Safe passing image courtesy Texas Bicycle Coalition
The Austin safe passing ordinance and texting while driving ban passed the City Council today on a unanimous vote in support of the measure. Motorists in Austin will now be required to provide at least three feet of passing space between them and cyclists and pedestrians. Today, the Austin City Council unanimously passed a resolution asking the city manager to draft safe passing and texting while driving ban ordinances. Thankfully, Governor Perry has no current direct say on this.
Thank you to all the cyclist who called, wrote, and showed up in support of this measure. Let’s hope other cities follow our lead, and we get a more reasonable Governor for the next legislative session.
Related posts:
on Aug 27th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Have I misunderstood what happened here?
I thought they just passed a resolution to draft an ordinance, not actually passed the ordinance itself. As far as I know, the ordinance hasn’t even been written yet.
on Aug 27th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Doug, you are correct – they signalled their intent to pass such an ordinance, but there is nothing binding today.
on Aug 27th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
That’s right, now we get to do the fun part: writing the ordinance and getting it passed. Hopefully the various affected communities will have some input into that process, since we seemed to miss out on hearing about this resolution until the 11th hour.
on Aug 27th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
So does this mean bikers and peds will have to also allow three feet away from cars as well….both groups hardly ’share the road,’ as they try to shove down our throats.
on Aug 27th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Tired of bikers,
A 2-3 ton, 100+ hp piece of steel is not the same thing as a 150 pound human. What a car does to pedestrian or cyclists, human beings, in an accident is far worse than what they do to your vehicle, an inanimate object. This is why it is incumbent upon the driver to give as much space as is safe and reasonable for these more vulnerable road users. With great power comes great responsibility.
on Aug 27th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Hello, tired of bikers.
The bill that the Texas legislature passed (but Perry vetoed) may be found here:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/pdf/SB00488F.pdf
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the idea is that the city ordinance will be substantially similar.
In answer to your question (somewhat, since the city ordinance is yet to be drafted), no, the bill does not have specific language directing vulnerable road users to stay the same distance away from cars when overtaking. If it makes you (or your throat) feel better, page 3 lines 10-12 state, “It is a defense to prosecution under this section that at the time of the offense the vulnerable road user was acting in violation of the law.”
on Aug 28th, 2009 at 12:20 am
[...] Austin Safe Passing Ordinance Update: Ordinance resolution passes … by elliott Safe passing image courtesy Texas Bicycle Coalition. The Austin safe passing ordinance and texting while driving ban passed the City Council today on a unanimous vote in support of the measure. Motorists in Austin will now be required … [...]
on Aug 28th, 2009 at 9:47 am
I am not worried about the bicyclist damaging my car. I think though, that everyone should be cautious when on the streets. Bicyclists should be accountable for their part in accidents because I have almost hit other vehicles and peds because bicyclists have darted in front of me with no apology or thought. Those are the ones that should be ticketed…not me.
on Aug 28th, 2009 at 10:02 am
If a bicyclist truly darted in front of you, you wouldn’t be ticketed (under the proposal, you have to give 3 feet when passing; not maintain a distance of 3 feet at all times).
on Aug 29th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Three feet as measured where and by whom? Three feet from the outer edge of the car’s mirror closest to the cyclist, or the outer bulge of the car’s body? And measured to the outer edge of the bike’s handlebars or to the rider’s body?
And what is the standard of enforcement? I challenge anyone who favors this law to conduct a test using a car and a bicycle. Drive the car past the bike at about 30 mph and accurately judge the distance. Of course, you will need a helper with a good yardstick, and probably a digital camera, to help verify your measurement. Are you 35 inches away — in violation of the law — or are you 37 inches away? And if a driver gets a ticket, what evidence will the officer show to prove it was 35, not 37, inches?
Proving whether it was two feet or five feet would not necessarily be hard. But the standard is three feet — exactly 36 inches, no more, no less. What technology do you have in mind that will let such a tiny distinction be proven in court?
And if the city ordinance follows the justifiably failed state attempt, it will be even more difficult to enforce. It’s probably easier to judge whether you’re three feet from a bike than it is from, say, a wheelchair (lower to the ground) or a pedestrian.
