You are hereIn 3 months y'all know how many tickets the cops have written for the 3-foot Safe Passing Ordinance? ZERO.
In 3 months y'all know how many tickets the cops have written for the 3-foot Safe Passing Ordinance? ZERO.
Remember that 3-foot passing ordinance that we all fought for? The one that APD said they'd be enforcing starting last November? Well KVUE is now reporting that to-date NO ONE has been cited under the new ordinance:
Three months after the City of Austin passed a new law to protect bicyclists, police say they haven't written a single ticket.
The ordinance took effect in November.
It requires drivers keep a three-foot distance from any cyclists, runners, pedestrians, or other “vulnerable” road users.
But Austin police say no one has been cited for breaking that law.
WHAT THE FUCK?!? Every time a cyclist is struck by a car there should be a citation written. What's it going to take to get the police to actually enforce their new laws? While I'm not entirely surprised as this law in practice seems very hard to enforce, the fact that not a single ticket has been written while in this time at least half a dozen cyclists I know have been sent to the hospital after being struck by cars is disheartening.
Thanks for following up, KVUE.
this news doesn't surprise me one bit. the law is near unenforceable lip-service to bicycle advocacy.
Safe passing is 5 (FIVE) feet in Albuquerque! D
The ordinance is so poorly worded that it is difficult to understand what is actually required of cars passing cyclists on 4 lane roads-
(b) An operator of a motor vehicle passing a vulnerable road user operating on a highway
or street shall:
(1) vacate the lane in which the vulnerable road user is located if the highway has
two or more marked lanes running in the same direction; or
(2) pass the vulnerable road user at a safe distance.
(c) For the purpose of Subsection (b)(2), when road conditions allow, safe distance is at
least:
(1) three feet if the operator's vehicle is a passenger car or light truck; or
(2) six feet if the operator's vehicle is a truck, other than a light truck, or a
commercial motor vehicle as defined by Texas Transportation Code Section 522.003.
Should have been worded-
(b) An operator of a motor vehicle passing a vulnerable road user operating on a highway
or street shall:
(1) vacate the lane in which the vulnerable road user is located if the highway has
two or more marked lanes running in the same direction; or
(2) pass the vulnerable road user at a safe distance if the highway has only one lane running in the direction of travel.
(c) For the purpose of Subsection (b)(2), when road conditions allow, safe distance is at
least:
(1) three feet if the operator's vehicle is a passenger car or light truck; or
(2) six feet if the operator's vehicle is a truck, other than a light truck, or a
commercial motor vehicle as defined by Texas Transportation Code Section 522.003.
Seeing a vehicle failing to completely vacate a cyclist's lane is a lot easier to judge than 3'.
... it would basically mean that a bicycle and car could never share a lane if there was two traffic lanes in your direction, even if the lane was 18' wide and the cyclist was riding in the gutter.
The law is fine as written (well, except for the part that says "It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that at the time of the offense the vulnerable road user was acting in violation of the law.", which makes some sense ("No lights? I didn't even see him!"), but it could be abused ("No lights on that bike? Let's pass him intentionally at six inches, honk at him, try to intimidate him ..."))
In any event, I expect few tickets to be written under the law -- it's hard to enforce. But I do think it's having some good effect -- most motorists did what it says before, and even more are doing so now.
Yes lazy drivers need to vacate the ENTIRE lane just as if there were a car instead of just a cyclist. Doesn't matter where the cyclist is riding within his lane, use your lazy driver arms and turn your power steering just a little farther. Any other stipulation and impatient drivers will squeeze between a vehicle in the left lane and your bike in the gutter thus sending you into the ditch or morgue.
I think this should be question # 1 in the meeting with chief Acevedo.
No, the law does not require an accident or fatality to happen to enforce the safe pass law. All that is required is APD complying with tha mandate from the Austin citizens.
A cyclist would have to be struck as a result of passing too closely (and really, to be struck, he'd have to be passing at less than zero feet. :)
Overtaking from behind, right hook, left hook, etc. -- none of these collision types are really covered by this law.
And if a cyclist *is* struck, there are other more serious charges they could apply, and quite often the police just take the most serious charge and leave the rest alone. (And being a city law rather than a state law, the fines are slightly smaller, so the police may see every almost every other charge as being more serious.)
The most likely scenario for a ticket under this law would seem to be somebody passing a *bicycle cop* too closely and the cop being able to catch up to the guy and give him a ticket. I'm surprised that that hasn't happened at least once. (Perhaps the cop couldn't catch up to the car? Perhaps he gave a warning -- the law is new, after all?)
That said, I seem to have noticed cars giving me more space than they did four months ago, so maybe the law is working to some degree, even if tickets aren't being given out?
And if you ever think 3' isn't enough? Pull a trailer, the sort that you put kids in. If there's not a kid in it, make sure the cover is up so they can't see that. People will give you, 6, 12, 18 or more feet :)
Agreed, with dougmc.
Since you're keeping stats, any numbers on the number of tickets written for texting while driving (they're part of the same ordinance, weren't they?). Forgive me if they were not.
Something about the tone of this post, however, rubs me the wrong way. As if something is "owed" to you, us, or me. Fact: cars are much bigger than i am. Everyone knows this. If you think for one second that i'm gonna rely on YOU getting the word out or some city ordinance telling drivers what they must do when encountering ME in the road, you're dead wrong. Instead, i'll rely on my own skill, instincts and 15+ years riding in this town to tell me if i'm in the right place or not. If you catch me riding on, say, Airport blvd (like i catch many of you) and i get hit: my fault (law or no law). If you catch me on N. Lamar north of, say, HWY183 and i get hit: again, my fault (the law won't matter nor will whether i was in the right when i'm learning to eat again wearing nothing but socks and shittin' out of a bag). It simply won't matter anymore.
It's MY responsibility and i will never rely on the law, cops, my mother or you all to protect me while i'm on my bike. I never see that addressed on this board.
I think they were actually separate ordinances, just passed on the same day.
Also I think the texting one didnt kick in till January and the cops said they wouldnt start writing tickets (only warnings) until Feb. At least I believe this is what I read.
either way, Im sure it will have about equal (lack of) enforcement.
... well, at least about the texting ordinance, when it went into effect, and the warning period.
As for the enforcement of it, I'll bet a few tickets get given out for texting. It's going to be easier to prove, for several reasons --
-- every time there's a serious accident, the police or prosecutor is likely to subpoena for phone records (it seems like they're doing it for many serious accidents lately, nation-wide.)
-- the law is so vague that if the cop sees you looking at your phone and not making a phone call he can probably nail you for it.
-- people text (or simply change the song on their iPhone -- that's covered!) far more often than they pass cyclists.