CABO Opposes 3-Foot Passing Bill SB910

Regrettably, CABO opposes SB910 for the following reasons (most of which are mentioned in the bill analysis):

1. The law already provides that motorists must pass bicyclists at a safe distance without interfering with their safe operation.

2. We don’t believe that three feet is measurable or enforceable in practice.

3. Emphasizing three feet as the passing distance may encourage some drivers to pass too closely when greater clearance is needed.

4. A 15-mph speed differential also can’t be measured or enforced, and is not always appropriate.

5. By amending CVC 21750 to remove references to bicycles and replacing it with CVC 21750.1, which always requires passing on the left, the bill apparently makes it unlawful to pass a bicyclist on the right, even if the bicyclist is turning left.

6. The language of proposed CVC 21750.1 is ambiguous:

“The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left at a safe distance, at a minimum clearance of three feet or at a speed not exceeding 15 miles per hour faster than the speed of the bicycle, without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken bicycle.”

“At a safe distance,” “at a minimum clearance of three feet,” or “at a speed not exceeding 15 miles per hour faster than the speed of the bicycle” can be read as a series of three items any one of which is sufficient. It’s also unclear whether “without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken bicycle” modifies all of these, or only the last.

7. We support the concept of permitting motorists to cross double yellow lines to pass bicyclists. However, “substandard width lane” is undefined, and the condition given, when “it is safe to do so,” is too vague and allows too much latitude for driver misjudgment.

(June 24 update: CABO Now SUPPORTS 3-Foot Passing Bill SB910)

56 thoughts on “CABO Opposes 3-Foot Passing Bill SB910

  1. CABO

    CABO provided suggested input on the wording to the sponsors of the SB910, but it was not incorporated into the bill as introduced. In particular, the “15 mph” wording, as well as the subsequent amendment of such, was of concern, and to our knowledge such wording doesn’t exist in similar laws in other states. The decision to split with the rest of the advocacy community was not taken lightly, but we did so because we felt it to be in the best interest of cyclists statewide. However, we indicated in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee that we may be able to later support the bill if it is amended.

  2. Kevin

    And so… your alternative would be to do nothing to better the riding conditions for bicyclists? And I want to donate to your organization because why?

  3. Bob Sutterfield

    The 4/26 amendment to CA SB 910 (changing “and” to “or” gives an overtaking motorist the option to either pass at a safe distance, or at the minimum 3 feet, or even closer if they’re slow enough) points out the folly of layering exceptions on special cases.

    The preferred alternative (to improve conditions for cyclists) would be enforcement of the existing law, and education for all roadway users. The existing safe-passing law treats cyclists and everybody else equitably, and all attempts to differentiate provide detrimental results.

    This bill does not improve safety for cyclists. Why pursue unity among advocacy organizations if they’re advocating for the wrong thing?

  4. Dan Gutierrez

    The existing passing law CVC 21750 already requires safe passing; that it is not being enforced is a police education problem. The real root cause of the enforcement problem is the existence of the Far To Right (FTR) law, CVC 21202, which gives cyclists lesser road rights than other drivers (have per CVC 21654), and which leads police and the public to believe that cyclists should not be in the roadway any more than a poorly defined legal minimum (as far right as practicable to the curb or edge), and that they SHOULD NOT have the same lane use rights as other drivers. Thus when a cyclist is hit, the police to routinely assign fault to the cyclist via 21202, or simply choose not cite the motorist for 21750. A 3-foor passing law is a shortsighted an attempt to use patch legislation to mitigate the effects of a cyclist hostile and discriminatory FTR law.

    If cyclists and cycling organizations really cared about safety and improved police enforcement, then they’d work to eliminate the tools of discrimination (CVC 21202/21208 – laws which encourage unsafe behavior) and improve police education so that they would treat cyclists the same as other drivers in collisions, instead of their current treatment as second class road users. Unfortunately, the CBC is pushing this misguided and logically conflicted legislation, and sadly many others have bought into support for this truly awful patch law.

