It isn’t often that lawmakers spend years shepherding legislation they know will likely not be enforced.
Yet when it came to state Rep. Ron Miller’s “Safe Passing” bicycle bill — a law designed to give cyclists a buffer from drivers — that’s exactly what he foresaw.
“From day one, we suspected it would be very hard to write citations, because it’s a judgment call” for law enforcement, says Miller, a York Republican.
Overwhelmingly passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Tom Corbett in February 2012, the law was celebrated as a win by many bike advocates, who have successfully lobbied 25 state governments nationwide to pass similar measures.
“The state of Pennsylvania took a huge stride toward improving our Bike Friendly State standing,” declared local advocacy group Bike Pittsburgh the day after Corbett signed the legislation.
The law requires cars to allow 4 feet of space when overtaking bicycles, and to pass at a “careful and prudent reduced speed.” Drivers are barred from the right or left “hook,” a maneuver that cuts off bikers by turning in front of them. And bikers must “use reasonable efforts so as not to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.” Violating the law is a summary offense — in this case, a $25 fine.
But as in many states with safe-passing laws, enforcement in Pennsylvania has been spotty: Just 42 citations have been issued statewide since the law took effect 28 months ago, 12 of which were recorded in Allegheny County, according to a City Paper review of court data. And it’s not clear if the law is having a significant effect on the number of car-related bike crashes.
“It’s not being enforced to the extent it should be,” Bike Pittsburgh executive director Scott Bricker says today. “After two years, you would hope that tool would be used more often.”
So why have so many politicians and advocacy groups bothered to pass bike-safety laws that are often unenforced and, some argue, unenforceable?
After all, citing drivers would require officers to both witness an instance of close-passing and accurately eyeball the distance between biker and motorist.
“It’s just like the cell-phone law” that bars texting and driving, explains Pittsburgh Police Cmdr. Eric Holmes, noting that it’s a tough violation for officers to witness. “They want to make sure the person they’re writing up has actually committed the violation. They don’t want to write tickets just to write tickets.”
But some advocates of the law say it’s largely about educating drivers and bikers of their responsibilities, and enshrining the idea that bikes have a right to space on the road cars shouldn’t violate — something that can help assign liability after a crash.
These laws “should change the overall culture,” says Charles Brown, a senior researcher at the Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center at Rutgers University. Brown, who authored a study of safe-passing laws across the country, adds that such a shift “should lead to a decrease in the number of cyclists who are injured and killed on the roadways,” though nationally, he notes, “There has been little overall enforcement.”
Is it working?
While there isn’t total agreement on how important enforcement is to the law’s success, there is consensus that the law should be evaluated based on whether it reduces the number of car-related bike crashes.
“Without a doubt, you want to see those [numbers] go down,” Bike Pittsburgh’s Bricker says, adding that one of the biggest reasons people avoid biking is a fear of having to occupy the same space as cars.
And while the law hasn’t been rigorously enforced, some contend that education alone could reduce crash rates. PennDOT, for instance, now includes references to the 4-foot buffer in its driver’s manual and test, according to PennDOT spokesperson Juliann Sheldon. And even though PennDOT has not created any signage alerting bikers or drivers to the new law, Edgar Snyder & Associates teamed up with Bike Pittsburgh on an ad campaign promoting it.
In the two years since the law took effect, however, there have not been significant variations in the number of bike-related crashes in Allegheny County or across the state, PennDOT data show.
In fact, the number of crashes statewide increased to 1,390 in 2012 (the year the law took effect) from 1,324 the previous year. The number also increased in Allegheny County during that time — from 85 to 104 crashes, though that’s within what appears to be the normal five-year range (in 2013, the number slid down to 93).
But data on “rear-end” collisions — the kind of crash experts say the law is likely to target — may tell a more encouraging story. Statewide, rear-end collisions have been trending downward since 2009, with the largest decreases after the safe-passing law took effect — from a five-year high of 106 in 2010 to 65 in 2013.
And while the overall number of crashes (the vast majority involved cars) did not decline, “there’s probably some truth” that the law is having an effect, says Brown, the researcher who has studied safe-passing laws.
Still, it’s nearly impossible to know whether the rate of crashes is changing. Since there isn’t precise data on how many people are riding and how frequently, a jump in the absolute number of crashes doesn’t necessarily say much about overall bike safety.
Moreover, crashes are typically reported only if someone is transported to a hospital, or if a car needs to be towed.
“It’s going to be very hard to have hard empirical data that’s going to prove” the law is working, says Miller, a cyclist and the bill’s prime sponsor. Still, he adds, “From my own observation, I have noticed people being much more careful while overtaking a bicyclist, so I do believe the law is having an impact.”
