In truth, the defense against a three foot law is exactly the same as against “safe distance.” Namely, “the cyclist swerved right in front of me, I can’t explain why.” This is otherwise known as the “SWSS.” Another classic is “he appeared out of nowhere.”

As in the case of the Texas 14 foot lane exception to the FTR law, this law will not be widely interpreted in favor of cyclists. That law, also intended to help cyclists, is ignored by all. Unlike the three foot passing law, however, if I’m cited, I can use it in my defense when I go to court, so I’ll take what I can get.

One prosecution nationwide – at a cyclist’s insistence, more or less proves the point this is irrelevant “feel good” legislation.

Can anyone find a case where the 3ft law has been a factor in a case against a driver who hit a cyclist?

“That means the defense lawyer can make a very strong argument that a driver was intending to pass at a safe distance. It is completely a matter of judgement, and that means there is no bright line or objective standard that can be brought to bear.”

If you hit someone, it doesn’t matter that you INTENDED to pass at a safe distance (whether that distance is explicitly stated in the law or not), what matters is that you did NOT pass safely. The objective standard is that they hit the cyclist. If intending to give safe clearance was a plausible argument, so would be: “I intended to give that cyclist 3ft, I just have no idea where the right side of my car is.”

The bias that hurts us in the courtroom is a much deeper problem and it will not be fixed by adding an inadequate number of feet of clearance to the definition of safe passing. Quite frankly, this is a tragic distraction from the important work of solving the REAL problems in traffic justice.