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

Friday Video: Guess Which Argument Can Get a NIMBY To Change Their Mind About New Housing

Put your instincts to the test with this fascinating experiment about the power of messaging to win support for urbanism.

March 20, 2026

Friday’s Headlines Took the Road Less Traveled By

And that has made all the difference, when it comes to preventing traffic deaths.

March 20, 2026

Study: How Ambiguous Definition of ‘Major Transit Stop’ Creates Wiggle Room for Municipalities

This is a story of how well-intentioned efforts by the state to tie new development to transit hinge on how local governments (with their own incentives) interpret broad state law.

March 19, 2026

Talking Headways Podcast: Growing St. Louis’s Arts and Culture District

This week on Talking Headways, step inside St. Louis's Grand Center Arts District with the people who make it happen.

March 19, 2026

Advocates Get D.C. Mayor To Release Buried Report On The Potential Benefits Of Congestion Pricing

How many other conversations about congestion pricing across the country are being suppressed — and how many have never even gotten started?

March 19, 2026
See all posts