CrankyOne

Thought this interesting. Presented @ Velocity 2017 this afternoon.



Full paper: https://editorialexpress.com/cgi-bin...7&paper_id=167

mcours2006

TLDR whole paper, which reads like a typical scientific study paper--long and boring, but a few thoughts on the summary:

1. Though the paper found no significant impact on cyclist fatality there was no mention of injury or crash, and given that rear end collisions are rare to begin with, the fail to account for that. This, IMO, makes the study almost much less irrelevant.

A study on whether MDPL reduces crashes and injuries would be much more relevant, and I would suspect that researchers would indeed find a significant difference. Data on this is much harder to come by than cyclist fatalities alone simply because most of the incidents go unreported, especially if there is little or no injury resulting from the crash.

2. A study like this might lead lawmakers who might be thinking of implementing MDPL to rethink it, or worse, for states that already have MDPL to abolish it, which is a HUGE mistake. Motorists would be given carte blanche to buzz drivers with impunity.

MDPL is a good idea, even if it is near impossible to enforce.

I'd be interested to see what others would have to say.

rumrunn6

I agree, but really what it shows is that this simple law is not the solution

canklecat

This...
I worked for OSHA (US Dept of Labor) for several years, including as a safety inspector and accident investigator. Before that I was a newspaper reporter. One thing I learned early on is that many accidents go unreported, even when the law mandates reporting and provides the accountability framework.

At the risk of thread digression, it was also surprising to discover as a reporter covering the police/fire beat that there was no federal standard for reporting shootings involving law enforcement officers. Only fairly recently has this become a big enough issue to consider federal standards and mandatory reporting to a unified database.

The point is, it's the same principle -- insufficient data about bicycle accidents, and the newness of relevant safety laws, makes it impossible to draw any useful conclusions.

These are mostly somewhat informed anecdotes masquerading as evidence.

And this...
I've experienced relatively few brush-bypasses. My own anecdotal observations indicate that minimum safe passing distances may encourage drivers to endanger themselves to avoid bicycles. Many times I've seen drivers swing excessively wide around me and nearly collide with oncoming vehicles. In every case this could have been avoided by waiting only a moment -- just a few seconds -- for a safer passing opportunity. But drivers tend to forget that lifting pressure from the right foot can magically slow a vehicle, and reapplying pressure on the other pedal can slow it even more effectively. They tend to use these techniques only when reminded by red traffic control devices.

So symbols do work. That's why we have those red traffic control devices.

Perhaps a more sensible solution would be reminders to pass safely, rather than mandating a minimum passing distance around bicycles. Reminders to pass safely would logically include not endangering oneself and other drivers while passing bicycles.

alan s 

Clearly, this calls for a 10' passing law. In other words, you have to wait behind a bike and drive 10-12 mph until there is room to go over to the other side of the road.

pdlamb

I think 3' passing laws are just one more cut (in a death by 1,000 cut sort of scenario). If a cyclist is killed by a passing driver, there's already quite a few applicable laws that COULD be used to cite the driver -- vehicular manslaughter in some cases, unsafe passing, reckless driving, to name a few -- but these penalties are so severe they're rarely enforced. These 3' laws gives the investigating law enforcement officer an easy, inexpensive ticket to write. The driver pays it, because it's so difficult to challenge. Then the cyclist's estate can sue for civil damages and win easily, because there was a "conviction" on the ticket.

NewATBikeComute

Thanks for posting this. I admit it has been way too many years since my statistics classes in college even to begin to understand the math, so I'll have to take that on faith.

With less than one year as a bike commuter, I have insufficient sampling data for any conclusion. I am glad that someone is at least attempting to put some science to the issue of safety.

mcours2006

I think that just the simple fact that there is an actual law for minimum distance itself indicates to drivers that they need to be more aware of how and when to pass cyclists. So having it is better than not having it. Is it enough? No, of course not. It is just one small cog in the public awareness campaign to educate everyone, motorists and cyclists alike, on how to share the road. Other measures such as dedicated bike lanes and segregated paths are more difficult and costly to implement.

In my area the new MDPL does include explicit language which states that the motorist is to wait behind the cyclist it is unsafe to pass, as well as crossing the centre median to pass when it is safe to do so. But most drivers don't like to brake unless they really, really have to.

unterhausen

the only place I have ever seen the PA 4' passing law mentioned is at Reigelville. There is a sign facing the New Jersey side of the bridge there. So there are probably more New Jerseyites that know about the law than Pennsylvanians. I recently saw an article that said the reason motorists get so upset at bicycles is that they think they are violating the law when they aren't. I know people think that we are supposed to ride the shoulder, for example. Even when there isn't a shoulder. It really would be helpful to have more information out there about these laws.

canklecat

That's actually not unreasonable. Many of the roads I and cycling acquaintances ride are two-lane rural highways, what used to be called farm to market roads. In ye olden dayes when I was a wee lad it wasn't unusual to encounter slow moving farm equipment on those roads. It was common knowledge that drivers were expected to yield to those slower moving vehicles and pass safely -- not honk at them and scream at them to get on the sidewalk or playground.

But as has been noted in many similar discussions, it's far too easy to get a driving license in the U.S. Most drivers can barely remember much more than "I'm supposed to stop at those red signs and lights, right? What a drag."

