Virginia Three Foot Passing Law

[Fast Friendly Guy]

@sjclaeys 87170 wrote:

I did not recall hearing if the Governor had signed the three foot passing law. I looked on the interwebs and found that he did. It is effective on July 1.

That sounds like a good thing…only what does it really mean, practically speaking? If it’s news to riders, who’s going to publicize for drivers? Even if drivers know about this, does anyone think it will make a difference? On a narrow street or two lane road, what’s a driver to do? Jet ahead at intersections? Wait for riders to pull over? I’m not being facetious. I’m really curious about what difference this will make. Perhaps, if nothing else, it will establish a clear liability in case of car & bike accidents. Just asking.

[bobco85]

To help with the discussion, here are the laws on passing distances

Current law (VA Code 46.2-839)

​§ 46.2-839. Passing bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electric power-assisted bicycle, moped, animal, or animal-drawn vehicle.

Any driver of any vehicle overtaking a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electric power-assisted bicycle, moped, animal, or animal-drawn vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass at a reasonable speed at least two feet to the left of the overtaken bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electric power-assisted bicycle, moped, animal, or animal-drawn vehicle and shall not again proceed to the right side of the highway until safely clear of such overtaken bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electric power-assisted bicycle, moped, animal, or animal-drawn vehicle.

Amended law to take effect on July 1 (VA SB 97) (red text is being deleted, bold text is being added)

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That § 46.2-839 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:

§ 46.2-839. Passing bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electric power-assisted bicycle, moped, animal, or animal-drawn vehicle.

Any driver of any vehicle overtaking a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electric power-assisted bicycle, moped, animal, or animal-drawn vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass at a reasonable speed at least two three feet to the left of the overtaken bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electric power-assisted bicycle, moped, animal, or animal-drawn vehicle and shall not again proceed to the right side of the highway until safely clear of such overtaken bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electric power-assisted bicycle, moped, animal, or animal-drawn vehicle.

At the very least, drivers in all 3 areas of MD, DC, and finally VA will have to give a uniform 3 feet of passing distance instead of it being different depending on which state/district one was in. Honestly, other than that and maybe a public information campaign (I don’t know if any drivers even knew about the original 2 foot passing law), I don’t think there will be much of a difference, but I’ll defer to others on this forum who probably know more about this than I do.

[PotomacCyclist]

I guess this is a nice-to-have law, but it may not have too much of a practical effect. I think changing the contributory negligence laws would be more important. VA, DC and MD are all contributory negligence jurisdictions. For some reason, this is one of the only regions of the U.S. that still follow pure contributory negligence. Alabama and North Carolina are the only other pure contributory negligence states. If a victim is 1% at fault, they cannot recover any damages for an accident.

So if a driver acts aggressively and injures a cyclist, he/she might not be liable for damages if the cyclist is found to be 1% at fault for causing the accident or injury. If the police determine that a cyclist was even the slightest bit negligent, then the cyclist wouldn’t be able to recover damages.

In most other states, a victim can still recover for some or all of their losses. (In some states, they can recover a partial amount, based on how much they contributed to the accident. In other states, if the victim is found to be more than 50% at fault, then they can’t recover damages.)

WABA and other regional bike advocacy organizations have spoken about and worked on this issue, but they haven’t been able to modify the laws in this area. Maybe because so many people cause accidents that voters and politicans are worried about getting sued themselves? One insurance report said that drivers in the area had one of the highest rates of accidents in the U.S., or maybe it was THE highest.

[Dirt]

Has anyone ever heard of the existing 2-foot law being enforced?

I’m not asking that to be inflammatory. I’m just curious. That might give some insight to the effect of the 3 foot law.

[mstone]

@Dirt 87176 wrote:

Has anyone ever heard of the existing 2-foot law being enforced?

No, but this law is completely different.

[Fast Friendly Guy]

Here’s something else to think about. A car door is 3 feet wide when open.

Raise your hand if you’ve ever been ‘doored’. I was in Arlington, near Ballston, in a marked sharrow, heading the right direction, at a reasonable speed, and still the driver’s insurance company balked at acknowledging driver liability, instead looking for some way to show I was partially at fault. (Thankfully, for me, they couldn’t)

[Terpfan]

@PotomacCyclist 87175 wrote:

I guess this is a nice-to-have law, but it may not have too much of a practical effect. I think changing the contributory negligence laws would be more important. VA, DC and MD are all contributory negligence jurisdictions. For some reason, this is one of the only regions of the U.S. that still follow pure contributory negligence. Alabama and North Carolina are the only other pure contributory negligence states. If a victim is 1% at fault, they cannot recover any damages for an accident.

So if a driver acts aggressively and injures a cyclist, he/she might not be liable for damages if the cyclist is found to be 1% at fault for causing the accident or injury. If the police determine that a cyclist was even the slightest bit negligent, then the cyclist wouldn’t be able to recover damages.

In most other states, a victim can still recover for some or all of their losses. (In some states, they can recover a partial amount, based on how much they contributed to the accident. In other states, if the victim is found to be more than 50% at fault, then they can’t recover damages.)

