PM is correct. The “Safe Passing” statute will, if signed into law, not affect cyclists in bike lanes. Because they are in their own delineated space, I would suspect the Magick Paint will be interpreted as already affording them protection according to the law. Extending that idea, there is unlikely to be any enforcement when a tractor/trailer, traveling in an outside lane, passes an urban pedestrian on a sidewalk. There will likely be fewer than six feet separating the two, but, since the pedestrian is on their own, protected facility, this prospective statute will not apply.

An exemplary application would be those instances where a sidewalk does not exist and the pedestrian is walking in the street. Motorists will not be able to buzz them as they pass; they will have to move away and afford at least three feet of space as a buffer.

For our purposes, this law will only apply to situations where the cyclist is operating on a road fourteen feet and wider or instances where timid or inexperienced cyclists are riding too far to the right on lanes narrower than fourteen feet. A competent and experienced vehicular cyclist will be far enough out in the lane already and overtaking motorists will have fully changed lanes and provided them with space equal to or greater than three feet, already.

So, yes, the discussion is largely moot for a variety of reasons.

Conceivably, if a roadway exists which has an outside lane equal to or greater than fourteen feet, with an adjacent bike lane, a cyclist could ride in the regular traffic lane; provided they stay as far right as possible (again, nullifying interpretation two). Of course, such a cyclist would be susceptible to all sorts of harassment from motorists demanding they use the adjacent bike lane.

The “vulnerable” protected class includes construction workers. If someone was , say, trimming vegetation while standing in a bike lane, wouldn’t the six foot rule still be applicable for trucks traveling there? Or would a truck not be compelled to divert at all?

I get that a fella leaning on a shovel would get three feet as a minimum safe passing distance no matter where he is on the road. Less clear, because the statute says vacating a lane would be sufficient, is whether a bike lane is a “travel lane”.

It is most likely a moot point, because such laws are never enforced. (Zero prosecutions in Florida in two years.)

It means one of two things, because it’s not there by accident.

1) Cyclists must use bike lane if present on a substandard width roadway,

2) Cyclists may not use full lane if a bike lane is present.

A thoughtful essay on impedance can be found here:
http://mighkwilson.com/2009/05/impeding-traffic-is/

I found the tape measure to be an eye-opening tool, and I recommend all of your readers employ it one Saturday in their own area. Stretch it out behind some parked automobiles as well. There are few wide lanes in north Texas.

I am curious what you, Herman, and P.M. Summer, think the new “Vulnerable road-user” bill will mean regarding bike lanes on multi-laned streets. I am of the opinion it may not require observance of the three foot passing distance, even if someone were inclined to enforce it.

Tailwinds!

I’ll be honest, PM, there was a time when I did not share your views on this statement. When taken alone and out of context, it seems to suggest that the criteria of the outside lane being less than fourteen feet and the presence of a designated bike lane are separate considerations. If the gaps are removed and the sentence combined as a contiguous statement, then the intent changes.

unless…the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is…less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane

Constructed this way there can be little doubt the intent is to require use of the bike lane when the outside lane is less than fourteen feet. Given that most routes containing bike lanes are already cramped for space in order to accommodate the bike lane, this effectively mandates use of the bike lane where present. I am aware of very few instances where mandatory use of the bike lane would not exist.

Ambiguity on this point results from use of the contraction “and”. If “or” were used instead, the intent would be more definitive: if the bike lane exists, it must be used.

I wait with eagerness to see if we read this the same way.