It is very, very difficult to accurately judge distance and scale from inside a moving vehicle. Signs look smaller than they really are, and car lanes also appear smaller than they really are. And not even a policeman following close behind a car and a cyclist will be able to accurately judge a distance of three feet. The law will be unenforceable. It’s a stupid law. We don’t need more stupid laws.
on Aug 29th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Tired of Stupid Laws,
I doubt we’re going to see much effort to enforce the three foot provision outside of actual collision cases, for the reasons you’ve articulated. I was also wondering how enforcement would play out until I read this quote from Leslie Luciano:
“The prosecutors that helped author this bill told us the current statutes have no teeth. Essentially, if a car hits a cyclist and the car is at fault, they have not been able to prosecute because the wording of the statutes is vague and there is no clear-cut definition of safe passage.”
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A813806
I think this is a key part of the story that gets left out in the discussion. This is about *collisions* and the fact that prosecutors don’t have the tools to prosecute at-fault drivers who have hit cyclists.
on Aug 29th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Nate,
You’re right on target. This is a symbolic law, a piece of feel-good legislation for a vocal lobbying group. Symbolic laws serve only to weaken the public’s willingness to respect the law in general. If there is a problem with prosecuting at-fault drivers who hit cyclists, pedestrians or whatever, fine, fix that. If this proposed law is about collisions, why not make the distance six inches instead of three feet, if we are really only concerned about zero inches anyway?
But to pass a law that is not enforceable to satisfy this vocal minority is only going to increase the existing tensions between drivers and cyclists. Our Council should not waste its time on this misguided mess, and Gov. Perry was right to stand against it.
on Aug 29th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
“If there is a problem with prosecuting at-fault drivers who hit cyclists, pedestrians or whatever, fine, fix that.”
A safe-passing *is* such a fix, because the problem is the lack of a clear definition of a distance that constitutes safe passage.
“If this proposed law is about collisions, why not make the distance six inches instead of three feet, if we are really only concerned about zero inches anyway?”
Uh, no. Codifying six inches as the safe passing distance would likely worsen drivers’ behavior toward cyclists and increase the number of overtaking collisions. Three feet is a reasonable distance that coincides pretty well with what most drivers do anyway (in my experience, at least).
on Aug 30th, 2009 at 12:26 am
Again, then, tell me how three feet will be determined. Because I guarantee you, if I ever get pulled over for violating that rule, I will demand to see the evidence.
on Aug 30th, 2009 at 11:29 am
In the past I’ve been clipped by a car, knocked down, injured, and when the police arrived on scene they did nothing. It’s happened several times, and always ends up the same way. The cops showing up, saying they didn’t see anything, and at the most writing an incident report but not citing anyone. With this ordinance in effect, it’ll be pretty easy to prove that they passed within 3 feet (obviously, since they hit me) and ticket the offender for SOMETHING.
on Aug 30th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
I’ve been looking around and all I can see are exhortations to get behind this bill, but no justification for exactly how the distance limit per se will help solve the problem. All you need is the part of the bill related to property damage and bodily injury. Obviously at that point the distance observed is meaningless anyway, because it’s zero. So why is that part of the bill not all you really need? Why all this other garbage?
btw, It was fun to see the cyclists riding up Mopac again this morning … What part of “don’t ride bikes here” do they not understand?
on Aug 30th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Tired of Stupid Laws,
I am much more tired of being hit and buzzed by cars than any stupid law. If you ever rode more than one day on our streets, you’d know what it feels like and why this is necessary. If you don’t believe me, read the article I just posted about how cars are at fault for the vast majority of cyclist deaths. To the motorist, cyclists are an inconvenience. To cyclists, cars the potential instrument of your death. I think someone’s life is more important than having to pay a questionable ticket.
Laws not only outline prohibited behavior but say a lot about the priorities and values of a society. This law says the streets should be safe for all users and that you the motorist have a responsibility to to exercise care around others that aren’t protected by your cage of steel.
Finally, it is not illegal to ride your bike on any roadway in Austin. The ban on riding on Mopac was repealed years ago, but the city never took the sign down. Sorry to disappoint you.