Tuesday, February 24, 2009

3 Foot safe passing law

Recently, the local Walla Walla Union Bulletin published an editorial in which they stated that there is no need for the 3-foot minimum in the safe passing law. My response, which I have sent in as a letter to the editor, is as follows:

This letter is in response to the recent editorial “New rules for bicycle safety are not needed.” I disagree; setting a 3-foot minimum passing distance will help to prevent tragic accidents, such as the 2004 death of beloved local teacher, Ann Weatherill. It was her death which helped lead to the Safe Passing Law in 2005, which states that a driver approaching a pedestrian or bicycle on the right must pass at “a safe distance to clearly avoid coming into contact with the pedestrian or bicyclist.” The purpose of this addition to the law is prevention of accidents by giving motorists a definite guideline.
Motorists often don’t realize that passing a bicyclist too closely leaves no margin for error, especially at highway speeds. The three foot minimum gives a specific, easily understood minimum distance, not a vague “safe distance.” The 3-foot minimum not only gives drivers a safe distance standard, but raises their awareness to keep an eye out for bicyclists. All too often drivers are not looking for bicyclists and don’t notice them. Once drivers see bicyclists, the drivers can keep that safe 3-foot distance while passing. At least 11 states already have laws with three feet as the minimum safe distance for motorists to pass bicyclists and pedestrians.
Your editorial stated: “If the three-foot distance was a requirement it would take away some of the flexibility needed to be a safe driver. Sometimes that isn't possible such as when a car or even a bicyclist is on the other side.” I would disagree with your statement; in order to be safe, sometimes a driver needs to wait for a safe place to pass, whether they are passing a car or a bicyclist.
The 3 foot distance would result in fewer deaths and injuries as drivers will make a conscious effort not only to avoid hitting bicyclists, but also to avoid coming too close and causing bicyclists to have to do emergency maneuvers to avoid being knocked over. This proposed change is all about prevention: there is no such thing as a “fender bender” between a car and a cyclist. This clarification of the law is needed to prevent tragedies.

Their February 19th editorial read as follows:

New rules for bicycle safety are not needed
But it's important to make motorists aware that they have a legal responsibility to maintain a safe distance between them and bicyclists.
By the Union-Bulletin Editorial Board

Bicyclists and motorists are supposed to share the road.

But coexisting in that space is far from equal. Let's face it, bicycles are vulnerable compared to 4,000 pound cars and trucks. That's why it is important to have laws to protect bicyclists -- to level the playing field so to speak.

Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle -- an avid bicyclist -- is promoting legislation that would mandate motorists stay three feet away from bicyclists and pedestrians when passing.

In theory, it's a good idea. In fact, the Washington state driver's guide already recommends that three-foot buffer and the law mandates "a safe distance."

If the three-foot distance was a requirement it would take away some of the flexibility needed to be a safe driver. Sometimes that isn't possible such as when a car or even a bicyclist is on the other side. Also, it's not always fair to put the onus on the motorists. Sometimes bicyclists (or pedestrians) create unsafe situations.

The law, as it is now written, would appear to be sufficient. But more needs to be done to make sure motorists understand their responsibility and to crack down on those who don't.

Perhaps Pedersen's effort to amend the law will serve that purpose. The issue is now getting attention around the state and is being commented on by a variety of organizations from the Teamsters to the Washington State Patrol.
*
"It's our hope that if nothing else comes out of this bill," said State Patrol spokesman Jeff DeVere, "That people pay attention to giving bicyclists as much room as possible when passing."

So, too, do we.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Well said Debi. Across the world cyclists share a fundamental need for space and 3 feet seems to be the universal minimum needed to ride a bike safely. Of course, more space is always better and appreciated but, 3 feet will allow for the safe passing of a cyclist by a motor vehicle. Moreover, "3 feet" gives meaning to the whole "share the road" mantra by giving motorists a frame of reference.

I think most cyclists will agree when I say that most motorists are courteous and they give us space. But there are a large number of motorists who just don’t get it. They don’t get the fear that sweeps over us as they pass within inches of our bodies. And they don’t get how hitting us would change lives---theirs, ours and our families.

It’s my hope that Washington will join the other 14 states that have made the "3 foot clearance" language law and used this law to educate motorists of the minimum space needed to pass cyclists safely from the rear. And if Washington does this, fewer cyclists will be injured or worse, killed. These two benefits alone should make this a no brainer.

I hope Washington does the right thing.

Joe Mizereck
joe@3feetplease.com