ItsJustMe

I don't see any correction for knowledge of, adherence to, or enforcement of these laws.

Passing a law that nobody knows about, people that do don't follow, and police don't enforce, clearly won't do anything.

sweeks

A few years ago the League of American Bicyclists kept records (as best they could) of bicyclist fatalities; the project was called "Every Bicyclist Counts". The final report is here: https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/...port_final.pdf

According to this report, "rear-end" crashes, where the cyclist is struck from behind, accounted for 40% of fatalities. This is not exactly "rare".

I also found the paper linked above worthy of "TLDR"... but I skimmed the whole thing and did not see any reference to rear-end crashes, which common sense suggests would be the most likely type to be favorably affected by minimum passing distance laws.

Minimum passing distance laws, *if effective*, would seem to be a logical approach to reducing at least this type of crash. The problem is the law's effectiveness. Like any law, if there is not more than "token" enforcement, the law is generally ignored. I could suggest hand-held cell-phone laws and lights-on-when wipers-are-in-use laws as examples of laws that are generally ignored (at least here in Chicago). Arguably, MPDLs are probably even more difficult to enforce because their violation must be observed at very close range. This means that these laws are relegated to the "kitchen sink" that may be thrown at a motorist only in the event of an actual collision.

In my personal opinion, motorists who would abide by MPDL are the same ones, generally, who would give a cyclist a safe passing distance. Laws are not likely to be effective deterrents for the drivers who would *not* use due caution around cyclists. My suggestion for helping to minimize rear-end crashes is the effective use of rear-view mirrors by cyclists. Unfortunately, none of the available bicycle accident data includes information about rear-view mirror use, so this is mere speculation. I do not feel comfortable riding on the street without a mirror, which I think may be as important a piece of safety equipment than a helmet (though I won't ride without a helmet either!).
Steve

mcours2006

I am actually aware of that stat. There are a few flaws with that particular study which was the subject of a thread here not long ago, but that notwithstanding, my point was that being hit from behind is rare in the first place, but if you do get rear-ended by a speeding car, God help you.

Being closely passed means that the cyclist hasn't been hit, but it is not inconceivable that it might cause the cyclist to lose control of the bike and subsequently crash, or it may force the cyclist to ride much closer to the curb than is safe for fear of being closely pass. That in itself may cause more problems.

DrIsotope

Why would anyone expect a measurably positive outcome? Drivers ignore speed limits, seldom come to complete stops at stop signs, fail to yield, drive in the carpool lane solo, and park wherever they like however they like. Why would they obey minimum passing distance laws? Most drivers simply consider bicycles annoying impediments to their direction of travel. The rest are too busy texting to notice cyclists at all.

kingston 

I would have been highly suspicious of the research if they had claimed to find one.

RubeRad

Every Car Driver Counts too -- ALL LIVES COUNT

sweeks

I wasn't meaning to be critical, and I take your point that rear-end crashes are low in the *incidence* department. I was trying to emphasize that they represent a significant fraction of those rare fatalities. We can probably agree that even a single fatality is one too many.

One strategy to avoid cars passing too closely is to ride farther out in the lane so an overtaking motorist must move into the next lane to pass. In Chicago there is actually a city ordinance that permits a cyclist to occupy a full lane if there is not enough room in the lane for a car and a bike to safely occupy it at the same time. Of course, probably 90% of motorists do not know this.
Steve

fietsbob

Seen any evidence it has been enforced, by the Authorities? Citations and fines imposed by the courts?

sweeks

Well, yes, of course. However,

1) I didn't name that study, and
2) Bicyclists are *significantly* more vulnerable to injury and death in a collision.
Steve

sweeks

Not sure what you are referencing here, but in my experience I have never seen or heard of a motorist or bicyclist being cautioned or ticketed for bicycle-related traffic infractions in Chicago.

I have "taken the lane" many times, and have not been ticketed... but I wouldn't be because I'm permitted to do this. I *have* occasionally been honked at or yelled at, but those motorists generally pass me with a wide margin. I watch 'em though!
Steve

fietsbob

An unenforced safety regulation is just PR & Theatre.

JohnJ80

exactly right. Seems that drivers that hit cyclists usually get off pretty easy and it's called an "accident" rather than being given a more appropriate consequence.

tyrion

Exactly. Maybe these laws do not significantly decrease fatalities (given their enforcement levels) but if they decrease crashes and injuries then they're still effective.

RubeRad

I was just joking, as that title bears an amusing similarity to taglines that are being thrown back and forth in our society nowadays -- best leave it at that to avoid venturing into P&R...

79pmooney

My first thought was, how many motorists actually know this law applies in their state? How many citizens monitor their legislation of their state to know when laws are changed in manners that affect them? Yes, we are responsible for knowing those changes, but lives will not be saved by a law that slips thorough the cracks.

I suspect most Oregon motorists have no idea that they must allow room for a cyclists to do a completely crazy out-of-the-blue any-which-way crash at any moment if that motorist is passing at 35 mph or more. I certainly didn't until I googled the Oregon code and searched for bike related laws. (My pet peeve - very few pedestrians in Portland have a clue that after placing their foot on the roadway, the legal signal that they intend to cross, they must wait to allow vehicles already entering or committed to entering to proceed through. In practice, as drivers we have to regard them as dogs, animals bound by no laws.)