Undercover in Austin
One police officer in Austin, Texas, is leading the charge on enforcing safe-passing laws. Armed with a pole that measures compliance with Austin’s 3-foot passing law, officer Rheannon Cunningham devised an undercover sting operation, which resulted in a nearly 12-fold increase in citations — and calls from departments around the country interested in replicating her efforts.
“The cyclists always felt like the police never did anything to enforce the laws [that] were there to protect them,” Cunningham explains. And if drivers “don’t feel like they’re going to get caught or stopped for something, they will push the envelope. They’ll blow it off.”
Cunningham’s operation works like this: Two plainclothes police officers on unmarked bikes ride along a half-mile stretch of road that has no bike lane, but is close to popular bike routes.
Whenever a car passes within three feet — something the officers are trained to judge using the pole — they would radio a marked patrol car ahead that would pull over the offending driver. (The undercover officers recorded the encounters on bike-mounted cameras in case of challenge.)
“I didn’t get the feeling that people did it on purpose,” says Cunningham, who participated as an undercover officer in the operation. “There’s just very poor judgment on how close they passed you.”
Ironically, Cunningham says, it was the cyclists caught behind the wheel who were most indignant. “Their argument was: ‘We’re cyclists, we know how close we passed you,’ when in fact they didn’t.”
Fewer than 10 people were cited in Austin between 2009 and May 2013, when the sting operation started. At least 117 people have been pulled over since, Cunningham says, and 78 of them were let off with warnings to “reinforce our message of education over purely punitive enforcement.” Cited drivers were allowed to take a “defensive cycling” class to get the $175 ticket dismissed.
“It’s really hard to know that the operation directly affected the outcome, but I know our collisions dropped and fatalities did not increase,” Cunningham notes.
For his part, Pittsburgh’s Cmdr. Holmes says the Austin model “is something to be considered.” He is working on refreshing his officers on bike laws in advance of the construction of a protected bike lane Downtown on Penn Avenue.
It is unclear what the wider police bureau’s position is on enforcement of bike laws. Holmes said he could not speak for the department outside his zone, and Pittsburgh police spokesperson Sonya Toler declined comment after being contacted multiple times.
Eventually, though, the law may not be enforced by humans at all, predicts Anthony Rowe, an electrical and computer engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University.
“The assumption going in is that they’re going to be mandating transponders in cars” that communicate with everything from traffic lights to other cars, says Rowe, who is part of CMU’s “Safe Cyclist” project. “If cars are going to have these types of radios on them […] they could actually communicate to and from bicycles as well.”
Alerts could be built in that notify drivers if they are venturing into the 4-foot zone — in effect creating virtual bike lanes, Rowe says. And using software loaded onto a smartphones, bikers could be alerted to close-passing cars as well. Such technology, if widely adopted, “could be transformational for safety,” Rowe says.
In the long run, enforcing safe-passing laws will likely become a matter of programming, Rowe says: “Once cars become autonomous” — capable of driving themselves under computer guidance — “there’s no reason why they won’t automatically avoid cyclists.”
But in the short term, Rowe explains, the technology could generate data that shows where cars are most likely to pass within the 4-foot zone, giving police a leg up on targeted enforcement. And in the immediate future, League of American Bicyclists legal specialist Ken McLeod stresses that safe-passing laws signify a willingness among governments to grab low-hanging legislative fruit, making room for larger initiatives down the road.
“Making it clear that bicycles need and deserve space on the roadway [is] a recent phenomenon” McLeod says. “We’re just starting that journey.”
This article appears in Aug 20-26, 2014.
The 4′ laws are counter to existing law that requires use of a single lane when marked – the requirement to maintain use of a single lane. 4′ laws encourage straddle passes, and enforce the notion that cyclists should be far right in the lane. Now you have a law that confuses the easy to define and enforce straddle pass.
Additionally, if there is a 4′ law the cyclists should equally have to abide by it. This would restrict them from riding within 4′ of the edge lines so they could be safely passed and pass other vehicles (including bikes).
Low hanging fruit is still there for a reason, it’s bad.
With all due respect to bicycle riders, do you think you diserve any road respect? Motor vehicles have very little for motorcycles so how does a bicycle fit in? A motor vehicle pays road fees such as registration and inspections, a bicycle does not. Motor vehicles have safety equipment, a bicycle rider in most cases does not. A state license fee is required for a driver of a vehicle, a bicycle rider does not. A motor vehicle is required to obtain insurance, a bicycle is not. A bicycle rider does not adhere to traffic laws such as red lights, stop signs, one way, etc. Bicycle riders need to register the bicycle, get it inspected, obtain a license and insurance, and adhere to traffic laws. Until then, bicycles need to stay off the roads and leave them to those paying for using them.