    To those who think that opposition to this bad legislation puts us on the same side as the AAA and the auto lobby, I would respond that I’m thankful that those of us wishing to see this legislation fail are glad that we have support from politically powerful organizations, though we also expect opposition to the ultimate repeal of CVC 21202 and CVC 21208 from those same organizations, so we aren’t on the “same side”. It’s not a question of taking sides, which is an attempt at wedge politics, and I’m having none of it, since I reject this framing. It’s a question of working to protect cyclists from well intentioned but horribly misguided legislation that reinforces the currently fashionable idea that cyclists are not full and equal road users, who must be forced to the road edge and then “protected” by 3-ft laws.

    Instead cyclists are drivers (CVC 21200), who should enjoy the same lane use rights and enforcement in crashes that motorists receive from the legislature and police respectively.

    – Dan Gutierrez –
    Long Beach, CA
    CABO District 7 Director
    Caltrans D7 BAC policy Chair

  5. KC

    @Kevin

    Passing laws do not “better riding conditions for bicyclists.” We’ve had a 3ft law in Florida for years. It’s made no difference. In my years of working with pro-bicycling law enforcement officials, the explanation has been unanimous: the law is unenforceable because traffic violations must be witnessed by a sworn officer, and actual passing distance is unmeasurable (for the purpose of holding up in court) without calibrated equipment (ie a decoy in a sting operation) or a physical strike (in which cases there are other laws to apply).

    There is no real world application for a 3ft law, even without the bad language. It is a feel-good trinket, distracting advocates from doing real work to fix real traffic justice issues.

    I applaud CABO for taking this position!

  6. Jim Baross

    CABO is working to increase education and appropriate enforcement of traffic law! As of July this year standard traffic training for cops will include – for apparently the first time – additional bicycling law information that we will have reviewed; thanks to CABO, Senator Kehoe, and enlightened CHP STATE-level authority.
    Changing the culture of roadway behavior may be furthered somewhat by the hooplaw raised by this bill, but – as with the experiences in other states – we do not see improvement in stopping harrassment of cyclists,which should be the goal.

  7. Michael Graff

    Another flaw in the current bill wording: As written, the safe passing requirement would no longer applies to bicyclists. One cyclist could pass another cyclist as close and as fast as they like.

    Meanwhile, as mentioned in point 7 above, CABO does support the concept of crossing double yellow lines to pass cyclists (e.g. on narrow two-lane roads). I believe Ohio has a much better example of how such a change should be worded:

    http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.31

    “this section does not apply when all of the following apply:
    (1) The slower vehicle is proceeding at less than half the speed of the speed limit applicable to that location.
    (2) The faster vehicle is capable of overtaking and passing the slower vehicle without exceeding the speed limit.
    (3) There is sufficient clear sight distance to the left of the center or center line of the roadway to meet the overtaking and passing provisions[…] considering the speed of the slower vehicle.”

  8. Ross Hirsch

    I appreciate the reasoned analysis above–and agree that enforcement by police is problematic. But could such a statute be used in a civil case as the basis of a negligence claim, i.e., negligence per se? I would think so, and if that’s the case, then such a statute would be another tool in the tool box for injured cyclists and their attorneys to bring legitimate cases and hopefully prevail. (Here in CA, for example, NPS generally is used where there is a violation of the law and the violation was a substantial factor in causing the complained of harm, it gets you a finding of negligence, which you would otherwise have to prove other ways but for NPS.)

    The counter argument is, I assume, that which is raised in your first point above re CVC 21750: “The law already provides that motorists must pass bicyclists at a safe distance without interfering with their safe operation,” therefore adding a 3 ft law is unnecessary. Which I get. I could see, however, a certain appeal if pleading a case to a judge, jury, or mediator (which is where most cases end up) of using a easily understood hard-and-fast rule (i.e., 3 feet) over the current law’s language. Just a thought.

  9. Michael Graff

    Ross, I don’t see how an explicit distance/speed number would help in a civil trial: The prosecutor would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the pass was under 3 feet or over 15 MPH. Which comes back to having the same measurable evidence needed for an infraction.

