California's 3ft Passing Law

[jesusbuiltmycar]

California has passed a law that requires motorists to give cyclists at least 3 ft when passing them California 3 ft law

road.cc said:

A law requiring drivers to stay at least three feet away from bicycles when overtaking is to be passed this week in California.


The law is designed to take the guesswork out of what a ‘safe’ passing distance is - but politicians say it’s more about creating a visual image for drivers of how far away they should be, than being something police are able to enforce.

“The current law states you need to pass a cyclist by a ‘safe distance.’ A lot of people say that’s arbitrary,” Assemblyman Steven Bradford, who authored the law, told 89.3 KPCC.

“Well now we’ve stated the safe distance is at least three feet.”

“Law enforcement won’t have a ruler or yard stick out to measure that,” he added.

153 cyclists were killed in car accidents in the state in 2012, according to figures in California Highway Patrol reports.

The Auto Club of Southern California is participating in a three-feet safety awareness campaign.

“Everybody has to think in their own mind what three feet means and keep that in mind when you see a bicyclist and get ready to pass them,” said Marianne Kim, transportation policy specialist with the Auto Club.

The law has long been debated in the state, with earlier versions being vetoed by opposing politicians in 2011 and 2012. The new bill, which has been simplified from earlier incarnations, was sponsored by the city of Los Angeles, which is known for its car-centricity.

A growing activist base has supported the bill, which was deemed necessary despite a 2010 launched a “Give Me 3″ graphic campaign encouraging drivers to create a safe distance between vehicles and cyclists.

Under the law, if traffic or roadway conditions prevent motorists from giving cyclists 3 feet of clearance, drivers must “slow to a speed that is reasonable and prudent” and only pass when the cyclist will not be endangered.

Fines run to $35 for violations, but this rises to $154 with additional fees. Drivers who collide with cyclists and injure them while violating the law will be subject to a $220 fine.

Would be nice if we had something like that over here- of late I have been experiencing a lot of "punishment passes". I know about highway code Rule 163 (give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car) but most drivers are completely unaware of this rule (or simply choose to forget it).

[Eleven]

jesusbuiltmycar said:

Would be nice if we had something like that over here- of late I have been experiencing a lot of "punishment passes". I know about highway code Rule 163 (give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car) but most drivers are completely unaware of this rule (or simply choose to forget it).

I always allow at least 3 feet, as I did yesterday when I passed a peloton of cyclists. This was quickly reduced to 6" as two of them swerved out towards me.

Club cyclists around here (and there are lots) seem to believe that when they're out with their mates firstly the road is theirs and theirs alone, secondly that they have an invisible force shield that makes them less fleshy and more resistant to a couple of tons of car running over them.

[yellowjack]

jesusbuiltmycar said:

California has passed a law that requires motorists to give cyclists at least 3 ft when passing them California 3 ft law

road.cc said:

...[snip]Drivers who collide with cyclists and injure them while violating the law will be subject to a $220 fine.

Would be nice if we had something like that over here- of late I have been experiencing a lot of "punishment passes". I know about highway code Rule 163 (give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car) but most drivers are completely unaware of this rule (or simply choose to forget it).

Begs the obvious question...

In what universe might it be possible to collide with and injure a cyclist whilst simultaneously being 3 Feet (or more) away from them

And yes, it'd be nice to have something similar over here, to focus a driver's attention somewhat when they are passing a cyclist. 3 feet? 1 yard. Approximately a whole foot further away from me than the end of my outstretched arm. Therefore, if I can reach out and touch/strike the side of your car as it passes, then you are WAY TOO F**KING CLOSE! Fact. Now fk off and give me some space.

The problem with Rule 163 is that it is only 'advice'. It's not a "Must Not" and has no statute reference at the end of the paragraph. If the law was altered to prohibit close passing, it would mean that Rule 163 could be rewritten as a "Must Not" and would be enforceable in law, preferably by stiff penalties issued by magistrates, rather than 'fire and forget' FPNs.

The other side of that coin, though, could see a raft of other legislation, like forcing cyclists onto pathetically inadequate cycle paths and so forth, as experienced by this fellow in New York... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Ui21AmA3M

Edited by yellowjack on Monday 15th September 11:16

[Kell]

yellowjack said:

jesusbuiltmycar said:

California has passed a law that requires motorists to give cyclists at least 3 ft when passing them California 3 ft law

road.cc said:

...[snip]Drivers who collide with cyclists and injure them while violating the law will be subject to a $220 fine.

Would be nice if we had something like that over here- of late I have been experiencing a lot of "punishment passes". I know about highway code Rule 163 (give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car) but most drivers are completely unaware of this rule (or simply choose to forget it).

Begs the obvious question...

In what universe might it be possible to collide with and injure a cyclist whilst simultaneously being 3 Feet (or more) away from them

I *think* it might be if you were to pass them, and give them more than 3ft, but they swerve into you. Then you'd be exempt as you'd done all you could. I don't think it's suggesting that it's possible to hit them and be 3ft away.

[DoubleSix]

Giving cyclists a wide berth is of course advisable, but what's with the idiots who don't wait until safe to do so and just cross into the opposite carriageway without any regard for the oncoming traffic.

