Hi Kasey,
Here are some suggested bullet points for the 4-foot passing law.
The 4-foot passing requirement: creates an easily visualized distance for police to enforce and for motorists to employ when passing bicyclists; increases awareness that bicyclists are legitimate road users; establishes a bicyclist's right to space and improves interactions with motorists (previously, motorists may have been unsure of the minimum distance required to safely pass a bicyclist); can lead to an increase in the number and types of bicyclists within the community; may help support implementation of Complete Streets policies; is consistent with 3 or 4-foot passing requirements in adjoining states, PA, MD and TN. (Note: I don't know whether OH, VA, KY, NC have considered 3 or 4-foot passing requirements).
In the past 10 years, there has been a strong trend among states to enact laws that require a motorist to allow a definite minimum distance, usually 3-feet when passing a bicycle. The graph on p. 10 of WV Connecting Communities Legislative Agenda: Proposed Bicycle Legislation Changes indicates that there is tremendous momentum for 3 or 4-foot passing laws.
Concerning your question about law enforcement needing a law on the books when a cyclist is hit, 17C-7-3 already says, "The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall give an audible signal and pass to the left thereof at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle." but here it gets sticky because according to 17C-1-2, a bicycle is not a vehicle however, according to 17C-11-2, a bicyclist shall be granted the same rights as applicable to the driver of a vehicle.
As I said several times before, I added the 4-foot law to the legislative agenda because the WVCF favored a 3-foot law when we talked several years ago after the first annual WV cycling symposium (and PA has passed a 4-foot law since). At that time, I argued that 17C-7-3 already gave police the law that they needed to cite motorists that pass bicyclists too closely. I also argued that the safe passing distance increases with the difference in speed between the motor vehicle and the bicycle. 3-feet is not enough when the motor vehicle is traveling more than 25-mph faster than the bicyclist; especially when the motor vehicle is a coal truck. Nevertheless, the nation is going with 3 or 4-foot passing rules and that's probably the strongest argument for WV having one too.
Frank
On Mar 25, 2013, at 12:55 PM, Kasey Russell wrote:
Frank -- I am adding bullet points for not having mandatory side paths and adding the 3/4 foot passing requirement. I am referencing the number of states for precedence but do you have a couple of talking points in favor of a 3 or 4 foot passing rule? Like, law enforcement needs a law on the books when a cyclist is hit or this gives us more visibility for driving safely around cyclists? Thanks for your help! Kasey
Frank, that is perfect. Thank you. Kasey
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Frank Gmeindl fgmeindl@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kasey,
Here are some suggested bullet points for the 4-foot passing law.
The 4-foot passing requirement: creates an easily visualized distance for police to enforce and for motorists to employ when passing bicyclists; increases awareness that bicyclists are legitimate road users; establishes a bicyclist's right to space and improves interactions with motorists (previously, motorists may have been unsure of the minimum distance required to safely pass a bicyclist); can lead to an increase in the number and types of bicyclists within the community; may help support implementation of Complete Streets policies; is consistent with 3 or 4-foot passing requirements in adjoining states, PA, MD and TN. (Note: I don't know whether OH, VA, KY, NC have considered 3 or 4-foot passing requirements).
In the past 10 years, there has been a strong trend among states to enact laws that require a motorist to allow a definite minimum distance, usually 3-feet when passing a bicycle. The graph on p. 10 of WV Connecting Communities Legislative Agenda: Proposed Bicycle Legislation Changes indicates that there is tremendous momentum for 3 or 4-foot passing laws.
Concerning your question about law enforcement needing a law on the books when a cyclist is hit, 17C-7-3 already says, "The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall give an audible signal and pass to the left thereof at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle." but here it gets sticky because according to 17C-1-2, a bicycle is not a vehicle however, according to 17C-11-2, a bicyclist shall be granted the same rights as applicable to the driver of a vehicle.
As I said several times before, I added the 4-foot law to the legislative agenda because the WVCF favored a 3-foot law when we talked several years ago after the first annual WV cycling symposium (and PA has passed a 4-foot law since). At that time, I argued that 17C-7-3 already gave police the law that they needed to cite motorists that pass bicyclists too closely. I also argued that the safe passing distance increases with the difference in speed between the motor vehicle and the bicycle. 3-feet is not enough when the motor vehicle is traveling more than 25-mph faster than the bicyclist; especially when the motor vehicle is a coal truck. Nevertheless, the nation is going with 3 or 4-foot passing rules and that's probably the strongest argument for WV having one too.
Frank
On Mar 25, 2013, at 12:55 PM, Kasey Russell wrote:
Frank -- I am adding bullet points for not having mandatory side paths and adding the 3/4 foot passing requirement. I am referencing the number of states for precedence but do you have a couple of talking points in favor of a 3 or 4 foot passing rule? Like, law enforcement needs a law on the books when a cyclist is hit or this gives us more visibility for driving safely around cyclists? Thanks for your help! Kasey