- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
3ft Please Jersey UK backCalifornia 3ft passing rule becomes law next week - with fines for violators
A law requiring drivers to stay at least three feet away from bicycles when overtaking is to be passed this week in California.
The law is designed to take the guesswork out of what a ‘safe’ passing distance is - but politicians say it’s more about creating a visual image for drivers of how far away they should be, than being something police are able to enforce.
“The current law states you need to pass a cyclist by a ‘safe distance.’ A lot of people say that’s arbitrary,” Assemblyman Steven Bradford, who authored the law, told 89.3 KPCC.
“Well now we’ve stated the safe distance is at least three feet.”
“Law enforcement won’t have a ruler or yard stick out to measure that,” he added.
153 cyclists were killed in car accidents in the state in 2012, according to figures in California Highway Patrol reports.
The Auto Club of Southern California is participating in a three-feet safety awareness campaign.
“Everybody has to think in their own mind what three feet means and keep that in mind when you see a bicyclist and get ready to pass them,” said Marianne Kim, transportation policy specialist with the Auto Club.
The law has long been debated in the state, with earlier versions being vetoed by opposing politicians in 2011 and 2012. The new bill, which has been simplified from earlier incarnations, was sponsored by the city of Los Angeles, which is known for its car-centricity.
A growing activist base has supported the bill, which was deemed necessary despite a 2010 launched a “Give Me 3″ graphic campaign encouraging drivers to create a safe distance between vehicles and cyclists.
Under the law, if traffic or roadway conditions prevent motorists from giving cyclists 3 feet of clearance, drivers must “slow to a speed that is reasonable and prudent” and only pass when the cyclist will not be endangered.
Fines run to $35 for violations, but this rises to $154 with additional fees. Drivers who collide with cyclists and injure them while violating the law will be subject to a $220 fine.
Latest Comments
- ktache 4 hours 6 min ago
The people at Hexlox have asked me to tell others about their black Friday deals, but I don't quite know what the offer is yet. But saving anything...
- Freddy56 4 hours 16 min ago
Would love to know if anyone else thinks the army green winter jackets are actually better than black to hide the cyclist profile in low light?
- momove 4 hours 24 min ago
You two are going to have to help out the undereducated here!...
- VIPcyclist 4 hours 49 min ago
Whilst I was reading this I was thinking : sounds familiar, yep, that's right . Then I read the bit about being referred for a fitness to drive and...
- Dnnnnnn 5 hours 2 min ago
I'm unclear how simply considering the views of people who travel through an area is voting for rat-runs. No need to explain though.
- David9694 6 hours 1 min ago
When you don't know for sure what the whinge would be if this work was postponed to January, but you know there would be one:...
- biking59boomer 6 hours 42 min ago
Sadly the cyclist hate in this country seems to have worsened of late. Dangerous motoring combined with anti-cycling officialdom in some places is...
- Cyclo1964 9 hours 14 min ago
Brilliant 🤣
Add new comment
28 comments
at bikebot, it *appears* that the Local Transport Note *is* still valid, as it appears here https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/local-transport-notes and doesn't appear to have been superseded. I have made a FOI request to ascertain and some other related queries from the DfT. Will update when i hear back from them
Cheers, I'd be interested in whatever they have to say.
I wasn't riding any differently yesterday, but somehow managed to attract more than 10 (I lost count) close passes, and 1 left hook. Strange, I normally find I get 1 or 2 on a ride, but not this many.
That's very interesting thank you.
You're welcome, I was quite curious myself as I was relying on my memory. If you do get any reply from the DfT please do share. I suspect they've now buried those numbers from the public so that the highway code remains the official position. That document is a designers reference, and it's interesting to know what guidelines and measurements may be used internally by various organisations.
Bit of a dig, but finally found this -
http://web.archive.org/web/20110606011952/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/road...
Go to page 17 (the 19th PDF page).
The language is a little confusing, as it refers to the cyclist's "dynamic envelope", which is a fancy way of side the physical width of the cyclist plus a little bit.
Table 2.2 gives 1.0 metre for 20mph and 1.5 metre for 30mph as "minimum passing distances"
Table 2.3 is the total width requirement, including car, bike and gap.
These numbers has been used elsewhere, I'm pretty sure they were on the Think! website at one time.
Yeah, i had a quick look but couldn't find anything. So i rang the DfT for their take on this. I'm waiting for a call back. If i hear anything i'll let you know.
Not sure if this is the done thing or not, but if anyone fancies filling out this survey, i'd be very happy. Thanks
http://kwiksurveys.com/s.asp?sid=g2x9sxwwflhm0wr410281
@BikeBot. Could you show me a link to where the DFT suggest 1.5m for passing a cyclist?
Thanks
Ric
Also now having trouble finding it, I think it's been taken down. It was there a few years ago and attracted quite a few comments at the time.
If I can find it using the waybackmachine, I'll send a link, though the old versions of the various transport and safety websites are a bit of a huge tangled mess (as are the new ones).
Nice idea. I know it's not going to be enforced, leading to predictable moaning, but simply having an agreed upon standard does help. More people than we think need merely guidance.
That said, 153 deaths? Sort your shit, cali.
Bikebot: Could you publish that correspondence somewhere? Would be really interesting and potentially useful to other cycle campaigners!
This is the relevant extract which is likely a piece of text that many people have received after such a complaint. I'll keep the specific details regarding the incident and the resolution private.
I’d support a LCC or CTC campaign proposing this change in law for a 1.5 mt. minimum distance rule, although the incentive to respect it should be a little bit stronger than a $35 fine(i.e. points on the licence). Any idea how to propose it?
