Protecting non-polluting transportation: Bill would require 3 foot buffer to pass cyclists

[CreekDog]

Bill would require drivers to pass cyclists with at least 3-foot safety buffer

The California State Senate passed bill AB1371 yesterday, which would require drivers to provide a three-foot buffer zone when passing a cyclist going in the same direction. The Three Feet for Safety Act, sponsored by Steven Bradford, D-Gardena, is meant to protect cyclists from harassment from drivers who intentionally drive too close as they pass. Fines for a violation would start at $35.

A similar bill was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2011 over concerns that requiring a vehicle to slow to 15 MPH to make the pass would result in rear-end collision on slower roads or back traffic up behind a slower moving bicycle.

Those concerns were addressed by removing the requirement that vehicles slow to 15 MPH to pass a bike.

The governor then vetoed the next version of the bill, saying that allowing vehicles to cross a double yellow line would increase the state’s liability risk. The current bill addressed that issue by specifying that a driver bears the responsibility to pass in a safe manner.

http://blog.sfgate.com/bicycle/2013/08/27/bill-would-require-drivers-to-pass-cyclists-with-at-least-3-foot-safety-buffer/

[oldhippie]

1. That sounds like a very good idea ....

... and I would like even a bit more than three feet, but It's going to be hard to do on a lot of rural and town roads in my area. There are way to many drivers that don't seem to have the ability to judge speed, distance and trajectory when approaching a bicyclist and an oncoming car at the same time. We have two lane country roads here with no shoulder and 70 mph speed limits. I cringe every time I see a passing situation come up.

I wish there could be bicycle lanes on all roads.

Disclaimer: I'm not a bicyclist, but rode a motorcycle for many years. That was scary enough, but bicycles worry me even more.

[Gormy Cuss]

2. I'm all for it.

It's a sane step towards better road sharing.

[OnlinePoker]

3. It depends on the road.

I know one main artery in my city that has parking on both sides and barely enough room between the center of the road and the parked cars as it is. There is no way you could get 3 foot wide around a bicycle without running into oncoming traffic, especially the way they ride around here (often 2 abreast, weaving around stopped traffic, ignoring stop signs, etc). Most of the main roads here were laid down in the horse and buggy days and there is almost no room for expansion because the buildings are right up to the sidewalks.

[Gormy Cuss]

4. Then you can't pass the bicyclist any more than you can pass another car on that stretch.

Yes, that means the cars will need to slow down to 10-15 MPH if there's a bicyclist sharing the road OR banish the parking spots on at least one side of the road and reconfiguring the lanes. The latter is not a radical notion-- I've seen it done.

The bad behavior of some cyclists is a different (and actionable) matter.

[itsrobert]

5. Cars have a requirement to drive at a safe speed

Driving too slow will get you a ticket.

So, it's not the same. Bicyclist should walk their bikes in that situation where they are a hazard to themselves and other users of the road.

[Gormy Cuss]

6. No, it's the same. The safe speed in this instance is slower than the bicyclist.

It's no different that slowing down in a 15 MPH school zone.

Bicyclists travelling legally on such a road aren't a hazard to themselves. It's the bozos who try to pass them too closely who are endangering them.