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

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.

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