Something sure needs to be done, as I see motorists get way too close to those on bicycles all the time.

It's sort of like with pedestrians -- they had to change the law to specify a certain distance you had to give them before you could turn/cross the crosswalk. Before it was just to give them a safe distance.

While it may seem like common sense as to what a safe distance should be, for many people it's not. And it is a lot easier to give people a warning or a ticket when there is a set distance, as "safe distance" can be a matter of personal opinion. Personally I see it as more than 3', while for others it's as long as the side mirror doesn't hit them.

Then again, traffic laws and their enforcement are one of my biggest pet peeves.

I don't feel so good about this one. It's already legal for a bicyclist to take an entire lane; the bicyclist has a lot of discretion in determining when he/she allows a vehicle to pass. Yahoos in SUVs can get irate, but if you're not prepared to deal with that reality, it may not be reasonable to bike on every road. Changing the law will not magically educate the yahoos.

It's definitely a good thing to make it explicitly legal for a motorist to cross the median in order to pass a bicycle.

The article would be much more helpful if it said what kind of recourse the victim WAS able to get. He got hit, so presumably he has more legal ammo than saying "the truck was within 3 feet of me."

If the 3-foot cushion were limited to, say, highways with a speed limit of 40 MPH or more, that would make a whole lot more sense to me.

This can in no way be compared to making dog leashes optional.

This is a law that would protect cyclists. Over the past year we've had numerous cyclists hit by motorists, several of which have died.

This is about giving protection to those who share the road with us-- people who don't have all the steel, air bags, etc. to protect them. If they get hit by a vehicle, it's a very serious injury if not death.

This is definitely something the state legislature should be considering. Yes, there are plenty of important things that need to be taken care of. Many of those are going to take weeks and weeks of discussions, debate, etc.

That doesn't mean that everything else, including something as important as this, must fall to the side.

I'm not even a bike rider and I see the importance of this bill.

Well, for one thing it does make it easier to ticket and prosecute people if there was this law.

Second, you wouldn't see people getting off with a slap on the hand for hurting or killing cyclists the way they do now.

Just because people don't follow traffic laws isn't a reason for not updating them.

I think we need to do a thousand times better in catching and going after those who break traffic laws. I know it's something many disagree with me on. I really think we need to update and strengthen our traffic laws and then do our best to enforce them.

Jim, I agree with you. Bicyclists should obey the law.

But, that's no reason to avoid improving our safety laws.

That'd be kinda like saying, sorry, we're not going to improve the highways until you people start wearing your seatbelts.

I know there's all kinds of hatred out there for the small minority of asshole bicyclists, but don't let that cloud your judgment and wish death upon all bicyclists.

The only reason some of you are calling this a "fluff bill" and the like is because you don't ride a bike. It's hard to fully understand the little frustrations of operating a bicycle within an infrastructure fully designed for automobiles until you experience it yourself.

So get on a bike! It's easy, it's fun, it will make you less fat.

There are a lot of us, and more every year. Join us.

I think a law like this has a couple of purposes:

1) To provide a general guideline for drivers. No, no one is going to be out there with a tape measure, ticketing drivers for passing with only 2'9" of clearance. But conscientious drivers appreciate knowing what's expected of them. This law would establish a standard.

2) Establishing fault when there is a crash. Of course, it's little consolation in a fatal crash to know whose fault it was, but this law would create a general right that cyclists would have on the road, and when violating it leads to a wreck, the violator could be held accountable. How can that be such a bad idea?

As John notes, it's not a crime to hit a bicyclist. You may have committed a traffic violation by not giving safe distance, but it's not a criminal offense. That's actually related to a different piece of our legislative agenda (of failing to yield the right of way and seriously injuring or killing a ped, cyclist, motorcyclist, etc. becoming a misdemeanor).

Laws do many few things -- they are used to figure out penalties, to assign legal fault, etc. But they're also used to teach people and send messages. If we pass a law that talks about giving cyclists sufficient room (and we're still working with legislators to decide what the language should be), then we send a message that sharing the road is an important item -- and that driving too close to cyclists is a dangerous, sometimes fatal, act.

Will everyone obey laws? No. Will it solve all the traffic safety problems? No. Is it the single most important issue Oregonians face? No, but neither are some two or three thousand other bills.

But it is important. Traffic crashes are the number-one killer of people ages 1 through 34. More Americans die due to crashes each month than died in the September 11 attacks. Until we're willing to invest what's needed to provide facilities providing the same quality of transportation choice to the 900,000 Oregonians who can't drive as we do for those who can, we can provide some legal protections to try to improve safety.

