They just passed another similar law: Slow Down and Move Over (31-14). http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE31/31-…
It's punishable by an $85 fine, not much of a deterrent. Deterrents might keep people from consuming. Can't have that.

The general reaction has been, what? Nobody gets it. In brief, you've got to respect AAA tow truck drivers or police assisting motorists or giving tickets by the roadside.

It's already law that you must remain under control of your vehicle. What if there's a sudden pileup ahead? You always had to slow or stop for intersecting dump trucks or payloaders working construction sites. Perhaps this law clarifies a motorist's responsibility among those who actually read and understand laws, lawyers who work the system for their advantage, perhaps, but few others.

Again, removing cell phones from motorists who are supposed to be driving and paying attention would help make roads safer for everyone. Revoking licenses of multiple offenders would make both biking and driving very pleasant.

Most motorists have good common sense around safe passing. However, a percentage of law abiding motorists do not and need a clear standard they can readily understand–such as 3-feet law. Some states have tried 3-feet recommendations rather than laws, but they are not nearly as effective. Recommedations are commonly ignored (e.g., recomendations not to use a cell phone in a car were ineffective). Further, it is much harder when publicizing 3-feet to get people’s attention if it is only a recommendation not a law.

3-feet laws are NOT meant to be strictly enforced, and are not. If there is an egregious violation a citation might issue, but only then. Most of the times only a warning is issued unless the pass is clearly dangerous (such as at high speed with tight clearance).

The value of the 3-feet law is in the injuries and deaths avoided because an additional percent of motorists will pass more safely. It is not in the number of citations issued.

The big question in my mind is what does the cycling community want from such a law? What is it we are really after? Would our lives suddenly be much safer if all motorists kept three feet when they passed us? I think what we really want is recognition that cycling is a valid form of transportation and that we should be respected when on the road. These are really societal changes and require a change in thinking the part of motorists AND cyclists.

Motorists need to come to a realization that cyclists have every right to be on the road. Yes, cyclists will be in your way at times, but that doesn't give you the right to endanger their lives. They must be respected and given room to navigate to wherever they are going.

Cyclists need to realize that they are not above the laws. Flying through stop signs and stop lights just isn't legal. We are required to yield to pedestrians at all times and must wait our turn at stops, just like cars do.

Do you really think that the police are going to set up a "bike trap" to catch people that are not following this law? And what will a lawyer with any sense do with that wording once it gets to court?

From my own experience, I'd like more than a few inches when I'm being passed, if only for my own comfort, but also as a safety against the unforeseen caused by road conditions (potholes, ice, opening car doors) and other hazards.

On reading the bill, I think the "driver must slow to 10 or 20 mph below the speed limit" doesn't seem to me to have a use. I think they're trying to suggest that when passing with less than a safe distance, the driver should slow their speed to not blow the cyclist over, but the wording doesn't make this clear.

Laws that impact cycling in Rhode Island should be written by active cyclists and cycling advocacy groups, rather than non-cyclists. Cycling is better served if local bicycling organizations and bicycle shop operators review current bicycle related statutes (cf. 31-19-1, et seq.), then lobby for legislative changes that serve and promote shared use of the public roadways, as well as safe, responsible cycling. Ad hoc legislation does not serve cycling's long term interests.

MM