Thread started by jeshii at 10.7.11 - 4:32 pm

This pisses me off to no end. Fuck you, Jerry Brown.

CHP and AAA, too.

Save the sharks, fuck the cyclists? (>Д<;)

reply

Very lame. And I'm referring to his stated reason for vetoing it.

Read it HERE (link to BCN posting).

Shocked at the logic, or lack thereof.



dudeonabike
10.7.11 - 4:41 pm

reply

Fuck - why am I not surprised?

Message to drivers: never slow down for any reason, you might get rear-ended.



mr rollers
10.7.11 - 5:37 pm

reply

Wait - does the bill say that cars must slow down to 15MPH, or to a speed no greater than 15MPH faster than the rider?

The letter implies the former, and if true, it's a flawed bill: If I'm rolling at 17MPH, then a legal pass is not possible.



bobdotorg
10.7.11 - 6:29 pm

reply

The text of the law:

"PASSED THE SENATE SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 PASSED THE ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 30, 2011 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 22, 2011 AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 10, 2011 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 26, 2011 AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 25, 2011

INTRODUCED BY Senator Lowenthal

FEBRUARY 18, 2011

An act to amend Sections 21460 and 21750 of, and to add Section 21750.1 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 910, Lowenthal. Vehicles: bicycles: passing distance. (1) Under existing law, a driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle or a bicycle proceeding in the same direction is required to pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle, subject to certain limitations and exceptions. A violation of this provision is an infraction punishable by a fine not exceeding $100 for a first conviction, and up to a $250 fine for a 3rd and subsequent conviction occurring within one year of 2 or more prior infractions. This bill would recast this provision as to overtaking and passing a bicycle by requiring the driver of a motor vehicle overtaking and passing a bicycle that is proceeding in the same direction on a highway to pass in compliance with specified requirements applicable to overtaking and passing a vehicle, and to do so at a safe distance that does not interfere with the safe operation of the overtaken bicycle, having due regard for the size and speed of the motor vehicle and the bicycle, traffic conditions, weather, and the surface and width of the highway. The bill would prohibit the driver of the motor vehicle that is overtaking or passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on a highway from passing at a distance of less than 3 feet between any part of the motor vehicle and any part of the bicycle or its operator, except as provided. The bill would make a violation of this provision an infraction punishable by a $35 fine. The bill would also require the imposition of a $220 fine on a driver if a collision occurs between a motor vehicle and a bicyclist causing bodily harm to the bicyclist, and the driver is found to be in violation of the above provisions. (2) Existing law prohibits a person from driving a vehicle to the left of double parallel solid lines, or double parallel lines, one of which is broken, except as provided. Notwithstanding that prohibition, existing law permits a driver to cross those double parallel lines if the driver is turning to the left at any intersection or into or out of a driveway or private road or making a U-turn under the rules governing that turn. This bill would limit the above prohibition, relating to unbroken double parallel solid lines, to solid yellow lines. The bill would prohibit a person driving a vehicle from crossing over any part of any double parallel solid white lines except in the above situations or when entering or exiting designated areas of exclusive or preferential use lanes, as provided. The bill would permit a driver of a motor vehicle to cross double parallel lines in a substandard width lane, as described, to pass a person operating a bicycle in the same direction, if in compliance with a specified provision. Because this bill would create a new crime and would expand the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 21460 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read: 21460. (a) If double parallel solid yellow lines are in place, a person driving a vehicle shall not drive to the left of those lines, except as permitted in this section. (b) If double parallel solid white lines are in place, a person driving a vehicle shall not cross any part of those double solid white lines, except as permitted in this section or Section 21655.8. (c) If double parallel lines, one of which is broken, are in place, a person driving a vehicle shall not drive to the left of those lines, except as follows: (1) If the driver is on the side of the roadway in which the broken line is in place the driver may cross over the double lines or drive to the left of the double lines if the driver is overtaking or passing other vehicles. (2) As provided in Section 21460.5. (d) (1) The markings, as specified in subdivision (a), (b), or (c), do not prohibit a driver from crossing the markings, if either of the following applies: (A) The driver is turning to the left at an intersection or into or out of a driveway or private road. (B) The driver is making a U-turn under the rules governing that turn. (2) The markings as specified in subdivision (a), (b), or (c) shall be disregarded if authorized signs have been erected designating offcenter traffic lanes as permitted under Section 21657.

