New California law requires drivers passing cyclists to give 3 feet of clearance

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_26539096/new-buffer-law-requires-drivers-passing-cyclists-give

by t23 • 12 years ago

52 126 12 years ago

chollida1• 12 years ago

Sounds like a good idea:) I'm guessing this is a law that won't be enforced too often when no accident occurs but will be something that can used to charge a driver when they collide with a biker.

In Toronto we could use a rule like this on our streets with street cars. Image a 2 lane road with a train riding on the inside lane and cars trying to speed around on the outside lane to pass it.

If you are biking on these streets you have about 3 inches of clearance between yourself and the side walk and about 12 inches between you and the car, and that assumes the car has about 12 inches of clearance between it and the street car.

It's not for the faint of heart.

The law doesn't require motorists to stay behind cyclists until a narrow road ends or widens -- but allows a driver to pass within 3 feet if he slows to a safe speed, said CHP Officer Mike Harris.

I think this is a very reasonable compromise. That way car's aren't forced to be stuck behind a slow biker, who probably doesn't want the car tailgating them anyway.

f055• 12 years ago

It's interesting how HN is valley-centric ;) BTW such laws are quite common in EU, for example in Poland you are required to give 100cm of clearance, so about 3.28 feet.

bowlofpetunias• 12 years ago

I don't think the Netherlands has any such law, and if we do no one cares.

There's basically one simple law that the US should copy: if you hit a weaker road user, be it a cyclist, pedestrian or anything else, with your car, you are completely liable unless there's proven utterly reckless behavior by the other party.

twoodfin• 12 years ago

What's the difference between merely reckless and "utterly" reckless?

jackmaney13• 12 years ago

That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Full stop. Not exaggerating in the slightest.

Pedestrians and cyclists are perfectly capable of breaking laws and are most certainly capable of being at fault in an accident with a motorist.

smutticus2• 12 years ago

You can't compare the NL to anywhere in the USA WRT bicycles. Completely different environment.

lsaferite• 12 years ago

I think a change like this would best be accompanied with a mandatory dash cam for passenger cars as well.

mahyarm3• 12 years ago

So according to this law, you cannot practically drive in a lane beside a bike lane because you will be less than 3 feet? If there is a lot of traffic somewhere and a bike lane, will you slow down the entire road to 10mph around you because of this law? It will have the same traffic effects as a rubbernecking accident on a highway.

" Will the law apply when passing a bicyclist who is riding in a bike lane? We were originally told that it does not, but upon closer examination there is some grey area in how the law was worded which will probably not be worked out until a case goes to court and a judge rules on it. However, there is no language in the law which specifically says that bike lanes are not covered, so for now we are advising drivers to always pass bicyclists with at least a 3 feet buffer in every situation"

revelation4• 12 years ago

That won't be a problem as there are no bikes on the highway.

3 feet is the minimum passing distance. It doesn't particularly matter if there's some white paint on the ground, that doesn't magically make it safer. Of course few sane people cycle in the bike lane, because its really more of a 'car driver exit' zone.

dllthomas11• 12 years ago

"Of course few sane people cycle in the bike lane, because its really more of a 'car driver exit' zone."

That depends tremendously on where. Historically, bike lanes were quite often entirely in the "door zone" - or even outright obscured by parked cars. It's still by no means universal, but cities are increasingly painting better bike lanes.

ojbyrne4• 12 years ago

I wish I could downvote this more. To quote from the Effective Cycling book below:

"cyclists should consider themselves drivers of vehicles in traffic. That means obeying the rules of the road, because when all drivers obey the same rules, they don't have collisions. Forester explains why cyclists should not be afraid to cycle in traffic, and he urges them to resist being shunted off into government-sponsored bike paths as if they were incompetent children."

jackmaney13• 12 years ago

That won't be a problem as there are no bikes on the highway.

You've never been outside of a city, have you?

drivingmenuts• 12 years ago

In general, I think it's a good idea. The specifics leave a bit to be desired:

Since bicyclists want to own the lane, they'll ride to the outside, which means I have to be three feet from the outside line - which puts me into the other lane at times. Great time to be a police officer.

