Law mandates vehicles give cyclists more room
By David Siders, Sacramento Bee
Gov. Jerry Brown has signed legislation requiring motorists to give bicyclists at least 3 feet of space when passing on a California roadway, after vetoing similar legislation during the last two years.
Assembly Bill 1371, by Assemblyman Steven Bradford, D-Gardena, requires motorists to slow down if they can’t give room and makes failing to comply an infraction punishable by a base fine of $35.
The new bill will take effect in September 2014.
What ever happened to the bike rider having to keep up with the flow of traffic? Plus, why don’t they make it a law for these ‘road hazards’ to have to ride on a bike path when available? Why do drivers on a road “designed for cars” have to pay the price of these roadway nuisances? I can’t stand the sight of skinny tires and a guy in colored tights on the roadway.Stick to your curb or bike path or don’t whine and wimper if you get hit. Car vs bike= broken bike.
Skate boarders have rights too. I want my own lane.
I will be glad when it snows and they go away. I know I know they spend lots of money. If so, how come most of the businesses along hwy 89 are struggling?
Based on the inane comments by J Fremont and Sunriser2 obviously this law is needed. I guess they think it is ok to pass a bike leaving less than 3 feet between the two. The great majority of cyclists own cars and pay gas taxes etc. that pay for roads. And the more bikes are used, the less traffic will hold up Fremont and Sunriser on the way to their important destinations.
I completely agree with you, Fremont! I understand if they’re in the road when there are no bike paths available, but if they’re in the road when there’s a perfectly good (and expensive) bike path available, then they that’s their bad. They are an absolute nuisance!
Ah, the narrow mindedness of the automobile driver. Must I always remind them that if wasn’t for the League of American Cyclists back in 1893 privately funding an initiative for safer roads, it would of been a lot longer before the roads of America were paved. Thus “paving” the way for the Federal Highway Administration. California law has always stated that cyclists must obey the same laws as a motorist. One of the only differences being that they “must ride as far to the right as SAFELY possible” Sometimes not as far as the motorists (and we) would prefer, yet with inadequate shoulders and poor maintenance we are at the safest place we can be.
If interested, check out this link and learn the history of the paved road.
http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/the-petition-that-paved-america/
What about when the cyclists ride two or three abreast and block half the lane? You can only stop/follow behind them for so long. And if it’s a double yellow no passing area? What then? Often these cyclists don’t have a clue you are behind them…or they just don’t care. They need to follow the rules of the road for their protection. It’s not always the cars that are at fault.
Most cyclists do observe the rules of the road. It’s those few that ride on Al Tahoe, instead of the clearly visible bike path, or ride double abreast out on 89 by Camp Rich, instead of the bike path there, just irritate cardrivers. I still, begrudingly, give them room if they foolishly and arrogantly elect to forego safety.
And roads would have been paved without bikes. Roads were paved for horse-drawn carriages, too.
Well said fungi, love it.
I think a new law is needed. Anytime a ‘cyclist’ is riding against traffic on Hwy 50 the motorist MUST lay on the horn and scare the wits out of the rider! That is by far the most annoying, low grade activity you can do on a bicycle. Of course these aren’t cyclists, they are morons.
I am a cyclist, but I am not sure a law is needed on this issue, though it may raise awareness.
HONNNKKK…HOONKKKKK…(practicing)
I never give less than three feet to a bicyclist. And I always return the compliment to the bicyclists who flip me off because they seem to deem the five feet or more I give them to be insufficient, given their moral ownership of the road.
And then there’s the two recent bicyclists – one on Foothill Road in the Carson Valley and the other, climbing up Big Oak Flat out of Yosemite at about 3 mph, who thought a swerve in front of me to force me into the oncoming lane would just punishment for not acknowledging their right to own the whole damn road. And they flipped me off as well.
I realize there are safe and smart bicyclists out there – I’m one of them when I’m on two wheels. But if bicyclists, as a species, want credibility, they need to look at their own ranks first.
