NCCC received a request from the Bike Coalition for interested members to help the 3 foot passing law get through the CA State Assembly. See Jeff Gross's post on this Message Board for further reason to support this bill. Other information on the bill is in Paul Nevins' post. Here is the skinny...

A bill in Sacramento to give drivers clearer guidance for how to pass bicyclists safely heads to a vote by the entire California State Assembly in late August. SB 910, authored by Long Beach Sen. Alan Lowenthal and cosponsored by the California Bicycle Coalition and the City of Los Angeles, would require drivers to give bicyclists three feet of clearance when passing from behind. If SB 910 is enacted, California will join 19 other states that already have minimum passing distances on the books. Read more about the bill here.

We need bicyclists and their allies to urge Assemblymember(s) NAME(S) GO HERE to vote yes for on SB 910. Messages of support are especially important for this next vote: unlike a committee hearing, the debate on the Assembly floor won't include testimony from outside experts and supporters. Instead, the Assemblymembers themselves will be speaking for or against the bill. That's why we need them to be as informed as possible before the vote.

You can help by sending your message of support by email to EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) GO HERE. Below is a sample message you can cut and paste into an email. Feel free to modify it (especially if you or a friend or family member have been hit by a driver passing too close) - be sure to keep the tone businesslike and respectful.

I'm a constituent from ____________________ and I'm writing to urge you to vote yes on Senate Bill 910. By giving drivers clearer guidance on how to pass bicyclists safely, SB 910 can help save lives and make the roads safer for everyone.

YOUR NAME
YOUR LOCATION

Please send your message no later than Monday, Aug. 15 - that's when a summer recess ends and Assemblymembers return to Sacramento. SB 910 could be heard at any time during the two weeks after that date.

If you have questions about the bill, contact Jim Brown at the California Bicycle Coalition at jimbrown@calbike.org or 916-446-7558.

 From Dan Gutierrez

"Not useless, worse than useless. The 3-foot passing law is an admission that cyclists must be at the edge, and therefore is a lame attempt to beg for space instead of eliminating the FTR law, so our use of lane space would not be questioned. With no FTR law, there would never be a question of adding something as silly as a 3-foot passing law.

Do notice that motorcyclists have full lane protection in most US states, so they are not dumb enough to ask for a 3-foot law, since, like any other driver, they expect and are entitled to use/control full lanes. Now, if a bicycle is a smaller. lighter and therefore less robust agasint crashes method of transport than a motorcycle, and a motorcycle driver is allowed full use of a lane, why ever would a bicyclist want any less protection that the full lane granted motorcyclists?"  Dan Gutierrez

What is meant by "with no FTR law"? There needs to be something in place for cyclists. If Gutierrez has an alternative, let's hear it.. For example, in Oregon (where I took my driver's ed), it is illegal for any vehicle to be moving too slowly, just as excessive speed is illegal. So, if you're on a 2-lane 55 mph highway in Oregon and you're going 16 mph, that is illegal. Is Gutierrez pushing for saying that bicycles are exactly like cars or motorcycles? We don't have high speed flexibility. I know I would go into the red zone trying to go 55 mph (and I'd be dead for a different reason). I'm all for improvements, but I haven't heard what they are. I visited the CABO site when it was referenced earlier on this board and found mostly hot air there as well. Although I can understand some of the arguments, where are the proposals to make  it better?

I would definitely be open for improving things, as it seems like a fundamental problem with CVC 21202 (FTR) is that interpretation is required, and in the cases presented here the past few weeks, the interpretation by volunteer CHP, judges, etc., definitely is discriminatory against cyclists. Laws which require interpretation become fuzzy and potentially useless. However, to use the Oregon example again, where Portland is the "most bicycle friendly" city in the US, you can see the Oregon bicycle laws at http://bikeportland.org/resources/bicyclelaws#814485. You'll see two very similarly (if not identically) worded sections 814.420 and 814.430 to California's CVC 21208 (bicycle lane jail) and  21202 (FTR). How do we improve it?

Interesting topic. I'll try to get him to answer directly.  He gives courses to NCTD on proper engineering of roads and paths for cyclists.  Here is what he said in this regard:   

Only CA and 4 other states, TX, OH, MI and NH have this law apply to cyclists, and the fix is to substitute the words "no person shall drive a motor vehicle" for "no person shall drive" in the law to bring it into conformance with the UVC and the laws of 43 other US states. Bicyclists don't need to travel at MV speeds to be operating legally. This is more misunderstanding of traffic law and driver rights.

In Oregon, there is a general law that precludes anyone from operating a vehicle in a manner which is unsafe to other drivers. When I took my driver's ed (realize that was 45 yrs ago, so things may have changed!), the officer used the specific example that if a vehicle is traveling 40mph slower than the other vehicles, then it most likely would be interpreted as dangerous (note that interpretation is required) and therefore a citation could be issued. Imagine traveling at 50 mph, coming around a blind corner, and encountering a cyclist (or tractor, or whatever) at 15mph. If they are out in the middle of the lane, it is dangerous for everybody. So, I think traveling speed is a real issue here, and that's where bicycles differ. Whether or not there are similar laws to the Oregon law, this is a dangerous situation and the vehicle laws need to adequately advise where everyone should be relative to the lane and each other.

California has no speed law.  Every car has to be aware tha a.car may be stopped at any time to make a turn or for any other reason. Thatvis why there would never be a speed limit of 50 miles an hour around a blind curve. A speed law like that is bogus and only.exists in 4 states.


Coast highway just happens to be straight. Cars slow to cycling speeds all.the.time to turn into businesses or for pedestrians.  Cars can see you better out in the middle.of the lane where they expect to.see vehicles.better than to the side where they don't

Also as there is a left.passing lane their speed need not be impeded if they have the time to move to the left because they can see us so far ahead

We've strayed off topic here. I posted this to get people to write their assembly representative - just a quick email click to do so. Note that CABO now supports SB 910, thanks to Sen. Lowenthal listening to theirs and others suggestions to improve the wording. The issues with CVC 21202 (FTR) should be dealt with elsewhere as Judy is proposing. I'm not trying to sway anyone one way or the other. Each cyclist should make their own decision whether they think it's a good idea that cars maintain a safe, specific, distance from cyclists and either support or oppose SB 910.