Occasionally, one cyclist will be in the lane and their partner will be in the car lane, riding beside them. Thus, I am stuck driving 15 mph while they merrily tool along. If I pass them, well, another great time to be a police officer.

dcherman4• 12 years ago

I understand that not all bikers share this mentality, but I do often feel like "sharing the road" means "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" when I see people doing things like this. This does not help driver/biker relations.

dllthomas11• 12 years ago

You can pass precisely like you can pass any other vehicle, and like any other vehicle they're required to get out of your way when they're holding up 5+ cars (and it's discourteous of them to block even one car for a significant duration).

eggie• 12 years ago

Cyclists aren't trying to "own" the lane any more than you are. Really, both of you own it, as citizens and road users.

The reason for being in the lane is safety. In many situations, impatient people who feel they are impeded will try to squeeze past a cyclist who is not riding safely in the lane. This is among the most frightening and dangerous things that can regularly happen to any road user.

I'm not trying to chastise you. I just hope that you can imagine the situation that other travelers are in so you don't hurt someone in impatience.

carlob2• 12 years ago

This reminds me of instructions on the sticker of Velibs, the bike sharing program in Paris. If the road is to narrow for a car to safely overtake you, you should stick to the center of the lane.

At any rate it's pretty dangerous to ride a bike too close to the sidewalk or parked cars. I try to keep a meter (about 3 feet) on the right as well when I cycle.

3JPLW• 12 years ago

Note that the Pennsylvania (four foot!) law explicitly allows cars to cross the double-yellow line to overtake bicycles as long as it is safe to do so.[1] I'm not sure what the specifics are for the California law are, but many states have existing laws on passing "obstructions" that may apply.[2]

1. http://walkbikejersey.blogspot.com/2012/02/pennsy-passes-pro...

2. http://flbikelaw.org/2013/12/no-passing-zones/

wiredfool4• 12 years ago

Most lanes on modern streets are 12 feet wide, most cars are in the 6-7 foot range. If you're all the way over on one side of the lane, you're going to be ok, even if the cyclist isn't completely in the bike lane. If they're right on the edge, you've got about a foot of bike, 3 feet of buffer, and 7 feet of car.

Another way to look at it is that if there's no bike lane, the car is probably going to have to go outside the lane to be safe and legal.

ojbyrne4• 12 years ago

12 feet wide seems to be the standard for interstates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane#Lane_width), where there are no bikes. Surface roads tend to vary quite a bit.

wffurr5• 12 years ago

That's correct, especially if the bike lane is between a parking lane and a travel lane. A four inch stripe of paint is not an excuse to buzz a cyclist and scare the crap out of them.

If slowing down or moving over is too much trouble, petition your local government to install physically separated cycle tracks instead of bike lanes.

nokiaman• 12 years ago

What about cyclists buzzing pedestrians?

I see cyclists constantly breaking traffic rules, speeding through red lights, mounting onto the pavement, and they never get punished.

If cyclists want to be treated as a road vehicle, perhaps they should be registered like one with a license plate?

chc4• 12 years ago

I can't see how it would be a good idea to compromise every other public institution for a very expensive, large-scale construction project to accommodate a vanishingly small subset of travelers. Most places don't even have good public transport. I'd rather see the money go there, and cyclists who need to get around places they can't cycle can take their bikes on those while everybody else benefits as well.

mahyarm3• 12 years ago

I wasn't talking about buzzing a bicyclist, but in this normal usage with both vehicles in the middle of their lanes:

  ||-(car)-|-(car)-|-(bike)-|||

The car will be forced to slow down to 10mph, because the distance between them will be around 3 feet. Bikes will become traffic blockers as a result, or this will be another badly designed ignored law designed to create pull over excuses or collect revenue, increase driver resentment of bicyclists and the legal system.

I say this as a person who uses bike lanes to commute to work, frequently. This is a badly designed law in this bike lane case.

genericone• 12 years ago

I think this is an intermediate step for bicycle advocacy:

Step 1. Convince people that bicycle transportation infrastructure is sub-standard in all parts of America and is the underlying cause for accidents.

When cyclists ( total weight < 200 lbs, slow acceleration, fast deceleration) and motorists ( total weight > 2000 lbs, fast acceleration, slow deceleration ) are expected to use the same roadways and are expected to follow the same traffic laws, there will be problems for everyone.