And there's no reason Oregon should be behind eight other states -- including places like Oklahoma -- in protecting cyclists with passing distance laws.

For the record, I have over 30,000 Portland bike commuting miles under my belt, and have ridden maybe 2000 miles in the countryside. And I tend to agree that this bill is a little fluffy.

As I said before: if there's any ambiguity that a driver should be allowed to cross the yellow stripe in order to allow safe distance when passing a bike, THAT should most definitely be corrected.

This stuff about 3-foot buffers seems like micromanagement from a body that shouldn't have a second to spare for micromanagement.

Bicycling skills and good enforcement of existing laws are the best way to deal with this, not more legislation.

Evan,

Thanks for the detailed info.

I saw the legislation on the BTA site about hitting "vulnerable persons." That sounds much more appropriate to me.

I'd be happy to see legislation that penalizes a driver for ANY physical contact between a motor vehicle and a bike, that is not EXPLICITLY initiated by the cyclist. Have that be more like a $2000 fine, and open the door to civil lawsuits.

But this buffer zone seems a little ridiculous. The fundamental principal should be, EXERCISE JUDGMENT when in the presence of bicycles. Saying that a 3-foot buffer is sufficient is often not true, but will give drivers the opportunity to think they're doing fine cruising by at 80 MPH when a biker is going uphill at 10 MPH. Not true.

On the flip side, in tight traffic with a skilled biker, 6 inches is neither uncommon nor uncomfortable.

Any legislation needs to make it clear that the driver has to develop and exercise good judgment. Legislating judgment is doomed to failure.

Just so we're clear: this supplements, does not replace, the requirement to give a safe passing distance.

As the case of Jane Higdon demonstrated, three feet is at times not sufficient, with high-speed trucks on narrow roads.

And part of what the BTA is doing is not just thinking about what works for a skilled rider, but what works for the beginning cyclist who doesn't ride in an arrow-straight line, especially when dealing with potholes, wind gusts, etc.

Three feet was a compromise we came up with after several months -- balancing the need for a quickly understandable base standard with the need to get everything right.

As with many traffic rules, it's hard to make one guideline to best fit all circumstances (from semi trucks to bikes, rural Oregon to downtown Portland streets)... but that doesn't mean we can't try to strike reasonable balances.

We're still working on the details of the bill, so suggestions are appreciated.

And another point of clarification: rear lights are not required by law for bikes. Rear reflectors, and front lights, are. Come to a BTA legal clinic and learn it all!

I don't fault bicycle advocacy groups and legislators for trying to come together and create something to enhance traffic safety. State traffic laws aren't simply "fluff"; they are there for the greater good of public safety. It's the job of the legislator to address issues and concerns of public safety, and with ever-increasing bicycle traffic, new laws should be considered in order to address potential, new, or growing problems.

That being said, this law may be a hound barking up the wrong tree. Most bicycle accidents occur because the bicyclists aren't seen, not because drivers are trying to decorate their cars with them. I've ridden motorcycles since the late 70's and the mantra of every rider is this: If they're bigger than you, they won't see you.

On a motorcycle, you make a point of scanning every intersecting driveway, as well as the cross streets. When traffic converges, you create separation. You roll with the assumption that you're invisible unless another driver acknowledges you. Motorists aren't evil - it's simply human nature (supported by psychological studies) that points drivers' focus toward the big rollers and not the little guys.

On a bicycle, you're even less visible: you generally don't keep up with traffic, and if you get in a fix, you don't have the option of goosin' the throttle to zip out of the way. Complicate this with those bad bicyclists riding the wrong way on streets, running stop signs, and flying off sidewalks into intersections, and the car driver is in a no-win situation.

Further complicate the visibility problem with passing "bicycle friendly" laws like allowing a bicyclist to pass a car on the RIGHT, and it's only dumb luck - not legalities- that prevents a rash of urban accidents.

(Picture driving your car and attempting to lawfully execute a right hand turn in downtown PDX. Traffic is heavy, and your watching pedestrians crossing from all angles, as well as that one pedestrian circling near the Intersection on his cell phone. He's gonna cross, but you haven't figured out which way yet. Behind you is a Dodge 2500 Ram. Nice truck, and the driver seems pretty patient, but his rig is filling up your mirrors. Do you see that bicyclist approaching from 20 yards -15- -10- yards back? ...Only because I told you to watch out for him. You had only a moment to see him in your mirror, and you probably had to check it at the right time.)

