New California law requires drivers passing cyclists to give 3 feet of clearance | Hacker News Reader

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

mercurynews.com

52 pointst23126 comments

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"

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.

"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.

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."

The rules of the road generally specifically require bicycles to do things differently than cars, because the rules applicable to bicycles are different, because bicycles have different physical dimensions and operational characteristics than cars.

Your first sentence would lead me to think you are disagreeing with the parent comment, but I'm not seeing where the disagreement lies. Both of you seem to advocate foregoing bike lanes.

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

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

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.

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.

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).

Actually, except in specified circumstances in CA, bikes are forbidden from taking the lane in the first place, as they are required to ride as close as practical to the right-hand edge of the roadway.

Yes, but those specified circumstances are pretty broad. If you don't feel safe biking along a strech without taking the lane, then the middle of the lane can be "as close to the right as practicable". Being further right for the sake of being further right, where there is not enough room for a car and a bike, just creates ambiguity and makes everyone less safe, and is thus not practical.

> Yes, but those specified circumstances are pretty broad.

Not really.

> If you don't feel safe biking along a strech without taking the lane, then the middle of the lane can be "as close to the right as practicable".

You will probably usually get away with that the same way you'll usually get away with ignoring the law requiring yielding to pedestrians at intersections -- its not something the police usually care that much about enforcing. But that's not at all what the law says, and I'd be very surprised if there is any reference in the statute, or any case law, that you can point to that suggests your attempt to define "practicable" as "whatever the bicyclist subjectively feels comfortable doing" is a correct interpretation of the statute.

It literally says so in the "rules of the road". You might have missed it in your posting frenzy.

A person operating a bicycle or roller skis upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time and place shall operate on the right portion of the way as far as practicable __except when it is unsafe to do so as determined by the bicyclist__ or roller skier

(Thats Maine, but presumably it is similar elsewhere)

California, which is what is under discussion, uses "reasonably necessary", not "as determined by the cyclist", which in law generally means an objective standard (as that term is used in law -- that is, reasonable to an outside observer, in practice the trier of fact of the case in which the requirement becomes an issue), not a subjective one (i.e., not the judgement of the person to whom the requirement applies.)

"Not really."

Yes, really. Per VC 21202, it is explicitly: 1) when passing another bicycle, 2) where the cyclist is planning on making a left hand turn, 3) "[w]hen reasonably necessary to avoid conditions [...] that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge", or 4) approaching anywhere anyone can make a right hand turn. That's "pretty broad", in my book - feel free to disagree, obviously the term is subjective.

"You will probably usually get away with that the same way you'll usually get away with ignoring the law requiring yielding to pedestrians at intersections"

That is a horrendous false equivalence. Violation of that law puts people at risk. I'm advocating an interpretation of a law permitting behaviors that keep people safe.

'But that's not at all what the law says, and I'd be very surprised if there is any reference in the statute, or any case law, that you can point to that suggests your attempt to define "practicable" as "whatever the bicyclist subjectively feels comfortable doing" is a correct interpretation of the statute.'

Not "subjectively feels comfortable doing," but "reasonably considers to be the safer choice". This is the same responsibility everyone has on the road, and it's insane to think that "practicable" is not intended to take safety into account. Riding unsafely is not practicable. I have no idea whether this has been tested in court, but anything else is crazy.

> Not "subjectively feels comfortable doing," but "reasonably considers to be the safer choice".

"reasonably considers" is not in the law. "Reasonably necessary" is, but nothing that suggest that is a subjective consideration of the person subject to the requirement rather than an "objective" (as that is used in law, which isn't exactly the normal sense) determination applied to the facts.

Again, I think that you err in assigning subjectivity, and your only support is words that normally in law invoke objective standards.

I think you're making a distinction that isn't one. One must necessarily operate on their subjective assessment of objective reality.

I'm not going to take a poll or ask a lawyer every five seconds as I try to decide where I need to be.

You are, either way, subject to others disagreeing about what is reasonable; and either way, you should seek to educate yourself about what is empirically safer behavior (for reasons much more important than a ticket).

> I think you're making a distinction that isn't one.

