3 foot passing law

[Judy Frankel]

without comment from me

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2281395605730&set=o.244724264939&type=1&ref=nf

[Paul Nevins]

 The law required motorists to slow to 15mph faster than the bike would be traveling. A bike traveling at 15 mph would slow traffic to 30 mph. The law was clear on this point. Brown is rewarding campaign contributors who oppose this law. He and his writers did not even bother to read the law before scribbling their idiotic excuse for the veto. Money talks! Boycott AAA.

[Frank]

I read the Active article ( http://www.active.com/cycling/Articles/California-Looking-to-Pass-Legislation-Protecting-Cyclists.htm? ) that mentioned that vehicles have to slow to 15 mph faster than the speed of the bike while overtaking.  That would be impractical on several local routes such as I-5 between Harbor Dr. and Las Pulgas Rd.

I'm not an attorney but I interpreted the bill differently.  I read it as a car could pass a bicycle and be exempt from the 3-foot limit at speeds less than 15 mph.

[Frank]

This is the portion of the bill I was reading:

(b) A driver of a motor vehicle shall not overtake or pass a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on a highway at a distance of less than three feet between any part of the motor vehicle and any part of the bicycle or its operator, except that the driver may pass the overtaken bicycle with due care at a distance of less than three feet at a speed not greater than 15 miles per hour, if in compliance with subdivision (a).

The full bill can be found at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0901-0950/sb_910_bill_20110912_enrolled.html

[TSD - Frank Dumville]

There have been several iterations of this bill which has caused some confusion as to what it actually says. I believe Frank listed the final version, which I also believe says you only have to slow to 15 mph or less if passing with less than 3 feet of room.
Personally I think the objection to this was just smoke to hide behind to avoid a law that makes it harder for motor vehicle operators to avoid responsiblity for unsafe passing.

[Judy Frankel]

FYI

ave you ever read CVC 21750? It already specifies what is needed:
==========================
21750. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle or a bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle, subject to the limitations and exceptions hereinafter stated.
==========================

If the police don't consider a collision to be "interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle", what makes you think that specifying a 3-foot minimum will chage this attitude about bicycle crashes?

The problem is NOT the wording of the law; it's the way police and the courts enforce it. As can be seen in the many other states that have enacted 3-foot laws, such laws have not lead to any changes in enforcement and convictions. I know of no instances in the US where a 3-foot law was used to cite for too-close passing, and other cases where collisions occurred, were already covered by the existing wording about not interferring with the safe operation of the vehicle or bicycle being overtaken. And even then, the police can usually elect to cite the cyclist for a FTR (Far to the Righ) law violation or simply not charge the motorist because the cyclist is presumed at fault for simply being in the roadway.

The root problem is poor enforcement and the solution is improved education of enforcers to improve their enforcement practices. Legislating minimum passing distance will NOT solve this problem, though removing the FTR law will help because it takes away the primary tool used by police to assign fault to a bicyclist who is involved in a collision with a motorist in the roadway.

As it stands today in states with FTR laws, when a cyclist is in a collision in the roadway, they are presumed at fault, by default, unless they can justify their roadway positon was not a violation of the FTR law. I can't tell you how many times I've read reports where one of the "causes" cited by the police was that the bicyclist was "in the roadway", as if this were an unusual or dangerous action. Police never write that "the SUV was in the roadway" as a cause for a collision, this special treatment is reserved for those illegitimate road users (bicyclists), who don't have full lane use rights.


Dan Gutierrez 
State:
CA Assoc. of Bicycling Organizations (CABO), District 7 Director
CABO Education Committee Co-Chair    http://www.cabobike.org/
Caltrans District 7 Bicycle Advisory Committee, Policy Chair
Caltrans Understanding Bicycle Transportation course developer/teacher   

National:
League of American Bicyclists (LAB), Certified Instructor, LCI #962
http://www.bikeleague.org/
Dual Chase Productions LLC, Co-Creator:  http://www.dualchase.com/
Dual Chase video hosting at Cyclist View:   http://www.cyclistview.com/
YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/CyclistLorax

[Judy Frankel]

For a discussion on this topic see:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/cyclistsaredrivers/?id=10150352724484940