But then who is going to enforce it?
I was on a 4 hours bike ride yesterday around Chobahm/Chertsey. I dint see a single police car patrolling the roads.
As some one pointed out most drivers are decent people, (perhaps not aware of what is safe and the potential damage) but you just need one idiot. My idiot yesterday overtook me on Chertsey bridges with cms to spare ( I could touch his mirror with my elbow) and oncoming traffic.
By the way I am using a small end bar mirror now which helps a lot in terms of being aware of who is coming from behind. Not the sexiest thing to have on a road bike but discrete enough to go unnoticed to the casual observer. Highly recommended.
I ride in Maine in the USA and they have had this law for a few years now. It was written to specifically allow cars to cross the yellow line to overtake cyclists with at least three feet of clearance (being mindful of oncoming traffic). Mind you. this is the state where the distracted driver almost killed Stephen King while he was out for a walk.
(BTW - US and Canadian roads have yellow lines in the centre to differentiate opposing travel traffic. White lines are only used to separate lanes. That way, you also know immediately if a street is one-way as it has no yellow line.)
I think the law helped quite a bit in Maine. The "average" driver now gives more room - often the whole lane - when overtaking. Good drivers were always mindful and the idiots are still out there, but now at least they are actually breaking (another) law if they crowd cyclists.
I ride the lanes here in the UK a lot and while most people are quite good, quite a few think that if there is two feet of space left that's plenty for a cyclist and don't even slow down. So on single-track, my new policy is ride in the middle and don't move over until they slow down, rather than do this early. It's really just a lack of courtesy. If I was driving a farm tractor, they'd be in the hedge or reversing, so the least they can do is slow down until we pass.
3ft? Sounds like a dream.
A campaign should be started regarding the numerous cars 'overtaking' whilst not crossing the white line- I'm sure it's seen as some sort of challenge, pass the cyclist without touching the central line.
Good luck to their new law/ initiative.
I would be a strong supporter of anyone proposing a similar law in the UK, but unfortunately the UK campaign groups don't seem particularly interested. I'm slightly baffled as to why and this has reminded me that I must ask my local LCC peeps about it next time I see them.
The 3ft rule is the standard in America, European countries that have also adopted this have used various distances from 1m to as much as 2.5m. France has different distances for urban and rural roads.
Can't recall exactly what the argument was when it came up a while back, but it could well be that the HC says to overtake as one would a small car - which is somewhat more than 3ft already.
That sounds familiar.
I would still support such a law. The law is the minimum, those that allow more space will continue to do so because they are good considerate drivers. Those that don't, have something to be beaten over the head with.
In particular, it would make it a crime to try to squeeze through a pinch point alongside a cyclist, which is probably the most dangerous thing that I have to look out for day after day. It would also provide clear support in law for taking primary in such a position.
The official guidance is actually quite varied. The HC has that nice picture that most of us are familiar with, however the DfT suggests 1.5m at 30mph. But as I've recently discovered, TfL uses a distance of 1.2m as guidance for its bus operators, so even a Government transport body doesn't use the DfT figure.
what really doesn't help in UK is our ridiculously narrow painted cycle lanes which practically encourage close passes as dopy drivers automatically assume that if they stay out of the cycle lane the cyclist is safe...
Funnily enough, that's exactly why I now know the guidance that TfL uses for its bus drivers. I had one pass me early one morning on a near empty road, at a stupidly close distance. I was in the cycle lane and the bus was outside but skimming the edge of it.
It was a bit of a shock, as I'm used to all the local bus drivers actually being very good around cyclists, in particular on the route concerned. I had video, and as the driver blanked me when I caught up with him, for the first time ever I lodged a complaint with TfL.
They took the complaint seriously, and in amongst their detailed reply was the note about the 1.2m minimum pass distance that I should have been given. It's only now that I realise that it doesn't match the DfT guidance, which demonstrates what a useless muddle we currently have. Everyone is making up their own numbers.
Rule 163 just says "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car".
Given many overtake cars with inches to spare, that's what they think is appropriate!
https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169
The problem in the UK is clearly that there is no overtaking distance, the picture in the highway code is not authoritative - it does not say you must leave this distance or specify a distance.
If you ask anyone in the UK what the minimum passing distance is legally, they can not answer because there is no answer.
Close passes and anxiety regarding whether they are about to happen is in large part what ruins the cycling experience in the UK. If cycling organisations want more cycling then this issue is as important as segregated cycle lanes. The UK needs passing distance laws, close passes should result in points being deducted.
The thing is that 'give as much room' implies the space between the overtaker and the overtakee, not the road position. Most drivers allow 2 or 3 ft, but some much less, whatever they're overtaking. The Californian legislation puts a number on it, and that's very useful.
The problem is that whilst 3ft is a good distance for a car passing at 30 to 40 mph it is not sufficient when being passed by an 18 wheeler on a NSL road.
153 dead is a lot for one state and who knows how many knocked down and injured. I hope the new rule helps. Then, maybe, we can get the same thing on the east coast where I live. Most drivers are pretty decent about giving me space but there's always a
few that need it in writing.
The thing here is that most roads - even in the US - are not wide enough for a vehicle to pass a cyclist giving 3' of room without mostly or totally crossing the white line. Which makes it a really easy education task: Cross The White Or Wait. Or some such simple slogan. The UK desperately needs this too. Remove all ambiguity from the matter.
$35!!
Fines should be linked to wealth, would a $35 fine deter bill gates?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1759791.stm
"Mr Vanjoki had to pay a fine equal to 14 days of his income in 1999, which was about 14 million euros ($12.5 million)"