The California version of the so-called "safe passing" 3-foot law, SB 910, did not pass. Here is right-wing Gov. Brown's rejection text:
To members of the California State Senate:
The intent of this bill is to improve bicycle safety, a goal I wholeheartedly support.
This bill changes the longstanding law for how motor vehicles should pass a bicycle travelling in the same direction. Current law requires drivers to pass at a safe distance; this Bill would specify that the distance must be at least 3 feet or at a speed not exceeding 15mph.
This bill offers some needed and clear improvements to the law such as specifying a minimum buffer of 3 feet. However, Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol have raised legitimate concerns about other provisions such as the 15mph requirement. On streets with speed limits of 35 or 40mph, slowing to 15pmph to pass a bicycle could cause rear end collisions. On other roads, a bicycle may travel at or near 15mph creating a long line of cars behind the cyclist.
I encourage the author, proponents, and opponents to send me a bill next year that solves these problems.
I am returning Senate Bill 910 without my signature.
Sincerely,
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Oh wait. Gov. Brown is a liberal Democrat.
6 comments:
I confess that I'm confused by the hoopla over this by advocates, pro or con, just as I was by the Texas bill before it. Biking in Dallas is just as emphatic as Cycle*Dallas - in the OPPOSITE direction. When I called to find out why my first TS101 instructor had stood me up, he similarly blathered on about the Texas bill. He seemed mystified by my apparent lack of interest. Nobody has ever provided a solid reason why, in the REAL world, that such legislation is even relevant to me, much less either good or bad.
Attempting to follow the effects of stuff like this, you can count the number of times it is ever used on the fingers of one hand. Nationally. It's kind of the passing equivalent of, never mind, I guess you cycling lot are like radicals of all stripes that will invent a reason to fight with each other if there is no better thing to do.
1) 3' is too close (ever been passed by a 70 mph Suburban 3' off port?), and yet this law sets that as the preferred distance. The current law (safe distance), actually provides better protection.
2) The 3' laws all essentially legislate permanent Far To The Right lane position... the most dangerous place to be on the road.
3) It's unenforceable, ineffective and furthers the perception of cyclists as being road intruders.
4) Most versions of the law exclude cyclists from compliance, removing them from the category of vehicles and placing them in the category of pedestrians on the roadway.
5) As this week's death in San Antonio shows (a city with a 3' law), it doesn't work and it isn't enforced.
So, other than being another useless, confusing law that can't be enforced and that weakens the rights of cyclists, what's not to like?
PM. It is ironic that I disagree with virtually none of your facts, but we reach different conclusions. Motorists will follow the REASONABLE guide regardless of such nonsense. What is more, the REASONABLE standard remains in place. Do you have a single documented instance where a 3 or even 5 foot law made an outcome worse for cyclists. Or better for that matter? If not, what cause is there to either celebrate a veto or a passage?
And NO, I do not get passed at 3 feet by Suburbans at 70 as I noted on Biking in Dallas, but I DO often get passed at less than 3 feet as I also noted there.
I see no connection between passing distance and FTR.
In other words, I'm still seeing no reason to care. Period.
To associate that letter with "reason" is, well, unreasonable. Brown's opposition is based on the assumption that compliance with the law will cause motorists to rear-end each other and will create long lines of cars behind bicyclists traveling 15 mph or faster. That's not reason; that's just nuts.
I agree with Steve that such a law mostly doesn't matter, except this particular version makes it legal for motorists to cross solid center stripes to pass cyclists (when safe to do so despite the markings). That too is already a common practice, but it's good to make it legal, and might alleviate some of the frustration some feel and express on roads with center double stripes.
As to PM's points, in practice the current law does not provide better protection because neither is enforced, so that objection doesn't hold water. I too don't understand the connection between passing law and FTR law nor how it furthers the perception of road intruders.
The bottom line is that the Teamsters and other motorist groups like the AAA don't want it to pass because they want to be able to legally pass cyclists closer than 3' and believe that is safe. Passing this law will make it clear that it's not.
Principled Pragmatist notes "...this particular version makes it legal for motorists to cross solid center stripes to pass cyclists (when safe to do so despite the markings). That too is already a common practice, but it's good to make it legal..."
Amen to that! Crossing the double yellow, though it might be legal in Florida, is not clearly legal in Texas, and the plethora of double yellow lines in my neighborhood creates needless conflict when I encounter the rare, law abiding motorist. That alone would swing me over from "who cares" to "there's something good in there" in the California law.
In my CS class, many of the passes shown in their videos are illegal in Texas, and I understood the reluctance of a motorist to cross a double yellow to pass a bicycle cop PERFECTLY. In Florida, there's a darn good chance that motorist was originally from somewhere such behavior is against the law, even if common.
"Reasonable" or "safe" is a fine and good passing distance test, but I'm a sucker for fixing the double yellow law!
Yes, Steve, and the solid stripe crossing permission is why CABO (CA Association of Bicycle Organizations - founded by Forester) decided to support this bill (once the language changed to retain current restrictions about safe passing and just made the 3 foot minimum buffer an additional requirement), though a few board members remained in opposition for reasons I could never understand. Their objections, like Brown's, seem to refer to language in earlier versions, not the version that made it to Brown's desk.
But, what I realized from Brown's veto is that the view of the CHP, the Teamsters, the AAA and others is that there is nothing wrong with passing a cyclist closer than 3 feet. So I decided we needed the law to counter that view as well, even if it's poorly enforced and sometimes more than 3 feet would be preferred... that's irrelevant to those who think less than 3 feet is sufficient buffer. That needs correcting in writing in the law, which should make it to the driver's handbook.
Post a Comment