I think youa re obscuring an important distinction: specifically, you are confusing "how you decide to act based on the law" with "what is required by the law".

> I'm not going to take a poll or ask a lawyer every five seconds as I try to decide where I need to be.

Of course not. That doesn't mean, however, that the requirements of the law are based on your subjective judgement. Obviously, with most laws, you are going to use your subjective judgement to decide how to act, even if the requirements of the law set an objective standard that will be applied should the question of whether you complied with the law ever come into controversy.

But your earlier argument was that the law accomodates your subjective judgement of necessity, which is incorrect.

"But your earlier argument was that the law accomodates your subjective judgement of necessity, which is incorrect."

I see how you can get that from what I said, but it was not meant to be a specific claim in any strong sense.

As I said here, though, there are better reasons than "complying with the law" to make sure your subjective assessment of safety matches reality, and given that your subjective assessment of safety matches reality the law does say what I said above.

'If you don't feel safe biking along a strech without taking the lane, then the middle of the lane can be "as close to the right as practicable".'

As discussed in the thread starting with dragonwriter's response to the above, I should note that this assumes your feeling has a basis in reality. If you want to be sure you don't get a ticket (beyond simply relying on a tendency not to ticket for these things), you should be able to point to why riding where you were riding is objectively safer than riding further to the right.

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.

I know this is ( hopefully ) not a common occurrence, but let me tell you something that I recently witnessed.

I was driving on back-roads to my parents house, and it's not uncommon to see bikes on these roads since they are pretty good biking roads as I understand it. The difference is that these bikes were riding 4 wide on a single lane road, and they had a car in front of them driving between 15-20mph with their hazard lights on, presumably in an attempt to keep cars from passing them.

How is this not "owning" the lane? That was not the first time I've seen this happen either. Bikers also need to understand that this behavior is not reasonable.

So, if theres some farm vehicle on the back-road going 10mph, presumably you will be writing to the farmers association to say that you think "farmers need to understand that behavior is not reasonable"?

I think you need to understand that 1) roads aren't for cars going the speed limit 2) the speed limit is a limit.

So in other words, you believe that "sharing" means bikers own the road. I think you need to understand what sharing means, and it doesn't mean that you get to be an unnecessary annoyance to others.

This is the type of attitude that does not help driver/biker relations.

You've gone from mentioning a behavior that you have observed on a few occasions (cyclists apparently deliberately blocking a road, with help from a car - most likely some sort of race training) to stipulating it as the norm, which is clearly not the case. This is like the false premise of the poster above that '[s]ince bicyclists want to own the lane, they'll ride to the outside.' You're both taking examples of the worst behavior by cyclists and generalizing it to encompass all cyclists.

Incidentally, I don't own a bicycle and haven't for a long time, nor am I any fan of rude or irresponsible cyclists, whose existence I happily acknowledge.

If that's how you interpreted my response, then I apologize; that was not my intent. It was simply an observation directly responding to the post immediately above mine, not intended as a generalization.

The vast majority of cyclists that I've encountered are perfectly fine and do not engage in those behaviors I was referring to. I've simply noticed that often the ones that are loudest and most outspoken about "sharing the road" in these debates are often the ones that seem willing to share the road the least, and that immediately changes the tone from a productive one to one of "us versus them".

Ah, I see. I certainly agree with your observation that the most vociferous cyclists frequently turn out to have the worst road manners.

In my experience, farmers do not purposefully try to block the road. If you come up behind two farmers driving their tractors side by side down the road, they will almost certainly switch to single file to let you pass.

I don't get it. Why would two tractors be side by side in a single lane road? You can barely fit one on a single lane.

I think one of us is confused about the exact setup we're talking here. But of course it is wholly irrelevant; some time ago a cab in NYC jumped the curb and crushed a tourists leg, yet I'm not here screaming for cabs to be banned from the roads or asking the cab driver association why they think they can drive on the sidewalk.

As someone who grew up in a farm house and shared many roads with tractors/combines/etc, this is absolutely correct. In fact, I've never seen or heard of tractors driving side by side on a road (except, I suppose, if one tractor were trying to pass the other, but this would be highly unlikely).

