headers
Roger Marquis | 1 Jan 2007 04:10

[ebbc-talk] CA Safe Passing Distance Bill (AB60)

Assemblyperson Pedro Nava, Dem Santa Barbara, has introduced a bill
that would mandate a safe passing distance of 3 feet between motorists
and bicyclists.

  <http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/billview.html?bill=AB_60>

  <http://www.planetizen.com/node/22295>

  Nava proposed the 3-foot buffer last winter, but it was rejected
  by the Assembly Transportation Commission. He should have more
  leverage this year, since he recently was named chairman of that
  committee.

  Opponents of Nava's previous bill included the Amalgamated Transit
  Union and the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, which
  argued that it could be particularly onerous to truck drivers and
  that a 3-foot buffer could narrow instantly if a bicyclist
  swerved.

  (source <http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a35/news/n352006179.htm>)

In addition to bus drivers (ATU) and truckers (Teamsters) the
California State Automobile Association (CSAA) is also expected to
oppose the bill.

Cyclists are urged to contact their representatives in the State
Assembly as soon as possible.  None of our local representatives
have yet taken a position on this bill.

--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
David Coolidge | 1 Jan 2007 20:51
Picon
Favicon

Re: [ebbc-talk] CA Safe Passing Distance Bill (AB60)

This sounds like a good idea, and I think I'll probably write to my state 
legislators in favor of it, but it also raises the question in my mind of 
whether 3 feet is adequate or not.   IMHO 3 feet is an absolute minimum for 
comfort when traffic is moving at 25 mph or less, and not nearly enough if 
traffic is moving faster.   Trucks and buses, particularly semi-trucks ("18 
wheelers"), create massive air turbulence at any speed over about 35 MPH, 
and it affects your ability to ride a straight line - you need a lot of 
wiggle space between the truck and the curb.  I realize the language of the 
proposed law doesn't make it legal to pass as close as 3 feet under all 
circumstances, my concern is that as soon as a dimension is specified it 
will become the de facto passing distance and all the "ifs ands and buts" 
will be ignored.   Ideally, I'd like to see a law that defined the minimum 
passing clearance as 3 feet minimum from the bike and at least 7 feet from 
the right edge of the bicyclist's right of way (i.e. the parked cars, if 
any, or the curbstone, if any, or the edge of the pavement.)    That way, if 
a driver with minimal common sense was driving legally and got 3 feet from 
your butt at 60MPH you'd have at least 4 feet of bailout space on your 
right.

If this passes, we'll need to reiterate to our fellow cyclists yet again the 
necessity to avoid riding too far over to the right.

All that said, the best part of this law is undoubtedly the increased fine - 
and I'd guess that's the reason for the organized opposition, too.   $250 
still isn't enough, really, but it's better than $100.  Some day maybe 
grazing a bicyclist will be penalized more than stopping in a bus zone (the 
current fine for that being likewise $250).

David Coolidge
dacoolidge@...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Lee Amosslee | 1 Jan 2007 21:01

Re: [ebbc-talk] CA Safe Passing Distance Bill (AB60)

David Coolidge wrote:
> This sounds like a good idea, and I think I'll probably write to my 
> state legislators in favor of it, but it also raises the question in 
> my mind of whether 3 feet is adequate or not.
I know it would never pass, but what we probably need is a formula: 1 
foot for every ten miles per hour of speed (with a minimum of 3 feet).
Thus, 40 MPH = 4 feet, etc.

Then, we could add a multiplier for the number of tires over 4: six 
tires = 1.5 times above formula, 18 tires = pass in the next lane :-)

Me thinks that a minimum of 3 feet is probably a good thing. Anything 
more than that means a car can't realistically pass a bike on a two lane 
road, and I don't think that in our democracy the majority would support 
such regulation.

--

-- 

Lee Amosslee

_______________________________________________
ebbc-talk mailing list
ebbc-talk@...
http://lists.ebbc.org/listinfo.cgi/ebbc-talk-ebbc.org
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
David Coolidge | 1 Jan 2007 22:57
Picon
Favicon

Re: [ebbc-talk] CA Safe Passing Distance Bill (AB60)


All kidding aside, I've thought for a long time that drivers of 18 wheelers 
and big buses should be taught about the air currents their vehicles 
generate.   If you've never horsed an underpowered motorcycle away from the 
kingpin of a big-rig at 70 MPH you haven't had one of the world's cheaper 
thrills - on the freeway at speed those things disturb the air all the way 
across a whole lane on either side.

