On my bicycle, riding through the streets of Springfield, Missouri, I am a legal vehicle on the road. If the road is sharable (wide enough for a car to pass a bicyclist safely in the lane), then I am obligated by law in this state to ride as far to the right as is safe to do. That doesn’t mean riding in the gutter. And it doesn’t even mean riding close to the gutter. On lanes too narrow to share, bicyclists may control the lane.
Most drivers leave me a very comfortable distance when they pass. I’d say about half pull fully or mostly into the other lane when they pass — exactly as they should do and exactly as I want them to do.
What this means is: Few drivers pass me with as little as three feet clearance. Three feet is too close.
But if you want to be passed this closely by more vehicles, then do nothing about this troubling law (House Bill #1250) introduced by Representative David Sater (R-68), of Cassville. The co-sponsor is Maynard Wallace (R143), of Thornfield. From the bill:
300.411. The operator of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on the roadway, as defined in section 300.010, shall [leave a safe distance when passing the bicycle] pass safely at a distance of not less than three feet, and shall maintain clearance until safely past the overtaken bicycle.
304.678. 1. The operator of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on the roadway, as defined in section 300.010, RSMo, shall [leave a safe distance, when passing the bicycle] pass safely at a distance of not less than three feet, and shall maintain clearance until safely past the overtaken bicycle.
The wording in brackets would be replaced by the wording in bold face.
While it may seem that such a law seeks to protect bicyclists, I think it will instead make us less safe. Three feet is not enough room. But three feet is all you’ll get once drivers learn there’s a “3-foot law” in Missouri. In other words, cars will begin passing you closer!
Rep. Sater apparently subscribes to the Missouri Votes Conservation environmental and conservation legislative agenda (document linked from his official government web site) that includes this line under long-term goals: “Bicycle-related legislation outlined by the Missouri Bike Federation.”
Will the Missouri Bicycle Federation support a 3-foot passing law?
Here’s MoBikeFed’s thinking about safe passing:
Because it is a more definite and easily understood (minimum) standard, the three foot minimum passing distance helps in a civil or criminal case where bicyclists have been passed unsafely. When it comes to a court case, whether the motorist has left a “safe distance” is a matter judgment, whereas if a motorist hits a bicyclist, it is clear that the three foot distance has been broached as a matter of fact rather than as a matter of judgment.
That seems to make perfect sense. But it does not if the distance is three feet. What Missouri motorists will understand is that they must give 3-feet of clearance — and that is what they will give you. Cars will begin passing you closer.
MoBikeFed’s legislative platform, however, does suggest a 4-foot passing law. Better, but I’m still skeptical.
It appears however that this kind of law is very popular with bicycle advocates. My search on Google this morning turns up much positive commentary.
Questions: Why not four feet? Why not five? Why not a law that mandates that drivers shall pass bicycles in exactly the same manner they are required to pass cars?
Here’s what you’ll find in the Missouri Department of Revenue Driver Guide:
When you are passing, give bicycles and mopeds a full lane width. Do not squeeze past these road users. The bicycle is generally a slower moving vehicle and this may require you to slow down. Wait for a clear stretch of road before passing a cyclist in a lane too narrow to share.
“Do not squeeze past these road users.”
This is good advice. This treats bicycles as legal vehicles on the road. Do you really want less than what the Driver’s Guide now suggests?
I will continue following this bill. I’m trying to find research about the effects of 3-foot laws. If any Carbon Trace reader can help, please let me know. And, if you disagree with me, please leave a comment. Let’s get a healthy discussion going. I could be wrong.
One final note: A 3-foot rule seems to me the invention of car-centric, anti-bicyclist thinking. Can you imagine what cars passing by at three feet might feel like to a novice? How do we increase participation if we support laws that make traffic more frightening for beginners?
Comments 5
Thanks. Your logic is impeccable! It is curious why legislators would choose any fixed distance for passing. Safe distance is relative to a number of variables such as size, weight, speed of both vehicles, condition of road (3 feet on a gravel road ? ouch !!), weather conditions, etc. Legislating fixed distances may be appropriate for stationary objects, like STOP signs or fire hydrants, but not moving vehicles.
Posted 05 Dec 2009 at 12:30 pm ¶I have taught my daughter to not even think about it, but just to make a full lane change to pass anything on the road (cyclist, pedestrian, equine), regardless of where he/she is. Even the shoulder.
Posted 05 Dec 2009 at 12:37 pm ¶2007 Tennessee enacted a 3 ft law called a “Jeff Roth Bicycle and Pedalcyclists Protection Act” with less than desirable results.
Hamilton County, Chattanooga Plan 3 Foot Bicycle Law Enforcement, Education
Gov. Bredesen Weighs In On Tennessee’s 3 Foot Law
Will 3 ft law deny a “I did not see the cyclist” defense when I cyclist is hit? Likely not.
Are 3 ft passing laws aimed at helping cyclists with “poor lane positioning” feel safer or comfortable? Most probably
Posted 06 Dec 2009 at 7:28 am ¶Hi,
Posted 06 Dec 2009 at 8:45 am ¶Here in France the legal distance is 1 meter in town, and 1.5 meter everywhere else.
It seems fair to me (but note streets are much narrower here), or it would be fair if respected (and I mean mesured from the tip of the stem to the tip of the mirror).
I am a novice cyclist slowly learning how to deal with proper lane positioning and those evil iron monsters breathing fire down (or up as the case may be) the wrong place. Having been in law enforcement I have also seen the result of a statute where too much gray areas is, we might say, built in. There are often times too much left up to the individual officers and prosecutorial discretion. A safe distance to one officer or prosecutor could mean the passenger side mirror did not hit the cyclist (possibly true even if only by a single millimeter) and no one crashed, therefore the motor vehicle passed at a safe distance from the cyclist. Yes, that would be absurd to a cyclist, but who knows how a person who has never been on two wheels might see it. Yet to another officer or prosecutor, a motor vehicle not yielding the entire lane might be violating the safe distance clause. A codified distance would, at a minimum, remove officer and prosecutorial discretion and offer a known parameter to use as a basis from which citations could be issued to a violating motorist. I would prefer statutory language positively establishing the cyclists’ right to the whole lane but I suspect that would happen only after statutory recognition of avian swine.
Posted 01 Jan 2010 at 1:59 am ¶