France requiring drivers to give
bicyclists some minimal clearance while passing.

Safety should be applied to all traffic, that is true. However, the
standard of safety differs between passing a cyclist, versus passing a
car. The two events are very different, the risks are very different,
like it or not.

I could see extending the rule to apply to passing a motorcycle - any
small two-wheeled vehicle that might have to avoid some small obstruction
in the road that would not bother a car or truck.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

I could see extending the rule to apply to passing a motorcycle - any
small two-wheeled vehicle that might have to avoid some small obstruction
in the road that would not bother a car or truck.

Er... no, that might not be such a good idea. If motorcycles expect to
continue to benefit from lane-splitting, they're inevitably going to be in
places where it's just not going to be possible to pass them by three feet.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:

I could see extending the rule to apply to passing a motorcycle - any
small two-wheeled vehicle that might have to avoid some small obstruction
in the road that would not bother a car or truck.

Er... no, that might not be such a good idea. If motorcycles expect to
continue to benefit from lane-splitting, they're inevitably going to be in
places where it's just not going to be possible to pass them by three feet.

You misread it - it referred to passing a motorcycle, not a motocycle
passing a car or truck. It's a simple idea - the bicyclist or
motorcyclist decides if it is OK to pass with less than 3 feet (or 1
meter) of clearance when overtaking a car or truck, but someone
overtaking a bicycle or motorcycle has to provide at least 3 feet of
clearance.

You can make exceptions for things like pacelines where cyclists are
traveling together and lower clearances are by mutual agreement, but
I've personally seen a paceline pass a recreational cyclist who was
scared by how close they got to him - he needed 3 feet of clearance to
feel comfortable and wasn't getting it. I was a bit behind him,
having just caught up to him when the paceline showed up (it was going
faster than I was).

Like everyone else, I've had cars come up from behind me going a good
30 mph faster and pass me with less than a foot of clearance. That is
simply not enough for safety. I've even had these people do that when
there were two lanes in my direction and the other lane was
empty. Either they don't care or they are trying to intimidate people.




--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On 2007-01-30, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
I could see extending the rule to apply to passing a motorcycle - any
small two-wheeled vehicle that might have to avoid some small obstruction
in the road that would not bother a car or truck.

Er... no, that might not be such a good idea. If motorcycles expect to
continue to benefit from lane-splitting, they're inevitably going to be in
places where it's just not going to be possible to pass them by three feet.

That only applies to you heathens that allow lane splitting.

--

__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_
(_)/ (_)

In article ,
Dan Connelly wrote:
The reason it is a good law is it codifies a minimum standard for safe
passing, rather than relying on case-by-case judgments, at least in a
particularly egregious subset of passing incidents, those with clearly
less than a 3-foot margin.

It would be better if it were speed and speed differential dependent.
A bicyclist climbing a steep hill at 5-10mph might not appreciate a
3-foot pass by a car going 55mph, but probably wouldn't mind a car
crawling by at 3mph less than 3-feet away while s/he is stationary in
a traffic jam (though it is more likely that the bicyclist is passing
the car in that thick a traffic jam).

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

"Timothy J. Lee" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dan Connelly wrote:
The reason it is a good law is it codifies a minimum standard for safe
passing, rather than relying on case-by-case judgments, at least in a
particularly egregious subset of passing incidents, those with clearly
less than a 3-foot margin.

It would be better if it were speed and speed differential dependent.
A bicyclist climbing a steep hill at 5-10mph might not appreciate a
3-foot pass by a car going 55mph, but probably wouldn't mind a car
crawling by at 3mph less than 3-feet away while s/he is stationary in
a traffic jam (though it is more likely that the bicyclist is passing
the car in that thick a traffic jam).



I don't see this law as one that will be used to hand out tickets but rather
as a way to quantify legal and civil liability in case of an accident.

--
-Don
Ever had one of those days where you just felt like:
http://cosmoslair.com/BadDay.html ?
(Eating the elephant outside the box, one paradigm at a time)

Timothy J. Lee wrote:
In article ,
Dan Connelly wrote:
The reason it is a good law is it codifies a minimum standard for safe
passing, rather than relying on case-by-case judgments, at least in a
particularly egregious subset of passing incidents, those with clearly
less than a 3-foot margin.

It would be better if it were speed and speed differential dependent.
A bicyclist climbing a steep hill at 5-10mph might not appreciate a
3-foot pass by a car going 55mph, but probably wouldn't mind a car
crawling by at 3mph less than 3-feet away while s/he is stationary in
a traffic jam (though it is more likely that the bicyclist is passing
the car in that thick a traffic jam).

If you introduce a complex speed dependency, it becomes virtually
unenforceable. I think the legislation would be better if there were a
10 mph minimum on the car speed to eliminate the scenario where bikes
pull up to cars at intersections, then the light turns green, and the
cars proceed forward.

Texas had a bill where the required gap was 3 feet for cars, 4 for
trucks. I think this is a good idea, as well.

Another change I would make would be to exempt the case where the
cyclist fails to show due care for following a predictable path along
the roadway. There's not much you can do if a cyclist swerves into your
3-foot buffer zone. Part of the reason for a 3-foot buffer zone is in
case the bike swerves, avoiding a collision.

3 feet is essentially how far you can reach with an outstretched arm.
Not much space for a big rig. But then again, the 3-foot threshold is
an absolute minimum for safety, not a maximum for unsafety.

Dan