    It might even backfire. If you can’t prove 3 feet, that might be seen as failing to prove unsafe distance.

  10. Ross Hirsch

    Michael,

    We’re not thinking about it the same way. I think you’re thinking criminal enforcement. In civil cases there are no prosecutors (unless you meant the plaintiff’s attorney), and only criminal cases use the more stringent burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt), with the lesser civil burden of proof being only by a preponderance of the evidence.

    The scenario I’m envisioning is a model case: a car-on-bike collision, let’s say, due to car passing cyclist too close. Cyclists goes down, suffers personal injuries, property damage, etc. Cyclist sues driver for those (and other) damages. The driver will argue s/he was not at fault (i.e., not liable). Any host of facts could be presented here by the driver to get out of liability, so it’s an uphill battle in all cases save those with a great set of facts.

    Forget about the 15 mph, I agree that’ll be difficult (though not impossible) for anyone to establish. But establishing the 3 foot violation in the case of a collision would be easy–it was clearly violated by virtue of the vehicle’s contact. And I (or any attorney) can use that fact/violation as a basis for negligence per se to establish the driver’s negligence (i.e., liability). So you’d be able to cut off the driver’s “not liable” argument with the use of the 3 foot rule and negligence per se (which you can also–and currently–attempt to do with CVC 21750’s “safe distance” rule, but it there’s something very simple about saying 3 feet compared to “a safe distance without interfering with their safe operation,” which is all I’m really commenting on).

    I’m not saying it would drastically change anything, so don’t get me wrong here. All I’m saying is that in pleading cases, the simpler, more understandable set of facts you can present to the fact finder, the better your chances become. And maybe a nicely packaged rule/violation would give an attorney, in the right case, an added incentive for taking up a case s/he otherwise would not have, i.e., if liability was a done deal.

  11. Michael Graff

    Ross, you’re right, I was thinking of a criminal trial (where I was recently a juror).

    Assuming an explicit 3 foot rule could be useful in a civil trial, there’s still the question of how to word such a law without creating all the problems in SB 910.

    If a 3-foot law is a “trinket” as described by KC above, then we want to at least make sure it’s not covered in lead-based paint.

  12. Chet Kostrzewa

    Apart from the legal nuances that have been commented on and debated, I think the value of the 3 foot passing standard should be evaluated in the context of how such a rule might affect behaviour on the road. With respect to the observation noted earlier regarding the apparant lack of success in Florida with a similar rule, it seems to me that the key benefit of having a 3 foot standard is that it will provide a simple metric that motorized vehicle drivers can remember and use when they come onto a passing situation. This same logic works with the requirement to always wear a seat belt, or to follow the posted speed limit. The required standard is clear, easy to follow, and most of the time will ensure or at least contribute to the safety of the driver.
    While the benefit of a consise and well reasoned law is obviously important in any legal action, the number of incidents that result in legal action are fortunately only a tiny percentage of the number of times cyclists are passed by motorists every day. I am personally much more concerned, on a day to day basis, with having a clear requirement for passing identified that has a reasonable chance of improving my safety. Even the the dumbest or most inattentive motorist may hopefully remember something as simple as “Give me 3” as they pass me on the road. In the meantime, I’ll take my chances on my lawyer prevailing if I am every unfortunate enough to be in court, pleading for fair treatment under a less than perfectly crafted law.

  13. Michael Graff

    Chet, CABO’s objections are about the specific details of SB910. As written above “CABO provided suggested input on the wording to the sponsors of the SB910, but it was not incorporated into the bill … we may be able to later support the bill if it is amended.”

    By the way, the California Driver Handbook http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/dl600.pdf already says:

    “When passing a bicyclist in the travel lane ensure enough width for the bicyclist, typically 3 feet. Do not squeeze a bicyclist off the road.”

  14. Bill Burton

    The Highway Patrol has been very helpful with suggested language for the double yellow line portion of the bill.

    Kudos to Ross Hirsch and to Chet Kostrzewa for their thoughtful and constructive input.

    To my knowledge CABO did not input any proposal of bill language before the hearing.

    I agree 3 feet will be a standard drivers will learn. I was just passed by a work truck with about 1 foot at about a 40 mph differential that is currently considered safe by current law (about an hour ago). There was no other traffic around. I wish he would have crossed the double yellow line.

  15. patrick miller

    What a waste of time an energy.
    A 3′ law imperfect or not would improve safety for cyclists.

    Nit picking and opposing this bill based on silly minutiae because your “suggestions weren’t incorporated” is childish.

  16. Bob Sutterfield

    @Aaron As noted in #4 above, CABO has worked to fix the problems in the proposal, but the fixes were rejected. Since the bill is apparently progressing in this form through the legislative process, now is the time for principled opposition to step up and defend cyclists from it.

  17. Bob Sutterfield

    @patrick miller The errors are not minutiae, and the imperfections will decrease safety for cyclists. Have you read the bill, and considered what the 4/26 change of “and” to “or” will do? It will eliminate the protections already afforded to cyclists under the existing safe-passing law.

  18. David Holtzman

    I agree with CABO here. Vague bill, protections already law. CABO’s concerns are the sort of thing you have to look at when evaluating legislation.

    – d (Member, LACBC)

  19. Michael Graff

    I assume some people recall watching http://www.schoolhouserock.tv/Bill.html when they were kids.

    “Listen to those congressmen arguing! Is all that discussion and debate about you?”

    If improving a bill is “nit picking”, then why have a legislative process?

    Aaron said “Resting upon these easily addressed concerns at this early stage of the proposed bill’s life as a reason to oppose it is utterly ridiculous.”

    What alternative process should CABO be following in order to address these concerns at this early stage?

  20. Pingback: What is a fast growing, nice looking tree whose roots won’t clog drains? | Style Pandora Beads,Pandora Bracelets,Discount Pandora Charms

  21. Joe Mizereck

    So sad.

    Look, seventeen states and a growing number of cities have seen the wisdom and value of having such a law on the books. This value isn’t found in giving motorists tickets, but rather, in using the law as a tool to help educate motorists on what is considered a safe passing distance–at least 3 feet please. A clear, concrete frame of reference that helps motorists negotiate around cyclists from the rear.

    The bottom line here is: will a law that helps motorists understand how they are to safely pass cyclists from the rear save lives? The answer is yes. Let me repeat…YES. And to be honest with you I think it is absolutely ridicuous that CABO would seek to deny California cyclists of this protection.

    I have heard all the above arguments before…but, not from organizations dedicated to serving the interests of cyclists…this is disturbing…and when I see Dan Gutierrez involved in offering the reasoning for opposing the law and serving on the CABO board, it makes sense. Please, don’t be suffocated into believing what Dan has to say is true. He is wrong about this. He knows it. You should know it and anyone who really thinks this through will know it.

    Come on California…you have a great opportunity at your finger tips…get it right and make it happen. A 3 Foot Law will save cyclists’ lives…enough said.

    Joe Mizereck
    Founder, The “3 Feet Please” Campaign

  22. Michael Graff

    The April 26 amendment of SB910 is quite insidious. It contains an exemption allowing drivers to pass cyclists with LESS THAN 3 feet of clearance, as long as their speed is within 15 MPH of the cyclist’s speed.

    This is really the core of CABO’s objection to the April 26 amendment of SB910. This is a fatal flaw that you could (actually) drive a truck through.

    The effect of SB910 (as amended April 26) is to redefine “safe distance” to be a MAXIMUM of 3 feet under most conditions, with NO minimum.

    This is exactly the opposite of what a 3-foot law is supposed to do. It obliterates the existing “safe distance” law and replaces it with a rule that is nearly impossible for a motorist to violate.

    It’s surprising that CABO is the only cycling organization that noticed this change in the April 26 wording and raised an objection. Every cycling organization should be opposed to this impostor of a 3-foot law that does the exact opposite of what it claims.

