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

D.C. Advocates Sue To Save Key Bike Lane From Trump

We previously reported that the Trump administration might soon move to dismantle key cycle tracks in the nation's capital. Unfortunately, we were right.

March 24, 2026

How a ‘Universal Basic Neighborhood’ Can Help Americans Live Longer

Want to increase your chances of living to 80? A new paper argues we need to start with our neighborhoods — and we need to do it for everybody.

March 24, 2026

Tuesday’s Headlines Keep Our Eyes on the Road

How much responsibility do tech companies bear for traffic deaths caused by distracted driving?

March 24, 2026

Opinion: Adding Parking to Sports Stadiums Makes It Harder for Everyone To Get Around

A Chicago advocate makes the case against expanding car storage at Cubs games.

March 23, 2026

Why This State Is Fighting To Get Its First ‘Active Transportation Plan’

...and why other states should work to adopt or update plans of their own.

March 23, 2026

Monday’s Headlines Are Stuck Behind a Robot

Cities will soon be inundated with autonomous vehicles that will create even more traffic congestion. Are cities prepared?

March 23, 2026
See all posts