California's 3ft Passing Law

[DoubleSix]

Ray Luxury-Yacht said:

Jeez, maybe it's just me....but I still don't get why there is this problem with drivers and cyclists? Perhaps it's where I live, I dunno.

I am down near the South Coast. Actually, my city is a fairly fortunate one wealth-wise, so I do regularly see many MAMIL's on 2 and 3 grand's worth of cycles.

However, over the course of an average week's driving, I reckon that the amount of times I actually come up behind a cyclist on a road, can be counted on one hand? Maybe up to double figures on a sunny weekend.

Hence, the amount of times that my journey (which is never that important - even going to work...) is slowed slightly by a cyclist to an extent that it affects it in a negative fashion is....well....about never?

I am never late / angry / important enough in my journey, that I don't have the time to slow down behind a cyclist, down to their speed, and wait for a gap in the oncoming traffic, in order to pass the cyclist in a manner that allows me to go right over to the other side of the road to pass - hence being totally safe and giving them all of their lane to still use whilst I pass?

I just don't get why ANY driver sees this as a problem? The delay is miniscule in the grand scheme of things? And I might suggest that 99% of car drivers would be mortified at best and totally destroyed at worst if they ever did kill a cyclist?

I just don't understand. MAybe it's just me, I dunno.

As you say Ray, it' isn't a problem where you live so difficult to relate to.

Try commuting in central Bristol and you may have a different view.

The 'anger', at least mine anyway, comes from the complete lack of road craft, self-righteous and aggressive attitude and the knowledge that the law and society in general will fall on the side of poor cyclist whilst I, the big bad motorist, will likely have the onus put on me to prove the cyclist was in wrong.

Just yesterday I was slowly edging around a stationary bus with my indicator on, cars and motorbikes sensibly waiting for me to complete the manoeuvre, when a women with a tiny child precariously balanced on the rear of her bike decides that would be a good moment to squeeze between me and the bus - no fking patience, no sense. If the bus had begun to move out she would have been sandwiched.

Combine that with the traffic light hopping, pavement surfing and general fk-wittedness and you get annoyed people. I say the above as a very keen cyclist myself.

[Mave]

DoubleSix said:

The 'anger', at least mine anyway, comes from the complete lack of road craft, self-righteous and aggressive attitude.

Are these characteristics really limited to cyclists?

[warp9]

While thinking about this cycling home last night, a car came past me, I'd guess around 40mph, about 3 ft away from me. I don't think it's enough.

[DoubleSix]

Mave said:

DoubleSix said:

The 'anger', at least mine anyway, comes from the complete lack of road craft, self-righteous and aggressive attitude.

Are these characteristics really limited to cyclists?

No of course not, but the consequences are not just a broken headlight or damaged bumper - I don't want someone's death or injury on my conscience.

[yellowjack]

warp9 said:

While thinking about this cycling home last night, a car came past me, I'd guess around 40mph, about 3 ft away from me. I don't think it's enough.

You have identified, right there, one of the major flaws of writing specific distances into such a law. The effect of a lack of space during an overtake is multiplied by increased speeds, and speed differentials. To my mind, as RLY said above, the only safe distance is the one where you use the entirety of the opposite lane in which to overtake, just as you would if passing another car. I'm constantly bewildered by halfwits when I overtake a cyclist. I'll slow down in plenty of time, identify my overtake zone, move out when it's clear (full mirror-signal-mirror-manoeuvre drill) and then make a safe return to the correct lane. Then I look in my mirrors, to find the twunt behind me scraping past the cyclist without putting a wheel over the centre line, and without indicating, which leaves anyone behind them unaware of the presence of said cyclist, so then we get either 'panic braking' or worse, 'panic passing', potentially in the face of oncoming traffic.

I've suggested it before, and will continue to do so because I believe it's the right way forward...

FORCE drivers to understand how it feels to ride a bike BEFORE allowing them into a car. Make a minimum number of observed hours of safe cycling MANDATORY before allowing drivers to progress into a car. Make the provisional licence dependent upon it, much like CBT before motorbike training. To make it relevant, require it to be recent training, say between 14 and 17 for new young drivers, or within the preceding two years for older learners. That, linked to my manifesto promise of responsible road use lessons as part of the National Curriculum from an early age, would force ALL citizens, less those judged physically unable by a panel of doctors, to experience how it feels to be out on the roads on a bike. Who knows? It might also have a knock-on effect in helping to tackle the obesity crisis, if some of our more 'rotund' brethren realised that cycling isn't all that hard to do, and they might even enjoy it. And nobody would be forced to do the cycling element, either. For those that really don't want to, there'd be the option of NOT having a driving licence, and catching the bus

[Mave]

DoubleSix said:

No of course not, but the consequences are not just a broken headlight or damaged bumper - I don't want someone's death or injury on my conscience.

