In the wake a vehicle collision that killed a bicyclist, and with the city of Santa Monica installing more than 30 new miles of bike and sharrow lanes, we're gauging local opinions about SB 1464.
The proposed state law—which would make it a legal requirement for automobiles to give bicyclists a minimum clearance of 3 feet when passing—has the support of Los Angeles cyclists.
SB 1464 has now passed the state Senate and is up for a vote by the Assembly Friday.
"The state of California is one step closer to safer cycling!" blogger Jordan Miles wrote on the LADOT Bike Blog in June, after the California Assembly Transportation Committee voted in favor of the bill.
An earlier version of the bill was vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown because it would have required motorists to reduce their speed to at least 15 mph if providing three feet of passing space was not possible, Miles explained.
This past spring, the City of Los Angeles, with the support of organizations across the state, including the California Bicycle Coalition, initiated a second attempt at a three foot passing law, Senate Bill 1464. This bill, which has the same intentions for increasing the safety of bicyclists throughout California, has changed some of its language in order to better appeal to the Governor.
Rather than require a specific reduced speed when the 3-foot passing space is not feasible, the new bill allows vehicles to slow to “a speed that is slow and prudent,” taking into consideration other traffic conditions.
How would you vote if it were up to you?
Tell us in the comments, keeping in mind that we ask commenters to use names when taking part in our community dialogue.
If you'd rather remain anonymous, you may email your comment to jenna.chandler@patch.com.
Either way, please take our non-scientific poll below to let us know where you stand on this issue.
SEE ALSO: ; ; ;
Stay connected with Santa Monica Patch throughout the day on Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to our free daily newsletter for email updates.
Business or Residence Districts: The speed limit is 25 mph, unless otherwise posted. Do not wear a headset or earplugs in both ears while driving. Experienced, safe, considerate drivers make room for cyclists, or skateboarders, Segwayers, pedestrians, dogs running loose (are they getting a three foot law as well?) to avoid a collision, and experienced, safe and considerate cyclists (or others, see list above) would do their best to avoid collisions as well. As a driver, I could be arrested on the spot for reckless driving (not just ticketed) if I blew through a stop sign with a quick left/right glance as I observed the iPod wearing, out of lane, speeding cyclist do last week on Colorado Blvd. I was required to take a driving test and a written test (more than once) to be allowed behind the wheel of a car, but don't see that level of expectation for cyclists. There are no licenses required to ride a bike and I have yet to see any enforcement of road rules to any cyclists, ever. My goal is to get to my destination with myself and others intact. Hope that "chatting" doesn't get someone killed.
If you blew through a stop sign in a car, odds are you would get no ticket, because breaking the rules of any kind rarely results in enforcement. Driver compliance with stop signs is also far from a pristine track record, the California roll didn't get to be a saying because of anything to do with riding a bike. And contrary to popular belief, drivers ticket bicyclists for breaking the rules on a regular basis, I hear of it all the time from people who come to wanting to know about how the law applies to bikes. But there are also a lot fewer people riding bikes than driving at this point, and represents a low number of total citations. The one moving violation I've ever received I got while riding a bike. Although I got it tossed out by the judge because in fact I was not violating the law by making a left turn, but the police officer was clueless of how the law applies to bicycling. Which is pretty common place in a police force that doesn't understand riding a bike them self or the details of how the law applies to bicycling.
I heartily agree that reckless drivers are rampant. I regularly witness distracted drivers on their cell-phones idly chatting away. And I wonder where the police are to witness this. I've also witnessed cars take a 'rolling stop' at posted stop signs, especially around the city college. And I wonder where the police are to witness this. However, I have to ask where you have witnessed "drivers ticket[ing] bicyclists for breaking the rules on a regular basis." Unless these "drivers" were officers of the law (police, sheriff, etc.), I have to wonder which members of the general public have the authority (let alone the nerve) to serve a ticket on a bicyclist for breaking the traffic laws. If you meant the police, I'm glad they're doing their job. But I have never seen them writing a ticket on a bicyclist yet. I remain hopeful that I will some day...
If a bicyclist operates their bicycle in a reckless manner, they present as great a risk to all users of the road. Motorists might be prompted into behavior that could endanger other motorists (or bicyclists) as the motorist attempts to avoid a collision with the oblivious or reckless bike rider. This danger is just as likely as when an unthinking pedestrian jay-walks into traffic. Whether the pedestrian is sober or under-the-influence or young-and-stupid or old-and-stupid, the danger remains apparent. Last, I also differ on your assertion that "motorists are on the roads by the grace or the non-motorized road users." I would assert that their authorization has been earned by the successful acquisition of the license to drive in a motorized vehicle granted by the state, not by mutual assent granted by "non-motorized road users."
And I can assure you bicyclists get tickets from officers, I get e-mails all the time as a blogger on bicycle topics from people who were surprised they could be ticketed on a bike, which they much can. Bike riders make up a smaller portion of street users at present, and the most popular routes to bike on tend to be the routes with lower volume of car traffic. Given those factors, plus the fact that officers out and about writing tickets is another rare sight, for any type of violation, it would not surprise me that most wouldn't have seen a bicyclist ticketed. But I have seen it first hand a number of times (and experienced it myself once, which was not a real violation but officer misunderstanding of law). And seeing something happen isn't what's most important, it's data, and if you look through it, it happens all the time.
