hotbike

"8 April 2018 — 9:44pm

58
View all comments

Motorists should not necessarily be blamed for cyclist crashes as the road type and speed limit could instead be the cause, according to a recent study.
The Queensland University of Technology-led study, by Professor Narelle Haworth

https://www.smh.com.au/national/quee...08-p4z8fd.html

This article may be biased, but there may be some truth to it.

Maelochs

Typical garbage title which belies the data.

Sorry but if "passing too closely was the most common incident" then it Is the driver's fault ... because the cyclist isn't passing the driver.

There is a fundamental rule of driving which is that the driver must adapt to the existing conditions. If the speed limit is 65 but fog limits visibility to 30 feet, the driver can (and should) get ticketed for driving at 45.

If the driver needs to pass a cyclist, and needs to slow down to 25 mph to do so, then the driver is Required By Law to do so ... the driver must operate safely Given the Prevailing Conditions.

"Professor Haworth’s study recommended improved roadway infrastructure to improve safety and concluded lane widths and speed limits influenced the distance drivers left when passing, not cyclist characteristics such as age or gender."

Basically, the study showed that when the road was narrow, drivers were not willing to wait or slow down, but tried to squeeze by, even if it meant hitting a cyclist, and when the speed limit was higher, drivers felt entitled to pass at high speed, without giving cyclists sufficient room.

"'But it is too simplistic to blame motorists for poor driving,' she said." No, stupid person ... it is PERFECT AND PRECISE to blame drivers for hitting other vehicles on the road.

Oi, what a moron.

JonnyHK 

Every situation is different.

hotbike

That's true, motorists need to slow down to pass a bicycle. But then when they slow down, the bike is way ahead and the car isn't gaining on the bike... So if the bike is doing the speed limit, then the motorist needs (or feels compelled...) to pass anyway, so the motorist needs to speed up to pass the bike! What is the point of having a speed limit ? Sorry I only quoted an excerpt from your comment, you made a good point.

hotbike

It should be titled 'Too simplistic' to blame motorists for *all* crashes involving cyclists: research

Editorial slant to leave the word "ALL" out... clearly , a large percentage , if not most fatal accidents are the motorists fault.

hotbike

Who's commuting, who's touring, who is training for a race ? How many cyclists are getting aerobic exercise , a cardio workout, for their heart? How many are on shopping errands, how many going to school?
Are there any group rides? Are they holding a protest ride? Noisy or silent? Who is being a Human Road Cone ? Who is wearing black ?
How many wear helmets ? We don't think a helmet would save you if a car doing 60 hits you... do we ? Does the cyclist assume the driver does Not SEE him (or her ) , assume to be invisible?
Is the cyclist wearing bright colors? Have Lights? A Rear-View Mirror ?

Are Cycling Advocates wasting time by Not advocating Rear-View Mirrors, LED Lights, GPS perhaps, or High Definition Cameras capable of recording License Plates ?

How does Cyclist Fatigue , or Hypoglycemia affect the ability to avoid a collision?
What about Fog ? Thick, pea-soup Fog?

AlmostTrick

I don't need to read the article to know that many (most?) motorists do blame the cyclist just for being there. They assume the roads are for cars.


Edit: or at least that their travel should never be impeded by a cyclist, not even for a few seconds.

hotbike

What I'm trying to say is , there are exceptions to every rule, and like JohnnyHK just said "Every situation is different"...

Let me try to dig myself out of the hole I just dug:
1) Video Cameras- If we can get plate numbers of cars that pass too close, and if it turns out 90% of the close passes are by 1% of the drivers,(that's the way it seems)...then it becomes an Enforcement Issue, somebody needs to be arrested, loss of license, loss of car.

2) We have to realize that some fatal crashes are the cyclists fault, such as riding at night with no lights. Riding a bike off the roof of a three story building can be fatal as well, "stunts" are often included under the designation of "bicycle accident" in hospital reports.

3) Cycling Advocates want to keep bicycles cheap, apparently , that's why we hear nothing about Rear-View Mirrors or Daytime Running Lights. Yes, if Rear-View Mirrors were required tomorrow, it would be an Unfunded Mandate. Now you're asking everyone to pay actual money, and retrofitting existing bikes is only part of the equation, the Bicycle Industry would need to install Mirrors on every new bike sold, so the Industry would be asking for a Grant, a Government Handout. Thirty years ago, the Bike Mirrors only showed the zipper on your trousers, not the traffic behind the bike. A little bit of tinkering goes a long way. But the mirror is still to this day NOT required, and someone needs to educate and alert motorists to that fact, with the implicit understanding that it is the MOTORISTS responsibility to pass safely from behind. God did Not give man eyes in the back of his head !

