vol

If a driver chooses to pass a cyclist closely, he's assuming the cyclist will stay in line with the same distance to his vehicle. What if the cyclist saw a pothole, road gap/seam, stone, etc., and makes a slight swerve to avoid it, or just suddenly tried to adjust the mirror or whatsoever like scratching an itch and part of his body got closer to the vehicle? One of the most scary thing is when a long vehicle makes a close pass by me; sometimes I couldn't even know it's so long until afterwards.

If a stray bullet barely missed me, I like to think it's nothing since I wasn't hit. I think the same way when a vehicle passed closely without touching me. But it's luck. Some day it may have a different outcome.

And if the vehicle does touch you, e.g. if it was a bus or big truck, it's not just a swipe. You may end up under the wheels. Think of Dan Hanegby, who was riding a Citi bike and was ran over by the bus making close pass. The driver thought he could pass him safely.

mcours2006

Of course close passes are dangerous. The closer the pass the more dangerous. Just because nothing happened doesn't mean there wasn't a risk. The closer the pass the higher the risk. Higher risk means more danger. Not sure why this is even a point of contention...oh wait, this is BF where everything is up for debate.

I-Like-To-Bike

The bone of contention is the proposed recommendation for allegedly reducing bicycling risk incurred from close passes while riding anywhere to the right side of the right lane, to include bike lanes or shoulder -

The solution: Ride nowhere near the right portion of the traffic lane and instead to ride much farther to the left or near the middle of traffic lanes in order to allegedly be more visible, regardless of traffic conditions.

The proponents of this solution ignore the possibility that cyclists following this dogmatic "solution" could increase their risk of overtaking collisions with the likely increased risk of catastrophic injuries by following such a recommendation, and furthermore that "taking the lane" does not necessarily remove or even reduce whatever risk exists from close passes.

Anecdotes about an alleged history of "lane taking" reducing risk from close passes that lead to collisions, let alone any reduction in overall bicycling risk do not become more convincing with constant repetition, nor by use of enlarged blue typefaces, nor by citing unproven/unsubstantiated bicycling safety theory on the topic from Vehicular Cycling Promoters/ideologues.

mcours2006

Yet in the absence of good objective data personal experience and anecdotes are all we have to go on. Because our daily experience is repeated over and over again, hundreds of times a year, and perhaps thousands of times over the course of a lifetime of riding where we observe driver behaviour riding the way we do, our anecdotes become a data set. Perhaps not one that would stand up to stringent scientific scrutiny, but nonetheless valid to our own decision-making process.

From my own 'data' I can definitively say that riding further out has reduced the number of close passes I get. But I will say that there are some roads that I wouldn't want to take the lane for an extended period of time. I am fortunately that I don't have to commute on very busy multi-lane arterial roads.

vol

I use mirrors 100% of the time. It helps, but still can't avoid some dangerous close passes. For one thing, you can't be checking the mirror every 10 seconds. When possible, I choose to ride on the left side of the drivers so they have a better estimation of whether they could pass me safely--another thing among many, many learned on this forum--thanks!

Btw, this is also why I think using panniers or double baskets on the rear rack has a risk if they are very wide.

CliffordK

It is hard to say what transpired. That bike lane doesn't look like it is the standard width of a bike lane. Rather a simple road shoulder that had bike symbols painted on it. I don't see anything that would preclude the community from widening the road by say 4 feet to expand the two bike lanes to a more appropriate width. Perhaps widening it ever further because the vehicle traffic lanes may also be undersized.

Without more context, one can't determine whether or not the bus and bike actually made contact. I wonder if that was a panic crash instead.

One of the issues with close passes is that what is fine for a 5' wide passenger car becomes unacceptably close for a bus or truck that is 8'6" wide (plus a few feet of mirrors on both sides), and 30+ feet long. The road above looks straight, but truck and trailer rear wheels often don't track behind the front wheels on corners.

I was just passed yesterday on a narrow bridge by one of those 6' vehicles pulling an 8' trailer , with an oncoming car pass. It was all over before I realized it, but I have to wonder if the driver forgot that he was pulling a trailer that was wider than his vehicle.