Fair enough, I'm still a bit grumpy after a dozy bint came off a motorway slip road this morning and went through a red light at about 30 mph quite a few seconds after it had changed. Cyclist in front of me was very lucky to avoid being turned into jam.

[keith2.2]

I was out on Saturday lunchtime in Hertford, riding down a side street with cars parked on the other side of the road. Rather than pull into the large gap and wait the 2 seconds it would have taken me to pass the oncoming car, he continued his merry way. I tapped his window as he went past, with a bent arm. His wing mirror missed my leg by inches.

Cue him slamming his brakes on, sounding his horn - before turning around in the road and roaring up behind me - screaming obscenities and telling me to "pull over up there so I can land one on you".

I politely declined his offer.

"You shouldn't have been close enough for me to tap your window, chap"

was met with the response

"*&^*& **& * off you *%*^&& you had at lest 2 feet between you and the kerb that you could have moved into"

Errr....

[DoubleSix]

keith2.2 said:

I was out on Saturday lunchtime in Hertford, riding down a side street with cars parked on the other side of the road. Rather than pull into the large gap and wait the 2 seconds it would have taken me to pass the oncoming car, he continued his merry way. I tapped his window as he went past, with a bent arm. His wing mirror missed my leg by inches.

Cue him slamming his brakes on, sounding his horn - before turning around in the road and roaring up behind me - screaming obscenities and telling me to "pull over up there so I can land one on you".

I politely declined his offer.

"You shouldn't have been close enough for me to tap your window, chap"

was met with the response

"*&^*& **& * off you *%*^&& you had at lest 2 feet between you and the kerb that you could have moved into"

Errr....

Whether the guy was in the right or the wrong or not, go round tapping on peoples windows and you'll soon get much more than a mouthful.

In the mean time you just continue to perpetuate the negative views of cyclists. Well done.

[ohHello]

DoubleSix said:

Whether the guy was in the right or the wrong or not, go round tapping on peoples windows and you'll soon get much more than a mouthful.

In the mean time you just continue to perpetuate the negative views of cyclists. Well done.

If people don't want their precious car to be so much as touched, they should take more care to keep it further away from other people, especially cyclists.

He barged through, bullying Keith out of the way (who had priority) but somehow it's the cyclist who was in the wrong? Weird.

[DoubleSix]

ohHello said:

DoubleSix said:

Whether the guy was in the right or the wrong or not, go round tapping on peoples windows and you'll soon get much more than a mouthful.

In the mean time you just continue to perpetuate the negative views of cyclists. Well done.

If people don't want their precious car to be so much as touched, they should take more care to keep it further away from other people, especially cyclists.

He barged through, bullying Keith out of the way (who had priority) but somehow it's the cyclist who was in the wrong? Weird.

Christ. Are you hard of thinking? I said "whether in the right or wrong", this is a recognition of the fact the driver was being a div.

Nonetheless, as soon as you go around tapping on peoples windows you have then fallen into the trap of being a twonk. I'll leave it to you to decide whether being a div or a twonk is better or worse. But personally I would take the view that it's probably not worth being stabbed for.

Funny how many cyclists don't get this. Guess it's that righteous indignation I was hinting at earlier, thanks for illustrating so perfectly.

[Daveyraveygravey]

DoubleSix said:

keith2.2 said:

I was out on Saturday lunchtime in Hertford, riding down a side street with cars parked on the other side of the road. Rather than pull into the large gap and wait the 2 seconds it would have taken me to pass the oncoming car, he continued his merry way. I tapped his window as he went past, with a bent arm. His wing mirror missed my leg by inches.

Cue him slamming his brakes on, sounding his horn - before turning around in the road and roaring up behind me - screaming obscenities and telling me to "pull over up there so I can land one on you".

I politely declined his offer.

