BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 910
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 27, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
SB 910 (Lowenthal) - As Amended: June 22, 2011
SENATE VOTE : 27-9
SUBJECT : Vehicles: bicycles: passing distance
SUMMARY : Sets requirements for safe passing of bicyclists by
motor vehicles and establishes fines and penalties for failure
to abide by these requirements. Specifically, this bill :
1)On a substandard width lane, authorizes a driver to drive on
the left side of double parallel solid lines or double
parallel lines, one of which is broken, to pass a bicyclist or
pedicab traveling in the same direction.
2)Defines a "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.
3)Requires the driver of a motor vehicle, passing a bicycle
traveling in the same direction, to pass at a safe distance
with reasonable consideration of the size and speed of the
motor vehicle and roadway conditions.
4)Prohibits a driver of a motor vehicle from overtaking or
passing a bicycle, proceeding in the same direction, at a
distance of less than three feet.
5)When it is not possible to provide 3 feet of clearance,
authorizes a motor vehicle to pass a bicycle with less than
three feet of clearance provided that the vehicle's passing
speed is not greater than 15 miles per hour (mph).
6)Establishes a base fine of $35 for failing to provide a
distance of three feet between the motor vehicle and the
bicyclist.
7)Establishes a fine of $220 if a collision occurs between the
vehicle and bicyclist if the bicyclist suffers bodily injury
and the motor vehicle driver is found at fault for failing to
provide the 3-foot passing distance or speed reduction, as
SB 910
Page 2
specified.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires a driver to pass to the left of a vehicle or bicycle
at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation
of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle.
2)Establishes a base fine of $35 for failing to pass to the left
of a vehicle or bicycle at a safe distance without interfering
with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle.
3)Establishes a base fine of $35 for driving on the left side of
the center of the roadway in overtaking and passing another
vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless the left side
is clearly visible and free of oncoming traffic for a
sufficient distance to complete the passing maneuver.
4)Prohibits driving to the left of double parallel solid lines
unless one of the lines is broken and a driver to the right of
the broken line is completing a passing maneuver, when turning
left at any intersection or into or out of a driveway or
private rode, or making a U-turn under specified
circumstances.
5)Establishes a base fine of $70 for an improper turn over a
double yellow line.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS : In years past, streets were designed primarily for
the ease and movement of motor vehicles, with little regard of
other modes of transportation such as pedestrians and
bicyclists. In 2008, the Legislature passed the California
Complete Streets Act that, in part, required roadways to be
designed to safely accommodate all users, including bicyclists,
pedestrians, transit riders, children, older people, and
disabled people, as well as motorists.
By introducing this legislation, the author intends to make
streets safer and more user-friendly for bicyclists by removing
ambiguity in current law regarding a motor vehicle's
responsibility when passing a bicycle. The author notes
bicyclists often face dangerous conditions on California's
streets and roads due to motorists passing too closely. When
SB 910
Page 3
this happens, even the slightest movement by the motorist or
bicyclist can result in accidents wherein the bicyclist often
suffers catastrophic injuries or death.
To reduce accidents that result from motor vehicles passing
bicyclists too closely, this bill would require motorists to
pass bicyclists with 3 feet or more of space between the vehicle
and the bicyclist. Motorists would be authorized to pass with
less than 3 feet of clearance as long as the motorist slows to a
speed of 15 mph while completing the passing maneuver.
According to the author, 17 states now have a three-foot bicycle
passing law including Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,
Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee,
Utah, and Wisconsin.
Writing in support of this bill, the co-sponsor, the Office of
City of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, notes that the
bill would increase roadway safety, bring clarity to existing
law, and make bicyclists feel safer. By accomplishing this, the
bill would make the City of Los Angeles a safer place to ride a
bicycle. Also arguing in support of the bill, Better Bike
Beverly Hills notes that improving bicyclist safety would help
to get people out of their cars and onto bikes which would be
good for the environment and people's health.
Also writing in support, the California Bicycle Coalition (CBC),
a co-sponsor of this bill, states that current law is ambiguous
regarding safe passing distance and, therefore, a disservice to
law enforcement and motor vehicles alike. It is the CBC's
contention that this bill will help to promote safe cycling and
provide motorists, law enforcement, and the courts a more easily
understood measure of what constitutes a "safe" passing
distance.
This bill poses a number of policy questions including whether
or not existing law, which allows a driver to use his or her
judgment in executing a safe passing maneuver, is sufficient or
whether specific parameters relative to passing of bicyclists
should be codified; whether or not existing and proposed passing
laws can be adequately enforced; and whether or not establishing
set parameters for passing maneuvers will ultimately improve or
diminish bicycle safety.
SB 910
Page 4
A 3-foot passing distance, as well as a prescribed passing
speed, could be difficult to enforce. To enforce the passing
distance, a law enforcement officer would need to be in a
position to be able to accurately judge the space between the
vehicle and the bicyclist. Judging this distance could require
an appropriate vantage point, taking into account movement of
both the vehicle and bicyclist in a live traffic situation. It
could be reasoned that the need for this bill would be
diminished if existing laws, that do not rely on specific
passing distances and speed but rather on officer's judgment of
relative safety, were enforced with greater frequency.
Logic dictates that if a driver is passing a bicyclist at a high
rate of speed, more distance should be provided between the
vehicle and the bicyclist. It also stands to reason that if a
driver is unable to provide a suitable distance, they should
slow down while completing the passing maneuver. This bill,
however, sets a maximum speed (15 mph) at which the driver may
pass. It could be argued that if a vehicle is passing a
bicyclist with under three feet of clearance, they would
naturally reduce their speed; however, it is also possible that
a sudden drop in speed to a required speed of 15 mph could
increase the likelihood for rear end collisions or swerving that
could further endanger the bicyclist and other roadway users.
This view is shared by the Automobile Club of Southern
California and California State Automobile Association (Auto
Clubs). Writing in opposition to this bill, the Auto Clubs note
that the requirement that motor vehicles slow to 15 mph or less
when passing a bicyclist could cause vehicles to brake suddenly
resulting in accidents that could endanger the bicyclist as well
as pedestrians. Also arguing in opposition, the California
Teamsters Public Affairs Council argue that the bill is a one
size fits all approach that fails to consider differing
circumstances and road conditions, particularly the difficulties
of commercial drivers will have in many circumstances meeting
the requirements set forth in this bill.
Recent legislation : AB 60 (Nava) of 2008, would have required
drivers to pass bicyclists with a minimum clearance of 3 feet, a
violation of which would have been an infraction punishable by a
$250 fine. In addition, AB 60 would have made it a misdemeanor
or felony if the person operating the motor vehicle in violation
of the above requirement caused great bodily harm to the bicycle
SB 910
Page 5
operator. That bill died in the Assembly Transportation
Committee.
AB 1941 (Nava) of 2006, would have prohibited a vehicle from
driving in a designated two-way left-turn lane, for purposes of
overtaking and passing a bicycle or merging into adjacent lanes
of travel. In addition, AB 1941 would have required motor
vehicle drivers to leave a minimum three foot clearance when
passing a bicyclist with violations assessed with base fine of
$250. In addition, AB 1941 would have made it a felony or a
misdemeanor, upon conviction, for a person driving a motor
vehicle to cause great bodily injury or death to the bicyclist.
That bill failed passage in the Assembly Transportation
Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Mayor of Los Angeles (Sponsor)
Agnew Brusavich Injury Lawyers
Better Bike Beverly Hills
California Bicycle Coalition (Sponsor)
Channel Islands Bicycle Club
Office of the District Attorney, Humboldt County
Rails-to-Rails Conservancy
Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates
San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
185 Individuals
Opposition
AAA Northern California
Automobile Club of Southern California
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Analysis Prepared by : Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-
2093
SB 910
Page 6