  23. djconnel

    I disagree the “safe passing distance” law is sufficient. What is safe and what is not is a matter of personal opinion and no two people will agree. It would be wonderful if we could gut the vehicle code and replace it with a simple “all users of the road shall behave in a safe, predictable, and courteous fashion”, but the pragmatic reality is we need objective criteria to delineate what is required to attain this goal. A 3-foot passing distance is the minimum that any reasonable observer would conclude is needed for a motor vehicle to safely pass a far more vulnerable cyclist, and therefore it should be in the code.

    I agree the bill has been flawed and needs to be fixed, so in this sense I am against the bill as it was when this post was published. However, a revised version certainly deserves a place for the code.

  24. BikingBrian

    The law against following too closely (CVC21703) also uses the same approach of not specifying a specific distance (“shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent”). Yet the general public doesn’t have a problem with knowing how close is too close (with rules of thumb such as the “3 second rule” in the DMV handbook), and the wording of the law allows the police to use their judgement as to when a motorist should be cited for a violation.

  25. Dan Gutierrez

    While I’m flattered that Joe Mizereck thinks I can “suffocate” independent thinkers in California (sarcasm intended), please note that our Florida “friend” is the owner of a for profit business that sells “3 feet please” jerseys. California is a large potential market for his products. Given his clear financial conflict of interest, is it any wonder he sees those of us at CABO, who oppose a law that will decrease cyclist legal protection, as threat to his sales and thus attacks us with all the aplomb of veteran muckraker?

    Joe’s MO is much like Dean Kamen’s approach to Segways: lobby for legislation that will increase market share of his product.

  26. Joe Mizereck

    Dan, you haven’t got a clue about what I do…and what I do with every cent I bring in from the sale of my jerseys, not to mention thousands of dollars of my own money. So, go back into your corner and behave yourself. No one cares about what you have to say…because you have just proved, once again, that you are not only clueless, but mean to those who don’t buy what you have to sell. Kind of shameful if you ask me.

    Joe Mizereck

  27. Bob Sutterfield

    Michael Graff :It’s surprising that CABO is the only cycling organization that noticed this change in the April 26 wording and raised an objection. Every cycling organization should be opposed to this impostor of a 3-foot law that does the exact opposite of what it claims.

    On April 30 I sent an email to Jim Brown of CBC, asking Is CBC still supporting this bill, even after the 4/26 amendment that changed the “and” to “or”? No response yet. If CABO and CBC leadership have any open lines of communication at the staff or board levels, it might be useful to find out what they’re doing about this issue.

  28. Bob Sutterfield

    If the “or” is changed back to “and”, would CABO then support this legislation?

    I wonder whether that 4/26 language change is a negotiating tactic by those who wish to impose 3-feet laws on California cyclists? We’ve been able to resist thus far, but would an actual 3-feet law be so much better than the insidious 4/26 language that we’d be happy to be negotiated back down to an actual 3-feet law?

    I hope CABO would continue to oppose not only this faux 3-feet law, but actual 3-feet laws too.

  29. Dan Gutierrez

    Joe,
    Besides hucking your products, and attacking me and CABO, what useful points have you raised about the real problems we are discussing with the proposed law? I have yet to see any. I find it rather amusing that you imagine, presumably as a delusion of your own grandeur, that you speak for everyone, by writing “No one cares about what you have to say…because you have just proved, once again, that you are not only clueless, but mean to those who don’t buy what you have to sell.” This quote reads like a bad political attack advert; no information, just hyperbolic venom.
    .
    Unlike you, none of the CABO board members (all volunteers by charter) have a vested financial interest in the proposed 3-ft law, and also unlike you, we’re not “sellling” anything. CABO’s historic mission is to protect and preserve the driver rights of cyclists, which we are doing right now by opposing SB910.

    Most importantly, you don’t have a dog in this show, you’re sniping all the way from Florida.

  30. Michael Graff

    Joe, if I may ask, what is your reaction to my comment #30, which describes how the April 26 version of SB910 creates the exact opposite of a 3-foot law?

