I'm new City Commissioner....3' Rule

[wizarddaw]

I have taken a seat on the Battle Creek City Commission as an at-large commissioner and would like to hear from folks here regarding the 3' rule and other bike/recreation ideas you may have.

If I understand it correctly we do not have a 3' rule in place in Michigan, let alone local jurisdictions. I have done lots of miles this year on the roadway around Battle Creek and even though some of that is within the bike lanes, safety seems to be an issue. I have asked the police department to do a search of vehicle/bike accidents for the last 36 months to gather that data and because of the new position I have made contact with a couple of the local Michigan representatives to take this to the state level.

The city seems willing to listen and after I gather some thoughts from this forum and look at the data from the police, I want to start this movement, if needed, at the local level and see if we cant provide some safety for cyclists and a means of punishment for those that drive too close both intenionally and unintentionally.

Please post any ideas here or shoot me an email at my City Commission email address of davewalters4bc@aol.com.

Thanks in advance and lets see if we cant do something positive here!

Dave
Battle Creek, Michigan

[wizarddaw]

Received some great info via email....thanks so much and please keep it coming!

Dave
Battle Creek, Michigan

[bike00]

While I'd love to see a 3 foot (or more) passing rule in Michigan as a whole, the problem with implementing it at the local level is how does a motorist know it's the law in that jurisdiction? You would have to post signs at every road leading into your city.

[wizarddaw]

Hello bike00, The city attorney is looking into it for me as to the how and when. Also, the police have the info for me and a quick phone call showed over 50 car/bike accidents in the city limits in the last 24 month period ,which is more than car/pedestrian accidents in the same time frame. Anyway, I am meeting with the records division of the police department tomorrow and will post the stats if anyone is interested. Take care,

Dave
Battle Creek, Michigan

[firefighterdirt]

Thanks Dave

[wizarddaw]

Met with City Attorney and BCPD. Going through the data right now, the City Attorney is doing some research as well but seems to be in favor of the idea. There is a city commission workshop on numerous topics on December 1st and I am bringing this up to the other commissioners so we can see how they feel about the issue. If all goes well this could actually happen next month. We would put it in our Uniform Traffic Code (UTC), city ordinance sections. Thanks again to the people that sent info my way....lets see if we can get this rolling! Happy Thanksgiving,

Dave
Battle Creek, Michigan

[johnnyg]

Keep up the good work, Dave.

The League of Michigan Bicyclists would be a good resource for you on this matter. Ask to talk to John Lindenmayer.

If I remember correctly, I think LMB's philosophy is that the 3 foot rule is not adequate since 3 feet may not always be enough for safe passage-- that instead a safe passage rule is better.

I wonder whether 3 foot minimum and safe passage requirement would be the best of both worlds.

[Roy]

Dave,
Before you bring it up in a public meeting make sure you have the support of at least 1 other commissioner and several supporters from the general public. Try to talk to all the other commissioners prior to the meeting. You don't want to start a war, first time out. The other commissioners will want to show a unified view to the public, even if they disagree with you in private.
Good Luck!
Roy

[wizarddaw]

Hello Roy,
Thanks for the advice, it is well taken and appreciated. I have been on the commission for about 3 months, and have a great working relationship with most of the commissioners. We have been emailing back and forth and there are others on board. The workshop on the 1st is an early morning meeting where we go over things just like this....it is open to the public but we dont see the public attend at all, so it ends up satisfying the opens meeting act but is almost private in nature. It is a chance for all of us to toss things out there and have some discussion prior to our normal meetings every other week. I will be contacting the LMB and have a handle on our stats by then. I dont want to jump the gun but do want to at least get the word out.
I will take into consideration all the comments here as well and see what we can work out.
Thanks again,

Dave

[Critter7r]

I'm all for bicycle safety and all... I ride on public roads myself, although i try to confine myself to less-travelled dirt roads. But did anyone try to find out how many (if any) of the 50 car/bike accidents involved vehicles striking a bike travelling in the same direction? As in, something to which the 3-foot-rule would actually apply? The 3-foot-rule is moot when a car hits a bicyclist at an intersection.

Plus, this: " ...see if we cant provide some safety for cyclists and a means of punishment for those that drive too close both intenionally and unintentionally", really isn't about safety of cyclists, it's all about punishment. Because everyone KNOWS that you have to drive far enough away from a cyclist so as to not hit them, so telling them that they have to do so isn't telling them anything they don't already know. But putting a law into place creates an opportunity to punish someone more severly (read: collect a larger fine) when their inattentiveness causes them to stirke a cyclist, instead of merely issuing a "careless driving" citation.

I'm not much of an advocate of government officials creating laws to pander to certain groups, even when I belong to that group. And obviously (to me), this is such an effort. There are many other more-important issues to tackle than to address such an un-issue as this.

[wizarddaw]

Critter,

I appreciate your comments. I am not pandering to you or anyone. On the commission we handle many different topics that include policy/public safety. This happens to be one that actually was brought to me by the family of a cyclist who was killed by a vehicle driver who violated the safety rule that we are trying to look into. If pandering is asking this group what thoughts they have on this and seeing what kind of research may already exist....then I am guilty as charged....and would do it again!
I am doing the best I can to represent the people that live, work and visit our city, and yes....even YOU if you fall into one of those categories.
We are having a meeting tomorrow night so please feel free to stop by and make your voice heard and see how many items are on our agenda such as medical marihuana, tax abatements, union issues, rental ordinances, beautiful city awards, youth achievement, airport funding, water and sewer taxes and more.
I will look forward to seeing you there....and if you are riding a bike please be careful.

