"Safe Passing" Laws

[champ]

We now have a 3ft "passing law" here in CT that supposedly protects riders (and pedestrians) from motor vehicles. It is good to know the state is finally taking aggressive drivers and threatening behavior towards cyclists seriously but.. The problem is that the state is not promoting knowledge of it and the police will not enforce the 3ft law unless they witness it happening themselves - 50 witnesses can call in after witnessing a motorist pass by a cyclist or pedestrian within 3 ft and the police will do nothing. What are the passing laws and enforcement like in your state?

[false_Aest]

LA has a 3' passing law. And put up posters at a lot of bus stops.

Today I nearly got clipped by a bus.

LA also has a new law on the books making it illegal to threaten or intimidate a cyclist. $1000 fine IIRC.

I don't see any posters about this anywhere.
_________

I dunno how you'll get cops to enforce these laws though w/out introducing things like quotas or whatevr.

[jlwdm]

Two years ago the Texas house and senate approved the 3 ft passing bill almost unanimously and Governor Perry vetoed it!!!!!

Jeff

[gdw]

"The problem is that the state is not promoting knowledge of it and the police will not enforce the 3ft law unless they witness it happening themselves - 50 witnesses can call in after witnessing a motorist pass by a cyclist or pedestrian within 3 ft and the police will do nothing. What are the passing laws and enforcement like in your state?"

When it comes to traffic violations which don't involve contact or injury it is almost impossible for a police officer who did not observe the incident to determine whether a violation actually occurred. It's your word and possibly a few of your friends, who lack training in judging such matters, against the driver's and there is no evidence to prove which side is correct. Sucks but that's the way it is. In Colorado you can call *CSP and turn in the driver but the State Patrol lacks the power to do more than send a warning letter to the driver or have an officer visit and attempt to scare the offender if there have been multiple complaints.

[mike p]

The 3ft Passing law is feel good legislation. Dosen't really do anything but make us cyclist feel a little better.

Mike

[Mike748]

Two years ago the Texas house and senate approved the 3 ft passing bill almost unanimously and Governor Perry vetoed it!!!!!

Jeff

I can't wait until that idiot runs for President so we can get a new governor. His statement at the time was that current laws were adequate to protect cyclists et al. He recently vetoed the no-texting-while-driving law... something about the government interfering with people's lives.

I hate politics but the thought of a Perry/Palin ticket just popped into my mind and made me ROTFLOL.

PS: hi Jeff

[Bruce K]

I believe NH's law is interesting and may be unique: 3 feet for speeds up to 30 mph and then 1 additional foot for every 10 mph of additional speed limit.

BK

[firerescuefin]

I live in Colorado, and although buzzed once in awhile, it's pretty rare....by far, the safest place that I have ridden. It may have more to do with the active culture (Colorado being pretty active) and that cyclists may be one of "us".

I think the 3 feet is less about enforcement and more about public education. That being said, it may take some time to gain meaningful traction.

[zmudshark]

Safe passing laws are a joke. In MI, where I live part time, if you get killed, the driver maybe will get probation, not even lose his license. In AZ, it's slightly better, but not by much. At least the roads are better n AZ.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. .. it doesn't matter what extra conditions are put on this law or any other to protect cyclists. Unless local LEO's enforce it, it means nothing. And that's the ingredient that's missing--any kind of mandated enforcement.

In the case of the 3 foot passing law it's particularly useless because of what's been said above. There's no way to conclusively prove a driver has violated unless they hit you.

It's exactly what Mike P days . . . feel good law passed so legislators can claim they've done something about the problem, even though they really haven't.

BBD

[Louis]

Clearly, unless there is a massive education and enforcement campaign, the only time this sort of law is useful or applied is when it's too late and the damage has already been done.

[Birddog]

Clearly, unless there is a massive education and enforcement campaign, the only time this sort of law is useful or applied is when it's too late and the damage has already been done.
Not here in OK. A guy got hit and killed last year. Obviously, the driver did not allow 3', right? Well the driver was not cited for anything since there were no witnesses. The 3' has to be "observed" to be a violation. BTW, in this particular case, the report said the driver didn't see the cyclist, but was remorseful about the outcome.

