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

These "3 feet when passing laws" are not good law:

* In practice, police only enforce them when there has been a
collision, which surely they could do under the existing "safe
distance" law.

* As written, they are unenforceable, because a police officer has no
means of determining if someone is within 3 feet. Existing law allows
officers to decide that someone is passing too closely without having
to prove a specific distance.

* There are often defects in such laws. In this case (http://
leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0051-0100/
ab_60_bill_20061204_introduced.pdf), the bill would make a separate
passing rule for bicyclists, one that always requires passing on the
left, and does not ever permit passing bicyclists on the right.

HOWEVER, the motorists response to this bill clearly shows the need
for education on existing law:

* Cyclist says that under the new law: ``if a driver passes you close,
and there's a police car nearby, they can pull them over,''
But that's true under existing law -- and even easier, because you
don't have to prove a specific distance.

* "Opponents, including the Teamsters Union, worry that drivers forced
to swerve around cyclists would place themselves on a collision course
with oncoming traffic, especially on narrow roads." The unstated
assumption is that motor vehicles must always pass cyclists, even
when the law forbids them from doing it (that is, when you can't do so
'at a safe distance').
(Note that California law seems to forbid crossing a double yellow
line to pass a bicyclist -- that should be changed. Here in Mass. we
forgot to make rules about what center lines mean.)

Also, the Teamster lobbyist says: "`The bill puts drivers,
particularly commercial drivers, in a very difficult place since
you're expected to keep a certain distance from bicyclists, and
bicyclists are not required to keep a certain distance from you." It's
perhaps such logic that lead to this requirement in the Wisconsin law:
"Any person operating a bicycle or EPAMD upon a roadway shall exercise
due care when passing a standing or parked vehicle or a vehicle
proceeding in the same direction, allowing a minimum of 3 feet between
the bicycle or EPAMD and the vehicle." In other words, it's illegal
for a bicyclist to pass even a stopped car in less than 3 feet of
space. The existing "safe distance" rule, by contrast, can take into
account the speed of both the overtaking and overtaken vehicle.

List of all such laws + more details:
http://azbikelaw.org/articles/ThreeFoot.html

Better not sideswipe a bicyclist in Arizona. You could be fined $500
-- or $1,000 if he is killed. Except that you can't be fined if there
is a bike lane or sidepath and he was foolish enough not to use it.

--Paul

In article ,
Dan Connelly wrote:

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.

That doesn't make it a good law, it just makes it understandable. It
takes more than giving a specific number to make it "good".

However, the books are full of good laws which are difficult to
enforce in call cases.

While true, that is bad. It doesn't matter how precisely they draw the
line between legal and illegal. It only serves the abuse of power to
have laws that are frequently broken without penalty.


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.

I don't see how this new law is necessary for that. I don't see how
restricting it to bicycles helps.

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.

What makes you think I care about other cars? I care more about
pedestrians, rollerbladers, wheelchairs, mopeds, electric carts, Amish
buggies, and all sorts of other things that might be (for whatever
reason) in the roadway at the mercy of someone in a bigger vehicle.

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

In article ,
"Don Freeman" wrote:

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.

Then why not just specify that a bicycle has the default right of way?
It's not like we're actively looking to get into an accident with a
cage, nor can we do nearly as much damage to others if we *do* get in
one. The problem is not that the laws aren't bicycle-friendly enough,
but that they are too car-friendly.

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

"Paul Schimek" wrote in message
oups.com...
These "3 feet when passing laws" are not good law:

Actually, it's not a 3 feet when passing law. The wording to the current law
doesn't really change. You still have to pass at a safe distance w/o
interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken bicyclist. That could
be 4 or 5 feet in some circumstances. All the law does it takes away the
arument that 3 inches are safe to pass.


* In practice, police only enforce them when there has been a
collision, which surely they could do under the existing "safe
distance" law.

Yes, that is probably true.


* As written, they are unenforceable, because a police officer has no
means of determining if someone is within 3 feet. Existing law allows
officers to decide that someone is passing too closely without having
to prove a specific distance.