@Patrick Simpson Please do some research before the stated misconceptions:
Once Source for example:http://westseattlebikeconnections.org/about/myths-about-bicycling/
Yes it is a safe distance if bikers are paying attn. I do it all the time when I bike. Doubt me which I know you do, then for doubters lets meet and ride from Natrona Heights with me to Downtown and around City and back. I never have had buses, trucks or cars have issues with me in that area, unless drivers want to be ignorant.
James Love
Paproy: is that your best defense? Your reference appear to be Myths based on bogus data from tree huggers in Seatlle that want you to drive a Prius. You didnt provide comment on the insurance or a license? A bicycle wants to share the road, they must follow traffic laws, make insurance and safety equipment mandatory. I wear a safety equipment all the time riding my motorcycle to help save my life against vehicles that wont share the road with me. Bicycle rider should do the same, atleast for themselves. As a motorcycle rider I understand a bicycle rider wants to share the road. Until motorcycle riders are given fair share of the roadways, bicycle riders have to wait their turn. Besides busy downtown roads are not big enough for cars, trucks, motorcycles, buses, delivery trucks and then you want to add bike lanes? Sorry, just not enough room.
Change lanes to pass. Pretty simple and no judgment call needed. If all their tires are not in the adjacent lane, it’s a ticket.
@Dave Holland: with all due respect, you are very ignorant of of how roads are paid for. Roads are not even majority funded by registration, inspections, nor gasoline taxes any longer. Roads are supplemented by the general funds in all states.
And, your argument assumes that cyclists don’t pay gas taxes, auto registrations, license fees nor income taxes, which is obviously absurd. Very few cyclists do not own cars nor have jobs.
You’re ignorant of traffic law as well; cyclists do indeed have to honor red lights and stop signs as well. I can tell you that I personally run exactly the same number of stop signs on a bike as I do in a car.
Further, you don’t seem to be asking pedestrians — also fee-free and without safety equipment — to stay off the roads and crosswalks.
What respect cyclist would like is this: let’s to share the roads that, yes, we pay for, without getting killed. Please take literally 20 seconds out of your day to pass a cyclist safely.
Pittsburgh cops could go undercover as bicyclists and issue citations to vehicle drivers who break these laws, like they did in Houston. Justice, enforcing the law, making an example out of disrespectful drivers and those with no regard for other human lives, making the roads safer, and more revenue for the city in the form of tickets issues? Sounds like a win win. http://gearjunkie.com/undercover-bike-cops-houston
@Patrick Simpson: I don’t know what happened to my text but that was meant to be just one example among a myriad of posted examples from all areas of the U. S. and indeed around the world. Many countries have based their vehicle codes upon the same set of norms.
Given recent weather trends it seems difficult to dismiss the logic and lessons that “tree huggers“ in Seattle and elsewhere wish to convey. A Prius may not be as utilitarian as a Ford F150 but most people do not need the extra capacity afforded and this truly is a shameful waste.
As far as requiring insurance, there is little need apart from one’s own health insurance as most cyclists and bicycle riders in general are not likely to inflict any significant damage or harm. With regard to a license, should this be mandatory for all bicycle users? I imagine this would be quite unwieldy and unfair to those who are too young and/or without adequate resources.
The current established bicycle safety gear usually involves lights, a helmet and adequate controls. The greater part of the safety issue for cyclists is the education of other road users. Major efforts are being made globally to make motor vehicle operators understand the cyclist’s right to use the roads and feel safe upon them.
While it is true that many cyclists don’t follow the full letter of the law while operating their vehicles, I can assure you, based on my 35+ years of experience riding that there are far more motor vehicle operators doing exactly the same. The difference is that drivers are risking much more than their own life and limb. By the way, I also ride a motorcycle and drive cars.
A bicycle rider not only wants to share the road but is entitled to the use of the roads and it is incumbent upon the other users to respect that right and allow for safe, equitable and mutually beneficial passage. Did you know that the first modern paved roads were built for the convenience of bicycle riders? http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com
Driving a motor vehicle is not a right. It is a privilege and given the global environmental changes, alternatives should be considered. Bicycling is just one of the available alternatives and has the added advantage of improving one’s health. Each bicyclist you encounter on your commute is one less vehicle blocking your path and one less cloud of noxious gasses, and likely one less patient at your doctor’s office.
Please consider a more in depth review of the information readily available to you.
