Three-Foot Rule Prosecution

Quoted message said:

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695263908,00.html

(Link will work for about a week.)

I have a new hero.

Bill

__o   |  Roads aren't for cars.  They're for people.
 _`\(,_  |
(_)/ (_) |

FWIW, Wisconsin has for many years had a statute requiring autos
passing a bicycle to leave 3 feet of clearance while doing so.
Section 346.075, Wis. Stats. I'm not aware of any tickets being
issued under it.

Ron Wallenfang said:

FWIW, Wisconsin has for many years had a statute requiring autos
passing a bicycle to leave 3 feet of clearance while doing so.
Section 346.075, Wis. Stats. I'm not aware of any tickets being
issued under it.

That's what makes this story interesting: an actual citation under the
3-foot law. Assuming there's a conviction (and in our local "justice
courts" the conviction rate is around 99%) and publicity, maybe it'll get
through a few thick cager skulls that the law is supposed to be obeyed.

Bill, who was "two-footed" by a couple of cars today.

__o | I used to think that I was cool, running around on fossil fuel
_`\(,_ | Until I saw what I was doing was driving down the road to ruin.
(_)/ (_) | - James Taylor

Quoted message said:

Ron Wallenfang said:

FWIW, Wisconsin has for many years had a statute requiring autos
passing a bicycle to leave 3 feet of clearance while doing so.
Section 346.075, Wis. Stats.  I'm not aware of any tickets being
issued under it.

That's what makes this story interesting:  an actual citation under the
3-foot law.  Assuming there's a conviction (and in our local "justice
courts" the conviction rate is around 99%) and publicity, maybe it'll get
through a few thick cager skulls that the law is supposed to be obeyed.

Bill, who was "two-footed" by a couple of cars today.

__o   | I used to think that I was cool, running around on fossilfuel
 _`\(,_  | Until I saw what I was doing was driving down the road to ruin.
(_)/ (_) |                                           - James Taylor

As a matter of curiosity........group........what do other states do
about this?

Ron Wallenfang said:

As a matter of curiosity........group........what do other states do
about this?

Illinois just enacted its 3-foot law January 1st, so I don't think it's been
tested yet.

--

Kristian Zoerhoff
[email hidden]

As a matter of curiosity........group........what do other states do
about this?

There was a law in the works in Texas last term, but it was bottled up and
never got out of committee for a vote.

How does one prove 2'11" vs 3'?????? These laws are foolish and
really can only be used if a vehicle or mirror hits a cyclist.

Pat said:

As a matter of curiosity........group........what do other states do
about this?

There was a law in the works in Texas last term, but it was bottled up and
never got out of committee for a vote.

Quoted message said:

How does one prove 2'11" vs 3'?????? These laws are foolish and
really can only be used if a vehicle or mirror hits a cyclist.

Or in this case, a hand.

\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

Kristian M Zoerhoff said:

Ron Wallenfang said:

As a matter of curiosity........group........what do other states do
about this?

Illinois just enacted its 3-foot law January 1st, so I don't think it's
been tested yet.

We have a 2' law in Virginia, which is asinine.

I don't think these laws are helpful. They're probably unenforceable
unless a police officer sees the violation, or it gets photographed.
They're not helpful from a motorist education standpoint either. I don't
want anyone getting the idea that it's OK to buzz me at 60 MPH, as long as
he doesn't technically violate the 3' limit, or worse, 2'.

If a police officer does see a motorist passing too close, the officer's
judgment of how close is too close is probably good enough in court, as it
is with tailgating, or speed for the road conditions (fog, ice,
etc.) A number isn't necessary. So what's the point?

Matt O.

Ron Wallenfang said:

As a matter of curiosity........group........what do other states do
about this?

Nuttin'.

Quoted message said:

If a police officer does see a motorist passing too close, the officer's
judgment of how close is too close is probably good enough in court, as it
is with tailgating, or speed for the road conditions (fog, ice,
etc.) A number isn't necessary. So what's the point?

Matt O.

The point is to educate the normal driver, not the ones intent upon
harassing someone. The point is to make normal drivers aware that there is a
danger to passing too close to a cyclist. The point is to let normal drivers
know that their outside mirrors or their practice of swooping back into the
lane in front of the cyclist is dangerous. You are looking at the trees and
missing the entire forest.

Pat in TX

Pat said:

Quoted message said:

If a police officer does see a motorist passing too close, the officer's
judgment of how close is too close is probably good enough in court, as it
is with tailgating, or speed for the road conditions (fog, ice,
etc.)  A number isn't necessary.  So what's the point?

Quoted message said:

Matt O.

The point is to educate the normal driver, not the ones intent upon
harassing someone. The point is to make normal drivers aware that there isa
danger to passing too close to a cyclist. The point is to let normal drivers
know that their outside mirrors or their practice of swooping back into the
lane in front of the cyclist is dangerous.  You are looking at the treesand
missing the entire forest.

Pat in TX

FWIW, Wis. DOT's Motorist's Handbook states at p. 42:

"Bicycles are vehicles and are ENTITLED TO A FULL TRAFFIC LANE. Give
a bicycle at least THREE FEET OF ROOM when you pass". (capitalized
words are in bold print in original)

Not that everyone reads thigs things diligently, let alone follows
them.

bigjimpack said:

How does one prove 2'11" vs 3'?????? These laws are foolish and really
can only be used if a vehicle or mirror hits a cyclist.

I agree.

I can't tell you how close too close is out of context of the situation,
but I know it when I see it, and most police officers would too.

We'd be better off with no limit than the ridiculous 2' we have in Virginia.

Matt O.

Ron Wallenfang said:

Pat said:

Quoted message said:

If a police officer does see a motorist passing too close, the officer's
judgment of how close is too close is probably good enough in court, as it
is with tailgating, or speed for the road conditions (fog, ice,
etc.) A number isn't necessary. So what's the point?
Matt O.

The point is to educate the normal driver, not the ones intent upon
harassing someone. The point is to make normal drivers aware that there is a
danger to passing too close to a cyclist. The point is to let normal drivers
know that their outside mirrors or their practice of swooping back into the
lane in front of the cyclist is dangerous. You are looking at the trees and
missing the entire forest.

Pat in TX

FWIW, Wis. DOT's Motorist's Handbook states at p. 42:

"Bicycles are vehicles and are ENTITLED TO A FULL TRAFFIC LANE. Give
a bicycle at least THREE FEET OF ROOM when you pass". (capitalized
words are in bold print in original)

Not that everyone reads thigs things diligently, let alone follows
them.

If one moves to Wisconsin from another state and has a currently valid
driver's license, there is no written test required to obtain a
Wisconsin driver's license. (Been there, done that).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

"Ron Wallenfang" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

As a matter of curiosity........group........what do other states do
about this?

Washington State. Our local club had a confusing (I think) three feet
campaign: http://www.cbcef.org/give3feet/

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky