Thursday, August 26, 2010

The 3 foot passing law was rejected (HB1048)..why?

Here's a copy of the article regarding the 3 foot passing law for cars that have to pass cyclists-Please give your input.

Legislative ReportPosted by admin on February 16th, 2010

HB1048 was introduced to provide modest changes to state law by providing a 3 ft passing rule between a car and a bike, and made the following too closely law apply when a car is following a bike. Had it been passed, it would have brought safer conditions for bicyclists by establishing rules for safe passing and following. The bill was supported by the City of Virginia Beach, Fairfax Country, Drive Smart, VA Motorcycle Dealers Assn and others. It was not opposed in person by any group in either of the committee or subcommittee hearings. In a separate action, the Senate voted 40Y-0N the week before to approve the 3 ft passing law change provided in SB566

Unfortunately, HB1048 made it through committee but was killed yesterday in a vote along party lines in the Republican controlled house. It was strongly opposed on the floor of the house and in committe by Del. Cosgrove of Chesapeake, and Del. Carrico of Galax.

3 comments:

  1. I'll be the first to comment on this. IT MAKES NO SENSE! There are many states now that have not only passed the (3 foot rule), some have gone to 5 feet. I guess I'm adamant about giving us room since last year while riding on the road (which by law we have the same rights as any other motorist)I felt the car behind me just before impact...they didn't knock me over or actually cause any damage but I felt the "entire" length of the car on my left thigh. I had lights, reflectors, everything, but as they passed me they honked the horn as If I had done something wrong! I tried to catch up to them at the light, but they totally ignored me. It's just amazing how little respect we get on the roads.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, It seems crazy that at a time in which we're trying to promote cycling and other alternative means of transportation to save fuel, a legislature would be opposed to providing the legal infrastructure needed to encourage greater cycling usage.

    ReplyDelete
  3. O.K., so it got killed along party lines. My question is: Was there any debat or discussion on the House floor prior to the vote? If so, what was the discussion? I believe to truly know your opponent, you need to know where it is they are coming from. Hopefully they discussed this Bill before the vote, and tipped their hand as to their reason for opposing it.

    ReplyDelete