Actually, the text still reads that you have to pass at a safe distance w/o
interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken bicycle. There is no
difference to the previous text. I can agree that it may unenforcable. I do
think most motorists aren't malicious, and they may not think that 5 inches
are safe. So having a minimum of 3 feet may make it a bit clearer to the
oblivious.


* There are often defects in such laws. In this case (http://
leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0051-0100/
ab_60_bill_20061204_introduced.pdf), the bill would make a separate
passing rule for bicyclists, one that always requires passing on the
left, and does not ever permit passing bicyclists on the right.

Again, this is already in the existing california vehicle code and not an
argument against ab60. It is an argument against CVC21750.


HOWEVER, the motorists response to this bill clearly shows the need
for education on existing law:

* Cyclist says that under the new law: ``if a driver passes you close,
and there's a police car nearby, they can pull them over,''
But that's true under existing law -- and even easier, because you
don't have to prove a specific distance.

No, it is not easier as you can still get pulled over if you pass 4 ft, but
unsafely.
See above. Nothing changes in that regard.

(Note that California law seems to forbid crossing a double yellow
line to pass a bicyclist -- that should be changed. Here in Mass. we
forgot to make rules about what center lines mean.)

I agree that would be a nice change. Most motorsts already do that anyway so
they can keep a safe distance, so why not make it legal?



Also, the Teamster lobbyist says: "`The bill puts drivers,
particularly commercial drivers, in a very difficult place since
you're expected to keep a certain distance from bicyclists, and
bicyclists are not required to keep a certain distance from you." It's
perhaps such logic that lead to this requirement in the Wisconsin law:
"Any person operating a bicycle or EPAMD upon a roadway shall exercise
due care when passing a standing or parked vehicle or a vehicle
proceeding in the same direction, allowing a minimum of 3 feet between
the bicycle or EPAMD and the vehicle." In other words, it's illegal
for a bicyclist to pass even a stopped car in less than 3 feet of
space. The existing "safe distance" rule, by contrast, can take into
account the speed of both the overtaking and overtaken vehicle.

That of course is a great idea! I ride a minimum of 5 ft from parked cars. I
am too afraid of getting doored. I have seen it in movies and it just
doesn't look like fun...


bjorn

"Bjorn" wrote in message
...
"Paul Schimek" wrote in message
oups.com...

Actually, the text still reads that you have to pass at a safe distance
w/o interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken bicycle. There is
no difference to the previous text. I can agree that it may unenforcable.
I do think most motorists aren't malicious, and they may not think that 5
inches are safe. So having a minimum of 3 feet may make it a bit clearer
to the oblivious.

Whoops. I meant to say some motorists may think that 5 inches is safe. If
you haven't been riding a bike in traffic it is probably hard to know how it
feels.

bjorn



* There are often defects in such laws. In this case (http://
leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0051-0100/
ab_60_bill_20061204_introduced.pdf), the bill would make a separate
passing rule for bicyclists, one that always requires passing on the
left, and does not ever permit passing bicyclists on the right.

Again, this is already in the existing california vehicle code and not an
argument against ab60. It is an argument against CVC21750.


HOWEVER, the motorists response to this bill clearly shows the need
for education on existing law:

* Cyclist says that under the new law: ``if a driver passes you close,
and there's a police car nearby, they can pull them over,''
But that's true under existing law -- and even easier, because you
don't have to prove a specific distance.

No, it is not easier as you can still get pulled over if you pass 4 ft,
but unsafely.
See above. Nothing changes in that regard.

(Note that California law seems to forbid crossing a double yellow
line to pass a bicyclist -- that should be changed. Here in Mass. we
forgot to make rules about what center lines mean.)

I agree that would be a nice change. Most motorsts already do that anyway
so they can keep a safe distance, so why not make it legal?



