HB1250 — the bill that would require cars to pass bicyclists by no less than 3 feet — is scheduled for a hearing in Jefferson City on Tuesday. I am not sure I can make it to testify, but I’m going to try. I will, however, be contacting my Senator and Representative to make sure they know that I am against this bad idea. I hope Carbon Trace readers will do the same.
Here’s what I’ve written about 3-foot passing laws:
I know there are many well-meaning bicycle advocates that think this law is a good idea. I respectfully disagree. I base my opinion on experience riding in traffic. While 3 feet might be fine if a car is passing at 25 mph, it is most certainly too close at 45 mph. This law treats all roads, speeds, and traffic conditions equally.
According to an e-mail I received from Brent Hugh, executive director of the Missouri Bicycle & Pedestrian Federation, MOBikeFed is suggesting amending the bill to 5 feet. This is a better idea, but not if it leads to a 3-foot compromise, i.e. ask for 5 and hope for 3. Hoping for 3 is hoping for worse than we have now.
Here’s what the State of Missouri thinks is safe:
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.
It is not law. It is a suggestion. A 3-foot law would make this suggestion moot.
It is far better that HB1250 fail than we end up with a 3-foot law.
Please: If you value your safety on the road, call or write your legislators. Tell them you don’t want Missouri drivers betting your life on their ability to estimate 3 feet.
Comments 20
Has the bill exited committee?
Posted 19 Feb 2010 at 11:13 pm ¶The committee hearing is Tuesday.
Posted 19 Feb 2010 at 11:34 pm ¶Three feet is a lot more than is needed at 2mph, such as when a car is creeping past to make a free right turn while you are waiting for the light to change so you can make your left. In such a case, the clearance is determined by how far to the left the cyclist has to waddle before the motorist attends to the business at hand. If a motorist were ticketed in such a case, it would be a travesty, but it would also be much easier for the prosecution to prove than a close pass at 30mph.
Does anybody have any evidence whatsoever that such laws serve any purpose other than to make well-meaning bicycle advocates think that they are doing something positive?
I don’t really think that Andy really believes in his heart that passage of such a law would reduce the clearance that motorists give him. He rides in such a way as to obtain a comfortable clearance and his approach will continue to succeed. Those that ride in a manner that encourages close passes will still experience close passes.
Prosecutions will be so rare as to be irrelevant.
Rather than waste energy opposing such a bill, I think it says more, if asked, to respond “who cares about such trivial feel good things when there are REAL issues out there?”
Posted 20 Feb 2010 at 12:58 am ¶The law works only as well as it in enforced. Whether the law be a suggestion or a requirement, if Law Enforcement are not aware of it (like in Jax FL) or do not care about it (also like in Jax FL), it wouldn’t matter.
I like the mother-with-the-little-daughter-on-a-bicycle-test. The test suggests that if a statistical distribution of mothers with little daughters on a bicycle do not feel safe (subjective safety) riding a bicycle on the road then no law is going to make cycling more favorable.
The statistical distribution may be accomplished with mothers with little sons on bicycles also.
Posted 20 Feb 2010 at 6:33 am ¶The hordes of mothers with daughters have yet to appear on the streets of Florida, and I have yet to hear of a single citation of the three foot law — in a state of 12 million resident motorists and millions more tourists.
And I seen not the slightest bit of evidence that it has affected motorist behavior.
Posted 20 Feb 2010 at 6:59 am ¶Austin Texas implemented a three foot passing law after the Texas Governor vetoed a similar bill; incurring the wrath of cycling advocate groups. I had to grit my teeth a bit when my bike school instructor mentioned that veto (implying it was a bad thing).
Anyway, the website link details the results in Austin after three months of the new law. I think it supports Mighk’s and my own contention.
I know, however that there has been AT LEAST one citation for this nationwide. OTOH, I know of three “impeding the progress of motorist” cycling convictions in the last week, with another trial coming up quickly.
Posted 20 Feb 2010 at 8:57 am ¶Steve… I agree: Let’s find some hard data. And, you’re right, I don’t really believe cars will suddenly begin passing closer. I think the law merely creates the potential, so that potential becomes a useful argument.
Posted 20 Feb 2010 at 8:59 am ¶When you strip away all the nonsensical arguments for the silly law it comes down to this: “it makes motorists know we belong on the road.” That’s the fundamental attachment for most cyclists I’ve debated this with — need for validation because they don’t feel legitimate.
Posted 20 Feb 2010 at 5:20 pm ¶The website link is the only prosecution that I know of. Utah. 2008.
Posted 20 Feb 2010 at 10:26 pm ¶In a local survey 56% thought they were supposed to give a cyclist 5-10ft of clearance. 86% said 4 feet or more. Only 13% said 3ft (this was after a local campaign to promote the 3ft law).
In my experience, 99% of passing motorists give me way more than 3ft. The closest passes most often happen when I’m in a bike lane or shoulder. Occasionally a motorist will buzz me on purpose (I guarantee that one doesn’t give a crap about the law). Typical clearance I get on a narrow 2-lane road is probably 5-7ft and on a 4-lane road with 11-12ft lanes it’s more like 8-10ft.
So why are bike advocates asking for way less than the social norm?
This has nothing to do with saving lives. Motorists who sideswipe cyclists are inattentive or have really poor judgment/driving skills. A law won’t change that.
Posted 22 Feb 2010 at 11:07 am ¶Does the Missouri version have the clause that excuses bicycles from the provisions of the bill, like the Texas version?
Because that meant that bicycles were the only legally defined vehicles to be exempted from the bill, it places bicycles one step closer to being removed from the “legal vehicle” category in the Texas Vehicle Code. Plus, it allows cyclists to “buzz” pedestrians, other cyclists, and other vehicles (including cars). Not a good thing, further strengthening the idea held by too many cyclists that traffic laws don’t really apply to them.
BTW: Andy, prepare to be placed on the “Enemies List” of some cycling advocates.
Posted 22 Feb 2010 at 11:50 am ¶Keri… Your experience matches my own: Most drivers give me 5+ feet, which usually means they change lanes. And I think this has a lot to do with my lane positioning.
Most of the chatter about this in MO among advocates has to do with giving the police an objective standard to use in ticketing, i.e. if you hit a cyclist, then you obviously transgressed the 3-foot rule.
My fear is that this law would be just as ignored as others regarding bicyclists and that it would simply teach drivers that 3 feet is safe.
I’m encouraged that FL drivers apparently think they should give more room despite a 3-foot law. Maybe this thing won’t do as much damage as I suppose. But I still intend to fight it.
Posted 22 Feb 2010 at 11:52 am ¶Yeah, I’ve heard that “objective standard” rationale used here and other places, too. It’s specious, flawed logic.
We know close passing is unenforceable because it has to be witnessed AND measured. If by some miracle, a police officer observes a rare instance of a motorist passing within three feet of a cyclist, pulls him over and tickets him. The motorist goes to court and says, how could the officer have measured the distance? Unlike with a radar gun, the officer has no measured proof of what the actual passing distance was. All he can say is that it looked closer than three feet — a split-second observation.
So, it’s only enforceable if the motorist hit’s the cyclist. But in the case of a crash, the law adds exactly nothing to the existing law requiring a overtaking driver to exercise due care and not interfere with the operation of the driver of the overtaken vehicle.
If the existing law is not being enforced where cyclists are concerned, adding a codified minimum isn’t going to change anything.
Tell MoBikeFed to spend their resources on something REAL. Traffic justice is a serious issue. This 3ft law distraction does exactly nothing to address that problem.
Laws alone have almost no impact on normative behavior. Florida has the same law as every other state requiring motorists to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. Yet, our yield rate here is probably less than 5%. Far worse than the rate of safe passing of cyclists.
Posted 22 Feb 2010 at 1:25 pm ¶Hey there! You know I have heard of your blog in passing a couple times, but this is my first time here… looks like I’ve got some reading to do, because I really like what I’ve seen so far.
Yer New Pal,
Rantwick
Posted 22 Feb 2010 at 3:45 pm ¶Hello Rantwick! Glad you dropped by
Posted 22 Feb 2010 at 5:38 pm ¶PM… The proposed law is simply an amendment of the current safe-passing law aimed at drivers. There is no specific inclusion or exclusion of bicyclists. And as for making the “enemies list,” well, i hope not. But I suppose that’s always a danger when taking a stand and trying to make it stick.
Posted 22 Feb 2010 at 8:18 pm ¶If the three foot law really offered an objective standard to help law enforcement in case a cyclist is hit, you might inquire as to why there has only been extremely rare prosecution activity under such laws. The record doesn’t support that hope.
There is one other circumstance when a prosecution is practical. It’s the situation as in my very first ever blog post – when a motorist inches past on the right at the encouragement of a through cyclist in order to make a free right turn. If I were involved in such a case, I would volunteer to testify for the motorist, as I hope most would.
Posted 22 Feb 2010 at 10:29 pm ¶The current Texas law mandates a safe passing distance”, which is speed variable. The proposed 3′ scares the living daylights out of me.
Beyond the grand-standing, I have an idea what’s driving this… the fear generated by people obeying the real or implied “Far To the Right” laws, which encourage close passing of cyclists by cars. You might check, but the law usually won’t apply to close passes in a bike lane, because that’s a separate lane.
Posted 23 Feb 2010 at 7:00 am ¶PM… Nail. Head. Hit.
Posted 23 Feb 2010 at 7:23 am ¶Steve… The folks hereabouts are really more concerned with what happens AFTER a bicyclist is hit. Apparently some of our advocates believe the police do not have the tools to cite drivers with anything without this law.
The old joke is that if you want to get away with murder in Missouri, just take your target hunting or hit them while they ride a bicycle.
Posted 23 Feb 2010 at 7:30 am ¶