[thinpin]

Just being debated here (again) in Vic again after another cyclist killed while training.

[Nelson99]

On my way to work in CT the other day I was passed by two cars, the first pulled out to safe passing distance, the second blew by me with about a foot to spare. Wasn't I surprised when the second car was a local cop!

I have yet to report the incident for fear of repercussions in my small town. That fact alone gives me deep uncertainty about our current legal and political system. But perhaps it should only be a reflection of my own courage (or lack thereof). Had I not a family, I wouldn't hesitate. But perhaps, for the very same reason, I should not hesitate. After all, what if that same cop runs my kid off the road???

[camchris1]

I can't wait until that idiot runs for President so we can get a new governor. His statement at the time was that current laws were adequate to protect cyclists et al. He recently vetoed the no-texting-while-driving law... something about the government interfering with people's lives.

I hate politics but the thought of a Perry/Palin ticket just popped into my mind and made me ROTFLOL.

PS: hi Jeff


Thankfully, thankfully Austin saw the need for this law and said FO to Perry. City Council passed it last year. Sadly the comments about its lack of enforcement apply here as well....

[1centaur]

Here was Perry's official rationale for the veto. In many ways it echoes the comments here. Principally, he saw the language as being in conflict with existing statutes and needlessly additive to existing crimes. While I sympathize with the desire not to pile laws on laws, I think a non-conflicting version could have been drafted with his input.

" Senate Bill No. 488 would create a new class of users of roadways, called “vulnerable road users,” which would require specific actions by operators of motor vehicles. These vulnerable road users would include pedestrians; highway construction and maintenance workers; tow truck operators; stranded motorists or passengers; people on horseback; bicyclists; motorcyclists; moped riders; and other similar road users.

Many road users placed into the category of vulnerable road users already have operation regulations and restrictions in statute. For example, a person operating a vehicle being drawn by an animal is subject to the same duties as a motor vehicle, and a pedestrian is required to yield the right of way to a motor vehicle, unless he or she is at an intersection or crosswalk.

While I am in favor of measures that make our roads safer for everyone, this bill contradicts much of the current statute and places the liability and responsibility on the operator of a motor vehicle when encountering one of these vulnerable road users. In addition, an operator of a motor vehicle is already subject to penalties when he or she is at fault for causing a collision or operating recklessly, whether it is against a “vulnerable user” or not."

[kenmetzger]

In NC the law is two feet, but it is stated that three feet is the safe distance. Again, not that the law helps much, but why is the law different from the stated safe distance?

[1happygirl]

BBD always nails it on this. This has been going around forever it seems. Until I got BBD opine (among others)in another thread a while ago I really thought it was a great idea on its face. Now I see/realize it solves nothing and doesn't achieve the desired results.

[Peter P.]

mikep "gets it".

Some laws like speeding, for example, are enforceable as by themselves as they occur. Other laws are more difficult to PROSECUTE and need substantial evidence to back up the officer's citation otherwise the prosecutor will not want to waste their time.

For instance, passing within the 3' rule may be against the law, but as has been mentioned above, even if they buzz you by one inch, unless they cause you to crash or the blow-by wake obviously causes you to crash AND there are corroborating witnesses, then it's sorta "no harm/no foul.

You would think that it wouldn't require a specific law to enable police to cite such an action-that it would be covered under some more general, existing statute. But like mikep said, it's a feelgood law.

And that 3' law HAS been publicized in CT. I've seen it on bus billboards. Just don't expect it to change drivers' behavior. And there's also a law in CT that prohibits drivers from taking a right turn in front of cyclists, cutting them off. Again, unless there's contact or the near miss causes you to fall AND there are witnesses, you're out of luck. I don't see much difference between this and many motor vehicle laws where, unless there's and accident, it's difficult to cite a driver.