feel free to share with others

David Love

—

http://streetsblog.net/2012/04/13/study-in-baltimore-one-in-six-cars-pass-cyclists-illegally/

The full pdf of the study, published in AAP, “Is the three-foot bicycle passing law working in Baltimore, Maryland? by Love, et al
is linked at that streetsblog article.

I found a few missing, and notes on a few others. It seems 50% of
states now have reasonably-similar “3 foot laws”. Do you know if
that’s become a part of UVC? There are ~25 variations on the same
rule; it’s time to standardize, before more states include “extra”
stuff like AZ.

DE: http://delcode.delaware.gov/title21/c041/sc03/index.shtml
|(3) The driver of a motor vehicle, when approaching a bicyclist traveling in the same direction, shall ensure the safety and protection of the bicyclist by:
|
|a. Proceeding with caution and yielding the right-of-way by making a lane change into a lane not adjacent to that of the bicyclist, if possible, with due regard to safety and traffic conditions, if on a roadway having at least 4 lanes with not less than 2 lanes proceeding in the same direction as the approaching vehicle; or,
|
|b. Proceeding with caution and reducing the speed of the vehicle to a safe speed and leaving a reasonable and prudent distance by providing a minimum of 3 feet of clearance while passing such bicyclist, if changing lanes would be impossible or unsafe.

MT: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/61/8/61-8-320.htm
| 61-8-320. Right-of-way for bicycles. (1) The operator of a motor vehicle may not:
| (a) intentionally interfere with the movement of a person who is lawfully riding a bicycle; or
| (b) overtake and pass a person riding a bicycle unless the operator of the motor vehicle can do so safely without endangering the person riding the bicycle.
| (2) The operator of a motor vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a person who is riding a bicycle within a designated bicycle lane.
(oh la la)

VA specifies >=2 feet:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-839

OH:
(2) Nothing in division (B)(1) of this section requires a driver of a
slower vehicle to compromise the driver’s safety to allow overtaking
by a faster vehicle.

WA: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.110
This doesn’t specify a distance, and is kind of useless, especially
with the phrase “to clearly avoid coming into contact”.

RI: this is odd, very good in some ways, but bad in others:
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE31/31-15/31-15-18.HTM
|
|”The driver of a motor vehicle may only pass a person operating a
|bicycle”:
| phrased with the burden on the motorist, good
|
|a “safe distance” means a distance that is sufficient to prevent
|contact with the person operating the bicycle:
| well, that seems |completely inadequate, but continues:
|
|”if the person were to fall into the driver’s lane of traffic”:
| that’s odd to write down legislatively, but seems to mean
| mean >3feet (height of bicycle plus torso).
|
|”This subdivision does not apply to a driver operating a motor
|vehicle:”
|
| (i) In a lane that is separate from and adjacent to a designated
| bicycle lane;
| Aha, so RI has actually codified the “City of Flagstaff”
|interpretation! Paint a white line, and anything that doesn’t
|result in a collision is safe.

MA:
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter89/Section2
|[...] If it is not possible to overtake a bicycle or other vehicle at
|a safe distance in the same lane, the overtaking vehicle shall use
|all or part of an adjacent lane if it is safe to do so or wait for a
|safe opportunity to overtake. [...]

VT:
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=23&Chapter=013&Section=01033
|(b) Passing vulnerable users. The operator of a motor vehicle
|approaching or passing a vulnerable user as defined in subdivision
|4(81) of this title shall exercise due care, which includes increasing
|clearance, to pass the vulnerable user safely, and shall cross the
|center of the highway only as provided in subdivision (a)(1) of this
|section. (Added 1971, No. 258 (Adj. Sess.), § 3, eff. March 1, 1973;
|amended 2009, No. 114 (Adj. Sess.), § 2..)

It doesn’t really count, but IA has:
http://search.legis.state.ia.us/nxt/gateway.dll/ic/1/13/10773/11301/11302/11601?f=templates$fn=document-frameset.htm$q=field%20folio-destination-name:%27321.281%27$x=Advanced#0-0-0-150689
321.281 Actions against bicyclists.
1. A person operating a motor vehicle shall not steer the motor
vehicle unreasonably close to or toward a person riding a bicycle on a
highway, including the roadway or the shoulder adjacent to the
roadway.

Ohio, strangely, is missing two of the 815A exceptions (left or
overtaking), and doesn’t include a “less than normal speed” clause.

NE doesn’t have any “safe passing for bicycles”, but notably:
it’s prohibited to removed feet from pedals.
mandatory path
specifically prohibits driving on shoulders (except for bicycles)

Despite its horrible website, I found for NJ:

39:4-100. Rate of speed across sidewalk
No vehicle or horse shall be driven or ridden across a sidewalk at
a rate of speed greater than four miles per hour.

39:4-72. At the request of or upon a signal by putting up the hand or
otherwise, from a person riding or driving a horse in the opposite
direction, the motor vehicle driver shall cause the motor vehicle to
stop and remain stationary so long as may be necessary to allow the
horse to pass.

39:4-32
[...]
|g.Nothing contained herein shall relieve a driver from the duty to
|exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway.
|Nothing herein shall relieve a pedestrian from using due care for his
|safety.
|
|h.In the event of a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian
|within a marked crosswalk, or at an unmarked crosswalk at an
|intersection, there shall be a permissive inference that the driver
|did not exercise due care for the safety of the pedestrian.

39:4-14.5.
As used in this act “bicycle” means any two-wheeled vehicle having a
rear drive wheel which is solely human-powered and having a seat
height of 25 inches or greater when the seat is in the lowest
adjustable position.

39:4-12.
prohibits riding without hands, removing feet from pedals and fancy
riding

The RI code is easy to navigate, looks pretty clean, but has this:
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE31/31-19/31-19-15.HTM
| § 31-19-15 Left turns. – (a) A person riding a bicycle intending
| to turn left shall, unless he or she complies with the provisions
| of § 31-16-2, approach the turn in a position as close as
| practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. The turn
| shall be made at a position as close as practicable to the
| right-hand curb or edge of the roadway along which the bicyclist
| intends to proceed after turning.
31-16-2 is the “vehicular” left turn; I guess 31-19-15 as phrased is
premised on the idea that vehicular lefts are abnormal/atypical/weird
for bicyclists. VA code resembles RI, but is phrased more clearly.

RI (and at least OH) requires giving an audible signal when one
vehicle overtakes another. Odd, but I guess that’s not necessarily
bad. I assume it’s not enforced, and probably not common practice,
either.

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2009/04/06/law-enforcement-bias-and-the-3ft-law/

Seems like at least once a week I get passed too closely in view of a cop or by a police vehicle.

I’d be curious to see how many such tickets have been written since 2000.