Last summer, a woman cyclist in Austin, Texas was gathered up in a drink driver's accident and seriously injured (the 'alleged' drink driver, ironically, was named 'Bykowski'). Earlier this month, the same woman was struck by a motorist in a hit-and-run and injured again, sustaining broken hand & finger bones. The motorist was located, arrested and charged with failure to stop and render aid. I don't know if the hit-and-run is an implied or included charge in the failure to stop but there is no mention in the linked story of the 'alleged' motorist being charged with the act of running into a bicyclist.
The story also mentions that the woman's boyfriend also has twice been struck by a motorist and seriously injured while cycling.
Cyclist recovering from crash with drunk driver injured again in hit-and-run
According to my research (might be out of date) the state of Texas does not have a 3-foot law but the city of Austin does. According to
this 2013 story in the Washington Post, Austin had been actively enforcing the law. The linked story mentions that Austin police had issued 104 tickets for $167 each but doesn't mention how long a period of time that covered.
According to
this story on a cycling activism website, Austin's method requires an officer on a bicycle and a pursuit vehicle, which highlights two of the glaring flaws in the 'minimum separation' laws. First, they aren't making any effort to enforce the law when violators fail to give minimum separation to a "real" cyclist, only to their police decoy. Second, unless the bicycle copper is the Manx Missile, the operation will always require (at minimum) a second officer in an automobile to chase down and apprehend the offender. And I have to question how many jurisdictions are sufficiently concerned with the safety of such a small segment of the population to remove two coppers from "real" police work -- which is how I am certain many (if not most) 'cagers' will view it -- and put them to protecting a bunch of scofflaws in spandex.
The latter linked story also mentions that the Austin model doesn't use electronic measurement but involves training the bicycle officers to use visual cues to recognise when their three foot halo is being violated. But it gives them the discretion to have a warning ticket issued if they aren't convinced a violation has occurred. Which sounds to me to be a better plan than electronic enforcement because it somewhat reduces the gross cost of the enforcement program by avoiding the expense of the ultrasonic distance measuring device. And it allows the officer to enforce what is basically a "stop-and-go penalty" (to borrow a motor racing term) if there is any doubt that the letter of the law was violated.
The only two places I have heard tell of that could be bothered to spend for the bike-mounted "sonar" were Chattanooga, Tennessee and Ottawa, Canada. Chattanooga is home to Litespeed and Merlin, so they obviously have a vested interest in protecting cyclists, but I don't know why Ottawa would be so kindly disposed toward us.
What I like least about the minimum separation laws is that none of them (AFAIK) obligates the motorists (when practicable) to cede the entire lane to the cyclist. That failing creates three further problems, the first being one of enforcement. It is much 'fiddlier' to determine (to a reasonable certainty) whether the motorist has left one metre/three feet separation to the cyclist than to determine whether the motor vehicle has vacated the entire lane (at least in cases when a centreline is present).
The second problem is it effectively codifies the motorist's unilateral right to share the cyclist's lane. Which also necessarily is a codification that the cyclist has
no right to the greater lane.
Thirdly, it ignores the fact that sheer common sense dictates that mandatory separation distance should increase with motor vehicle speed. So
chapeau to the Irish for getting that bit right (the first place I have seen that incorporated).
Ideally, I would prefer the statutes read something like,
Whenever practicable, the motorist must vacate the entire lane and overtake the bicyclist(s) while entirely within the oncoming lane (as determined by the position of the vehicle's near-side tyres relative to the centreline stripe). When no centreline stripe is present, or when the entire roadway is less than two full lanes in width [which will be the case in many country lanes in the UK and parts of the continent], the motorist shall drive as far to the opposite side of the roadway as is practicable, but in no case violating the minimum separation distance and overtaking speed as set forth in the following clause.
Only when opposing traffic or roadway conditions makes using the oncoming lane impractical may the motorist share the cyclist's/cyclists' lane, and then only after slowing to an overtaking speed relative to the cyclist(s) of no faster than a brisk walk (approximately 8 kph/5 mph), always maintaining a safe distance between the motor vehicle and bicycle(s) of not less than one metre/three feet, and shall maintain such clearance until safely past the overtaken bicycle(s).
It's wordy to enunciate but the concept is simple. Give the cyclist ALL THE ROOM you are able. If circumstances compel you to share THE CYCLIST'S LANE,
slow the FLIP down.
This would give police a much more workable tool for enforcement, it only requires half as many police be involved, all motor vehicle-mounted police can participate in enforcement, and enforcement extends to ALL cyclists, not just the police's decoy. Furthermore, it codifies the cyclist's 'right' to the entire lane, and it requires motorists to slow down if they're sharing the cyclist's lane. I would sooner a car only leave me half a metre but slow appreciably than give me the full metre, even a metre and half and still going 80 kph.
I also think fines for violating the minimum separation law needs to be comparable to drink driving costs. Which in much of the developed world is well into four figures pounds/Euros/dollars. First of all, drink driving law is about punishing a driver for acts that potentially could but did not necessarily threaten human safety. The threat to safety posed by minimum separation violators is at least as material (I would argue more) than a driver cited for drink driving who didn't cause an accident or wasn't observed driving erratically (e.g., caught at a police checkpoint). I see no logical reason why the penalty applied should not be as great.
EDIT:
It obviously is going to require a rather sharp jolt to make motorists wake up and respect cyclists' presence on the road, and I reckon a fine of 2500 € just might be the ticket.