Step 2. Introduce "reasonable" legislation to improve safety for cyclists. "Reasonable" legislation encroaches on motorist's existing feelings of entitlement on the road.

Step 3. Begin discussions on how to compromise:

a. Ban all bikes from everything except mixed used paths - No

b. Revert the "reasonable" legislation, implying cyclist safety is not a concern - No

c. Introduce more bicycle lanes - Maybe

d. Physically separate the bicycle-paths and motorways - Difficult, but not impossible: http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/bicycle-culture/cycle-supe...

e. Introduce a bicycle tax, so motorists can't lord around the idea cyclists are freeloading roads - Maybe

We're at step 3 now, what real solutions are there?

chc4• 12 years ago

3c wouldn't help, since bike lanes do not keep bikes three feet away from cars.

3d seems prohibitively expensive for most places in the US.

3e wouldn't really help anything unless the tax was ridiculously high and could pay for separate bike paths. Given how few people actually commute by bike in most places, this would make a bicycle about as expensive as a Benz, so this doesn't seem very reasonable to me and I'm sure it wouldn't make me happy at all if I rode a bike.

3a and 3b seem like the most practical solutions, honestly. Not because cyclist safety is not a concern, but because we do not have good options available to protect it. They don't make cyclists happy, but I mean, tax laws don't make me happy. If it's unreasonably expensive to give someone special accommodations, sometimes you just can't even if you'd like to.

carlob2• 12 years ago

e. Introduce a bicycle tax, so motorists can't lord around the idea cyclists are freeloading roads - Maybe

This seems like a particularly bad idea, especially given how low taxes are on gas in the US. In some states it's even subsidized.

In general most countries (US included) are giving large tax breaks to hybrids and electric cars, so I think we should be going in the opposite direction: no sale tax on bikes, free tubes, lights and high visibility vests to commuters. I think some cities in Europe are already giving away commuter kits.

If car drivers understood how little they are paying into the maintenance of roads especially with respect to how much more damage a car does to the Macadam compared to a bike, I don't think they'd keep seeing the cyclists as freeloaders.

bincrosby2• 12 years ago

The "slows to a reasonable speed" exemption is significant here. Bike lanes aren't actually enough to bicyclists from getting hit, particularly by large vehicles (buses, widened pickups, etc) that crowd the bike lane. Given a narrow road and bike lane, it's awfully nice for cyclists to have people slow down as they pass.

That said, all of this is going to depend on sensible application, and I'm glad to see there won't be a strict-enforcement campaign. It goes on already-massive list of traffic laws that most drivers break every day - it's hardly surprising to see a traffic law that's impractical and dangerous to follow in all cases. Used well, these laws are about giving cops options when people take dangerous actions. Used strictly or vindictively, they make driving an impossible task.

jfmiller283• 12 years ago

I commute by bike in city traffic daily. With a standard 13' lane a passenger vehicle can pass a bicycle riding comfortably in on the right edge of the road with 3 ft' clearance and without going over the lane line. You may need to move closer to the lane line then is typical, but you will be in your lane and have 3 ft. 100s of cars a week pass me safely and I'm not the only bike on the road.

The situations that cause problems are drivers who don't see the cyclist or who try to "make a point" by not yielding the right hand edge. It also effects large vehicles who may need to change lanes to pass a bike safely. City buses and big rig trucks are quite good at this. Super-sized SUV's and box trucks not so much.

I and everyone else knows that recreational road bikes and cars are going to continue to have trouble on narrow country roads with no solder and no passing visibility. But that problem did not just come with this law it came with poor road design.

herbig• 12 years ago

"A long-standing law required drivers passing cyclists to maintain a safe distance, but it failed to define just how big that space had to be...[The law] allows a driver to pass within 3 feet if he slows to a safe speed, said CHP Officer Mike Harris."

Now we just need to define "safe speed" and the law might mean something.

jjcm• 12 years ago

Also we need to define what a narrow road is, as you're only allowed to pass within three feet at an ambiguous speed if you're on a road that's narrow.

wiredfool4• 12 years ago

Probably one with 10 foot lanes, instead of the standard 12 foot.

baddox2• 12 years ago

And have some way for drivers to know the exact distance between their car and cyclists.

wiredfool4• 12 years ago

Until you have a handle on that, perhaps you should just leave a bunch of extra space.

jfmiller283• 12 years ago

Here is a good rule of thumb. Three feet is about the swing of a car door. If you can park next to another car and your passenger can get out without denting the car next to you that's three feet.

