Here is the latest draft of a bill heading through the California Senate. This bill will be a great step forward in how police enforce our safety and rights on bikes.
To support this bill please go to this web site: http://givemethree.squarespace.com/
BILL NUMBER: SB 910 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 10, 2011
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 26, 2011
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 25, 2011
INTRODUCED BY Senator Lowenthal
FEBRUARY 18, 2011
An act to amend Sections 21460 and 21750 of, and to add Section
21750.1 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 910, as amended, Lowenthal. Vehicles: bicycles: passing
distance.
(1) Under existing law, a driver of a vehicle overtaking another
vehicle or a bicycle proceeding in the same direction is required to
pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe
operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle, subject to certain
limitations and exceptions. A violation of this provision is an
infraction punishable by a fine not exceeding $100 for a first
conviction, and up to a $250 fine for a 3rd and subsequent conviction
occurring within one year of 2 or more prior infractions.
This bill would recast this provision as to overtaking a bicycle
by requiring the driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle that
is proceeding in the same direction to pass to the left
at a safe distance, at a minimum clearance of 3 feet, or at
a speed not exceeding 15 miles per hour faster than the bicycle,
without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken bicycle.
The bill would make a violation of this provision an infraction
punishable by a $220 $35 fine. The
bill would also require the imposition of a $220 fine on a driver if
a collision occurs between a motor vehicle and a bicyclist causing
bodily harm to the bicyclist, and the driver is found to be in
violation of the above provisions.
(2) Existing law prohibits a person from driving a vehicle to the
left of double parallel solid lines, or double parallel lines, one of
which is broken, except as provided. Notwithstanding that
prohibition, existing law permits a driver to cross those double
parallel lines if the driver is turning to the left at any
intersection or into or out of a driveway or private road or making a
U-turn under the rules governing that turn.
This bill would additionally permit a driver to cross those double
parallel lines if the driver is on a substandard width lane, as
described, passing a person riding a bicycle or operating a
pedicab in the same direction, and it is safe to do so.
Because this bill would create a new crime and would expand the
scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated
local program.
(3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 21460 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
21460. (a) If double parallel solid lines are in place, a person
driving a vehicle shall not drive to the left of those lines, except
as permitted in this section.
(b) If double parallel lines, one of which is broken, are in
place, a person driving a vehicle shall not drive to the left of
those lines, except as follows:
(1) The driver on that side of the roadway in which the broken
line is in place may cross over the double lines or drive to the left
of the double lines if the driver is overtaking or passing other
vehicles.
(2) As provided in Section 21460.5.
(c) (1) Either of the markings , as specified in
subdivision (a) or (b) , does not prohibit a driver to
whom any of the following applies from crossing the marking:
(A) The driver is on a substandard width lane, passing a person
riding a bicycle or operating a pedicab in the same direction, and it
is safe to do so. For purposes of this subdivision, a
"substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle
and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(B) The drive driver is turning to
the left at any intersection or into or out of a driveway or private
road.
(C) The driver is making a U-turn under the rules governing that
turn.
(2) Either of the markings as specified in subdivision (a) or (b)
shall be disregarded if authorized signs have been erected
designating offcenter traffic lanes as permitted under Section 21657.
(d) Raised pavement markers may be used to simulate painted lines
described in this section if the markers are placed in accordance
with standards established by the Department of Transportation.
SEC. 2. Section 21750 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
21750. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle
proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left at a safe
distance without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken
vehicle, subject to the limitations and exceptions set forth in this
article.
SEC. 3. Section 21750.1 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
21750.1. (a) 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.
(b) (1) A violation of subdivision (a) is an
infraction punishable by a fine of two hundred twenty
dollars ($220). thirty five dollars ($35).
(2) If a collision occurs between a motor vehicle and a bicycle
causing bodily injury to the bicyclist, and the driver of the motor
vehicle is found to be in violation of subdivision (a), a two hundred
twenty dollar ($220) fine shall be imposed on that driver.
SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.
FYI From: http://www.cabobike.org/2011/05/04/cabo-opposes-3-foot-passing-bill-sb910/
CABO Opposes 3-Foot Passing Bill SB910
May 4th, 2011CABOLeave a commentGo to comments
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.
(http://72.35.72.219/~library/14155/Bike/Utah.JPG)
Moab, Utah
I don't know anything about CABO, I had never heard of it and had to follow the link to find out what it stands.
That being said, I thinks it ridiculous to oppose a measure because you don't think its good enough (my words). Even if the language is hard to enforce, at least its on the books. Currently there is no language on the books and many of us have been nearly side-swiped by mirrors on cars passing too close. You can't let perfection get in the way of progress. I, for one, endorse the law and will write my assemblyman (who won't listen to me) and ask for support. I would love to see signs like the one Lou published on Camino Del Raye and Elffin Forest.
Letitia
Right on Leticia! Lets get a law in place then work to make it better. Three feet minimum and a 15 mph differential is a good goal to aim for.
I think they are hoping for a law with better wording. If you do something that can't be enforced it might be worse.
There are traffic engineers and cyclists working on this.
I actually think educational awareness may be more important than enforcement. If signs such as Lou posted were common, motorists would be more aware that we exist and there is a rule to abide by. I think it would be rare that a ticket would be issued - it could certainly be important in an accident case, but still hard to figure out without good witnesses or a photograph (nigh impossible).
-Karl