Bingo, Sunriser. If every special interest group gets their own lane, what will be left of the road?
BTW, try to get a highway closed for a skate day…
Can’t we all just get along? As taxpayers (motorists and cyclists) we ALL pay for the roads. The California Vehicle Code specifies that both motorists and cyclists are entitled to use them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Vehicle_Code_-_Bicycle_Relevant_Sections
I am a responsible cyclist. I ride as far to the right as I can SAFELY ride (my safety and yours as well, motorist, as if I am riding on a rough shoulder and fall, guess who I fall in front of?). I follow the rules of the road. I encourage my fellow cyclists to do the same.
Motorists, I have these comments for you: J.Fremont, you ask about cyclists keeping up with the flow of traffic. By that do you mean I should be riding 45 miles per hour when that is the posted speed? Seriously? Wow….not even sure Lance Armstrong can do that. Maybe what you meant to say is that cylcists should ride with the direction of traffic. If so, I totally agree with you.
Bike path: Yes, it is a good option WHEN available. Good option, but NOT a requirment per California law.
Honking at cyclists when they ARE engaged in safe, lawful behavior. This is not only rude, but unsafe to you and to me. Startling a cyclist can result in that cyclist swerving and causing an accident. Fortunately, my experience as a road cyclist is that MOST drivers are courteous and patient. My sincere thanks to those of you who are.
Cyclists, I have these comments for you:
Yes, we too are are expected to follow the rules of the road. This means riding single file, riding on the correct side of the road (same direction as the cars), stopping at stop signals, using hand signals, and engaging in safe behavior.
For those of you who use the bike paths, please know that there are rules for the use of paths as well. Please stay on your side (the right)and ride single file. Please teach your children to do the same. This helps ensure a safe and pleasurable experience for us all.
Thank you. Now, let’s all be safe and courteous out there!
I agree with nearly all of your comments here. I ride a bike on both the bike paths and on the highways. I see the insane bike riders riding against traffic at night without lights. I think I’ve seen the worst of it; And I don’t blame you drivers for your ill feelings about bike riders. The people to blame are the reckless bike riders. But the new law itself is reasonable. We as drivers are not going to be cited when a cyclist swerves out in front of us. We’ll risk being cited only when we pass without providing that 3 feet of space. I use a bike regularly and I am pissed off when I see one of those lunatics on a bike. I get pissed because I know there are drivers like J. FREMONT out there that puts us responsible bike riders in the same category with the lunatics. There will probably come legislation making side by side bike riding illegal. I’ve come around a corner on a bike path and have been confronted by two bike riders riding side by side coming directly at me. Those two morons took up the entire width of the bike path. I was briefly in a head on collision course with those morons. I swerved off the path and avoided the collision. I just shook my head and continued home.
200 lbs. against 3000 lbs. Wonder who might win.
Riding a bike on a narrow two lane road such as 28 or 89 leaves little room for cars to pass. If bike cyclists have a death wish by asserting their so called rights, so be it.
I, likewise, have no basic problem with the new law. And, admittedly, I haven’t read the entire Vehicle Code version of it yet. But with a motorist required to remain three feet from a bicyclist and no similar requirement for the bicyclist, won’t any auto vs bicycle collision when they’re traveling the same direction automatically be blamed on the driver since he (she?) has 100% of the responsibility for maintaining clearance and the rider has none?
And just an addition to the comments about bike trails. Most bike trails also permit pedestrians as (IMHO) they should. But both courtesy and vehicle codes require that vehicles (bicycles) stay to the right and pedestrians walk to the left, facing traffic. My observation has been that most pedestrians on bike trails don’t understand that, nor do many of them understand that when a voice from behind says “to your right” they shouldn’t jump right. Or stop. Or panic.
