I’m in Jefferson City today taking part in MoBikeFed’s annual lobbying effort. There are several issues of interest before the legislature this years, including:
- The continued fight for a Complete Streets resolution.
- Supporting the Tour of Missouri.
- A Safe Routes the School program.
- A safe-passing law.
- Include bicycles in the back-to-school tax holiday.
- Establish annual proclamations for bicycling events.
Of these, I am most concerned about HB1250 — the safe-passing law that would establish a 3-feet minimum distance. MoBikeFed is suggesting changes to bill that would increase the distance, include pedestrians, and increase penalties. I have said before that I am opposed to this bill because it represents less that we have now as described in the Missouri Driver’s Guide — a full lane.
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?
Perhaps contrary to the MoBikeFed effort, I’ll be fighting to kill HB1250.
As for the Tour of Missouri, well, I really don’t care. I drive a car sometimes, but I care nothing for NASCAR. Same thing, IMO — people in\on specialized machines going fast and overly influencing the culture.
I’ll have more to report when I return home.
Comments 13
I guess I feel a three foot law is a lot more important than I did this afternoon. Apparently there is no such thing as an unsharable lane unless you are talking about riding on the shoulder – assuming there even IS a shoulder.
Maybe it’s time to sell the bike. I imagine things will look brighter tomorrow.
Posted 16 Feb 2010 at 11:53 pm ¶Darn spam filter!
Posted 16 Feb 2010 at 11:53 pm ¶Steve… I wonder why it is so hit-and-miss. By any chance do you have the iPhone app for WordPress? I wonder if that would help.
Posted 17 Feb 2010 at 7:53 am ¶Steve… Yep, you’re always going to get dumbasses who pass too close. Here’s hoping today is a better day!
The 3-foot law is unenforceable — even if a cop sees a close pass. Without a specific measurement, there’s no way to prosecute. And since it is already against the law to make contact (i.e. hit), a 3-foot law is unnecessary.
Posted 17 Feb 2010 at 7:59 am ¶I will try the iPhone WordPress app. It can’t hurt. My feelings for the threw foot law are not prompted by any close passes I’ve experienced, but by some chilling interpretations of the law down here.
Posted 17 Feb 2010 at 8:58 am ¶Thank you for standing up to this populist 3ft law nonsense. Motorists have no idea where the right side of their car is. In addition to being too close, 3 ft is a meaningless measurement to the driver sitting on the left side of his car passing a bicyclists on the right side. Make them change lanes to pass.
Posted 18 Feb 2010 at 4:36 pm ¶Keri and others, first, here is the current law for motorists passing cyclists in Missouri:
“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, and shall maintain clearance until safely past the overtaken bicycle”.
Andy, the guide may say, give a full lane when passing, but the law doesn’t. Then the question is, what is a “safe distance”? If “full lane” were in the law, I would say most certainly, oppose the proposed bill. But, it isn’t, so, Andy, I hope you will get behind HB 1250.
Keri, it’s not nonsense to try to save cyclists lives by securing a law that requires motorists to give cyclists at least 3 feet clearance when passing from the rear. I know what 3 feet looks like, you know what 3 feet looks like, and most motorists know what it looks like, far better than what “safe distance” looks like. Giving motorists a concrete frame of reference for what is and what is not a minimum safe passing distance makes it safer for the motorist and the cyclist. And politically speaking, getting at least 3 feet of protected space is far more doable than getting a full lane of protected space.
Your point is that it is a meaningless measurement, that most motorists don’t even know what 3 feet looks like from the driver’s seat. If that were true, we would have multiple millions more collisions with parked vehicles in parking areas. And garage door makers would be among the wealthiest businesses. 3 Feet, clear and understood.
Keri, I have admired your advocacy and efforts to make cycling safer, but to call efforts “nonsense” that seek to secure at least 3 feet of protected space for cyclists to save them from being harmed or worse killed is disappointing, and even disturbing to me.
I pray Missouri succeeds in making HB1250 a law. Don’t get all caught up in the whole enforceability issue. The value of this law isn’t found in giving motorists tickets, but rather, using the law as a tool to help educate motorists on what is considered a minimum safe passing distance–at least 3 feet please.
Good luck Missouri, lives are at stake.
Thank you,
Posted 21 Feb 2010 at 9:41 am ¶Joe Mizereck
Founder, The “3 Feet Please” Campaign
Joe,
Motorists have no idea what three feet looks like. They barely know where the left side of their car is. To think codifying a distance as small as three feet will save lives or make any difference at all is magical thinking.
Even if they do give three feet, that is WAY too close in most circumstances.
Let’s quit this nonsense of groveling for inadequate minimums and do something real.
