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’s Headlines Wrote Themselves

Blame it on AI. That will fix everything.

March 6, 2026

Friday Video: How Boomers Broke the Auto Market

Take a deep dive into America's SUV apocalypse — and learn how the next generation can undo the damage.

March 6, 2026

Talking Headways Podcast: The Annual Prediction Show with Yonah Freemark

Yonah Freemark joins Talking Headways for their annual discussion of future of transit in the United States (and Mexico).

March 5, 2026

‘Stupendous Potential’: Pay-Per-Mile Auto Insurance Would Cut Costs And Traffic Violence

Lowering car insurance costs doesn't have to eviscerate crash victims's rights.

March 5, 2026

Urban Truth Collective: Straight Talk About The Joy Of Cities In An Age Of Disinformation

The Three Tenors of Urbanism explain their latest effort: The Urban Truth Collective.

Study: AVs Will Super-Charge VMT

Yes, robocars address many of our traffic violence troubles, but they may fail to uproot the deeper rot of car dependency that has hollowed out our society

March 5, 2026
See all posts