I commute by bike daily and 100s of cars a week manage to pass me safely. It is not that hard and has been common sense for 99% of all drivers who pass me even before this law. It is that one super-sized SUV who passes me with mere inches to spare while going 50 in a 35 zone.

anigbrowl8• 12 years ago

One that is not likely to destabilize the bicyclist in the best judgment of the driver. If you can't figure that out, then you should probably maintain a separation of greater than 3 feet.

jfmiller283• 12 years ago

22 other states say 15 MPH is reasonable in that situation. Our Governor was not so sure and would not let the bill through with an actual number in it.

buckbova• 12 years ago

Yet another non-law that will there will be no enforcement.

r00fus• 12 years ago

As a bike commuter, I'm a bit ambivalent about this - even assuming 100% compliance, will this cause more accidents than it fixes, as cars in narrow roads drift into lefthand lane to ensure keeping 3' away from a cyclist?

mholt2• 12 years ago

Drivers can slow down behind the cyclist voluntarily to stay safe, or the cyclist can claim the lane to essentially force drivers behind to slow down and follow or pass when clear.

themodelplumber• 12 years ago

According to the article, drivers can pass within 3' if they slow down to a reasonable speed. I'm sure news reporters will be on right top of this little detail during their next-to-busy-road reports.

mholt2• 12 years ago

Utah has had this law for some time now, but it's rarely (if ever?) enforced, unfortunately.

alrs• 12 years ago

The article says that no one is going to bother enforcing this new law.

Instead of waiting for law enforcement to care, the best thing you can do as a cyclist is give $25 to the MIT Press and read Effective Cycling. John Forester is an engineer with decades of cycling experience.

"Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles"

http://www.amazon.com/Effective-Cycling-John-Forester/dp/026...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling

IvyMike• 12 years ago

My take: because of the ambiguities in the language and difficulty in enforcement, this law accomplishes very little except to make car v. cycle resentment that much stronger.

ojbyrne4• 12 years ago

Its interesting that the first picture on the story shows a violation even though there's way more than 3 feet of separation - my understanding is you're not allowed to cross a double yellow line to maintain the distance,

mindslight• 12 years ago

In regions with more observant drivers, painted lines are not treated as hard barriers but mainly serve to establish who has priority. With visibility and no oncoming traffic/left turns/active driveways, I will often have my right wheels next to the double yellow when passing a bike, because it's more pleasant for all involved.

The written law should indeed be updated to differentiate between a quick pass of a slow/stopped vehicle on a city street, and a long pass on a similar-speed vehicle like two cars on an undivided highway. But until then if one is still adverse to driving on some paint, they can continue being overcautious by slowing down and passing at +5mph when possible.

TrainedMonkey• 12 years ago

"The CHP says it's prepared to enforce the law but is not gearing up for any big crackdown and ticket-writing campaign to catch motorists a few inches inside the three-foot space."

"It's a great educational tool for people to share the road," Prinz said, "but the law will only be as effective as people allow it to be."

For some reason article does not give me confidence that law will be enforced.

ojbyrne4• 12 years ago

I suspect police will consider themselves exempt, for starters.

bertil• 12 years ago

My experience is that the best enforcement method is carrying a large blunt object: car drivers seem to actively fear scratching their paint job a lot more than maiming someone.

dspig• 12 years ago

I once carried a 2m length of 19" rack strip through town. Wow - instant respect from car drivers - and annoying that it made such a difference.

Havoc2• 12 years ago

Is that even feasible? Round here that would result in no cyclist being passed...ever.

834573• 12 years ago

the article states that if you can't comfortably pass due to narrow roads and such then you slow to a safe speed

Havoc2• 12 years ago

Round here all roads are narrow enough to break the 3 feet rule. Narrow to the point that I'm usually cutting into the opposing traffic lane to give the cyclist a bit of room. (Plus I'd rather hit a car than a cyclist)

rawland• 12 years ago

Which is 2 feet less, than Germany.

tedchs• 12 years ago

This would be great if a) bikes didn't already often ride 2+ feet from the edge of the road, and b) some roads weren't so narrow that putting my car 3' from the edge of the road would put my side mirror in the opposite lane.

dllthomas11• 12 years ago

Bikes are supposed to ride "as far to the right as practicable", but this can mean "in the center of the lane" if there is not enough room for cars to safely pass anyway.

