29 ms·
New California law requires drivers passing cyclists to give 3 feet of clearance
- chollida1 12y agoSounds 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.
- freedom123 12y agoCyclists will always argue for more rights and space on the road. Car owners will always argue cyclists have no place on the road integrated with 3 ton metal cars. Both groups not realizing the problem lies within government own roads/land. Moving roads into the private sector (just like railroads tried) would improve the quality and standard of conditions for both Cyclists and Car owners alike.
- f055 12y agoIt'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 12y agoI 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 12y agoWhat's the difference between merely reckless and "utterly" reckless?
- jackmaney 12y agoThat'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.
- st0p 12y agoIt works pretty well though. Giving 1 meter of clearance is just not possible in the very tight old city centers of the Netherlands, which also have a lot of biking traffic.
- jackmaney 12y agoNote to self: never go to the Netherlands.
- chiph 12y agoYou really should. I think you'd be pleasantly surprised. The skill level of European drivers is far above that of American drivers, and because of laws like the one mentioned, they're much more respectful of riders and walkers.
- st0p 12y agoWhy not? As a tourist in Holland, there is absolutely no reason to drive a car. If you go to Amsterdam, there are a lot of interesting cities within 45 minutes by train. Even Groningen or Maastricht are within less than 3 hours by train (which is too far to do fore one day, but if you book a hotel over there for 1 or 2 nights is perfectly feasible) Traffic in downtown LA, NYC or even Rome is worse than Amsterdam, and I'm really glad that I never had to drive in places like Vietnam or Cambodia. Sure, driving in Amsterdam requires you to pay attention but it isn't that bad.
- mahyarm 12y agoSo 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"
- revelation 12y agoThat 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.
- dllthomas 12y 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.
- ojbyrne 12y agoI 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."
- herbig 12y 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 12y agoAlso 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.
- wiredfool 12y agoProbably one with 10 foot lanes, instead of the standard 12 foot.
- baddox 12y agoAnd have some way for drivers to know the exact distance between their car and cyclists.
- wiredfool 12y agoUntil you have a handle on that, perhaps you should just leave a bunch of extra space.
- sliverstorm 12y agoI have a handle on the amount of space I appreciate as a bicyclist, and that's what I give to other bicyclists. I don't know how many feet it is. Accurately measuring feet with your eyes is hardly a prerequisite to safe driving. Do you measure your following distance in feet, or time & intuition for your own stopping speed?
- anigbrowl 12y ago
- buckbova 12y agoYet another non-law that will there will be no enforcement.
- r00fus 12y agoAs 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?
- mholt 12y agoDrivers 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.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- themodelplumber 12y agoAccording 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.
- mholt 12y agoUtah has had this law for some time now, but it's rarely (if ever?) enforced, unfortunately.
- alrs 12y agoThe 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/0262516942/ http://www.amazon.com/Effective-Cycling-John-Forester/dp/026... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling
- IvyMike 12y agoMy 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.
- ojbyrne 12y agoIts 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 12y agoIn 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 12y 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.
- ojbyrne 12y agoI suspect police will consider themselves exempt, for starters.
- bertil 12y agoMy 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 12y agoI 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.
- Havoc 12y agoIs that even feasible? Round here that would result in no cyclist being passed...ever.
- 83457 12y agothe article states that if you can't comfortably pass due to narrow roads and such then you slow to a safe speed
- Havoc 12y agoRound 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 12y agoWhich is 2 feet less, than Germany.
- tedchs 12y agoThis 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.
- dllthomas 12y agoBikes 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.
- 83457 12y agoI think your mirror will survive the shock of such a harrowing maneuver for the seconds it takes to pass a bicyclist.
- cespare 12y 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 12y ago(c) motorists use the distance from the bicycle to the edge as a gauge for the "safe passing distance". (d) leaving 2+ feet of space to your right gives the cyclist the ability to swerve right if needed.
- lazyant 12y agoOne 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 12y agoBased 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 12y agoA 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 http://www.3feetplease.com/images/pdf/austinordinance.pdf
- jackmaney 12y agoIt 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.
- 83457 12y agoyou are incorrect
- jackmaney 12y agoAccording 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.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- anigbrowl 12y agoLaw does not work that way. Even if it did, this law allows for the existence of narrower gaps if the motor vehicle lowers its speed.
- smutticus 12y agoIMO 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.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- Mandatum 12y agoHere 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.