WABA and other regional bike advocacy organizations have spoken about and worked on this issue, but they haven’t been able to modify the laws in this area. Maybe because so many people cause accidents that voters and politicans are worried about getting sued themselves? One insurance report said that drivers in the area had one of the highest rates of accidents in the U.S., or maybe it was THE highest.

I tend to agree with your point that this would be probably the single best legal change we could hope for any time soon. As for the answer to your question as to why these jurisdictions have it, it’s because the insurance industry has been successful in lobbying the point at the local levels.

Back to the 3′ law. Now that the MD, DC and VA all have it, perhaps we can convince the “street smart” or whatever it’s called campaign to talk about it. At a minimum, I would hope that WABA and related MD/VA associations ask the state DOTs and police departments to talk about it with their ‘move over’ campaigns regarding vehicles moving over a lane for emergency vehicles/leos/etc in the roadway.

[consularrider]

And we can all justify a new jersey purchase. Think they have bulk discounts and delivery by July 1?

[mstone]

@Fast Friendly Guy 87182 wrote:

Here’s something else to think about. A car door is 3 feet wide when open.

Raise your hand if you’ve ever been ‘doored’. I was in Arlington, near Ballston, in a marked sharrow, heading the right direction, at a reasonable speed, and still the driver’s insurance company balked at acknowledging driver liability, instead looking for some way to show I was partially at fault. (Thankfully, for me, they couldn’t)

We could just pass a law clearly establishing a responsibility to look before opening a door. Or not, with the legislature in Richmond. Best we can hope for is changing the “2” in an unenforced law to a “3”.

[lordofthemark]

I don’t expect the police in any jurisdiction will go around citing people for tight passes. They don’t cite drivers for failure to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks either, but I sure wouldn’t want that law repealed. Ditto for many other traffic laws. At a minimum this makes it easier to do a public education campaign, and it will also matter in the case of accidents (note the liability issue is one reason VBF has also been pushing a dooring bill, which has not yet passed.)

[mstone]

@consularrider 87192 wrote:

And we can all justify a new jersey purchase. Think they have bulk discounts and delivery by July 1?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5804[/ATTACH]

Hmm. I’ll pass.

[dasgeh]

@PotomacCyclist 87175 wrote:

So if a driver acts aggressively and injures a cyclist, he/she might not be liable for damages if the cyclist is found to be 1% at fault for causing the accident or injury. If a judge or jury determines that a cyclist was even the slightest bit negligent, then the cyclist wouldn’t be able to recover damages.

ftfy

[PotomacCyclist]

@dasgeh 87208 wrote:

ftfy

I was referring to reports written by an investigating police officer, which are often the basis of a judge or jury’s finding.

[Subby]

I like the change mostly because it gives more uniformity in the region. Maybe it sticks with motorists if the law is 3 feet in ALL corners of the DMV.

Comstock seems to think that following too closely (which is way more important) failed because she sponsored it. She thinks it will easily pass next session.

[PotomacCyclist]

@lordofthemark 87199 wrote:

I don’t expect the police in any jurisdiction will go around citing people for tight passes. They don’t cite drivers for failure to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks either, but I sure wouldn’t want that law repealed. Ditto for many other traffic laws. At a minimum this makes it easier to do a public education campaign, and it will also matter in the case of accidents (note the liability issue is one reason VBF has also been pushing a dooring bill, which has not yet passed.)

Maryland police seem to stage an annual police sting regarding drivers failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. Last year, they operated the sting near Rockville for a few hours in the middle of a sunny day. The officers wore bright yellow shirts and walked through a crosswalk on Veirs Mill Road.

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/18824/pedestrian-sting-finds-frequent-driver-lawlessness/
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Failing-to-Yield-to-Pedestrians-in-Montgomery-Co-Could-Cost-You-206557651.html

The police had to cite a driver every 2 minutes for failure to yield. When they cited a driver, other drivers could see the police so they slowed down and yielded. But as soon as that driver was sent on the way, the police had to stop another driver. Basically every driver, except those who saw the police stopping someone, tried to run down pedestrians in the crosswalk. From the NBC4 video, it does look like that road is poorly designed. Maybe a signal needs to be installed at the intersection. But the drivers should still not be trying to run over pedestrians.

But the police can’t monitor every crosswalk non-stop, nor can they monitor every pass made by a driver of a cyclist. So the 3-foot passing law will only improve safety to the extent that it modifies driver behavior. Random police stings and enforcement actions can provide some deterrence, but obviously it won’t influence every driver. Public education will help too, but it will take time. Even then, we all know that many drivers (and cyclists and pedestrians) will still ignore laws and rules that they have heard about, but choose to ignore or forget. That’s why I think the new law is moderately beneficial, but not a game-changer for safety on the roads.

Even changing the negligence laws that I mentioned would only have a limited benefit. It’s much better to avoid accidents in the first place, than to have to worry about assessing damages after an accident. So I’ll thank those who worked to get the 3-foot passing law in place while also looking at ongoing improvements to other laws, public education and bike infrastructure.

I don’t want to make the new law seem like a bad thing. It isn’t. It’s just that it will only have a minor benefit at best.

[Author]

Posts