Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In

After a couple of vetoes by Governor Jerry Brown, California finally has a 3-foot passing law.

As of June, 24 states plus the District of Columbia have such a law, which requires drivers to give cyclists a minimum buffer of 3 feet when passing from behind. With California's law in effect as of today, Rick Bernardi of Bob Mionske's bike law blog says 3-foot laws are good for cycling, but could be improved.

There's room to improve 3-foot passing laws, like the one that takes effect in California today. Photo: ##https://www.flickr.com/photos/sfbike/7000434589/in/set-72157629263668356/##SF Bike Coalition/Flickr##
There's room to improve 3-foot passing laws, like the one that took effect in California today. Photo: ##https://www.flickr.com/photos/sfbike/7000434589/in/set-72157629263668356/##SF Bike Coalition/Flickr##
false

Bernardo points out that some laws, including California's, provide exceptions for drivers that weaken cyclist protections. Minimum passing distances should be commensurate with motorist speed, he says, and intentional "buzzing" should be criminalized.

The law should also make collisions prima facie evidence of an illegal pass, Bernardi writes.

When drivers collide with a cyclist while passing, they will often attempt to shift the blame to the cyclist: "The cyclist came out of nowhere" is one common explanation for a crash. "The cyclist suddenly swerved into my path" is another commonly heard explanation. If the cyclist is seriously injured or killed, the driver’s explanation may be the only explanation we hear. More often than not, when a driver says that the pass was "safe" but the cyclist did something that doesn’t make any sense, it really means that the driver wasn’t paying attention, or was passing too close. But under the law, injured cyclists must prove that the driver’s pass was unsafe. 3 foot laws can be strengthened by making collisions prima facie evidence of an illegal pass. This means that when a driver is passing a cyclist and a collision results, the law would presume that the pass was too close. The driver could still rebut this presumption with evidence to show that the pass was not too close, but now the burden of proof would be where it properly belongs -- on the driver who has the responsibility to pass at a safe distance.

Also on the Network today: Streets.MN says investing in transit for "millennials" and "millennials" alone is a bad idea, and the Wash Cycle takes a tour of the Capital Bikeshare warehouse.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog USA

Thursday’s Headlines Can’t Afford a Car

High car prices (and loan default rates) are a sign of a K-shaped economy where the wealthy thrive and the lower classes struggle, CNBC reports.

October 16, 2025

In the Era of Mass Deportations, Traffic Reform is More Important Than Ever

"We have tried criminalizing our way out of systemic problems before; it has not worked, and it has harmed the very communities we claim to support."

October 16, 2025

Commentary: The Horrifying Sound of Traffic Violence

Bernal residents could have woken to the sound of a reckless driver crashing into concrete. Instead, another man is dead in a city that isn't yet serious about Vision Zero

October 15, 2025

Trump’s Electrification, Transit, and Active Transportation Cuts are Short-Sighted: Report

EV infrastructure is far more valuable to the nation's prosperity and jobs market than the White House believes, according to a new report.

October 15, 2025

Wednesday’s Headlines Hurry Up and Wait

As cities save lives by slowing down traffic, every 5-miles-per-hour increase on interstates increases the chances of death by 8.5 percent.

October 15, 2025

The Audacious Idea to Connect America With Trails Is More Necessary Now Than Ever

Seattle's bike blogger takes a ride on some of Washington's best rail trails — and makes the case for extending the "Great American Rail Trail" across the country.

October 15, 2025
See all posts