BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: sb 910 SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: lowenthal VERSION: 4/26/11 Analysis by: Jennifer Gress FISCAL: yes Hearing date: May 3, 2011 SUBJECT: Vehicles: bicycles: passing distance DESCRIPTION: This bill requires the driver of a motor vehicle passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction to pass on the left and provide a minimum clearance of three feet or drive at a speed not exceeding 15 miles per hour (mph) faster than the speed of the bicycle. It also establishes a fine of $220 for a violation of this provision and allows a driver to drive on the left side of double parallel solid lines if driving on a substandard width lane and passing a person riding a bicycle or operating a pedicab in the same direction. ANALYSIS: A person riding a bicycle or operating a pedicab has all of the rights and is subject to all of the laws applicable to the driver of a motor vehicle, except for those laws that by their very nature can have no application. A person riding a bicycle at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction shall ride "as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway" except under certain circumstances, including when passing another bicycle, when preparing to turn left at an intersection or driveway, or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. When passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction, the driver of a vehicle shall pass to the left "at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the vehicle or bicycle." On a two-lane highway, no vehicle shall be driven to the left of the center of the roadway in passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless the left side is clearly SB 910 (LOWENTHAL) Page 2 visible and free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance. If double parallel solid lines are in place, a person driving a vehicle shall not drive to the left of those lines unless the driver is making a legal U-turn, turning left at an intersection or into or out of a driveway, or if signs have otherwise been erected to permit it. This bill requires the driver of a motor vehicle passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction to pass on the left and provide a minimum clearance of three feet or drive at a speed not exceeding 15 miles per hour (mph) faster than the speed of the bicycle. This bill also establishes a fine of $220 for failure to provide the minimum three-feet clearance or passing at a speed exceeding 15 mph faster than the speed of the bicycle. This bill also allows the driver of a motor vehicle to drive on the left side of double parallel solid lines if driving on a substandard width lane and passing a person riding a bicycle or operating a pedicab in the same direction. COMMENTS: 1.Purpose . The author states that current law requiring a motorist to "pass to the left at a safe distance" when passing a cyclist is vague and that this bill addresses that deficiency by defining safe distance as three feet. As a co-sponsor of this measure, the Mayor of Los Angeles states that the City of Los Angeles has recently adopted a new citywide bicycle plan with the goals of increasing the number and types of bicyclists in Los Angeles, making every street a safe place to ride a bicycle, and making the City of Los Angeles a bicycle-friendly community. For the plan to meet these goals, it is important that bicyclists feel safe while riding. The Mayor explains that "unfortunately, law-abiding people riding bicycles are still subject to harassment by aggressive drivers; this harassment includes driving too close to and cutting in front of bicyclists." While the City of Los Angeles has undertaken steps to address this situation, statewide legislation is needed to provide a clear three-foot buffer zone for cyclists. The California Bicycle Coalition is co-sponsoring this measure "to promote safety in cycling and to provide law enforcement with the structure necessary to evaluate potential passing SB 910 (LOWENTHAL) Page 3 violations." The sponsor further explains that a "specified passing distance provides a more objective and easily understood measure of what constitutes "safe" and gives law enforcement and the courts a more objective basis for enforcing California's safe passing requirement." 2.Enforceability . This bill requires both a driver and a law enforcement officer to judge the distance between the overtaking vehicle and a bicyclist as the driver of the vehicle passes, yet there is no practical way to measure three feet from afar when two objects are moving. How can either be sure that the driver is not 3 feet, 3 inches away rather than 2 feet, 9 inches? What if a bicyclist inadvertently moves slightly toward the vehicle by a few inches or intentionally swerves toward it to avoid other hazards in the road, such as debris or a car door opening? Enforcing the three-foot buffer may prove challenging given the difficulties involved in measuring three feet. 3.Is three feet always "safe ?" By defining safe distance as three feet, this bill presupposes that three feet is always a safe distance. There may be instances, however, when three feet of clearance is inadequate and a driver should provide greater clearance to ensure a safe distance when passing. Examples include when a driver can see debris in the roadway that could conceivably cause a cyclist to veer or when there is a high turnover of vehicles parked along the side of the road. Safe passing is not solely determined by those conditions present at the moment a driver decides to pass, but those the driver anticipates could occur when he or she is actually passing. 