CliffordK

That is close. 10 MPH, of their speed, or the speed differential?
Perhaps 2 feet plus 1 foot for every 10 MPH of speed differential.

One of the issues is that not all cyclists are the same. The seasoned roadies are perhaps good for towing the line, but they also may be far more sensitive to road hazards that may not be immediately noticed by the passing vehicles.

Younger riders might be more erratic including swerving or turning without warning. Or at least experienced and inexperienced riders may interact with traffic differently.

An issue for all road users is reaction times. So, say a car is approaching at 60 MPH, it may already be imitating the pass at the time the cyclist realizes it is there. And the stopping distance for a car at 60 MPH is about half the length of a football field, should they have to initiate an emergency stop for one reason or another.

Yep, a car should do a SAFE pass... close, or wide. I fear those cars that are 100% in the oncoming traffic lane when forward visibility doesn't warrant it (passing on the wrong side of the road around blind corners).

The biggest issue is the perception that one must pass a bicycle, or that one must keep one's speed up at all times. Drivers need to learn to just slow down and drive safely. Roads aren't just for cars, or just for bikes, they are to be shared for transportation. Ok, some cyclists are using them for recreation, but how many car drivers use the roads to drive to the nearest recreation spot, or head somewhere for entertainment?

And, as mentioned above, not all "cars" are the same, so what is good for a Smart Car may not be appropriate for a semi-truck.

Ninety5rpm

Agree about the bike lane being substandard width but that's beside the point. Even in standard width bike lanes cyclists often ride near the stripe due to less debris accumulating there, so how little or much space there is to the right of the cyclist is largely irrelevant.

The problem is that the stripe also defines the edge of the bus's lane and motorists are accustomed to operating anywhere within their lane, especially when it's otherwise empty, as this one was. Of course the bus driver should take into account the presence of the cyclists on the other side of the stripe and adjust accordingly, but it's naive to expect every driver to necessarily do so given that the desired behavior is contrary to normal expected usage of lanes.

The bottom-left frame in each of the photos, before and after the crash, shows how close the bus was to the stripe - and that it was even closer after the crash than before, suggesting it was close and moving closer as it passed. In any case the driver obviously made no adjustment away from the cyclists in response to their presence - he treated them like they weren't even there. I bet he was not even aware they were present. That's classic inattentional blindness - blocking out the irrelevant (that's the problem with bike lanes - for all intents and purposes they seem to make cyclists irrelevant to overtaking motorists).

It's possible that air turbulence was involved rather than the bus actually hitting the cyclist, but either way that's an illegal close pass because it clearly interfered with the safe operation of the bicycles, which were being legally and safely ridden.

The point is: Close passes are very dangerous, especially close passes by large vehicles. Most cyclists who frequently use the full lane seem to report experiencing close passes much more often (if not exclusively) when riding in bike lanes or edge riding than when using the full traffic lane.

FBinNY 

No need to estimate a speed differential. It's 1 foot for every 10mph per their speedometer.

Since they're typically moving at 30mph or so, that's a 3' pass. However it's more at higher speeds, and allows for close passing at small speed differences on busy urban streets, though based on typical bike speeds, the passing cars are likely to be doing 20 at a minimum, so it's still 2'. If we're both crawling along in very heavy traffic, it might be as low as 1' at 10mph, but that's a very rare condition, and when it happens it's not an issues.

CliffordK

True, shoulders and bike lanes are often full of hazards that may be unseen by passing cars.

The bottom right shows the bus was awfully close to the center line in both cases. Perhaps the perspective of the video cameras is off a bit, but it leads me to believe that both the lane widths and the bike lane were narrow, thus a poor combination.

My guess is that the bus did actually pull left when passing BOTH cyclists (the first arrow may well be pointing at the cyclist that did not crash). But, as the bus completed the pass, he naturally drifted back to the right. Although, he may well have conducted the maneuver too soon. Is there a bus stop ahead of the last photo? Or will he have to pass the third cyclist ahead?