  31. Joe Mizereck

    Michael. I don’t like the inclusion of the “or”. But I understand what the intent is and I also understand the process in which laws get passed and don’t. The good news is, this is early in the process and there is a lot of work to be done to get the language right so it best serves the interests of all cyclists. That in itself is a challenge because you have so many different kinds of cyclists to protect…and one size may not fit all cyclists in California. And I think that may be at the heart of the issue with the “or” because it is an attempt to accommodate the urban cyclists where there is little if any space to give, let alone 3 feet. In the perfect world I would kill for at least 3 feet of protection…but it’s not perfect and we need to work together to get the best set of conditions and protections possible for cyclists.

    I’ve talked with Jim Brown over at the California Bike Coalition and I am convinced that he gets it. He understands that the process has to be worked in your legislature and from day to day you have to be on it, engaged and fighting to get the job done. The bad news is that word “or” won’t be what kills the effort in California. What’s going to kill it is your lack of unity. If California cyclists and your various and diverse groups cannot find a way to get on the same page, the “or” is the least of your worries.

    So, you ask me what I think, here’s what I think: stop fighting and start working together to save cyclists lives. Roll up your sleeves and make this happen. If you are truly committed to helping, if you truly want to save lives, then I highly encourage you and all your fellow CABO members to call Jim Brown and let him know he can count on you and ask him to put you to work. Put your histories aside and do the right thing. That door that is open to California right now won’t stay open for long.

    And if there is any way I can help, I am here for you…and I hope Dan will join me.

    Joe Mizereck

  32. Michael Graff

    Joe Mizereck :
    the process has to be worked in your legislature and from day to day you have to be on it, engaged and fighting to get the job done.

    Ok, so what is the process? How do you fight a screwed up amendment when you’re listed as “support”? Doesn’t that mean you’re happy with the language as it stands and don’t want to see it changed?

    Isn’t “oppose” the proper position to take until the bill is re-amended? Shouldn’t all cycling organizations show unity by opposing this horrible bait-and-switch?

    Meanwhile, you’re okay with a bill that sets a 3 foot MAXIMUM when passing cyclists? Or did I misunderstand?

  33. Joe Mizereck

    Michael, I fear you didn’t understand a word I said.

    You need to back away from this and come back to it with a different mindset. Your anger and frustration is understood, and I appreciate your passion, but it isn’t going to allow you to make any positive contribution to the path of this bill. Don’t get all wrapped up in “opposing” or “supporting”…that’s all secondary. If you want to help, then attach yourself to someone who understands the political process and learn how you can channel your energy and passion into making a positive impact.

    It’s far too early in this process to be taking sides, things are evolving…and you can either be a part of the process and help, or watch from the balcony and wish you were.

    Joe

  34. Serge Issakov

    @Kevin
    “And so… your alternative would be to do nothing to better the riding conditions for bicyclists? “
    Yes. Doing nothing to better riding conditions for bicyclists is better than doing something that worsens riding conditions for bicyclists, which is what this bill would do.

  35. Michael Graff

    Joe Mizereck :
    Michael. I don’t like the inclusion of the “or”. But I understand what the intent is […] it is an attempt to accommodate the urban cyclists where there is little if any space to give, let alone 3 feet. In the perfect world I would kill for at least 3 feet of protection…but it’s not perfect

    Joe, I’m having a very hard time following this logic. Isn’t that the exact same criticism usually directed at the current “safe distance” law, that it doesn’t define a specific minimum distance

    You seem to be saying that you’ll give up the 3 foot minimum any time it’s inconvenient for the motorist. Isn’t that the same kind of argument AAA makes?

  36. Joe Mizereck

    Michael, forgive me, but I think I have made myself clear…and I am only asking you to give the process time to work.

    And yes, I think there may be situations where there just isn’t enough space to go around…that is usually when a cyclist should take the lane.

    I am not here to battle you…only hoping that some of the voices I hear from CABO will relax and figure out that all these heated exchanges are fruitless.

    My recommendation would be that whenever motorized vehicles are going at least 20 mph, they must obey a 3 foot clearance rule. This is more about being practical and realistic than anything else.