>From my experiences commuting in the South Hayward Industrial Park, a 
big-rig doing 30 MPH in a crosswind - a daily event on Huntwood Ave - blows 
a bicycle around pretty seriously when passing closer than about 10 feet 
away - so "next lane" would be about right.

Another thought - if the law specifies a distance doesn't there have to be a 
way to measure it if it's going to be enforceable?   "Your honor, I passed 
Mr. Amoslee at a distance of no less than 39 inches and I can't be 
responsible if he picked that moment to ride his bike into the ditch..."  
Now, is the arresting officer going to pull out his handy meter stick to 
refute this driver's testimony, or just what?  The court has to presume 
s/he's innocent, right?  :-)

What I want to see enacted is the bigger fine and the provision that allows 
the driver to move into the center left turn lane to pass - which everyone 
does anyway, of course.

David Coolidge
dacoolidge@...

>From: Lee Amosslee <lee@...>
>To: EBBC <ebbc-talk@...>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
cspargur87 | 3 Jan 2007 01:44
Picon
Favicon

Re: [ebbc-talk] CA Safe Passing Distance Bill (AB60)

Let's take it one step at a time.  This law is more symbolic than anything else.  I really can't see it being
enforced but what it does do is draw attention to safe driving around bicyclists.  3 feet is a MINIMUM and
good rule of thumb.  Obviously the actual distance should be the minimum required to SAFELY pass (which is
dependant on vehicle size, weather, time of day, speed, etc) - but for now I'll take the 3 feet.

By the way does this also apply to a bicycle overtaking a car?

Will

-----Original Message-----
>From: David Coolidge <dacoolidge@...>
>Sent: Jan 1, 2007 1:57 PM
>To: lee@..., ebbc-talk@...
>Subject: Re: [ebbc-talk] CA Safe Passing Distance Bill (AB60)
>
>
>All kidding aside, I've thought for a long time that drivers of 18 wheelers 
>and big buses should be taught about the air currents their vehicles 
>generate.   If you've never horsed an underpowered motorcycle away from the 
>kingpin of a big-rig at 70 MPH you haven't had one of the world's cheaper 
>thrills - on the freeway at speed those things disturb the air all the way 
>across a whole lane on either side.
>
>>From my experiences commuting in the South Hayward Industrial Park, a 
>big-rig doing 30 MPH in a crosswind - a daily event on Huntwood Ave - blows 
>a bicycle around pretty seriously when passing closer than about 10 feet 
>away - so "next lane" would be about right.
>
>Another thought - if the law specifies a distance doesn't there have to be a 
>way to measure it if it's going to be enforceable?   "Your honor, I passed
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
cspargur87 | 3 Jan 2007 01:53
Picon
Favicon

Re: [ebbc-talk] CA Safe Passing Distance Bill (AB60)

Let's take it one step at a time.  This law is more symbolic than anything else.  I really can't see it being
enforced but what it does do is draw attention to safe driving around bicyclists.  3 feet is a MINIMUM and
good rule of thumb.  Obviously the actual distance should be the minimum required to SAFELY pass (which is
dependant on vehicle size, weather, time of day, speed, etc) - but for now I'll take the 3 feet.

By the way does this also apply to a bicycle overtaking a car?

Will

-----Original Message-----
>From: David Coolidge <dacoolidge@...>
>Sent: Jan 1, 2007 1:57 PM
>To: lee@..., ebbc-talk@...
>Subject: Re: [ebbc-talk] CA Safe Passing Distance Bill (AB60)
>
>
>All kidding aside, I've thought for a long time that drivers of 18 wheelers 
>and big buses should be taught about the air currents their vehicles 
>generate.   If you've never horsed an underpowered motorcycle away from the 
>kingpin of a big-rig at 70 MPH you haven't had one of the world's cheaper 
>thrills - on the freeway at speed those things disturb the air all the way 
>across a whole lane on either side.
>
>>From my experiences commuting in the South Hayward Industrial Park, a 
>big-rig doing 30 MPH in a crosswind - a daily event on Huntwood Ave - blows 
>a bicycle around pretty seriously when passing closer than about 10 feet 
>away - so "next lane" would be about right.
>
>Another thought - if the law specifies a distance doesn't there have to be a 
>way to measure it if it's going to be enforceable?   "Your honor, I passed
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Michael Graff | 3 Jan 2007 01:58
Picon
Favicon

Re: [ebbc-talk] CA Safe Passing Distance Bill (AB60)

On 1/2/07, cspargur87@...
<cspargur87@...> wrote:

> By the way does this also apply to a bicycle overtaking a car?