A report from the cyclist would be good. Injured? Hit bus? Wind? Although, perhaps the video frames were captured as a response to the accident, so there was at least reason to pull the video.

It looks like there were 5 seconds between frame captures. Are there more intermediary frames? The rearward photo should show as the rear wheel passes the bike.

CliffordK

That is probably true. I thought NYC was gridlocked most of the time... so 10 MPH may not be all that uncommon. Or do the NY drivers mash the pedal the the metal between stop lights?

At < 10 MPH, the cars are as likely to get passed by bicycles (doing close pass lane splits) as they are to pass the cyclists.

Anyway, that is probably a good rule of thumb. Unfortunately, few lawmakers seem to acknowledge differing speeds. I can't say whether it is too complicated for drivers, but perhaps it shouldn't be, and they should be aware of their own speed, as well as individuals they're passing.

AlmostTrick

So why and how did you determine it to be safest for YOU to take the lane for years on a high speed segment (of substantial distance) of your work commute? Was there something special going on that doesn't apply to other cyclists who come to the same conclusion in their situations?

AlmostTrick

Thankfully, the individual cyclist has much control over the frequency of close passes, and also the ability to mitigate the risks of any close passes they do receive.

I figure if I'm getting close passed often, or have little to no bail out space to my sides, (EDIT: or am ever surprised by a close pass!) ...I'm doing something wrong.

FBinNY 

There's a limit to what can be written in to a law, and more so what can be enforced. Unfortunately (IMO) we've become a society that comes to see everything in the context of rights and laws, and not common sense.

I tend to be more old school, and look for common sense approaches which reflect what people tend to do anyway. For the most part, the cars that pass me increase the separation with speed. Though I'd love to believe that they do so out of courtesy, I suspect that it's usually that they want a larger margin for error when driving faster.

I-Like-To-Bike

. When there is no option to the right available available, riding in the lane to one degree or another is the only choice on narrow roads, or on multi lane roads with narrow lanes. I don't fool myself into thinking that because I use a mirror I eliminate the risk of such riding. I willingly take the risk because I choose to and find ridiculous the idea that bicyclists reduce their personal bicycling risk or are in any way communicating with approaching high speed motorists with cryptic "friendly" gestures while riding in lane regardless of other available options.

Riding in a lane on a high speed road has its risks and it doesn't get reduced by believing or quoting Vehicular Cycling Dogma as if it were scripture.

I can assure you that if and when a rideable shoulder exists, I would choose to use it.

BookFinder 

Monday - Friday I'm out on the public roadways for ~ 2 hours each morning and afternoon during school traffic (school bus driver). There is an incredible number of distracted drivers fiddling with radios, cell phones, putting on make-up, or doing whatever while commuting. And they wander back and forth between the lines in ways that keep me on high alert.

I agree with whoever said that a pass that missed is as good as safe.

And about the stats - if they exist. Let's say the chance is 1% in a given calendar year that a cyclist will be hit on a particular road. Maybe 1% is too high, and maybe the numbers are higher.

But whatever the actual stats may be, if you are in the 1% that gets hit, you are 100% screwed.

Finally, we all have our own tolerance for risk. Mine allows me to ride on some roads, but I studiously avoid others. The same can probably be said for anyone on this forum who rides regularly.

You pays you money and takes you chances, the Cajun roulette table croupier said...

Happy Feet

No kidding. Would you expect them to report anything different and thus invalidate their reason for that behavior?

I can say I have a full lifetime of riding and feel I get less close passes by riding to the right or on shoulders if possible. I bike commute year round and do a thousand or two Km's each year for holiday on major hwy's on shoulders with little concern about close passes.

But keep advocating taking the full lane. It just gives traction to those who view it as Us or Them and write and read articles like "Ban the Bike" listed in another thread here. One or two taking a lane are seen as a nuisance or oddity but if enough people get on board it'll gain enough attention to warrant doing something about. Do you think that will be the majority voting to inconvenience themselves? Good luck with that.