    Joe

  37. Michael Graff

    Joe Mizereck :
    I think there may be situations where there just isn’t enough space to go around…that is usually when a cyclist should take the lane.
    Joe

    Ok, so in a substandard-width lane (“a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane” as defined in 21202), the motorist should never squeeze past within the lane, but must change lanes to pass (or wait behind). I definitely agree with this.

    But that’s not what SB910 says. Instead it says there is no minimum distance as long as the relative speed is within 15 MPH. It says nothing about lane width.

    From your talks with Jim, is CBC planning to introduce a “change lanes to pass” rule for substandard-width lanes?

    It appears that we really need two rules:

    * “change lanes to pass” whenever any of the 21202 exceptions applies (such as a narrow lane)

    * a 3 foot minimum whenever 21202 is in force (such as a wide lane with no surface hazards and no approaching intersections or driveways)

  38. Serge Issakov

    All, what percentage of bike-car crashes are caused by too-close passing? I often read about crashes in which motorists drift into bike lanes and shoulders and hit unnoticed cyclists there, but these are not caused by the motorist purposefully choosing to pass too closely. So unless I’m missing something, I don’t see anything practical or realistic about this effort at all.

    Joe, I don’t see what CABO has done that causes you to believe CABO is not giving the process time to work. The only point being made here is that the bill, in its present form, cannot be supported, for the reasons given. Isn’t expressing concerns and positions about the current wording participating in the process?

  39. Michael Graff

    Serge Issakov :
    @Michael Graff
    Michael, I think you meant to say that the 3 foot minimum needs to apply whenever 21202 OR 21208 are in force, as close passes of bicyclists are common when bicyclists are in bike lanes.

    Good point.

  40. Joe mizereck

    Serge, read the title of this thread. No wiggle room there. And the 7 points that followed left no question…CABO had made it’s mind up….which I found disturbing.

    I love what I read in Michael’s last post. This is the type of thinking I am talking about. This is the type of thinking that can make the process not only work, but work in our favor. This is constructive and can allow us to take a step forward, rather than backwards or sideways. And that is the direction we need be heading.

    Joe

  41. Serge Issakov

    Well, Joe, that type of thinking is typical of Michael and all CABO board members that I know. And it’s the same type of thinking that led the board to oppose SB910.

    I don’t see how what you’re arguing differs from saying no bill should ever be opposed no matter how strongly you oppose what it says because the bill might still be changed to something that you could support, and it’s more important to keep supporting it so you can be part of the process. Am I missing something?

  42. Bill Burton

    How about this wording?

    “The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass delete(to the left)delete at a safe distance, at a minimum clearance of three feet delete(or at a speed not exceeding 15 miles per hour faster than the speed of the bicycle,)delete without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken bicycle.”

    This would change your concern #3, #5 and #6. Would CABO support this?

  43. Bob Sutterfield

    In committee activity 5/10, they removed the “on the left” language (addressing CABO’s concern #5) but left the “or” (concern #6) and the 15mph language (concern #4). They also incorporated the “substandard width lane” language from CVC 21202(a)(3), addressing CABO’s concern #7. Since the bill is still under consideration, they also haven’t addressed concerns #1, #2, #3.

  44. Paul Nevins

    Will this bill address the ‘impeding traffic’ provision of the vehicle code which police officers use to claim cyclists are at fault for struck from the rear accidents even when the cyclist is killed?

  45. Paul Nevins

    The bill should be amended to read ‘a minimum of three feet AND no more than 15 mph AND without interfering etc.’

  46. Paul Nevins

    Instead of complaining from the cheap seats get in and lobby to fix the bill. We absolutely need a minimum passing distance AND a maximum passing speed (not or). Enforcement is not an issue, being able to penalize motorists who are dangerous to cyclists is critical to changing attitudes. When motorists realize they will not skate after an ‘accident’ and police can no longer arbitrarily fault cyclists we will be much safer. Take what we can get now and keep pressure on to make it better. Only an idiot will refuse a half loaf and starve while insisting he must get all or nothing.

Comments are closed.