Dave

[Roy]

This replay is in response to Critter's remarks. How would the 3 ft rule be in-forced? Maybe if, a Cop was behind a line of cars passing a bike. When a car hits a bike that could indicate the rule had been broken. But how do you prove that the Bike didn't veer into the path of the car. Once the litigation starts it is all down hill. The 3 foot rule has a good intent, but I wonder about how it could be applied. You might take different tack. Mayb take a page from construction. Double all fines and penalties to the car driver if a Bike is struck. It might work on a local level, and then spread.
I can see the add posters "STRIKE A BIKE--- YOU HIKE"
It is just an idea you might look at.
I am sure that all Bikers that read this form really appreciate you accepting and working on this difficult issue. You have already made huge progress.
Just by putting the issue on the table is a huge break thru. It is bigger then you think!

Roy

[Di_bear]

Plus, this: " ...see if we cant provide some safety for cyclists and a means of punishment for those that drive too close both intenionally and unintentionally", really isn't about safety of cyclists, it's all about punishment. Because everyone KNOWS that you have to drive far enough away from a cyclist so as to not hit them, so telling them that they have to do so isn't telling them anything they don't already know. But putting a law into place creates an opportunity to punish someone more severly (read: collect a larger fine) when their inattentiveness causes them to stirke a cyclist, instead of merely issuing a "careless driving" citation.

Having said this, I would forego the part about increasing punishment and, instead, focus on enforcement. Talk to police officers about the concept, make sure they understand the law (many of them don't, and some are biased against cyclists), and ask them what they need from the city in order to more easily enforce this law. Make it a priority for the police so that the community gets a strong message that your city isn't screwing around when it comes to the safety of cyclists.

I feel this is an important step because some cops say of current laws that enforcing them isn't as easy as what one might think because of the way current laws are written.

[Nelg]

Plus, this: " ...see if we cant provide some safety for cyclists and a means of punishment for those that drive too close both intenionally and unintentionally", really isn't about safety of cyclists, it's all about punishment. Because everyone KNOWS that you have to drive far enough away from a cyclist so as to not hit them, so telling them that they have to do so isn't telling them anything they don't already know. But putting a law into place creates an opportunity to punish someone more severly (read: collect a larger fine) when their inattentiveness causes them to stirke a cyclist, instead of merely issuing a "careless driving" citation.

Having said this, I would forego the part about increasing punishment and, instead, focus on enforcement. Talk to police officers about the concept, make sure they understand the law (many of them don't, and some are biased against cyclists), and ask them what they need from the city in order to more easily enforce this law. Make it a priority for the police so that the community gets a strong message that your city isn't screwing around when it comes to the safety of cyclists.

I feel this is an important step because some cops say of current laws that enforcing them isn't as easy as what one might think because of the way current laws are written.

As some one who has been hit I disagree with skipping the increase in punishment. In this state you can strike a cyclist, paralyze them and only get a minuscule fine and four points on your license. Beyond that it's a civil suit and good luck getting anything if they have nothing to begin with.

If every cyclist represented a severe financial loss and potential loss of freedoms people would be more careful.

[pimpalicous]

If every cyclist represented a severe financial loss and potential loss of freedoms people would be more careful.

I have to disagree, there are plenty of laws that "represent severe financial loss and potential loss of freedoms" that people have no regard for and continue to violate every day. There are already laws that can be enforced in regard to a cyclist being struck, i.e. fail to yield, following too closely, careless driving, reckless driving, felonious assault w/ a motor vehicle. I understand the nature of the proposed legislation is to provide a "safety zone" around a cyclist to keep him/ her from being hit, but in the real world it is more likely to be enforced when a cyclist is hit, unless on a rare occasion a cyclist friendly officer is directly behind a violator (there's a better chance in hitting the Power Ball).

Also striking a cyclist/ pedestrian/ dog/ goat/ bovine (insert whatever you like here) does represent a "severe financial loss" through the civil court system. But as another person posted (and I'm summarizing) you can't get something from nothing, so fining a person who has nothing to start with will yield the same results. We could always suspend their driver's license but they'll still drive. Where does that leave us? Enforcing laws that are going to be disregarded anyways.

To the point about making this a priority for the police, that's laughable at best. Talk to your local police administrator and he'll give you the PC answer and tell you that they're all over it. Right, with local government (read police departments) losing funding due to decreased property tax revenue and diminishing federal grant programs, which have caused staffing levels to decrease, in turn increasing the call for service loads of the officers/ deputies/ troopers on the street.

I’m not trying to belittle this cause, as the OP’s heart is in the right place, but to shed some light on the other issues that could potentially surround the enforcement of such an ordinance/ law.

The answer is a well written law/ ordinance AND public education. Without education on the issue, you can pass all the laws you want and still not change the behavior of the individual. You just have to look at the "texting While Driving Law" to see another "brilliant" piece of Michigan legislation. There is no "real" way to enforce this law, just ask your local law enforcement officers, but they expected to enforce it.

Good luck in your pursuit of cyclist safety.