Cyclists, meanwhile, should be paying attention, and should let cars pass them when they find they've been impeding traffic.

834573• 12 years ago

I think your mirror will survive the shock of such a harrowing maneuver for the seconds it takes to pass a bicyclist.

cespare• 12 years ago

(a) Often the pavement at the very edge of road is rough, has debris, or is otherwise unsuitable for riding on, and you can't necessarily even see that from your car. Furthermore, riding at the very edge of the road encourages some drivers to pass when there's not actually room enough to do it safely.

(b) Do you think it's safe to pass a cyclist on a section of road that narrow?

bryanlarsen• 12 years ago

(d) leaving 2+ feet of space to your right gives the cyclist the ability to swerve right if needed.

lazyant• 12 years ago

One meter, pretty standard since I can remember in (many/some parts of) Europe and Canada iirc. This is common sense, who's going to leave less than that gap at speed?

vec• 12 years ago

Based on personal experience, 5-10% of drivers.

On my commute home from the office, there's a short stretch (about half a city block) between where I exit from a low-traffic residential street onto a main thoroughfare and where the road widens from 2 lane to 4 lane + bikelane. On that stretch I get buzzed uncomfortably fast and close about once a week.

kyrra• 12 years ago

A lot of states and cities have similar laws. Austin passed similar laws a few years ago[0]. Austin's law is a bit interesting as they make large trucks give bikers 6 feet.

(1) three feet if the operator’s vehicle is a passenger car or light truck; or
(2) six feet if the operator’s vehicle is a truck, other than a light truck, or a commercial motor vehicle as defined by Texas Transportation Code Section 522.003.

[0] http://www.3feetplease.com/images/pdf/austinordinance.pdf

jackmaney13• 12 years ago

It was a summer night--right around dusk--circa 1996. I was driving on highway with one lane in each direction, the usual dotted yellow line in the middle (which allows one to pass, as long as there's no danger of hitting oncoming traffic).

No other cars were in sight, but there were two bicyclists ahead: one near the right edge of the lane and the other near the center of the road (but still in the right hand lane). I carefully signaled and moved into the left hand lane, giving the cyclists as much room as possible.

As I passed them, I saw movement out of my right eye just in time for the nearest cyclist to swerve directly into my car, shattering the front passenger window and injuring herself horribly (a spiral fracture in one of her legs, broken hip, broken ribs, at least one shattered arm).

She and her family sued my auto insurance company and lost. It was determined that she was completely at fault. It was also discovered that she was drunk at the time of the accident.

If this idiotic law had been in effect at the time, the three foot barrier would no longer have existed as she swerved into the side of my car, and I would've been at fault.

So, a hearty "fuck you" to anyone who thinks this law is a good idea.

834573• 12 years ago

you are incorrect

jackmaney13• 12 years ago

According to this law, the driver is responsible for maintaining a barrier of at least three feet when passing a cyclist. Motion is continuous. Therefore, by the Intermediate Value Theorem, if a cyclist crashes into a car, there will no longer be a three foot barrier. QED.

Or, as the kids like to say it, nowadays: NO, U.

smutticus2• 12 years ago

IMO we need better road design, not additional legislation.

We need dedicated cycling lanes, or at the very least designs that place parked cars between cyclists and drivers. You can't just draw a line on the road and call it a bicycle lane. So long as cars and cyclists are forced to occupy the same space cyclists are going to get killed.

Mandatum• 12 years ago

Here in New Zealand it's 1.5 meters (almost 5ft), have had that enacted for 20+ years. There are cyclist deaths every year or so, but it's usually a drunk driver or someone road raging, in the past 10 years the only time someone has killed a cyclist to the best of my knowledge by not leaving enough room is when I truck was going around a corner and the cyclist was too, he thought the cyclist was going to stop but ended up running over him. :\ Poor bastard.

New California law requires drivers passing cyclists to give 3 feet of clearance

Related Stories