Something better then nothing is not making the grade for our 3' safe passing bill

I decided to ask on a national bike forum what others involved in advocacy thought of our 3' bill and so far this is what I got:
image
 This is just really sad.

What should have been a clarification of § 21-309. Driving on laned roadways.
(1) While overtaking and passing another vehicle going in the same direction and while the center lane is clear of traffic within a safe distance; [no exceptions]

to specify that cyclists need at least 3 feet for safe passing has gotten all mucked up in trying to get it to apply only to cyclists riding legally, the only road user singled out for limited due care I might add. While I have some empathy that motorists should be exempt from gross errors by cyclists such as wrong way riding or suddenly swerving into the motorists path by more then 3' but no where else in the legal code for safety does it apply only if the other road user is operating in strict accordance of the law. I will also assert gross errors by the other party are already part of the legal system. As I noted previously pedestrians have § 21-504. Drivers to exercise due care.
(a) In general.- Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian.
But if a pedestrian suddenly runs in front of a car the driver is not charged with this violation, the same should hold true with cyclists.

The sad fact is this bill will most likely have the most adverse impact on kids (and MD and especially Baltimore are far worst then the national averages for kids on bikes crashes) as drivers are now exempt from passing with due care if they feel the kids are not riding per the strict rules of the road for bicyclists.
Damned if you, Damned if you don't

I was thinking of all the times police (but mostly motorists) want me to ride in the gaps between parked cars. To the police I usually respond with "Do you want me to weave in and out of parked cars?" and they just give me a disgusted look and move on. But now with this law it might be legal for cars to intimidate a cyclist into the gap and if a cyclist rides the gap then upon leaving they are failing to maintain a straight course so once again no requirement on motorists for a safe passing distance. [Note if you do the latter always signal and yield to traffic before moving laterally.]

Additionally in a side conversation one advocate said "But this rule seems to repeal the duty to pass with care." Hmmm...
Cyclist was buzzed by a bus while in a bike lane: http://azbikelaw.org/blog/the-city-of-flagstaff-hates-bicyclists/

The bus video cameras caught the incident:


To vote or join in the discussion (you have to be a member to do so but membership is free.): http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?623152-What-do-you-think-about-the-new-and-improved-MD-s-purposed-3-passing-law

by B' Spokes

Like most people I live a hectic life and who has the time for much exercise? Thanks to xtracycle now I do. By using my bike for daily activities I can get things done and get an hour plus work out in 15 minutes extra of my time, not a bad deal and beats taking the extra time going to the gym. In case you are still having trouble being motivated; the National Center of Disease Control says that inactivity is the #2 killer in the United States just behind smoking. ( http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/bb_nutrition/ ) Get out there and start living life! I can carry home a full shopping cart of groceries, car pool two kids or just get lost in the great outdoors camping for a week. Well I got go, another outing this weekend.
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Share It!

Story Options

  • Something better then nothing is not making the grade for our 3' safe passing bill
  • 1 comments
Login required to comment
...
As Larry Hendricks reported Thursday, the matter was referred to the Flagstaff city attorney's office. It determined that the 3-foot rule does apply in a bike lane to drivers who are overtaking a cyclist. And after reviewing a videotape of the incident recorded from a bus camera, the city attorney has recommended that the driver be cited for the 3-foot violation as well as for speeding.

This might sound like splitting hairs, but if city police were unclear about the 3-foot law, it's a good bet most Flagstaff drivers were, too. Keeping your vehicle on one side of the white line marking the bicycle lane while the cyclist is on the other is not good enough. There now must be 3 feet of space, which means most drivers will need to hug the center line when overtaking a cyclist just in case the latter veers toward bike lane line.

What complicates the matter is that more bicyclists are taking to the streets even in the winter, when snowplows have not cleared bike lanes completely. This was the case with the Dec. 19 incident -- snow in the bike lane forced the cyclist toward the inside of the bike lane, but not entirely out of it. Legally, the cyclist could have been anywhere in the roadway and still entitled to the 3-foot protection zone. But if he had been hit outside a "passable" bike lane, then the driver would not be liable for any injuries to the cyclist.
...
http://www.azdailysun.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_7d32c60e-3317-11df-a538-001cc4c03286.html