Many of my family members are avid cyclists and have had many scary tales of ‘almost’ accidents. I have always given a wide line to cyclists and, on many occasions, have been flipped off or sworn at for doing so. This kind of behavior from the cyclists tends to create a hostile atmosphere. This could be why so many drivers are so angry at the cyclists. I will continue to give extra space for cyclists and hope that they, in turn, will learn to follow the rules of the road and be more polite and alert while riding.
HEY COPPER — You are right. A collision will likely be blamed on the motorist. This is not fair, I know. We have the same problem when motorists strike pedestrians. Often it is the pedestrian’s fault. Yet we as a society tend to have pity for the person that is injured; Even when that person has caused their own demise, there is pity for that person. Hopefully, this law will reduce collisions. Without this law, the motorists will not be better off. A collision would still result in the cyclist getting the pity. So, I think we’ve improved the situation, although only a little bit.
Hey Eater: I agree that outcomes in court often follow lines of sympathy rather than the law. Short term this is usually a reflection on the quality of the local judges and attorneys. And rarely has more than limited, local significance.
But, more seriously, when courts, for political or other reasons, put pity ahead of the law, the legal system is no longer based on law or ethics but, rather, popular opinion. Which turns democracy upside down and replaces rule of the majority with anarchy.
Who would have thought mere bicyclists could have had such influence?
Hey Copper – – – Your right again. I understand what you are talking about. Some people think with their emotions, not with their brains. That’s why in a recent discussion I spoke up and said the jury system is flawed. I want professional jurors that are trained. We shouldn’t have to be judged by jurors that have no idea about what they are doing. Most people would consider your words about “”anarchy” extreme. But again, I’ve been there, so I know you are right again. The courts are nowhere near as good as they should be. The lawyers are running the courts. Gee, do you think that has something to do with the problem ? We could go on about this for months, but I would prefer to move on. So, that’s enough for now.
I remember the first time a car intentionally (Messed with me)
I was just past emerald bay on 89 making my first Bike ride around Tahoe.
I was 12 I lived in Incline.
They should have been arrested. (Probably Drunk)
I do not like the idea of giving the Police yet another reason to pull people over and mess with them, but sadly this one probably needs to be on the books.
Just out of curiosity…if one must cross a double yellow line to give a 3ft berth, such as traveling through Emerald Bay, are vehicles expected to just hang back until it is ‘legal’ to pass?
SC that was what I was wondering about, Do you have to slow and follow the bike regardless, or can you go wide onto the Double yellow, (IF) it appears safe to do so, this is where the discretion of a police officer comes in. And I do not trust that. The law may be creating an unreasonable Catch 22
SC AND MTT – – – You both bring up this good point. In my opinion the circumstances you describe would allow a motor vehicle to pass, while briefly crossing the double yellow line, while it is safe to do so. The reason I have this opinion is two fold. First, when a person chooses to turn left across a double yellow line into a driveway, it is legal to do so. Then, failing to hold your vehicle in your lane is illegal when failure is due to negligence, but not illegal for the purpose of avoiding a collision. Here, under the circumstances you describe, a motorist would be briefly crossing the double yellow for the purpose of avoiding a collision. Thus, no violation. The same would apply if a child suddenly ran out in front of you, and you swerved to avoid hitting the child. I don’t trust the cops either.
I always give cyclists, pedestrians, pretty much anything in the roadway plenty of space when I pass them so this law won’t affect me either way. What I want is more enforcement of the laws for bike riders and pedestrians. My whole family, and lots of my friends, ride bikes but we follow the rules of the road. I cannot even count the amount of times in the past twelve years I have almost hit irresponsible bike riders and pedestrians while trying to turn onto Los Angeles. There are clearly marked stop signs for these individuals but they do not stop and look for oncoming traffic. Instead they flip you off, yell obscenities, and I’ve even had one spit on my car because they did not stop when they are required to do so. Please lets all do our part to avoid unfortunate tragedies by obeying the laws that are there to protect and ensure our’s and other’s safety.