Good question.  I don't think so, the way it's worded.  So, for
example, at a red light, with a narrow outside through lane, cyclists
could filter forward with inches to spare, but when the light turns
green, motorists wouldn't have the three feet of clearance to re-pass
them within the lane.

We could call this the "cut to the front of the line" bill.
_______________________________________________
ebbc-talk mailing list
ebbc-talk@...
http://lists.ebbc.org/listinfo.cgi/ebbc-talk-ebbc.org
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Roger Marquis | 3 Jan 2007 02:31

Re: [ebbc-talk] CA Safe Passing Distance Bill (AB60)

> Let's take it one step at a time. This law is more symbolic than
> anything else. I really can't see it being enforced

I can, and quite easily. Not only for police sting type actions,
like we've seen here in Berkeley for pedestrians, but also by
forwards-thinking cyclists. All it would take is a handlebar
mounted laster reflectometer to measure the distance of passing
vehicles and perhaps a video cam to record license plates.

I could easily catch a dozen aggressive AC Transit bus drivers in
a day along Shattuck, Telegraph, College, and Bancroft. Really,
why else would bus and truck driver unions be opposed to such
common sense legislation that is already proven to work in other
states.

The passing lane provision should also be extended to crossing a
double yellow when there is no turn lane, providing it would otherwise
be safe.  Motorists too often use double yellow lines as an excuse to
pass unsafely and too many police officers let them get away with it.

--

-- 
Roger Marquis
http://www.roble.net/marquis/
_______________________________________________
ebbc-talk mailing list
ebbc-talk@...
http://lists.ebbc.org/listinfo.cgi/ebbc-talk-ebbc.org
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Maddox, Heath | 3 Jan 2007 18:12
Picon
Picon

Re: [ebbc-talk] CA Safe Passing Distance Bill (AB60)

Roger Marquis Wrote:

The passing lane provision should also be extended to crossing a
double yellow when there is no turn lane, providing it would otherwise
be safe.  Motorists too often use double yellow lines as an excuse to
pass unsafely and too many police officers let them get away with it.

Heath Maddox Responds:

I'd agree with Roger here, but unfortunately, I fear that such an amendment stands little chance of making
it into law.  I've been thinking about this bill a lot lately, as my father was killed on his bike last summer
by a driver making an unsafe pass.  The think I keep coming back to is that a 3-foot passing requirement would
often be in conflict with the prohibition against crossing the double yellow centerline.  We all know that
drivers (including cops)cross double yellows all the time to pass cyclists , and I think that's the way it
should be--far safer to cross the line when no oncoming cars are around than to strafe a cyclist. 
Nevertheless, opponents of Nava's bill are correctly arguing that they will be prohibited from legally
passing a cyclist on roads that are not wide enough to accommodate a cyclist and a car with 3 feet of buffer.

_______________________________________________
ebbc-talk mailing list
ebbc-talk@...
http://lists.ebbc.org/listinfo.cgi/ebbc-talk-ebbc.org
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
David Coolidge | 3 Jan 2007 19:04
Picon
Favicon

Re: [ebbc-talk] CA Safe Passing Distance Bill (AB60)

But then again, isn't the whole point to make it illegal to pass when 
there's not enough room?  A car can be driven at 10 or 15 MPH indefinitely, 
there's no inherent need to pass a cyclist.   This notion would, of course, 
require a huge shift in driver psychology.   So I guess I'd support a major 
campaign of public education along with this bill.

BTW, as bikes become more common in Berkeley I've seen the beginnings of 
just this shift - once upon a time, every driver who came up behind you 
swung over and passed without slowing down, or tried to.  In effect, they 
behaved as if the bike were stationary.  When it didn't work there were 
finger signals and recriminations and horn-honking and brakes squealing and 
all that.  Frequently the cyclist had to hit the brakes and become 
stationary to avoid a collision.  These days the majority of Berkeley 
drivers slow down to my pace (I use a mirror full time, I watch them) and 
look around, then make a calculated passing maneuver, the same way they pass 
other vehicles.   So it's not impossible to learn the right way, just 
difficult to get 'em started on the proper path.

David Coolidge
dacoolidge@...

>From: "Maddox, Heath" <HMaddox@...>
>To: <ebbc-talk@...>
>Subject: Re: [ebbc-talk] CA Safe Passing Distance Bill (AB60)
>Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 09:12:44 -0800
>
>Roger Marquis Wrote:
>
>The passing lane provision should also be extended to crossing a
>double yellow when there is no turn lane, providing it would otherwise
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane