Close Pass

Beasty · 05-06-2012 3:56pm

Compared to the grief a lot of members of this forum gave magnatom when he posted videos of his exploits in Glasgow (I'm not suggesting the OP here is in the same league as that guy, but there appear to be similarities in approach), Jawgap has been relatively constrained in his comments, which have been generally constructive, even if contrary to a lot of the comments posted. We would not have a discussion forum if we were to expect posters to go along with the majority view on things;)

I would add that I tend more towards Jawgap's position on some of these matters, although clearly a lot of ground has been covered and I would not say I completely agree with anyone's comments.

Lumen · 05-06-2012 4:26pm

This phenomenon does not require lack of skill; it can be explained by randomness and survivor bias.

You take a population of cyclists, some of those will have close calls. Some of those will buy cameras to record their journeys. The ones that stop having close calls will not upload the videos to Youtube (and will presumably give up recording altogether) leaving only the really unlucky ones.

Some people think the videos discourage cycling, some people think they are educational, most people don't really care.

I can only write from experience, and my experience of cycling around Dublin for the past few years is that the rate of life-threatening incidents is close to zero, and those that do occur are usually preventable with either a bit more patience on my part or everyone else learning to drive/cycle/walk properly.

Hermy · 05-06-2012 4:38pm

AltAccount wrote: »

Publishing all these "near misses by crazy drivers" just reinforces the common perception that cycling is dangerous and may turn people off the idea of cycling.

I think rather than reinforce the common perception that cycling is dangerous publishing these videos actually highlights the source of the danger.

Dermot Illogical · 05-06-2012 4:41pm

Lumen wrote: »

This phenomenon does not require lack of skill; it can be explained by randomness and survivor bias.

You take a population of cyclists, some of those will have close calls. Some of those will buy cameras to record their journeys. The ones that stop having close calls will not upload the videos to Youtube (and will presumably give up recording altogether) leaving only the really unlucky ones.

Some people think the videos discourage cycling, some people think they are educational, most people don't really care.

I can only write from experience, and my experience of cycling around Dublin for the past few years is that the rate of life-threatening incidents is close to zero, and those that do occur are usually preventable with either a bit more patience on my part or everyone else learning to drive/cycle/walk properly.

I can highly recommend reading that in a Baz Luhrmann accent.

rich.d.berry · 05-06-2012 4:44pm

Jawgap wrote: »

My final point on the matter is borrowed from an article on the use of headcams on the BBC.....

"Nor are all cyclists convinced by the trend. Paul Kitson is a lawyer specialising in personal injury cases involving cyclists. He uses footage in cases but has yet to be convinced to wear a camera on his commute.

"A camera helmet can secure a case for you, but personally I think it's going a bit too far. I do own a cycle helmet camera but I use it for skiing."

It seems that the author was selective about the message conveyed in the article you quote from. This video shows an interview with Paul Kitson (starts @ 2:55) where he is extremely supportive of cyclists having video evidence and states "There have been many cases that I've dealt with where a camera helmet would have been extremely useful.". In fact, there is nothing that he says that has any negative connotations about cyclists wearing video cameras.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af4n6wZCgs0

Mycroft H · 05-06-2012 5:04pm

droidus wrote: »

Nah, cyclists with cameras are simply looking for trouble, just like drivers with dashcams and women who carry rape alarms.

My dad got deliberately reversed into by a car in front of him in a housing estate before Christmas. It was a scam to get insurance money. The case dragged out for ages until we got CCTV from a house that proved the car having reversed into my dad. We only then got payout from their insurers. That took 3 months.

If there was a dash cam in the car, it could have been sorted in a week. I now use one for that reason. I'm not looking for trouble, I've better things to be worrying about during my day to day business. But its there if I ever need it.

CramCycle · 05-06-2012 5:22pm

BX 19 wrote: »

If there was a dash cam in the car, it could have been sorted in a week. I now use one for that reason. I'm not looking for trouble, I've better things to be worrying about during my day to day business. But its there if I ever need it.

Oddly enough, I usually have a video camera recording in the car for any trouble but would only video scenery and descents on my bike if I had a camera.

My main reason is that the few times I drive, I don't want the guy who rear ends me to get punished because some Kamikaze driver on the M50 decided to test my breaking power by not indicating, not looking and then swerving over regardless.

nomdeboardie · 05-06-2012 5:38pm

doozerie wrote: »

... The cycle lane simply stops abruptly, throws its hands up in the air, shrugs, and says "feck it, yer on yer own, just remember you can't sue me 'cos I'm not here, right" in that helpful way that many of them do. ...

