3 Feet to Pass (Law)
Thread started by
md2 at 09.3.10 - 10:50 am
If anyone has an interest in discussing this potential law, I have some concerns that I would like to either express or cleared up. Let me note, as I have before, that I am 100% behind the poster campaign and it's use as a guide for drivers.
In this short(er) post, I will try to explain what I believe is the argument for the law, followed by my first complaint or concern with it.
3FTP is a safety measure to ensure cars allow "adequate" room while passing a cyclist. I don't believe we need to delve into the need for a measure "like" this, since as ridazz, we know vehicles regularly pass us unsafely. So, there is a need for a metric (as Trickmilla says) for drivers to understand what is a safe "way", "distance", etc to pass a cyclist. Therefore by making 3FTP law, we ensure that drivers will be forced or held accountable for their driving behavior, and in this case for how they pass a cyclist.
There are other positives to this law, but I think it's most basic element is the fact that as a law 3FTP will have to be adhered to. So as it becomes known, it will be "put in peoples / drivers minds" (as trickmila has also said), and our cycling experience should be safer because of it.
Now, let me touch on the primary concern I have for 3FTP as a law. 3FTP does not adhere to a basic principle of law, in which person governed by a specific law can or should be able to not only adhere to the law, but KNOW that they are in compliance.
(Given a person is aware of such and such law) Would a law be fair if i could break it without knowing whether or not I'm in compliance with it?
Suppose cars did not have speedometers. Now supposed the city rushed to pass speed laws (for good safety reasons). Now, would you be able to adhere to these laws, without a device enabling you to determine your driving speed? Or would you be left to guess, and having officers use their radars to verify or confirm your compliance? In a scenario as such, would you not be rightly frustrated and have a legitimate complaint that you're not equipped with anything other than your intuition or imagination as a metric for your car's speed?
So then, what device do drivers have to ensure they are in compliance with 3FTP? How will they know they're in compliance?
You might say, "i easily give three feet to pass, in fact I must give cyclist like seven feet". Well, thats all well and good, BUT do you know how much room you "actually" gave/give?
On your next bike ride around town, try to determine how many feet a moving car is giving you in though couple seconds. Try to determine how many feet you give any object when passing. Now after doing this, ask yourself: if the city required cyclist to pass such and such object within a given amount of feet, would you find it to be a fair law?
If interested, lets discuss at least this first problem (yeah, sorry there are more).
(please forgive any typos, errors, etc, im sneaking in this post while at work)
-peace
reply
"Now, let me touch on the primary concern I have for 3FTP as a law. 3FTP does not adhere to a basic principle of law, in which person governed by a specific law can or should be able to not only adhere to the law, but KNOW that they are in compliance."
There are probably a few examples of similar laws. Tailgating comes to mind:
CVC 21703 - Tailgating
Following Too Closely
21703. The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the roadway.
There is no specific distance given for tailgating and thus you as a driver would not know if you are tailgating or not. Yet it is a law that I am sure is enforced if infrequently.
Foldie09.3.10 - 11:05 am
reply
KEY:
-----
@&@ = Cyclist
%##%= Car
_ = 1 foot
POSSIBLE SCENARIOS TO DESCRIBE HOW 3FTP LAW WOULD WORK:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. IF %##% IS _ _ _ FROM @&@ = Then, no problem.
2. %##% _ _ _ _ @&@ = No problem.
3. %##% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ @&@ = No problem.
4. %##% _ _ @&@ = Car is susceptible to receive a citation or warning from POPO
5. If POPO is not present = @&@ is shit out of luck.
THE END
Joe Borfo09.3.10 - 11:15 am
reply
In fact the current passing law would not pass your "smell my finger" test (basic principle of law, in which person governed by a specific law can or should be able to not only adhere to the law, but KNOW that they are in compliance.)
21750. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle or a
bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left at a
safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the
overtaken vehicle or bicycle, subject to the limitations and
exceptions hereinafter stated.
Foldie09.3.10 - 11:18 am
reply
If the rider can reach out and touch the car--the car is less than three feet away.
petr0lb0mb09.3.10 - 11:19 am
reply
%## / = Car with one taillight burned out.
petr0lb0mb responding to a
comment by Joe Borfo
09.3.10 - 11:22 am
reply
I don't think a 3FTP law is really likely to cause problems, but I'm not convinced it'll do much good, either. It's essentially unenforceable, is the thing. It will always be a (s)he-said/(s)he-said deal unless the driver actually hits the cyclist while passing, which is already illegal, right?
I assume that the main effect of the law would be to give the cyclist more deference in a passing collision where the driver tries to argue that the cyclist is at fault. When the driver argues that the cyclist was "riding dangerously" or whatever, the cyclist can counter with "the law says you needed to give me 3 feet of room while passing, so you were the one
driving dangerously." I think most of us would agree that giving cyclists more deference in collisions is a good thing, but I'm really only making an assumption about the effect of the law here.
That 3-foot distance is pretty difficult to measure from just about any perspective. The driver is presumably watching the road ahead, the cyclist is presumably not going to
actually reach out an arm to try and touch the passing car to get a measurement, and any third party would have to be positioned "just so" in order to make a judgment on the distance. Unless there's a cop standing by, watching specifically for passing distance, the law's not going to be enforced much, if at all.
nathansnider09.3.10 - 11:24 am
reply
8===D~~~~~;0 = Loaded Dong shooting Sprialdemon's eye out.
Joe Borfo responding to a
comment by petr0lb0mb
09.3.10 - 11:26 am
reply
@Foldie
So are you listing other laws to question their legitimacy as a good law or are you just trying to say, "hey, look, theres a lot of laws like this, so what's the problem?"
Why do I feel like this is going to result is some dumb images being posted by you?
md2 responding to a
comment by Foldie
09.3.10 - 11:26 am
reply
What that Nathan Snider guy just said.
Dot Com
Joe Borfo responding to a
comment by nathansnider
09.3.10 - 11:31 am
reply
And that would bring to other points about whether this is just using law as a marketing tool of sorts, and whether we're giving additional profiling tools for the police.
Moreover, I'd like to note, that these kind of laws (like tailgating) leave all the verification on the enforcing officer. As NS points out, it becomes a debate over who is right, and we know how police officers like to engage in those debates.
I'd even like to highlight that I would be willing to bet a police could not verify the distance.
We're thinking about two objects fluctuating between space and passing within seconds. Do humans even have the ability to make this judgment even if they are fixated on the two objects? especially if we're going to incorporate consequences to it, we should aim for something better (at least in our progressive / pro social justice community).
md2 responding to a
comment by nathansnider
09.3.10 - 11:32 am
reply
No I am not speaking with my troll hat at the moment.
I think you have a point that the 3ft law is close to impossible to adhere to when you can't really measure 3 feet, but I pointed out the other examples to say that laws are rarely perfect.
As the current law is written, it is left to the law enforcement to make a judgement of safe distance, where 3 feet is a clear amount of space that everyone can understand.
Will it help? I don't know.
I know there should be better Distracted driving laws with harsher penalties, because we have the data to prove distracted driving costs lives. But that argument is for another day.
Foldie responding to a
comment by md2
09.3.10 - 11:35 am
reply
im not sure Im looking for perfection.
I just think we're desperate (in a good way) and willing to co-sign anything at this point if it benefits cyclists. I ran into a rider recently who told me, regarding this issue: any attention is good attention.
That may be true, but the minute we get something like this pushed on us, we're going to be ready to pull the "that ain't fair" card.
Here are some other questions:
How do we know 3 Feet "IS" the safe distance to pass? Even at higher speeds?
Honestly, I've been more confused about the 3 Feet because, if you haven't noticed -- 3 feet isn't that much space.
One other thing is this: if cars need to pass us outside of 3 Feet, does the reverse apply? Do i implicate all drivers when I cut through traffic? Is it safe for a cyclist to pass a car without giving 3 feet of space?
Anyone who rides 20mph+ knows they pass plenty of automobiles on their commutes / rides.
md2 responding to a
comment by Foldie
09.3.10 - 11:51 am
reply
If you frame those same questions under current passing law you will have to come to the same conclusion/confusion.
So what is good law to make sure cyclist feel safe sharing the road?
Foldie responding to a
comment by md2
09.3.10 - 11:55 am
reply
When I do drive, I too often have a hard time discerning three feet as do many other drivers.
That's why when I'm in doubt, I usually just wait until it's safe and perform an overtake as I would on a slower vehicle traveling under posted speed-limits.
So far, drivers up here have done that and I haven't heard a peep or seen a bird-flipped as they continue on their merry-way.
As for those tight spots, I'm guessing a new device for cars could be conceived and marketed as an after-market accessory.
Basically, a laser system that will keep a steady, "3ft green light" on in the car so long as it maintains distance.
Once the vehicle impedes the 3ft barrier, the light will start flashing red and will continue to do so until the vehicle has moved to or beyond the 3ft limit.
I say we make it here, sell it here, export it to other countries, revitalize economy with a new invention that will safe lives, prevent ass-hat-age,. etc
bentstrider09.3.10 - 12:00 pm
reply
bentstrider for President of the Universe!
Joe Borfo responding to a
comment by bentstrider
09.3.10 - 12:03 pm
reply
If you frame those same questions under current passing law you will have to come to the same conclusion/confusion.
hang out there for a while; it's not a bad place to be.
md2 responding to a
comment by Foldie
09.3.10 - 12:08 pm
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!