WNCGoater

Envision something for a moment. Take two random motorists. Put each in a car one mile apart facing each other. They must each accelerate toward one another to 60 mph and pass one another with 4-5 feet. I doubt most of us would be willing to risk that and we'd be hard pressed to MAKE ourselves pass another car at an effective speed of 120 mph within a few feet. Yet we do it every day and the only way we are willing is because there is a little line down the center of the road, "to keep us separated". With that, we have a boundary, gives us confidence to do something no way we would do otherwise, and it allows us to do it in relative safety.

There is no such "boundary" that separates a driver and cyclist. So a close pass certainly increases the danger of a possible miscalculation. That's why I'm thankful that in NC just last year they passed a state statute requiring 4' of passing room. This will HOPEFULLY be enough cushion for the ones that can't tell 4' from 2'. The REALLY BAD news is that like most new state statutes, it was never widely publicized and I doubt seriously most motorists are even aware of it.

Frankly, I don't want to be passed at 50mph with 4' between me and the motorist. But I'll take that over a slow speed crash any day.

rachel120

I have and use a mirror. I look in it very often, as I want to be aware of who is behind me and how far away and how fast they are approaching at all times. People here have made fun of me because I admit I count the cars behind me. I ride on a four lane divided highway where every left turn and every right turn has a dedicated lane. I take the lane, I'm riding dead center of the right straight lane at all times.

And I still get close passes. Sometimes it's people being stupid and deciding the fastest way around me is the dedicated right turn lane and they have to get back out of it fast before the turn happens and the turn lane vanishes. (I had one guy pass me on the right where there was absolutely no one in the left straight lane, and then he got into the left turn lane. ) Sometimes it's people being mean and clearly making a statement by straddling the line and passing me closely, cutting into the right straight lane far too close and then 10 feet later move into the left straight lane. Sometimes it's people who probably aren't paying attention because they pass normally but then cut back into the lane far too close rather than waiting a few more seconds to give a little more room between my front tire and the corner of their bumper.

Are close passes dangerous? I think so. Yes, if everything continues with mathematical precision there won't be accidental contact. But chaos theory applies and both the motorist and the cyclist may have to make a sudden move due to road conditions, or even an unanticipated drift due to inattention. The more room given, the far less likely an adjustment to positioning is going to end up making contact.

Chris0516

1. 35pds. vs. 35pds.-25T(bike to 18-wheeler). Other than another cyclist, a close pass by a motorized vehicle is definitely dangerous.

2. Yesterday I was on a 30mph two-lane blacktop during PM-Rush. There was a truck behind me carrying one car, and towing a second car. He honked, then passed me. Just to make a quick left turn into a local used car lot.

I immediately followed him and told him. Not only about my legal right to 'take the lane'. But also about the fact that that there is a blind curve soon after the lot, and that he did not signal his turn.

I could have been 'collateral damage' because of his needless rush.

longbeachgary

Some times I read the threads here and shake my head and wonder as to the IQ of the poster. This is one of those times.

Machka 

1) If they don't hit you, you're fine.

2) They're probably not as close as you think they are ... it's just the difference in speed that makes them seem closer than they are.

79pmooney

I don't follow you. I am talking of a spoke-like wire extending 18" to the left of my body that would scrape the paint of any car choosing to pass me that close. Slowing and waiting? Going out of my way to increase the car's closing speed so he can hit me harder (or scrape his paint worse? How does that help? And evasion to the left? I'm supposed to swerve into the car's path. Again, how does that help me? (I ride in the United States.)

And I am not throwing anything. This would only affect cars that choose to pass me inside 18" from my body. That is way inside the 3' required in a lot of states and I suspect any mothers in an Oregon jury wold probably agree that is does not qualify as a safe pass of their son or daughter.

Ben

Ninety5rpm

You conveniently ignore that at least some of us here, apparently, use mirrors and don’t just blindly ride in the middle of the lane oblivious and vulnerable to the catastrophic injuries you worry so much about.

Turns out the main benefit of using the full lane with a mirror is not avoiding such catastrophe but observing how and when motorists react. That’s how you realize the probability of a hit from behind would be extremely unlikely even if you weren’t observing and prepared to avoid.

salcedo

TA very easy to call someone stupid without saying why. Go on, elaborate tough guy...