(e) Raised pavement markers may be used to simulate painted lines described in this section if the markers are placed in accordance with standards established by the Department of Transportation. (f) (1) The driver of a motor vehicle in a substandard width lane on a two-lane highway may drive to the left of either of the markings specified in subdivision (a) or (c) to pass a person operating a bicycle proceeding in the same direction, if in compliance with Section 21751. (2) For purposes of this subdivision, a "substandard width lane" means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. SEC. 2. Section 21750 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read: 21750. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle, subject to the limitations and exceptions set forth in this article. SEC. 3. Section 21750.1 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read: 21750.1. (a) The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking and passing a bicycle that is proceeding in the same direction on a highway shall pass in compliance with the provisions of this article applicable to overtaking and passing a vehicle, and shall do so at a safe distance that does not interfere with the safe operation of the overtaken bicycle, having due regard for the size and speed of the motor vehicle and the bicycle, traffic conditions, weather, and the surface and width of the highway. (b) A driver of a motor vehicle shall not overtake or pass a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on a highway at a distance of less than three feet between any part of the motor vehicle and any part of the bicycle or its operator, except that the driver may pass the overtaken bicycle with due care at a distance of less than three feet at a speed not greater than 15 miles per hour, if in compliance with subdivision (a). (c) (1) A violation of subdivision (a) is an infraction punishable by a fine of thirty-five dollars ($35). (2) If a collision occurs between a motor vehicle and a bicycle causing bodily injury to the bicyclist, and the driver of the motor vehicle is found to be in violation of subdivision (a), a two hundred twenty dollar ($220) fine shall be imposed on that driver. SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution."

The 15mph requirement only applies to situations where there is not room to pass with a three-foot buffer. In that case, the driver would presumably just have to wait until there was room to pass. Since the law specifically states that it's ok for drivers to cross a double yellow line to pass cyclists, nobody's going to get "trapped" behind a slow-moving rider, even on a two-lane road. I don't think that's unreasonable. If a cyclist is traveling at 17mph, is it really safe for a driver to pass at 30mph with only a foot of room?

Even though I think the 3FTP laws are fundamentally unenforceable (since a cop would have to be positioned "just so" in order to measure that distance accurately and give a citation), the governor's rationale for the veto is garbage and really just illustrates why 3FTP is a good idea in the first place: if the governor can claim that it's ok for cars to pass cyclists at 45mph with less than three feet of room, then clearly the existing law needs some clarification on what constitutes a "safe distance."



nathansnider
responding to a comment by bobdotorg
10.8.11 - 10:10 am

reply

passing speed of no greater than 15mph. fuck you jerry brown



Roadblock
responding to a comment by bobdotorg
10.8.11 - 10:24 am

reply

The lack of enforceability highlights to me the real problem with 3FTP -- the inability for drivers to comply with the law and no real driver force to change their behavior (e.g. fear of punishment -- if even believe that works).

I fear that laws like 3FTP will convince folks that real substance exists on the streets. I think the passage of the law is at best symbolic and potentially helpful post-collision. Come on, let's be real, the best (most fun) part about this law is that we get to bang on car windows and yell, "3FTP!! Fucker; It's the law!!" And it's most fun because we get to do this to yuppies because we know how often we get agressive with drivers in the hood.

Just be honest about it -- 3FTP is bullshit, but we're eager to see anything go our way. The less we're satisfied and the more we embrace misanthropy, the more we'll look for substantive structural change.



markd
10.8.11 - 12:41 pm

reply

**no real driving force...



markd
10.8.11 - 12:42 pm

reply

Save the Sharks(SB 879), fuck the cyclists(SB 910)



revolution
10.8.11 - 2:44 pm

reply

that's not true. 3FTP sets up a legal step towards strict liability. after a collision the law makes it easier to asign default blame to a vehicle as it can be clear that the vehicle was not 3 feet away at the time of impact.



Roadblock
responding to a comment by markd
10.9.11 - 4:03 am

reply

on-point, RB



Jeronimo
responding to a comment by Roadblock
10.11.11 - 9:37 pm

reply

that's why I said it's potentially helpful POST-collision.



markd
responding to a comment by Roadblock
10.11.11 - 9:53 pm

reply