:pac::pac::pac:
[I'm not familiar enough with this piece of road to comment, but this is a lovely description of disappearing cycle lanes]

droidus · 05-06-2012 8:29pm

BX 19 wrote: »

My dad got deliberately reversed into by a car in front of him in a housing estate before Christmas. It was a scam to get insurance money. The case dragged out for ages until we got CCTV from a house that proved the car having reversed into my dad. We only then got payout from their insurers. That took 3 months.

If there was a dash cam in the car, it could have been sorted in a week. I now use one for that reason. I'm not looking for trouble, I've better things to be worrying about during my day to day business. But its there if I ever need it.

Yep, of course. Id just like to point out that I was being sarcastic in that last post and parodying the whole blame the victim nonsense that gets trotted out everytime anyone on the roads with a camera is the victim of dangerous driving.

I thought my comment was outrageous enough for this to be obvious, but I may not have been clear enough (or there may be some malfunctioning sarcasm detectors around here), either way, apologies.

deadlyspot.com · 05-06-2012 9:59pm

Well, to some we are going to have agree to disagree. There is plenty to be learnt from making a video of road usage. There is no perfect road user, but there are plenty of examples of poor road use.

Back to the original question about close passes. Simply, what should be done about it?

galwaycyclist · 05-06-2012 10:21pm

deadlyspot.com wrote: »

Back to the original question about close passes. Simply, what should be done about it?

At a political level, Cyclist.ie are looking for a mandatory minimum passing distance for motorists passing cyclists such as is found in the French traffic regulations. This is not going to happen unless enough people contact their politicians to insist that it be done. So join your local cycle campaign or cyclist.ie directly and start campaigning.

At a personal level... Well having watched some of your videos I would feel that you could do more to impose your presence on following motorists. This is about more than just road positioning it is also about communicating your awareness of them and the traffic situation to them. The basic way of communicating this the "shoulder check" where you check over your right or left shoulder to establish what is happening behind you. This may be just a quick glance or a proper turn and stare. You don't just look but also try to make eye contact with following drivers. In city traffic, you should be throwing out one ofthese every 30 seconds or so and always before any position change or manouevre.

It would be interesting to see if you found a change in driver behaviour if you did this more often.

droidus · 05-06-2012 10:29pm

I was driving around Northern Spain last week and they had tons of 'cyclists about' signs, as well as several large 1.5m safe overtaking diagrams.

Obviously, this isnt Spain, but Im sure a bit of signage might help in some areas at least.

deadlyspot.com · 05-06-2012 10:32pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

At a political level, Cyclist.ie are looking for a mandatory minimum passing distance for motorists passing cyclists such as is found in the French traffic regulations. This is not going to happen unless enough people contact their politicians to insist that it be done. So join your local cycle campaign or cyclist.ie directly and start campaigning.

At a personal level... Well having watched some of your videos I would feel that you could do more to impose your presence on following motorists. This is about more than just road positioning it is also about communicating your awareness of them and the traffic situation to them. The basic way of communicating this the "shoulder check" where you check over your right or left shoulder to establish what is happening behind you. This may be just a quick glance or a proper turn and stare. You don't just look but also try to make eye contact with following drivers. In city traffic, you should be throwing out one ofthese every 30 seconds or so and always before any position change or manouevre.

It would be interesting to see if you found a change in driver behaviour if you did this more often.

Well, that's interesting that you say that. I've been in many different road positions when these have happened. Doesn't explain a lot of the close passes that I have gotten from a lot of drivers. I do fully expect to be given space on the road. I think there needs to be more done that just that.

Mycroft H · 06-06-2012 12:12am

Very interesting blog piece, one to which a lot of us can relate.

Early in the process of becoming a cyclist I suffered the worst ‘accident’ I have yet had on a bicycle. I was travelling to Staines one morning along a cyclepath. The cyclepath took me onto a roundabout for a right turn towards Staines. A motorist, who did not expect me or see me, came from my left broadside into me. My precious first roadbike was folded in half under her wheels while I got a sharp smack to the hip from her front and a second sharp smack to my shoulder from her windscreen before being thrown forward onto the tarmac as she finally braked.

It was entirely her fault not giving me priority on that roundabout. However the accident would not have occurred had I not been so fearful of traffic. When I cover the same route now I am not on the cycletrack emerging from a little used road onto the roundabout, I am on the main road, dominating my lane where I cannot fail to be seen. I read John Franklin’s excellent book ‘Cyclecraft’, trained to Bikeability 3 and became a fully converted vehicular cyclist. I have had a couple of minor collisions with careless motorists since but they have been anticipated and controlled, and have left me with no significant injury. The three occasions I have needed medical treatment since the Staines crash have all followed from my sliding to the ground in icy or greasy conditions when I have been pushing the boundaries.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.ie/2012/02/my-personal-journey-with-bicycle.html

Alanstrainor · 06-06-2012 12:22am

Lumen wrote: »

This phenomenon does not require lack of skill; it can be explained by randomness and survivor bias.

You take a population of cyclists, some of those will have close calls. Some of those will buy cameras to record their journeys. The ones that stop having close calls will not upload the videos to Youtube (and will presumably give up recording altogether) leaving only the really unlucky ones.

Some people think the videos discourage cycling, some people think they are educational, most people don't really care.

I can only write from experience, and my experience of cycling around Dublin for the past few years is that the rate of life-threatening incidents is close to zero, and those that do occur are usually preventable with either a bit more patience on my part or everyone else learning to drive/cycle/walk properly.

And as a cyclist with a helmet cam, I can honestly say that in the last 2 years my rate of life threatening incidents is practically 0 also. I quite like the idea of having a cam all the same though.

AltAccount · 06-06-2012 9:09am

deadlyspot.com wrote: »

Well, that's interesting that you say that. I've been in many different road positions when these have happened. Doesn't explain a lot of the close passes that I have gotten from a lot of drivers. I do fully expect to be given space on the road. I think there needs to be more done that just that.

But do you take any of his points on board with regard to improving observation and increasing "connection" with other vehicle drivers?

monument · 06-06-2012 11:13am

Looking a lot like blaming the victim yet again... One poster is surly enough to talk about eye contact? In the context of major driver error does eye contact really need a follow up question?

Eye contact I agree can make a difference, but you can't always make eye contact with everybody behind you and even when you can it may or may not be effective.

More to the point: Should the focus not be on targeting the driver misbehaviour here?

Jawgap · 06-06-2012 11:44am

galwaycyclist wrote: »

At a political level, Cyclist.ie are looking for a mandatory minimum passing distance for motorists passing cyclists such as is found in the French traffic regulations. .......

Is the issue not that we need another law, rather we need better enforcement of existing laws?

There's already a dangerous overtaking offence on the books (S10 of SI No. 182 of 1997 -ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997) and a Guard can issue a Fixed Penalty Notice for it.

In 2011, according to the RSA's stats, 533 drivers were issued penalty points fo "Offences Related to Overtaking" in Dublin (compared to 104699 who were done for speeding . The figures for other counties are available.

You can also be done for dangerous driving, driving without reasonable consideration, or careless driving, depending on the manoeuver.

A mandatory minimum distance won't make the Guards do more enforcement, if anything it might be a redundant piece of legislation as you could see Guards not wanting to issue a fixed penalty for it for fear they would end up having to spend a court session arguing with some defence solicitor over whether a car was one or two metres from a cylcist.

Saying that, it would send a message and having done a small bit of cycling in France I was quite impressed one day when a Gendarme pulled a driver for passing too close to the group I was in.

Dublin Cyclying Campaign have some information on what do to if your overtaken in a dangerous manner

AltAccount · 06-06-2012 12:15pm

monument wrote: »

Looking a lot like blaming the victim yet again... One poster is surly enough to talk about eye contact? In the context of major driver error does eye contact really need a follow up question?

Eye contact I agree can make a difference, but you can't always make eye contact with everybody behind you and even when you can it may or may not be effective.

More to the point: Should the focus not be on targeting the driver misbehaviour here?

I'm not meaning to blame the victim, and I'm not talking about any specific incident, more addressing the fact that the OP seems to have more "close shaves" than the average cyclist (in my experience).

I'm wondering if there are any factors that can change to make the OP more safe in their riding.

I think we should focus on everyone's behaviour. Drivers should not be let away with poor driving, cyclists and all other road users have a duty to keep themselves safe.

droidus · 06-06-2012 12:36pm

AltAccount wrote: »

I'm not meaning to blame the victim, and I'm not talking about any specific incident, more addressing the fact that the OP seems to have more "close shaves" than the average cyclist (in my experience).

The only relevant words there are the last three.

On my commute there is a stretch of road where I get a close pass at least once a week, sometimes more. I get a dangerously close pass once every couple of months. The other 90% of my commute is fine.

This leads me to believe that, depending on route and time of commute, it is entirely possible for a cyclist to have a 'close shave' a few times a week that has nothing whatsoever to do with their behaviour, and I would venture the opinion that continually suggesting that the victim of dangerous driving must somehow be at fault (whilst providing no evidence to back this claim up) is a somewhat bizarre stance to take.

enas · 06-06-2012 12:44pm

droidus wrote: »

This leads me to believe that, depending on route and time of commute, it is entirely possible for a cyclist to have a 'close shave' a few times a week that has nothing whatsoever to do with their behaviour, and I would venture the opinion that continually suggesting that the victim of dangerous driving must somehow be at fault (whilst providing no evidence to back this claim up) is a somewhat bizarre stance to take.

Exactly.

That's getting really annoying. There can be so many different reasons why the rate at which we each experience incidents can vary from one to another that speculations about the OP's responsibility in those incidents are nothing but victim blaming, or if you prefer, a reversal of responsibilities. If you suspect the OP might bear some responsibility for his alleged high number of incidents (with which I disagree, most of his videos highlight something other than incidents), then go ahead, watch them, and tell us what was wrong and what could have been done better. Who knows, you might end up actually having a point and educate the OP, and all of us at the same time. But those groundless speculations are really getting on my nerves.

AltAccount · 06-06-2012 12:47pm

droidus wrote: »

The only relevant words there are the last three.

That's why I included them

Although, within that experience, I'd count thousands of miles on my bike, conversations with mates who have done many more miles than me, my observation of other vehicles overtaking other cyclists while I'm driving (or a passenger in a car), my reading of the responses here etc. etc.

droidus wrote: »

On my commute there is a stretch of road where I get a close pass at least once a week, sometimes more. I get a dangerously close pass once every couple of months. The other 90% of my commute is fine.

And that speaks to my question - can you do anything to actively reduce the number of dangerous passes at that one particular section, or is it solely the responsibility of the other vehicle drivers to avoid you?

droidus wrote: »

This leads me to believe that, depending on route and time of commute, it is entirely possible for a cyclist to have a 'close shave' a few times a week that has nothing whatsoever to do with their behaviour, and I would venture the opinion that continually suggesting that the victim of dangerous driving must somehow be at fault (whilst providing no evidence to back this claim up) is a somewhat bizarre stance to take.

I'm not suggesting that the victim of dangerous driving may be at fault. I'm suggesting that people who know they're getting to a difficult position have a responsibility to do everything in their power to avoid the conflict, even if they're in the right.

If you are the victim of dangerous driving, you're the victim.
If you are entering into a potentially dangerous situation and you take no action to prevent the danger (provided it's within your power to do so), you have a certain amount of culpability in the outcome.
If you are repeatedly finding yourself in potentially dangerous situations, you need to look at yourself and your riding/driving.

I apply the same logic to my driving too - if I have a "close one", then I'll shrug it off and chalk it down to one of those things that just happens sometimes.
If I find myself having a few "close ones" within a short period (even if none of them are primarily my fault), it's very much a red flag to me that I may need to adjust my driving or to work more on my observation and anticipation.

All my €0.02 obviously...

enas · 06-06-2012 12:48pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Is the issue not that we need another law, rather we need better enforcement of existing laws?

The fact that a law in itself is clearly not sufficient to deal with the issue doesn't mean that the idea has to be dismissed. There's surely many things to do to improve conditions. Concentrating on each individually and dismiss it on the basis that it won't be sufficient in itself is not a very constructive attitude, and generally leads to doing absolutely nothing. Now, if you're happy with the status quo, that's probably fine for you.

droidus · 06-06-2012 12:50pm

enas wrote: »

Exactly.

That's getting really annoying. There can be so many different reasons why the rate at which we each experience incidents can vary from one to another that speculations about the OP's responsibility in those incidents are nothing but victim blaming, or if you prefer, a reversal of responsibilities. If you suspect the OP might bear some responsibility for his alleged high number of incidents (with which I disagree, most of his videos highlight something other than incidents), then go ahead, watch them, and tell us what was wrong and what could have been done better. Who knows, you might end up actually having a point and educate the OP, and all of us at the same time. But those groundless speculations are really getting on my nerves.

