3 ft Passing Law Passes Senate in CA - Moves to Assembly

[Neal]

Hello All,

 

Cal Bike report on CA Senate action:

 

http://calbike.org/

 

Excerpt:

 

VICTORY! The California Senate voted 27-6 this morning to approve Senate Bill 1464, our 3-foot passing bill.

The debate was short and sweet: Sen. Alan Lowenthal, SB 1464′s author, introduced the bill and urged an “aye” vote. When no other Senators took the floor to debate the bill, the roll was called. An unprecedented outreach effort that generated a flood of emails, letters and phone calls to Senators urging a yes vote may help explain the short debate.

 

 

 

 

 

San Francisco Bike Lane

 

Cheers,

 

Neal

 

+1 mph Faster

[Serge Issakov]

The exception in SB 1464 is still in the most recent amended version:

(d) If the driver of a motor vehicle is unable to comply with subdivision (c) due to traffic or roadway conditions, the driver shall slow to a speed that is reasonable and prudent, and may pass only when doing so would not endanger the safety of the operator of the bicycle, taking into account the size and speed of the motor vehicle and bicycle, traffic conditions, weather, and surface and width of the highway

Note that subdivision (c) is where the 3 foot minimum is specified.

As long as  (d) remains, I still don't see a practical difference between current law and this one in terms of motorists passing cyclists, and distance. I mean, it explicitly allows passing closer than 3 feet as long as it is done safely ("slow to a speed that is reasonable and prudent, ..."). That's what current law says!

No other state, so far as I know, which has a 3 foot law, has such a mollifying clause in it. So I continue to be baffled as to why it is believed such a clause is required in the CA version of this law.

Does anyone know?

Serge

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com> wrote:

That was several days ago and this is (currently) not a 3-foot passing bill (IMHO) since it has a huge exception that allows motorists to pass closer than 3 feet when they have no alternative, defeating whatever practical point there might be for such a bill.  

Here's the wording of the exception:

---------

When drivers overtaking a bicyclist cannot give at least three feet of clearance, they must slow down to a speed that is reasonable and prudent given traffic and roadway conditions and give the bicyclists as much clearance as feasible. 

----------

Source:

http://calbike.org/comparison-sb-910-sb-1464/

AFAIK, no state with a 3 foot passing law has this exception, and no one has explained why it's needed in CA.  How this changes anything from the current legal situation, in which safe passing us already required, is beyond me.  

I've heard a rumor that there is an effort to remove this exception, but haven't been able to verify and I doubt it will pass the senate without it, much less get Brown's signature.  

Serge

Sent from my iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/caboforum/-/HPt2v5G1upUJ.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/caboforum?hl=en.

[Mark Sapiro]

On 6/21/2012 12:08 AM, Serge Issakov wrote:
>
> No other state, so far as I know, which has a 3 foot law, has such a
> mollifying clause in it. So I continue to be baffled as to why it is
> believed such a clause is required in the CA version of this law.
>
> Does anyone know?

Because SB910 was passed last year without it and vetoed by the governor
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0901-0950/sb_910_vt_20111007.html>.
That subsection was added in an attempt to overcome the (spurious)
objections from CalTrans and the CHP cited in the governor's veto message.

Of course, it reduces the whole change to a mere complication of
language with no substantive change to existing law, but CBC continues
to support it.

The bill does have one redeeming feature in that it legalizes crossing a
double yellow line to pass a bicyclist when it can be done safely, but I
would rather have seen this exception drafted more generally to cover
other situations such as passing a rock slide or a fallen tree.

--
Mark Sapiro <ma...@msapiro.net> The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan

[Michael Graff]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Mark Sapiro <ma...@msapiro.net> wrote:

On 6/21/2012 12:08 AM, Serge Issakov wrote:
>
> No other state, so far as I know, which has a 3 foot law, has such a
> mollifying clause in it. So I continue to be baffled as to why it is
> believed such a clause is required in the CA version of this law.
>
> Does anyone know?

Because SB910 was passed last year without it and vetoed by the governor
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0901-0950/sb_910_vt_20111007.html>.
That subsection was added in an attempt to overcome the (spurious)
objections from CalTrans and the CHP cited in the governor's veto message.

The objections last year were about the clumsy 15 MPH language, which is not in the current bill.

[Frank Neal]

I don’t understand it, either.  Dump the bicycle-unfriendly Governor who purports to be Green.  He is NOT as he bows to the financial support of Caltrans and the CHP supporters!  Money speaks louder than facts! – Frank Neal

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.