4.15 mph . Each roadway presents a unique set of characteristics and conditions that affect safe passing and that may limit the ability of a driver to provide three feet of clearance. This bill acknowledges that by giving drivers the option not to provide three feet of clearance and instead to slow down to within 15 mph of the speed of the bicyclist. This provision raises several questions and concerns. First, it requires the driver to engage in mental acrobatics trying to determine the distance between the vehicle and the bicyclist and then, if three feet seems infeasible for whatever reason, to calculate the speed of the bicyclist and adjust his or her own speed accordingly. The auto clubs describe this cognitive process and its potential dangers in SB 910 (LOWENTHAL) Page 4 their letter of opposition, which reads in part: It requires the driver to estimate the speed of the bicycle and then calculate the difference between the speed it is traveling and the speed the bicycle is traveling, and then adjust the speed at which his/her vehicle should be traveling to assure it is not going 15 mph faster than the bicycle. Drivers currently are not required to estimate the speed of other moving objects around them, and to precisely calculate their speed in relation to that moving object. To do so devotes a lot of thought and attention to accomplishing the calculations and less attention and time to observing driving conditions and reacting to sudden changes. Second, allowing drivers to pass within three feet of a bicycle because they are driving within 15 mph of the speed of a bicyclist provides an unclear standard for drivers. The question this bill poses is, under what circumstances is it safe to pass a bicyclist? Allowing passing within the buffer this bill creates, but at a different speed, confuses this standard. Third, it is unclear whether passing when the driver is traveling within 15 mph of the speed of the bicyclist enhances the safety of bicyclists. Current law provides that one may pass only when it is safe to do so. Therefore, in situations where it is unsafe to provide three feet of clearance, the safe alternative would be for the driver not to pass until he or she can. In short, 15 mph is a confusing standard that will be difficult for drivers to calculate and that contradicts the spirit of the bill to provide a safe buffer for bicyclists being passed by motor vehicles. For this reason, the committee may wish to consider an amendment to delete the 15 mph provision from the bill. 5.Crossing double solid lines . Double solid lines are put in place when traffic engineers determine that characteristics of the roadway make it unsafe to pass. Does allowing a vehicle to cross these lines create an unsafe driving situation? The author argues that a bicycle is moving much slower and requires less clearance than another motor vehicle and thus would not pose the same risk. Others argue that crossing double solid lines when passing a bicyclist is already a SB 910 (LOWENTHAL) Page 5 matter of practice for some motorists. 6.Appropriate penalty ? This bill establishes a base fine of $220 for a violation of its provisions. After assessments, surcharges, and fees are added, the total bail for a violation of the infraction this bill creates would total $959. The author chose this penalty amount because it is believed to be the same as for a vehicle failing to yield and causing bodily injury. The subject of this bill is safe passing. Establishing a penalty for unsafe passing, therefore, seems more appropriate. The base fine for unsafe passing under current law is $35, which, with assessments, surcharges, and fees equals a total bail of $233. The committee may wish to consider an amendment to change the penalty amount from $220 ($959 total bail) to $35 ($233 total bail) in order to make the penalty consistent with that for an unsafe passing violation. 7.Defining "substandard width lane ." This bill allows a driver to drive on the left of double parallel solid lines when the driver is on a "substandard width lane," but does not define what "substandard" is. A different code section excepting bicycles from the requirement to ride as close as is "practicable" to the curb or edge on the right side of the roadway defines "substandard width lane" as "a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane." For purposes of clarity, the author or committee may wish to consider an amendment to define "substandard width lane" using this same definition. 8.Passing on the left only ? This bill defines safe distance as three feet only when a motor vehicle passes a bicyclist on the left. There are instances, however, when a vehicle may lawfully pass a bicyclist on the right, such as when a bicyclist is turning left or when a bicyclist is riding in the far left lane on a one-way street. It is unclear why the three-foot buffer should not also apply when passing a bicyclist on the right. If it is only safe to pass on the left when providing clearance of three feet, it seems reasonable to require the same clearance when passing on the right. The committee may wish to consider an amendment to also require that vehicles provide three feet of clearance when passing a bicyclist on the right. 9.Other states . According to information provided by the California Bicycle Coalition, approximately 13 states have SB 910 (LOWENTHAL) Page 6 enacted a three-foot passing law. The first was Wisconsin in 1974. The majority of the others passed their laws in the last ten years. 10. Technical amendment . On page 3, line 4 of the bill, "drive" should be replaced by "driver." 11. Recent legislation . There have been two other recent attempts to establish a three-foot passing law: AB 60 (Nava) in 2007 and AB 1941 (Nava) in 2006. Both measures died in the Assembly Transportation Committee. POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on Wednesday, April 27, 2011) SUPPORT: Office of the Mayor, City of Los Angeles (co-sponsor) California Bicycle Coalition (co-sponsor) Amgen Cycling Club Channel Islands Bicycle Club Humboldt Bay Bicycle Commuters Association Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates Santa Cruz County Cycling Club Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition 47 individuals OPPOSED: AAA Northern California Automobile Club of Southern California