Cars vs. bikes is about proximity

Last week the three-feet law – officially known as the Three Feet for Safety Act – went into affect all over California, requiring motorists to keep that margin of safe distance between their vehicles and the bicycles they pass on the road.|

Last week the three-feet law – officially known as the Three Feet for Safety Act – went into affect all over California, requiring motorists to keep that margin of safe distance between their vehicles and the bicycles they pass on the road.

It’s a nice idea, a precautionary rule, and a legal standard allowing police to fine people who don’t give cyclists a safe margin. The penalty for violation is a $35 fine that, with court and administrative fees added (one way the state balances its budget), will actually cost transgressors a total of $233. If a car has a collision with a bike, causing injury, the fine jumps to $220 and total costs get close to $1,000.

Well and good. If even one life is saved as a result, the law is redeemed.

But we have to ask what protections motorists have from the risky, illegal and sometimes utterly irrational riding behavior of cyclists who seem routinely indifferent to the long-established rules of the road, ignoring stop signs and red lights, riding two and three abreast on narrow roads like Arnold Drive, and sometimes darting through traffic in the dark without lights.

We’re not aware of enforcement initiatives targeting bike riders who appear to violate traffic laws far more frequently than they obey them.

And that leads us to wonder if it wouldn’t be wise to require cyclists who ride on public streets to be licensed, like motorists, with the requirements that they be tested on their knowledge of the rules of the road, and that all bicyclists, like all motorcyclists, be required to wear helmets, not just kids under the age of 18.

Bike safety cuts both ways. Maybe if the law took cyclists more seriously, more cyclists would get serious about the law.

But that, in our mind, is only a peripheral issue, a Band-Aid on a problem that is more about infrastructure than about obedience. The conflict between cars and bikes is too often a lethal one, born out of inappropriate proximity.

We are a culture largely dependent upon and enthralled with automobiles. That relationship has long since defined our architecture, our city planning, the design, location and use of our streets and roads. Almost wholly absent from the transportation equation is accommodation of human-powered travel.

The recently constructed, and brilliantly successful roundabout on Arnold Drive at Agua Caliente Road is a perfect case in point. Designed to facilitate the efficient movement of cars, the roundabout ignores what some would argue is the more urgent need to facilitate the safe movement of bicycles and pedestrians along the same road. We have wondered if the same $2 million paid for the roundabout could not have paid for a safe bike lane along the one mile of Arnold Drive where it is too dangerous to ride without great risk.

According to Caltrans directives, “The needs of non-motorized transportation are an essential part of all highway projects. Mobility for all travel modes is recognized as an integral element of the transportation system.”

Nice words, routinely ignored.

On Thursday, Sonoma County Regional Parks will hold a 6:30 meeting at the Veterans Hall to discus the “potential” bicycle and pedestrian trail through Sonoma Valley, linking Sonoma to Santa Rosa with a Class I, detached pathway. It would be nice if the meeting were packed. It would be nice if Caltrans were present.

– David Bolling

UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy:
  • This is a family newspaper, please use a kind and respectful tone.
  • No profanity, hate speech or personal attacks. No off-topic remarks.
  • No disinformation about current events.
  • We will remove any comments — or commenters — that do not follow this commenting policy.