Drives me fking crazy!!

So I have to brake, flash my lights etc and they're all indignant like "can't you see I'm passing a cyclist??"

Morons.

[jesusbuiltmycar]

British Transport Police demonstrate that even they have difficulties following the highway code

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/br...

[Daveyraveygravey]

yellowjack said:

...snip Therefore, if I can reach out and touch/strike the side of your car as it passes, then you are WAY TOO F**KING CLOSE! Fact. Now fk off and give me some space.

Edited by yellowjack on Monday 15th September 11:16

I totally agree with this, if someone passes me and I can touch their vehicle, then that is too close. A bit more room would be even better. They wouldn't drive their car/van/bus/lorry that close to anything else, whether it is a parked car, a person on the edge of the kerb about to cross the road (or even the edge of the kerb itself) another moving vehicle, so why is it ok to get that close to a bike?

[carreauchompeur]

jesusbuiltmycar said:

British Transport Police demonstrate that even they have difficulties following the highway code

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/br...

Meh, didn't look too bad.

[HereBeMonsters]

carreauchompeur said:

jesusbuiltmycar said:

British Transport Police demonstrate that even they have difficulties following the highway code

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/br...

Meh, didn't look too bad.

That exact thing happens to me 3-4 times a week at one particular junction, and it's fking terrifying. No idea if the car has seen you at all.

[mygoldfishbowl]

Daveyraveygravey said:

yellowjack said:

...snip Therefore, if I can reach out and touch/strike the side of your car as it passes, then you are WAY TOO F**KING CLOSE! Fact. Now fk off and give me some space.

Edited by yellowjack on Monday 15th September 11:16

I totally agree with this, if someone passes me and I can touch their vehicle, then that is too close. A bit more room would be even better. They wouldn't drive their car/van/bus/lorry that close to anything else, whether it is a parked car, a person on the edge of the kerb about to cross the road (or even the edge of the kerb itself) another moving vehicle, so why is it ok to get that close to a bike?

Am I missing something here or have you both got short arms? My arm is three foot long so if I can just touch a passing car with my outstretched arm then they are in fact three feet away.


Edit. No, I'm wrong. I just measured an arm & it's only 32 inches long so I'd have to lean a little to be able to touch a car 3 foot away.

Edited by mygoldfishbowl on Monday 15th September 18:36

[Daveyraveygravey]

Three feet/arm's length - it's still a bare minimum and it's still closer than you'd drive by anything else.

[yellowjack]

carreauchompeur said:

jesusbuiltmycar said:

British Transport Police demonstrate that even they have difficulties following the highway code

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/br...

Meh, didn't look too bad.

"didn't look too bad."?????



Hogwash!!!

That's bloody terrible driving, and I suspect you full well know that too. If that's the standard of driving demonstrated by Police drivers, it becomes the standard to which others will aspire, as they follow the example. I can't imagine that a Police officer patrolling on a bicycle would share your view of being passed like that, either. It is the very definition of "passing on the left" and the driver has entered the incorrect lane for his route ahead in order to execute the pass. So it's not only 'poor driving', but he/she has committed an offence too. "Careless", "Dangerous", or "Inconsiderate" driving? You decide, but at the minimum that needs to be punished via a FPN with a fine. I'd say it needs 3 penalty points too, just to focus the driver's mind a little more

Classic "don't do as I do, do as I say" hypocrisy in action right there

As a general observation, too many liveried Police vehicles are driven poorly these days, and it reflects very badly on Police standards generally, and their relationship with the local community in particular. ALL Police interaction with the public needs to be BEYOND REPROACH and officers need to understand that respect isn't issued with a stab vest and some chequered hi-vis - it needs to be earned, and the best way to earn respect and trust is to demonstrate some respect for the law, and for the law abiding majority of the community which they SERVE.

[Mave]

carreauchompeur said:

Meh, didn't look too bad.

Jumps the light, undertakes, gives a few inches clearance, then cuts back across the chevrons. Yeah, exemplary driving...

[Magic919]

Looked okay to me too. With three lanes turning into four, there will always be people in less than ideal position. They pass the cyclist on the nearside and he is veering left. Chevrons are ok to use.

[Mave]

mygoldfishbowl said:

Edit. No, I'm wrong. I just measured an arm & it's only 32 inches long so I'd have to lean a little to be able to touch a car 3 foot away.

Edited by mygoldfishbowl on Monday 15th September 18:36

Yes, but was it your arm or an orang utan's? :-) I'm 6'3, so erring towards the top of the scale, and mine are 28"....

[hyperblue]

carreauchompeur said:

Meh, didn't look too bad.

Replace the bike with a car in that video and I'm sure you'd have a very different opinion.

[Mave]

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.

[darreni]

Would this law work both ways?

Would a cyclist have to allow at least 3 feet when passing a moving vehicle?

[Mave]

darreni said:

Would this law work both ways?

Would a cyclist have to allow at least 3 feet when passing a moving vehicle?

Depends if the cyclist has a tonne and a half of momentum, and if the moving vehicle is susceptible to crosswinds and potholes.

[Ray Luxury-Yacht]

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.