There is nothing special about the traffic regulation that requires a motorist to give at least three feet of clearance when overtaking a cyclist. It is nothing more than a traffic law and as such applies only to the person violating the law. When it is violated it does not confer any special rights to violate other laws to anyone nor does it carry with it an explicit declaration of threat or assault. Therefore one cannot possibly argue that this law somehow gives cyclists the right to cause property damage or the right to violate any other law.

That leaves us with the argument of self defence. In that light it might be claimed that the law, although not necessarily applicable to the cyclist, defines a standard of personal safety. One could argue the merits of this in terms of safety alone because the relative speed of the bike and motor vehicle alters what one would consider to be a safe passing distance dramatically. For the sake of argument, however, we can agree to use the three foot standard.

In order for self defence to win the day in court the cyclist would have to show they were under real and substantial threat and they acted only to protect themselves. Since 99.9% of the people who make up juries and judges are more likely to think the cyclist had an other recourse (such as stopping or leaving the roadway) that did not involve causing property damage, this argument is unlikely to win the day in court. The desire of the cyclist to teach the motorist a lesson would only count against them in a court of law no matter how threatened the cyclist may have felt. Therefore smacking a weapon into a car because it is too close is more likely to get you arrested than have any negative impact on the motorist.

Some have suggested placing a protruding u-lock such that when the motorist comes close they will hit it. I'm not sure how the cyclist intends to stay upright if the motorist hits this with enough force to do damage but at least this case presents some ambiguity. However, I suspect that if it was determined that the cyclist placed the u-lock in this manner expressly for this purpose they would again fail in court.

Legally speaking it would appear that the frightening truth of the matter is we are all rather helpless. Altercations on Seminole Highway in recent years illustrate that if the cyclist responds to a threatening motorist in any way (saliva included), the motorist will tend to get off scot-free and the cyclist may end up having defend herself in court. There is an alternative, however. In one case on Seminole Highway the motorist was convicted of reckless driving after the case went to jury trial. In this instance the cyclist did not react to the motorist after being forced off the roadway. Instead she took down the license number and called the police.

There is only one thing that I can think of that is more frightening than a motorist violating the three foot rule -- the fact that I felt compelled to write this. ;^)

--joe

Joseph King
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
bombay: www.BombayBicycle.org
madnorski: www.MadNorSki.org

_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies

Reply via email to