Change lanes to pass. You can’t hit a cyclist if you change lanes to pass. By law you have to change lanes to pass motorcyclists. I guess motorcyclists have better advocates.
Meanwhile bike advocates are painting off the gutter for me next to a lane I was already entitled to use, and begging for 3 feet of passing clearance to be codified in law when I was already getting six.
With friends like that…
Posted 22 Feb 2010 at 9:15 am ¶They barely know where the right side of their car is… because they’re sitting on the left side of it.
Posted 22 Feb 2010 at 10:50 am ¶Keri, you are painting motorists as a dumb mob incapable of doing something they can do and do do numerous times each time they drive. Granted, there are some among the group who can’t judge distances all that well. But, if what you claim were true, we wouldn’t be able to afford cars, or the insurance to cover us, let alone take the risk of getting on the road. Your claim is a radical expression of the “us vs them” argument. And there is no need to go there.
Keri, your claims are demonstrative of the arrogance I see coming from a number of advocates who want all or nothing. We can’t do that…and it surely isn’t going to help make cycling any safer. You need to calm down and be more reasonable, and stop being so angry at motorists…most of them treat us with a great amount of respect, but with approaches like yours, we are going to lose that respect and make cycling less safe for all of us.
Joe Mizereck
Posted 22 Feb 2010 at 3:07 pm ¶Joe, are you purposely misrepresenting me? You know per our many conversations that what you wrote above is a complete mischaracterization of my attitude toward motorists. As you may recall, I’m the person who suggested you tone down the “danger, danger” approach in your advocacy.
I’ve stated dozens of times, I routinely get WAY more than 3 feet of passing clearance… because I encourage motorists to change lanes. The vast majority pass me safely and courteously. Passing clearance is a non-issue if you don’t invite motorists to squeeze you. The law is meaningless if you do.
Motorists cannot gauge the distance from the right side of their car to an object, so they tend to shy away from it. The problem for some comes when they see a choice between waiting a few seconds and trying to squeeze past. If a cyclist doesn’t give them that choice, they will almost always give a lot of space when they do pass. The existence of a minimum clearance law (especially one as small as 3ft) will not influence an opportunistic passer with poor judgment. The only thing that can do that is the cyclist.
IMO, there is no need for a minimum clearance law. But if bike advocates insist on one, it’s ridiculous for them to ask for way less than the average space motorists are currently giving… and a distance that is inadequate in most conditions.
It’s obvious that you have a vested interest in this law. You sell jerseys advertising it. So another state passing this law means a whole new market of cyclists to sell jerseys to. You’re hardly an objective participant in this debate.
Very good arguments against the efficacy of the 3ft law have been made here and on CommuteOrlando. We have taken a critical look at it. We have weighed it against our experience. We have seen police and government officials use it AGAINST cyclists. We have seen the cycling community fritter away energy and resources that could have been used to do something productive.
Perhaps if you were not so personally invested in the 3ft law, you would be able to consider those arguments.
Our traffic justice system needs to be fixed so the reckless and incompetent minority are appropriately punished. The three-foot law will not fix that because it doesn’t add anything to the existing law requiring due care. Advocates should be focusing on REAL solutions, not wasting energy on superfluous, populist, feel-good laws.
Wanna change a law to benefit cyclists? Repeal the one that makes everyone think cyclists are required to operate on the edge of pavement — that’s what gets cyclists hurt and killed.
Posted 22 Feb 2010 at 6:41 pm ¶Keri, look, you and I both want to make cyling safer. We are on different paths. But calling efforts to secure at least 3 feet of protected protected space for cyclists nonsense was uncalled for and a slap in the face to not only me, but to the hundreds of people around the country who are doing the same thing and trying to do their part to save lives.
I thought I knew you, but clearly I do not.
Let’s just keep doing what we both think is in the best interest of cyclists and hope that our efforts end up making cycling safer. But don’t call my efforts or the efforts of others around the country to secure a minimum safe passing distance nonsense. I am very proud of my “3 Feet Please” campaign which is building public awareness of what is and what is not a minimum safe passing distance. And yes, I have a vested interest in the sale of the jerseys. If I could personally afford to cover the expenses of taking on this initiative, I would do it in a heartbeat. I will be shocked if I ever see a profit, given all the costs that are associated with an undertaking like this. But, that is not my purpose, Keri. My purpose is to save lives and the cyclists wearing my jerseys tell me they believe more motorists are giving them more space more often. It’s working…and that is what matters.
Good luck Keri…and I hope you are more careful with your word choice in the future.
Joe Mizereck
Posted 22 Feb 2010 at 10:55 pm ¶I’m utterly dumbfounded that anyone thinks 3 feet is safe under most traffic conditions.
Posted 23 Feb 2010 at 4:14 pm ¶