It's impossible to legislate commom sense, and I don't expect bicyclists to adorn themselves with the unused Xmas tree lights. But a problem needs to be properly described before it is addressed. Visibility issues present the larger problem, and while there are low-lifes that play chicken with the pedalling public, there are other, serious motor vehicle laws that address their behavior.

The approach to this public safety issue needs to be comprehensive, circumspective, and realistic.

I apologize for being so long winded... but I'm convinced we don't need laws that simply lull the bicyclist into a false sense of security.

There are TONS AND TONS of laws that people could care less about, and in fact they just piss people off the few times they get enforced. I have had speeding tickets before, but it has NEVER slowed me down.

That's exactly why we not only need to update our traffic laws, but enforce them more heavily.

Right now, what are your chance of getting caught if you're flying doen I-84 in a 55 mph zone and you're going 70 (which I can tell you is much slower than most are going)? 10% or less, I'd think.

Now if you knew there was a 75% chance of getting caught, getting a huge ticket, seeing your insurance go way up, etc. would you still do it?

I think we've allowed people to break the traffic laws for so long that they don't matter to anyone.

The problem with the laws between motor vehicles and bicyclists is right now there is almost no penalty for hitting and injuring/killing a bicyclist. That has to change.

Sure, I see bicyclists every day breaking the law. They're riding on the sidewalk when there are nice wide, clean bike lanes. They use the cross walk as opposed to going with traffic. They ride against traffic. They fly past me on the right when I'm in a right-turn only lane. But does that mean bicyclists in general don't deserve protection?

These excuses about bicyclists needing to follow the law or that people won't follow the rules are just that-- excuses. And if we let excuses like that stop change and progress, then we're all screwed.

And it's not like the legislature is screeching to a halt just for this bill. They're working on a lot of really important stuff. Some of which will likely take a while before it's on the floor for a vote. But that doesn't mean smaller bills should have to sit and wait in the meantime.

"The problem with the laws between motor vehicles and bicyclists is right now there is almost no penalty for hitting and injuring/killing a bicyclist. That has to change."

No, a driver can be charged and convicted of vehicular homicide if his/her actions as a driver were unlawful and contributed to the death of a bicylist. If injured, the same laws apply to the victim rider as would apply to an injured victim truck driver. The bicyclist is considered another motorist on the road; laws exist to protect ALL motorists.

When convicted, the criminal justice system allows a range of approriate sentencing to be applied to the guilty. The court has significant descretion in applying the penalty. The punishment will generally reflect what occurred on the road. If someone dies, regardless if they're behind the wheel or astride it, the penalty for the convicted will be more severe.

"These excuses about bicyclists needing to follow the law or that people won't follow the rules are just that-- excuses. And if we let excuses like that stop change and progress, then we're all screwed."

No again: following the law is hardly an "excuse". Traffic laws exist so that all motorists have the same game plan. When a driver or cyclist deviates from that game plan, it creates a dangerous situation. Obviously, this is more critcal in the dense congestion of urban areas. I, and most other motorists, couldn't give a whit if a bicyclist is cruising along on a vacant suburban road and does a "California" at the stop sign.

But if a bicyclist illegally flys through a downtown intersection and plows into another motorist, the bicyclist needs to be held accountable. Even if the bicyclist gets himself killed in this spot, it is not the car driver's fault and he/she should suffer no penalty.

Now, if you infer that I'm anti-bicycle, you're incorrect. I'd speculate that the percentage of "jerk" cyclists is probably about the same as the percentage of "jerk" auto drivers, maybe less. But the societal norm - pretty much everywhere - is that bicyclist gets away with breaking the law. Why? Because a cop in a car can't catch 'em. For the most part, this works out OK. Most bicyclists have the sense to look for traffic before they blast through the stop sign. But when the "jerk" bicylist pushes the societal norm to the limit, he can turn himself into a hood ornament.

So how do we maintain a safe traffic way for all motorists, especially the vulnerable bicyclist? We examine why and where accidents and near-misses occur. We logically evaluate the causes and specifcally address them. Visibility issues would direct our attention to prescribing visual devices for the bicyclists themselves.

We develop public education campaigns designed to make driver's generally more aware of bicycle traffic. We identify "hot spots" in which we use enhanced signage and "sting" law enforcement that tickets both auto drivers and bicyclists who disobey traffic laws.

Wherever possible, we create bikeways and pathways that separate the bicyclist from the motorized traffic, and evaluate whether some roadways should be off limits to the bicyclist. Freeways are already in this category. Perhaps identified dangerous roadways should be examined for this possibility. (Relax, bicyclists, I'm just throwing it out for consideration).