Also, the Teamster lobbyist says: "`The bill puts drivers,
particularly commercial drivers, in a very difficult place since
you're expected to keep a certain distance from bicyclists, and
bicyclists are not required to keep a certain distance from you." It's
perhaps such logic that lead to this requirement in the Wisconsin law:
"Any person operating a bicycle or EPAMD upon a roadway shall exercise
due care when passing a standing or parked vehicle or a vehicle
proceeding in the same direction, allowing a minimum of 3 feet between
the bicycle or EPAMD and the vehicle." In other words, it's illegal
for a bicyclist to pass even a stopped car in less than 3 feet of
space. The existing "safe distance" rule, by contrast, can take into
account the speed of both the overtaking and overtaken vehicle.

That of course is a great idea! I ride a minimum of 5 ft from parked cars.
I am too afraid of getting doored. I have seen it in movies and it just
doesn't look like fun...


bjorn

Doc O'Leary wrote:

...The problem is not that the laws aren't bicycle-friendly
enough, but that they are too car-friendly.


Could that be because bicycles are not registered, licensed, or taxed
so they and their riders can contribute to the pool of money used for
road construction and maintenance as are cars and trucks. Nah...
couldn't be.

--
Cliff

"CJ" writes:

Doc O'Leary wrote:

...The problem is not that the laws aren't bicycle-friendly
enough, but that they are too car-friendly.


Could that be because bicycles are not registered, licensed, or taxed
so they and their riders can contribute to the pool of money used for
road construction and maintenance as are cars and trucks. Nah...
couldn't be.


Nah ... couldn't be, since bicyclists pay property and sales taxes
that are used to pay for road construction and maintenance: the state
gas tax only funds specific roads.

See http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/budget/pdf/budgetprimer.pdf for
an example (it is a few years old, but it contains a detailed breakdown
of one city's budget, including what they do with the money and how
they get it).


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
at be because bicycles are not registered, licensed, or taxed
so they and their riders can contribute to the pool of money used for
road construction and maintenance as are cars and trucks. Nah...
couldn't be.


Nah ... couldn't be, since bicyclists pay property and sales taxes
that are used to pay for road construction and maintenance: the state
gas tax only funds specific roads.

See http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/budget/pdf/budgetprimer.pdf for
an example (it is a few years old, but it contains a detailed breakdown
of one city's budget, including what they do with the money and how
they get it).



This whole discussion line, pay to play, is bogus. Bikes cause
virtually no damage to the auto infrastructu the ratio is orders of
magnitude.

In any case, access rights aren't proportional to amount paid. If they
were, gas guzzlers, which pay more in gas tax, would have right-of-way
over fuel efficient vehicles, by virtue of contribution to the fund.

Dan Connelly writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
at be because bicycles are not registered, licensed, or taxed
so they and their riders can contribute to the pool of money used for
road construction and maintenance as are cars and trucks. Nah...
couldn't be.

Nah ... couldn't be, since bicyclists pay property and sales taxes
that are used to pay for road construction and maintenance: the state
gas tax only funds specific roads.
See http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/budget/pdf/budgetprimer.pdf for
an example (it is a few years old, but it contains a detailed breakdown
of one city's budget, including what they do with the money and how
they get it).


This whole discussion line, pay to play, is bogus. Bikes cause
virtually no damage to the auto infrastructu the ratio is orders of
magnitude.

While "pay to play" is bogus, what I was pointing out is that the
"pay to play" people don't even have their facts right as to who
is paying.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Dan Connelly wrote:

Bill Z. wrote:
at be because bicycles are not registered, licensed, or taxed
so they and their riders can contribute to the pool of money used
for road construction and maintenance as are cars and trucks.
Nah... couldn't be.


Nah ... couldn't be, since bicyclists pay property and sales taxes
that are used to pay for road construction and maintenance: the
state gas tax only funds specific roads.

See http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/budget/pdf/budgetprimer.pdf for
an example (it is a few years old, but it contains a detailed
breakdown of one city's budget, including what they do with the
money and how they get it).



This whole discussion line, pay to play, is bogus. Bikes cause
virtually no damage to the auto infrastructu the ratio is orders
of magnitude.

Did you think about what you wrote? Probably not. What part of "auto
infrastructure" do you not understand? Tax bicycles and their riders to
create a "bicycle infrastructure" with seperate bicycle roadways, then
you won't have to worry about car/bicycle interference.

--

Cliff