Yes, me too. You see this all the time on traffic cam vids on youtube, and even with videos of police brutality... the victim's behaviour is scrutinised to a microscopic extent in an attempt to find some flaw to justify their treatment at the hands of the perpetrator.

I had a quick flick through some of the vids, and TBH I couldn't see anything radically wrong with the way deadlyspot was cycling. Plenty of over the shoulder glances, decent road positioning, all seemed OK to me, certainly nothing blatantly wrong (not that its relevant of course).

droidus · 06-06-2012 12:55pm

AltAccount wrote: »

And that speaks to my question - can you do anything to actively reduce the number of dangerous passes at that one particular section, or is it solely the responsibility of the other vehicle drivers to avoid you?

Its the phibsbro>finglas section of the N2, Ive gone into it in depth in other threads. The only solution (it seems) is to avoid the route.

And to add - yes it is the sole responsibility of a driver not to endanger another road user or pedestrian when they are behaving in a predictable, legal and safe manner on the roads, and even if/when they are not.

Beasty · 06-06-2012 1:00pm

In my experience of cycling these roads over the last 5 years or so, with a total of around 30,000km, I have only been passed "dangerously" closely only once - the motor vehicle itself was not an issue, but the driver totally misjudged the length of his trailer and missed my foot by a matter of inches.

Now I've already acknowledged that a lot of my riding is on country roads, and I do no cycling in the city centre, but actually when I think about it this makes the vehicles that are overtaking me typically much faster than in the city centre

Having a statutory minimum passing distance is difficult to enforce, but also I'm not sure it actually achieves much. Yes if someone is passing at 100kph I would hope for 1.5m clearance, but if they are only passing at 40kph I really don't mind if they are a bit closer. It's the turbulance at high speed that requires the largest passing distance, particularly with larger vehicles. As Jawgap has mentioned, there are already dangerous driving laws that can be applied for vehicles passing too closely

AltAccount · 06-06-2012 1:01pm

droidus wrote: »

And to add - yes it is the sole responsibility of a driver not to endanger another road user or pedestrian when they are behaving in a predictable, legal and safe manner on the roads, and even if/when they are not.

Well, it may be the sole "legal" responsibility for a driver not to endanger me when I'm cycling predictably, but that's cold comfort if I find myself waking up in a hospital/ambulance.

I will forever consider myself responsible for doing everything I can to keep myself safe.
I consider all other road users to be unpredictable morons, and I will not cede an ounce of responsibility for my safety onto another road user.

When I am in an incident that is someone else's fault. I'll have no issue with bollocking them out of it/suing them/pressing for their prosecution.

droidus · 06-06-2012 1:04pm

Beasty wrote: »

Now I've already acknowledged that a lot of my riding is on country roads, and I do no cycling in the city centre, but actually when I think about it this makes the vehicles that are overtaking me typically much faster than in the city centre

Well, I think this is key, and Id like to ask AltAccount if his 'thousands of miles' ar done on city centre roads during rush hour.

I can identify the exact choke points on my commute where I am most likely to have someone pass too close, and even with this knowledge it is impossible to avoid completely bar dismounting or riding on the pavement.

AltAccount · 06-06-2012 1:05pm

Beasty wrote: »

Having a statutory minimum passing distance is difficult to enforce, but also I'm not sure it actually achieves much. Yes if someone is passing at 100kph I would hope for 1.5m clearance, but if they are only passing at 40kph I really don't mind if they are a bit closer. It's the turbulance at high speed that requires the largest passing distance, particularly with larger vehicles. As Jawgap has mentioned, there are already dangerous driving laws that can be applied for vehicles passing too closely

It was always my understanding that the 1.5m overtaking law protected the cyclist by making a driver overtake by a greater distance than the average cyclist can wobble/fall/swerve.

I.E. if there is an instance of a car impacting a cyclist, you can pretty much presume the driver is automatically at fault, unless the cyclist threw themselves in front of the car.

It's a way of giving cyclists primacy on the roads I think.

droidus · 06-06-2012 1:06pm

AltAccount wrote: »

I consider all other road users to be unpredictable morons, and I will not cede an ounce of responsibility for my safety onto another road user.

You cede it every time you cross the road, get on your bike on in the car. You can do everything perfectly and still get knocked down or crashed into.

Close Pass

Comments