"You shouldn't have been close enough for me to tap your window, chap"

was met with the response

"*&^*& **& * off you *%*^&& you had at lest 2 feet between you and the kerb that you could have moved into"

Errr....

Whether the guy was in the right or the wrong or not, go round tapping on peoples windows and you'll soon get much more than a mouthful.

In the mean time you just continue to perpetuate the negative views of cyclists. Well done.

Well done to you too Double Six, you have totally and utterly missed the point. If people in cars are so precious about their 2 ton lump of metal glass and plastic, they deserve way more than "tapping on their window". What else can we do as cyclists to try and make this better? It is not acceptable to pass a cyclist close, as RLY pointed out. I ride two or three times a week to work, sometimes 7 miles each way, some times 20 miles each way. Every single trip I make, at least one car will pass close enough to make me cack myself, sometimes it can be 10 or more. I'll shout and gesture and indicate the other side of the road; every car that passes after that then passes with a lot more space (apart from the two scrotes in the white van recently, but that is another story).

"Negative views of cyclists" - you are the one perpetuating that, with your comments about red light jumping etc. Not all cyclists do this, so why lump them all together?

[WinstonWolf]

DoubleSix said:

ohHello said:

DoubleSix said:

Whether the guy was in the right or the wrong or not, go round tapping on peoples windows and you'll soon get much more than a mouthful.

In the mean time you just continue to perpetuate the negative views of cyclists. Well done.

If people don't want their precious car to be so much as touched, they should take more care to keep it further away from other people, especially cyclists.

He barged through, bullying Keith out of the way (who had priority) but somehow it's the cyclist who was in the wrong? Weird.

Christ. Are you hard of thinking? I said "whether in the right or wrong", this is a recognition of the fact the driver was being a div.

Nonetheless, as soon as you go around tapping on peoples windows you have then fallen into the trap of being a twonk. I'll leave it to you to decide whether being a div or a twonk is better or worse. But personally I would take the view that it's probably not worth being stabbed for.

Funny how many cyclists don't get this. Guess it's that righteous indignation I was hinting at earlier, thanks for illustrating so perfectly.

That "righteous indignation" is normally the result of encountering poor driving. JustSayin...

[ohHello]

DoubleSix said:

Christ. Are you hard of thinking? I said "whether in the right or wrong", this is a recognition of the fact the driver was being a div.

Nonetheless, as soon as you go around tapping on peoples windows you have then fallen into the trap of being a twonk. I'll leave it to you to decide whether being a div or a twonk is better or worse. But personally I would take the view that it's probably not worth being stabbed for.

Funny how many cyclists don't get this. Guess it's that righteous indignation I was hinting at earlier, thanks for illustrating so perfectly.

I'll say it again, if he was close enough for Keith to tap his window, he was too close.
And what sort of psycho goes off the deep end just because their window was tapped? Not exactly criminal damage is it?

[Magic919]

Mave said:

Magic919 said:

Looked okay to me too. With three lanes turning into four, there will always be people in less than ideal position.

How do you work that out? You get in the lane you need to be in, and stay in that lane. If your lane splits into 2 then you stay on the side you're heading. If there's someone slower in front of you that's just bad luck, you wait a few seconds until its safe to overtake.

Note that the cyclist didn't do that. He sat in lane 2.5 and after setting off didn't stay in that position. In the real world, it's not that simple.

[Mave]

Magic919 said:

Note that the cyclist didn't do that. He sat in lane 2.5 and after setting off didn't stay in that position. In the real world, it's not that simple.

Yes he did. He started on the right hand side of lane 2 because he wanted to be in the right branch when it split, and then moved to the left of lane 3. Where else would you suggest he positioned himself?

[Magic919]

I'd have sat bang in th middle of lane 2.

[Mave]

Magic919 said:

I'd have sat bang in th middle of lane 2.

Great. So no-one knows which way you're going to go, and someone wanting to go into lane 2 has to sit waiting behind you for longer. IMHO the cyclist's positioning was the right balance between consideration, communication, and safety. The police car's was anything but.

[Magic919]

I think any cyclist not in lane 1 will be expected to take the right branch.

[Mave]

So he didn't want to take the left branch and he wasn't in lane 1. He gave as much room as possible for people behind to move into lane 2. He moved over as early as possible for people behind to overtake into lane 3. Which bit of his positioning are you objecting to?

[Magic919]

It really doesn't need further explanation.