Proposed Ohio Law Would Change Rules For Passing Bicyclists

[Anonymous]

It is being called the 3-foot passing law and it is being proposed in an Ohio House Committee Tuesday. The Ohio Bicycle Federation delivered a petition to Ohio lawmakers with more than 1,100 signatures asking them to protect bicycles on the roadways and change existing bicycle laws.Language from the petition states: We propose that the traffic laws be amended to improve safety for cyclists on Ohio roadways. In particular, we propose the passing law include the provision, that when overtaking a bicycle, the safe passing distance shall not be less than 3 feet. Another part of the law the proposed bill would change refers to stopping and proceeding at a stop light if the light does not detect the cyclist.

Chuck Smith with the Ohio Bicycle Federation said, “If a cyclist pulls up to a red light and the signal does not detect the bike, the cyclist can proceed with caution after stopping and yielding the right of way.”

Ohio Representative and the bill’s sponsor Mike Henne told the committee that 21 other states have implemented the 3-foot minimum passing clearance law.

House Bill 145 would clarify the language in the Ohio Revised Code.

From here:

http://www.nbc4i.com/story/22248728/proposed-ohio-law-would-change-rules-for-passing-bicyclists

[bucki12]

How would the cyclist know that a particular stop signal is controlled by a pressure sensor? Most are not. Is there a minimum wait time?

The other issue is that most marked single lane roads have double yellow no passing lines marked in them. They would need to be breached for the 3ft rule. Would those be disregarded in cases of passing bicycles?

[pez]

Is the safe passing the distance to the side of the bike, in front when merging back over, or both? Also, I would like to see motorcycles included in the intersection rule change when they are not detected by the sensors.

[columbusmike]

It’s unfortunate we need more LAWS for common sense stuff. If a cop sees a vehicle passing a bicyclist too close, of course they should be pulled over for endangering that persons life, whether it’s 3 feet or 5 feet. If I’m at a red light on my bike that is taking forever, and there is no traffic, of course I proceed. And hopefully the officer would understand if for whatever reason they wanted to pull me aside for going through a red light.

[paktinat]

bucki12 said:
The other issue is that most marked single lane roads have double yellow no passing lines marked in them. They would need to be breached for the 3ft rule. Would those be disregarded in cases of passing bicycles?

Already addressed in ORC §4511.31:
You may cross double yellow lines if the vehicle you are passing is going less than half the speed of the posted speed limit.

pez said:
Is the safe passing the distance to the side of the bike, in front when merging back over, or both? Also, I would like to see motorcycles included in the intersection rule change when they are not detected by the sensors.

Just to the left.
Also the intersection rule would apply to any vehicles where the signal is “malfunctioning, including the failure of a vehicle detector to detect the vehicle”

[M.O.]

What we really need is three feet of well-paved berm. Cyclists who bike on our crowded, skinny no-berm farm roads would be safer playing Russian Roulette.

[geedeck]

M.O. said:
What we really need is three feet of well-paved berm. Cyclists who bike on our crowded, skinny no-berm farm roads would be safer playing Russian Roulette.

I disagree not with your logic (safer bikers) but that berms make bikers safe. You pretty much need a full blown separate bike lane, or just a full car lane that bikers can take. In my cycling experience, some cars will be plenty happy to take your lane if they think you aren’t using enough of it. Then again maybe we’re just using different words to describe 99% same things.

Anyway, hope this passes.

[bob.os]

bucki12 said:
How would the cyclist know that a particular stop signal is controlled by a pressure sensor? Most are not. Is there a minimum wait time?

This.

How is this not the run-red-light-on-a-bicycle bill?

[paktinat]

I’d assume the burden of proof would be on the person who went through the light and got caught.

Take an instance in my personal history for example:
The light sensors at 3rd and olentangy river rd do not detect bicycles very well.
Late one cold December evening many years ago I waited on my bicycle through 2 cycles of the walk symbol trying to cross olentangy rd west bound on 3rd, but the signal for north/south traffic remained green even though there were no vehicles. You can see the N/S pedestrian walk symbols go from walk, to flashing don’t walk, to solid don’t walk, back to walk all while the N/S traffic lights stay green.
Obviously the magnetic detector was not sensing my bicycle and therefore the signal was malfunctioning.
I decided to proceed, because of the malfunction and it being ever so cold.
A police officer puled me over not a minute later and issued me a ticket for running a red light. Despite the fact that I had stopped completely and for some time; all which the officer said to me he saw, he was completely in the legal right to cite me.

As the law stands now(and then), I had no legal recourse in showing the light failed to detect me and therefore was malfunctioning. With these changes in the law I would have a venue to argue that due to the malfunction I should not be cited for proceeding through the intersection.

Further more this section does not only apply to bicycles instead to any vehicle as defined under the ORC; so I dont see how this would become the run-red-light-on-a-bicycle bill.

[Author]

Posts