Finally, while the intent of a number of bicycle safety laws is honorable, we need to examine their real effect - or what their effect could be. Generally speaking, laws that allow the bicyclist to operate her bike beyond the scope of existing traffic law (for example, the It's-ok-if-you-run-the-stop-sign law) do not serve to protect the cyclist. If laws are to work, they need to be consistant for all motorists. The acknowledgement of reality is necessary, but changing law to reflect that reality is not a proper solution. Creating legal inconsistancies simply leads the bicylist into a more dangerous situation, and presents a confusing guideline for all motorists.

Again, the solutions to safety concerns need to be circumspective and comprehensive. Some are spendy; some could be enacted presently, but the entire motoring public need to leave their prejudices behind and evaluate specific cause and effect.

"The problem with the laws between motor vehicles and bicyclists is right now there is almost no penalty for hitting and injuring/killing a bicyclist. That has to change."

No, a driver can be charged and convicted of vehicular homicide if his/her actions as a driver were unlawful and contributed to the death of a bicyclist... The punishment will generally reflect what occurred on the road. If someone dies, regardless if they're behind the wheel or astride it, the penalty for the convicted will be more severe.

KC,

In my experience, this is simply not what's happening out there.

Unless a driver is drunk, hasn't slept for four days, is going 40 miles over the speed limit, etc. the DAs and police aren't willing to make a significant charge. When drivers are sleepy, speeding, and veer four feet onto a shoulder killing people who are riding legally and visibly with all safety equipment, the DAs are saying that it'd be hard to prove criminal negligence, so they only charge with traffic violations that are a couple hundred dollars.

That's why we need to create a space that's between the "criminal negligence" super-high bar and the traffic violation standards. Which is what our vulnerable roadway users bill does.

Evan M:

In light of your last comment, I agree that something must be done - it is dead wrong that motorists who injure or kill cyclists are not punished severely.

But I still object to the 3-foot rule. In general, I don't like laws that invite selective enforcement. And while I support the BTA's desire to make all roads safe for all cyclists, as a citizen, I don't understand why that goal should be pursued in blanket form. I advise my beginning-cyclist friends to avoid streets like Division or Powell, or highways like 224 to Estacada; passing laws that encourage the opposite still seems like bad policy.

I like the vulnerable pedestrian component. I think that hitting a legally-lit bicycle could be said to DEFINE negligence - and should be a legal basis to prove that. But buffer zones that are sure to be loosely-enforced…I don't see the benefit.

Evan wrote:

"Unless a driver is drunk, hasn't slept for four days, is going 40 miles over the speed limit, etc. the DAs and police aren't willing to make a significant charge. When drivers are sleepy, speeding, and veer four feet onto a shoulder killing people who are riding legally and visibly with all safety equipment, the DAs are saying that it'd be hard to prove criminal negligence, so they only charge with traffic violations that are a couple hundred dollars.

"That's why we need to create a space that's between the "criminal negligence" super-high bar and the traffic violation standards. Which is what our vulnerable roadway users bill does."

I certainly understand the frustration when someone who's caused the death of another has gotten off with little more than a wrist slap. But this apparent lack of justice isn't limited to victim bicyclists. Just last summer, a Gresham police officer, operating his cruiser in an illegal manner, killed a man in a mini-van. No charges were filed. This too displays a profound lack of justice.

Conversely, last week when a bicyclist was struck and mortally injured on SE Stark, the driver of the striking vehicle was charged with assult. When the cyclist died in the hospital, news reports indicated that more severe charges would be filed.

Ultimately, the penalties assigned in any case are dependent on multiple variables of the case itself; the thoroughness of the investigation: the resources, skill and dedication of the prosecutor; and the evaluation made by the judge or jury.

Unfortunatly, the DA's are right about difficulty of proving negligence in bicycle accidents. When 2 motor vehicle collide, a clear point of impact can be determined, and fault can often be determined without witness statements. With a bicycle/car accident, the POI is usually not so clear. Without witness cooboration, an investigator may be unable to determine if the car moved too far to the right, or the bicyclist moved suddenly to the left. The prosecutor is left with a weak case, and even a "safety zone" law won't change this.

Sadly, no law in the world will protect the bicyclist - or even the pedestrian - from the driver that falls asleep and kills a rider. No law, however forcefully applied to this guilty driver, will prevent the next sleepy driver from potentially taking the life of another bicyclist.

Simply put, this law won't address the causes of these fatal accidents.