The three foot rule is an issue I have always had a love/hate relationship
with. Ideally, it would be just dandy to simply pass a law and have most
drivers instantly respect the desire for distance between their two-ton
vehicles and cyclists. But in the end, I think such laws are a distraction
to the real work of cyclist safety and comfort. Here is why:
* Laws can't work if people aren't aware they exist. Studies
invariably show that when laws like that are passed most people say they
didn't know the law existed.
* Some know the law, but say they didn't realize they were passing so
closely.
* If people don't know the law or know they are breaking it,
deterrence is going to have a mighty strong headwind!
Well, the cry ensues, we will just have to educate and enforce it better -
then THOSE people will get the message! But is enforcement really the key? I
am reminded of the Texas news story
<http://ireader.olivesoftware.com/Olive/iReader/AustinAmericanStatesman/Shar
edArticle.ashx?document=AAS\2013\08\05&article=Ar02304> from last year that
covered the very high level of attention that Austin police gave to a
minimum passing distance law. Some well-meaning advocates point to the
article as to what can take place when law enforcement is enthusiastic and
personally involved. Sounds good, right? But at the risk of getting wonky,
let's dig deeper and [gulp] Do The Math. The story reported on a pretty high
level of enforcement; 104 actual citations in four years. That is probably
way beyond what one would hope for in most cities. That means ~25 per year
or 2 citations every month. If there are about 500,000 drivers in Austin (70
vehicles per 100 people and 800,000 population) and we assume they each make
two trips a day, one can easily calculate that there are about one-million
car trips per day in Austin. So among those 30 million trips per month, 2
people get cited. Therefore, the risk of an individual driver getting cited
(assuming that all are potentially violators at one time or another) is a
miniscule one in 15 million trips!
How is that ever going to deter drivers who are unaware of the law or don't
think they are breaking it? Sure, the police and or advocates can publicize
a few citations and make it look like one is more likely to get caught than
in reality. But police, road safety coordinators and media resources are
limited, need to be ongoing, and there are other very serious problems
police face that also affect cyclists (like speeding and drunk driving,
distracted driving, parking in bike lanes, etc.). Therefore, such a campaign
will always be episodic, often at the cost of not doing other things, even
as police and road safety educational resources decline.
The fact is, there is simply no evidence to date that passage of a minimum
distance law, even with "strong enforcement", changes anyone's cycle
commuting experiences or reduces crashes or injuries, whether in Austin or
Madison. I wish it would work, even a little bit. But we need to speak with
our hearts while acting with our minds. The approach that something is
better than nothing can mean energy and resources are placed where they have
little effect, while we neglect to make the long-term differences that will
make real change.
Cycle advocacy is not a sprint that depends on a few laws; it's a marathon.
The problem is if we rely on enforcement and education for separation, a
pretty dubious proposition by itself, we will have to rely on it, literally,
forever. If you change the environment, however, (wider shoulders, speeds,
and buffers and physical separation), it manages itself most of the time.
This approach, sometimes called "objective safety" works so much better than
trying and wishing for long lasting behavioral change. This is what is at
the heart of the Vision Zero <http://www.visionzeroinitiative.com/> road
safety approach that Mayor Soglin has recently endorsed
<https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFj
AAahUKEwjNofzP_KTHAhUXEZIKHTGDCR0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvisionzeronetwork.org%2Fw
p-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F06%2FVision-Zero-resolution.pdf%3F0e8dac&ei=vfv
LVY3PGZeiyASxhqboAQ&usg=AFQjCNFTVT15GDtQa2TXVReTqfmoHr_v5A&sig2=Ylkdh2okNKsE
02cn7667JQ&bvm=bv.99804247,d.aWw&cad=rja> .
In conclusion, the evidence shows that a passing distance law results only
in punishment of the very very few that might get caught.that's all that is
likely to happen. Does that make you feel better? Sure the heck does,
especially if you were the one just passed at 12 inches by a 40 MPH vehicle.
But is it likely to reduce the chance that it will happen again? The answer
is not by very much. Moreover, there is always the risk of unintended
consequences and blowback from angry drivers, driver organizations, or
politicians for what they may see as heavy handed selective enforcement or
obnoxious revenue seeking. Is something that is unlikely to have much if any
effect worth the effort and the risks to try to enhance? Not in my opinion.
Hank Weiss PhD
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
