Three Feet to Pass Legislation is coming at the Idaho Legislature.

Here are some basic facts and points to make when discussing the issues it raises:

This is safety legislation.  It protects pedestrians and cyclists but also by establishing understandable rules, helps drivers avoid the misery of an injury incident.

Facts on THREE FEET TO PASS

1. The main purpose of the three-feett passing legislation is to educate the public about how far is a safe distance to pass vulnerable road user. Many motorists believe just avoiding contact with a vulnerable road user is all that is required. Most motorists are often unaware of the danger of passing somene else to close too closely. It can result in startling the person leading to a crash from reflexive action/fear.

2. A three-feet law has been enacted in at least 14 states (Arizona (2000), Arkansas (2007), Colorado, (2009), Connecticut (2008) Florida (2006), Illinois (2007), Louisiana (2009), Maine (2007), Minnesota (2004), New Hampshire (2008), Oklahoma (2006), Tennessee (2007), Utah (2006), Wisconsin (1973)). New Jersey has a statute passed by the assembly and now pending in the State Senate. Four other states recommend three feet in regulatory documents–Kentucky, Washington, Kansas, and Texas.

3. The law is used more as an education tool to provide safe practices than as an enforcement tool to punish law breakers. It gives officers, government officials, and civic groups the opportunity to inform drivers what a safe minimum distance is by use of a common measure (3 feet or one yard) that can be easily remembered.

4. No expectation exists that police will have to use some sort of special distance-measuring equipment to see if the motorist is within 36 inches. The point, instead, is to communicate that the motorist needs to pass safely, and 3 feet  better defines a “safe pass.” This benefits police officers by providing a simple standard they can explain.

5. Use of numeric distances to educate the public is not uncommon in traffic laws. For example in Idaho we have 49-634 (200 ft limitation on passing), 49-635 (no passing within 100 ft of an intersection)

6. One concern raised with any three feet law is that it may require a motorist to go over the center line to pass a vulnerable road user. However, crossing the center line to pass a cyclist, farm vehicle, pedestrian is commonly done now. In any event, to avoid any question on this point, the proposed three-feet law includes a provision to clarify that motorists may cross a center line to pass bicyclists or pedestrians in situations that are safe as is the case under 49-635(3) already.

Should the people who aren’t paying their “fair share” be run off the road? Otherwise the question seems irrelevant, like Clancy says. (And previously discussed ad nauseam, here on the Guardian and elsewhere.)

But just in case jjmalone is “new” here, and sincere…

Most cyclists – the adults, at least – own one or more vehicles that they pay registration fees on. In addition, it may surprise jjmalone that $32 million of ACHD’s $79 million budget comes from PROPERTY taxes. Most cyclists I know live under a roof.

So – it’s legal to ride two abreast on a public road. However, not if you’re impeding traffic.

The problem isn’t a lack of laws; it’s a question of their enforcement. If a few of those “elitist jerks” get some wallet-pain, perhaps they’ll try just a bit harder to be good citizens on the streets.

Everyone be safe and think about what we are doing rather than just going through the motions and the world will be a much better place.