I think that if the farmer does this often and does not pull over to let cars pass it when it is obstructing traffic, yes, that's a problem. For example, in my state, drivers of slow vehicles are obligated to turn off the road so that others can pass them. In my experience, drivers of slow commercial equipment tend to comply with this law, while cyclists do not.

> these bikes were riding 4 wide on a single lane road, and they had a car in front of them driving between 15-20mph with their hazard lights on, presumably in an attempt to keep cars from passing them.

How repugnant and arrogant. I'd pass out of spite alone.

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.

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/

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.

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.

I just went out an measured the road in front of my house, and it came out narrower than I thought. It's ~ 9.5/lane, with just over 1' for the double yellow.

OTOH, if you see more than one other car, that's a traffic jam.

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.

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?

There's a certain amount of chicken and egg at work here. Yes, there are cyclists who run red lights and behave badly just because they can. On the other hand, there are traffic laws that I regularly break while biking to stay alive (crossing onto sidewalks, stopping in the road, even ignoring stop signs to get away from large vehicles). Having been hit by a bus while on the sidwalk, I'm acutely aware of how frail and unlike a car I really am.

In short, my choices aren't made based on traffic laws. They're based on trying not to get hit on a minute-to-minute basis. In places without decent bike infrastructure, strict enforcement just presents a choice between tickets and death.

You can't have your cake and eat it to; either everyone follows all the traffic laws (including you) or no one follows all the traffic laws.

Or you could have more reasonable traffic laws.

Or we could start enforcing traffic laws for cyclists.

And for speeding cars, rolling stops for cars, illegal turns, broken lights, using cellphones while driving, parking in bike lanes, etc.

The most frequent complaint I hear about cyclists is the stop sign/red light/yield to pedestrians issue. Changing the law to be more sensible (specifically implementing the Idaho Stop for cyclists) would end the vast majority of those complaints.

Other issues, like taking up an entire lane, are annoying, but only done consistently by assholes...just like only a small portion of drivers are assholes.

It's certainly a pain to have to go slow behind a cyclist when in a car, but it isn't your god given right to go 10 mph over the speed limit at all times...which is the prevailing attitude of basically all drivers everywhere.

How about we just start by having traffic laws enforced for cyclists at the same overall rate as that for motorists.

How about we enforce the laws proportional to the danger each road user poses to those around them?

That sounds like a possible second step.

First, let's start enforcing traffic laws for cyclists.

The doctrine of proportional harm would basically eliminate enforcement of traffic laws for cyclists because they cause very, very little harm compared to motor vehicles.

You're assuming that I buy into this so-called "doctrine of proportional harm" (whatever that is).

You know what happens when you assume, don't you?

Cyclists are far less dangerous than cars. 3000lb car at 30 mph vs 200lb cyclist+bike at 15 mph is 30x less momentum to be transferred. Not to mention a cyclist hitting something is as likely to be injured as the recipient.

Cyclists should behave well, but they are not worthy of traffic enforcement because they are nowhere near as dangerous. Police enforcement should be focused on the most dangerous road users.

Further, many of the poor behaviors you see are a result of cyclists trying to navigate safely for themselves in the absence of good infrastructure. Good cycling behavior is easy when you have separated cycle lanes and clear signals and signage.

It's not that cyclists "want to be treated as road vehicles", but rather that's how the law treats them. I would much rather have my own separated, protected lane and signals than have to mix with motor vehicle traffic.

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.

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.

Average car lane is 12 feet wide (a bit narrower on less travelled roads) Average car is 6 feet wide. If your car is center you will be 3 feet from the edge of the bike lane. So what is the problem?

That is only on an interstate. On a surface street, it can be 9', and with 3' in a bike lane, that visually looks like 3'. And if you have a wider car, like an SUV or Truck, it's even less.

That is also correct. Cars should pass cyclists in bike lanes carefully. As carefully as they would if there were no bike lane. The paint changes nothing.

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?

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.

You might be surprised.

The cost of a bike lane averages $130,000 per mile.

The cost of an urban road averages $4,000,000 per mile, per lane.

Not to mention better bike infrastructure reduces car traffic: more bikes means fewer cars, the bike infrastructure is not simply additive.

Plus secondary economic benefits: civil density, reduced parking costs, reduced healthcare costs, reduced environmental costs, reduced oil & gas imports, ...

Did you know a parked car takes up 10 times as much space as a parked bicycle?

Did you know there are approximately 10 parking spaces per car in America?

Take away the driving subsidies and everyone would be riding bikes demanding better infrastructure.

> Not to mention better bike infrastructure reduces car traffic: more bikes means fewer cars

I don't think this follows. I don't know anyone who says "Bicycling everywhere is attractive to me and totally fits in with my lifestyle, but there just aren't any bike lanes." I'm sure such people exist, but I don't believe there are a lot of them. For most people, it seems like the problem is that bicycles are just too slow to get where they want to go in the time they want to take to get there. This is largely a result of community planning, not bike infrastructure. Do you have data to the contrary?

> The cost of a bike lane averages $130,000 per mile.

> The cost of an urban road averages $4,000,000 per mile, per lane.

But we aren't just talking about bike lanes, which are insufficient to guarantee that cars never get within three feet of a bike — we're talking about whole separate bike roads separate from the main road. Additionally, urban roads benefit so many more people in most places in the US that they're a bargain even at 30 times the price. I strongly suspect that less than 3% of commuters at any given time are riding bikes.

In Chicago over the past 5 or 10 years it has been the case.

The number of cyclists was 2.6 times higher in 2012 than 2000. [1]

The program, whose efforts are guided by the Bike 2015 Plan, approved in June 2006, has created over 100 miles (160 km) of new bike lanes, installed 10,000 bicycle racks, and installed 165 miles (266 km) of signed bike routes in 2006. [2].

[1] http://www.bikewalklincolnpark.com/2014/05/walking-and-bikin... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_Chicago

> 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.

I don't believe it's government sponsored, but the East Bay Bicycle Coalition gives you a light for participating in their free bicycle safety trainings.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

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

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

I 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?

Why not perform some measurements the next time you get on your bicycle, which might make you a better cyclist and driver?

I think that you probably know quite well how much space that is and are quite well able to estimate a 3 foot distance too. Nobody is asking you to maintain logs of your intra-vehicular distance for all your travels.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I would point out that there's a difference between knowing how much space there is relative to the likely movement of either vehicle (which is what's important for safety) and knowing how much space there is relative to a yardstick.

Obviously drivers should err on the side of more space. I have passed plenty of cyclists in an automobile, and I believe that I have always done so safely, but I can't confidently estimate the exact distance I put between the car and the cyclist.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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.

I suspect police will consider themselves exempt, for starters.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

It 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.

Note to self: never go to the Netherlands.

You 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.

Why 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.

I think that the reasoning is that since cars are heavy and cyclists and pedestrians are squishy the one with more capability to cause harm is considered responsible. Unless it is suicide by car or something like that.

I disagree. I frequently hear people complaining about cyclists breaking rules, but when Toronto did a major study of accidents between cars and bikes, it was found that cyclists are at fault in less than 10% of accidents.

Compelling drivers to be more careful would be an effective way to reduce accidents.

http://www.sharetheroad.ca/what-are-the-dangers-in-terms-of-...

Traffic mortality in the Netherlands is about 60% of that in the US, despite NL being one of the most densely populated countries in the world. So perhaps they are on to something. It's also somewhat safer per unit of distance traveled.

http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_International_pe...

And you can have it, thank you very much. I'll be over here in the US.

This seems a pretty irrational response. Although I live in the US now (as well as having lived in in NL before) lowering traffic mortality seems like a Good Thing given the economic costs to society resulting from avoidable deaths.

You'll also be missing out on higher speed limits (it's perfectly legal to drive at 80mph on the Dutch equivalent of freeways), much nicer roads, plus if you do get a speeding ticket it's proportional to the degree to which you exceed the speed limit. Well, enjoy your xenophobia!

Obvious troll is obvious.

I'm not trolling you, and for that matter I don't even own a bicycle. Driving in the Netherlands is simply not the horrid experience you seem to imagine it must be.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Which is 2 feet less, than Germany.

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.

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.

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

(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?

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

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,

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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)

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

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.

you are incorrect

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.

Law 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com