Was out on my bike y.day & had a run in with the PSNI off N.Ireland who over took a parked car on the brow off a hill and nearly hit me head on so I give off to them. Then 3 mile up the road they stopped me & started giving me crap for there wrong doing. So if the local police can’t stick but the rules then I think that joe public won’t give a shit…
Paproy: This is your mistake – the debate is not about vehicles and how terrible emissions are; its not how eco a bicycle is and that operating a vehicle is a privelage. These are facts we already know and its an old story, a weak defense. Come up with something that would stick. Stop focusing on motor vehicles. The debate here is bicylces and safety! How can motor vehicles share the road with bicycles in todays world and be safe. Its more than painting bicycles on the road and expect motor vehicles to bow down to the ole mighty bicycle. Click your heals, your in Kanasa. I wish I could give a bicycle rider more than 4 feet for safety reasons. Bottom line the bicycle rider is like the car going 50 mph on the highway; you are hindering traffic and a safety issue. When I ride my motorcycle, all the vehicles around me are bigger and it will hurt much more if they hit me. Traffic laws are enforceable to a motor vehicle, they are not to a bicycle rider. Bike riders need to follow traffic laws as well. If you can, then thats a start. I want my car covered if a bicycle rider hits me or if they hit a pedestrian crossing the street. Safety should be the point of your message. Like I said, vehicles don’t want to share the road with motorcycles, bicycles will get less love. Sorry for the bad news. You know, we have side streets that work just as well.
@Patrick Simpson I’m afraid that your dialogue serves only to illustrate my point exactly. It is that so many people are unwilling to open their mind, leave the status quo behind and learn new ideas. There are vast wonderful worlds out there for those who choose to adapt and change.
As a cyclist I am not asking you to share your roads. I am exercising my right to use our roads and hoping that you will open your heart and mind to respect that right and see all the good that comes from our efforts.
Most car/bike interactions are because cars don’t want to lose 2 precious seconds of there time. If a bus, tractor or other slow moving vehicle impedes the auto’s progress then they are forced to wait for an opportunity to pass. They feel otherwise w/ bicycles as they are no match for two thousand pounds of steel. A car has a brake that requires two inches of foot movement to slow it down. You own a car not the road. Common law requires all vehicles to yield to vehicle in front of you. First came the horse, then the bicycle and then the car. The horse and cyclists work hard with their energy to propel them forward. Don’t be so inconvenienced as to jepordize another life to save two seconds. The cyclist will probably in most cases see you at the next light.
The problem is that it’s not advertized. A new law like that needs to be disseminated to the public, and nobody has heard of it other than cyclists.
Too much energy in promoting deadly bike lanes (like the downhill door-zone lane on Liberty Avenue) detracts from promoting more sensible measures.
Dave makes a good point. Everyone knows this is a law that cannot be enforced (same as the cell phone texting law). Please explain to me how a vehicle is going to keep a 4′ distance with a bicycle rider when the bicycle rider does not have a designated lane (other the bike lane). More often than not, bicycle riders ride in the middle of a lane. The law should require bike riders to stay to the far right, no weaving in and out of traffic, stop for stop signs and red lights, etc. Bicycle riders have to have some responsibility when riding on roads. Heck, lets go all the way, bring back horse and buggies on the road – they have the same rights to vehicles & bicycles right?
Many unenforceable laws are respected because they are advertised and because people see that they make sense. Whether a car obeys the law to the letter and gives a 4′ clearance, or just gives a 2-3′ clearance is not the issue. The issue is that the motorist knows he must give adequate clearance, and that he will be presumed to be at fault if he sideswipes a cyclist. The problem with this law is that nobody knows about it.
Bike lanes are often the most dangerous places for cyclists to travel in. The Liberty Avenue door-zone bike lane is absolutely deadly. A cyclist can easily travel the 35 mph speed limit down this lane, and if a door opens from a parked car he hits it at the same speed as if he had fallen off a 3-story building.
Moreover, he is less visible to cross traffic and to oncoming traffic that wants to turn than if he had been in the middle of the lane. The law is a good law. If Bike Pittsburgh put as much energy into advertizing this law as they put into advocating deadly bike lanes, cyclists would be a lot safer.
Looks like I was right; a Bike Pittsburgh representative was on KDKA this morning stating bicycle riders are required to adhere to traffic laws. If motor vehicles and bike riders follow the laws and respect each other, we will all be much safer. I would like to see it mandatory to see bike riders wear safety equipment, allows drivers see them and in case they fall off. No bike riding in the middle of the lane and dont sneak up on a vehicle just as its turning right. Hard to stay 4 ft from the rider if the rider closes distance on the vehicle.
Dave Holland is under the misconception that one cannot cross the median to pass slow-moving cyclists. The law is quite clear that one can do so when it is safe to do so, even if it’s a double-yellow line. This is true with regard to any vehicle moving so slowly as to constitute an obstacle, such as horses, wagons, carriages, etc., right town to debris in the road. Also, studies have proven that drivers leave a wider margin when cyclists take the center of the lane and the drivers have to cross the median.
And with all due respect to Patrick Simpson, he is completely clueless on this issue. Roads existed for thousands of years before automobiles, and nobody needed licenses. Long ago, the courts upheld license and registration for cars and drivers, stating that motorized vehicles posed hazards that other forms of travel did not pose.
A little legal history:
http://www.bikewalknc.org/2015/10/bicyclin…