I too have witnessed drivers making a 'rolling' stop through posted stop signs. I've also seen drivers cut it a little too close to get thru on the 'yellow' before the red signal appears. But while unnerving, I don't believe it's illegal to drive abreast of one another. I don't think it's collusive or a conspiracy as long as the posted speed limits are being met. However, I believe that it might be illegal to do so on the freeway if the left-most lane is occupied as this lane is supposed to be available as a passing lane. Again, I doubt if any officer would press the issue. Although I am uncertain if anybody can do this, but tenants of any residence can call the police to cite a car for obstructing a driveway. I even had the police two a car away (but this was at night when the idiot parked completely across my driveway because they were too stupid to notice that the driveway was there). I will keep my fingers crossed as you try to negotiate the road with inattentive drivers chat even though that law has been active for a while now. Unfortunately, most of the streets of LA are dimensioned to optimize for use by the car. Only recently have some cities begun to re-stripe to allow for communal use for cars and bikes. Most drivers do park and open their car doors without looking, but every bike rider should know this already and be cautious for it. Until the change is more universal, I guess that you'll have to choose your route to minimize gas fumes.
@Gary Kavanaugh, oh snap! Except it won't be my fuming toxic gas you're breathing. I drive an EV :-)
Paul, every state's rules and regulations for motor vehicle operation on public roads is exactly the mutual assent of non-motorized road users. It's people who vote, people who suggest laws and people who sit in government in Sacramento and enact laws.
And seriously, Ocean Avenue Extension? You need to go faster than a cyclist's pace for those few hundred yards? lahope, you might notice one common problem: parked cars. On both San Vicente Blvd and Ocean Avenue extension, an entire car's width of roadway (both ways on San Vicente!) is dedicated to motor vehicle parking. Tell me that isn't actually the source of the conflict over the 3 feet we are asking for here!
http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/04/21/another-wonderful-long-beach-first-protected-bike-lanes/ I'd hope that the commenters here coming from a driver's perspective who think giving cyclists 3 feet of space while passing is impractical support safer bike facilities like these as well.
If you place a pedestrian (could be a 20 yr old collegian, a 150 lb octogenarian or a 4 foot pre-teen) and allow a 160 lb bicyclist riding along at a modest 15 mph to collide with the pedestrian, I don't believe that it will 'sting' or that the result will be too easy to shrug off as inconsequential. Someone will be seriously injured. The injuries could be minor or they might be severe (from cuts and bruises to dismemberment or, God forbid, death). Imagine if you were the father to a child who was struck by an inattentive bicyclist. Your world has now been upended by this action -- it would be specious and astounding if the bicyclist were to say, "it would have been a lot worse if your child were hit by a car." My point is that everyone has an obligation to do no harm. This requires vigilance by everyone from pedestrians to bicyclists to motorists. You cannot grant bicyclists a 'pass' simply because you assert that they present less of an obvious threat than cars. Last, it might be helpful if you were less poetic in your arguments. "Non-motorized road users" does not automatically equate to the general public, their duly elected representatives or the legislative body which establishes the lawful requirements which determine who is granted proper authorization to operate a motorized vehicle on public roads. At the very least, this is a subset of the public -- I would assert that a greater majority do use a motorized vehicle.
I agree that joggers should not be using the bicycling lane on San Vicente. It's safer and little easier on the feet to use the large islands of grassy area which run between opposing directions of traffic. I also support bicyclists encroaching into the right-most lane of traffic should the need arise to pass joggers or motorist exiting their vehicle. Motorists should be aware of either possibility for the biker, so there should be no argument opposing this. But then you extend the argument to allow for side-by-side riding by bicyclists since motorists would have to move to the left adjoining lane to pass anyway. What if any harm could this present? Bicyclists riding in single file are probably riding at a comfortable cruising speed and paying close attention to the road and the traffic. Those riding abreast of one another could be engaged in conversation and thus might slow down and be less attentive to road hazards (cars). Since bicyclists do not usually keep pace with cars traveling at 35-40 mph, they will begin to block and impede traffic flow. This is a frustration to most motorists and only serves to reinforce any resentments they might have towards bicyclists. This resentment is worsened when the adjoining lane is the opposing traffic lane on narrow streets. It is all so avoidable. (continued in next comment)
Biking can be a solitary endeavor. I can understand the need to reach out at times to your fellow biking traveler and share a conversation. However, your primary concern should always be to be responsible to everyone else that is on the road, not your need to mitigate boredom or loneliness. You don't need to provoke what could be an already frustrated driver in a hurry to get to whereever-the-hell they're headed.
I will admit that I had not considered the uneven, root-bound terrain of the grassy islands running along the median. I agree that a twisted ankle is painful and prevents your desire to get exercise and stay fit. While this may sound flippant, I do not intend it to be so, but you might change your route to one of the jogging paths along the beach or running along the wet sand near the waters edge. There are no cars or bikers on the sand, only people. I'm certain that you can find stretches of beach front that have a minimum number of people to avoid if that is your choice.
I get your concern for cyclists, but when you start attacking the fact that cyclists might take advantage of lane control and the legal "side-by-side" position preferred for road safety and have a sneaky chat, well, you're off in a place that isn't well supported and, sorry, just a bit patronizing. I might as well suggest that motorists do nothing but focus on "point A- point-B" when driving: no fiddling with or even listening to the radio, no talking on the phone, no chatting with the kids or the wife, no slowing to look at real estate and garage sale signs...
I don't do tongue-lashings, by the way, especially if young cyclists like my 10-year-old son is with me. Rather, I instruct him how to deal with runners in the bike lane just as if he was dealing with any other hazard that allows him the use of the shared lane. But it would be nice if he didn't have to leave the small protection of the bicycle lane on account of runners.