4) Fatigue and Human Limitations. The Human body is Not a machine, it has certain frailties , notably the need for sleep, food, water, sensitivity to heat or cold. Old age too limits the speed at which a person can cross a street. Eyesight fails, some people are deaf. Motorists MUST be educated . We all too often compare the automobile to the elite cyclist who is in prime health, in terms of the cyclists ability to catch up with the light and , ummm , complain, and see if the driver is drinking , smoking or snorting something...

mcours2006

There are certainly situation where the fault of a crash involving a bike lies with the cyclist, like when you're riding the wrong side of the road or running red lights. But the vast majority of collisions between cars and bikes is the fault of the motorist because the car is usually the one vehicle doing the hitting part and the bike is being hit. Kinda like getting hit with a punch--no, my face didn't hit your fist.

mcours2006

"Professor Haworth said sideswipe collisions between cyclists and motorists accounted for 14 per cent of fatal bicycle crashes and passing too closely was the most common incident."

So the cyclist has control over how closely a car passes him from behind, and hence should take some of the blame for a sideswipe collision?

How stupid is this?!

Maelochs

I know every incident is specific to itself ... but the research in the article the OP posted, the researcher noted that the drivers were the cause of the accidents ... and then said that one couldn't blame the drivers. Just Nuts.

Also ... I ride around 15-18 mph, and max out as an average for a short while, 22 mph. Nobody averages 30 or 35 .... unless they are riding the ProTour. I do not ride on Any road where I meet or exceed the speed limit.

If a car slows so much the driver cannot pass me ... why?

Here's the deal: most of us also drive, at least a little. Most of us ride, at least a little. I Hope none of us have any trouble passing cyclists, because we know what it's like for a cyclist.

So ... in my experience, Passing a Cyclist while Driving is ... Easy. Just plain simple and easy driving. Wait until I can see far enough ahead to know I can make the pass, pull left (unless I am in the UK) and drive by the much slower vehicle.

I know a cyclist is watching the pavement at the edge of the road, which I cannot watch so closely, and might need to swerve a foot or so ... so I give the rider enough room. If I cannot fit between oncoming traffic and the cyclist with a few feet clearance, it is not safe to pass.

No rocket science ... and not much driving science required.

People who buzz bikes are either incompetent, inconsiderate, or dangerously aggressive. And if a driver causes an accident for any of those reason ... then blaming the victim really is Blaming the Victim.

As the article notes, a lot of collisions were cars rear-ending and side-swiping bikes. And I don't care if the rider was wearing black and had no lights ... My car has Headlights.

Pedestrians don't have tail lights either, and it is not okay to hit them, right?

But there is no indication that these were incidents which happened at night, or with drunk riders, and it flats states these were not salmoning riders.

“Previous studies revealed many bicycle-and-motor vehicle crashes occurred while both were travelling in the same direction and involved rear-end and sideswipe collisions.”

“The study reviewed more than 2000 instances of overtaking across Brisbane, Rockhampton, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast.”

“This study revealed about 16 per cent of instances did not have the minimum passing distance, which is one metre in Queensland in zones of 60km/h or less and 1.5 metres where the limit is more than 60km/h.

“Professor Haworth said sideswipe collisions between cyclists and motorists accounted for 14 per cent of fatal bicycle crashes and passing too closely was the most common incident.”

The research definitively shows that Drivers are not giving Cyclists enough room while overtaking said cyclists. In other words ... the Driver is Driving Into the cyclist.

There is No Rational Way to blame the cyclist in that case.

I am sorry if I come off as argumentative. I understand that Neither drivers nor cyclists are always guilty, and that sometimes the guilt is shared. I understand ... after all I drive and I ride. I have decades of experience with both, as do most of us.

But ... I have a real issue with this sort of "research," which is publicized as showing stuff which it doesn't show.

A more realistic title would be, "Drivers At Fault in 14 percent of Cycling Deaths".

After all ... "Professor Haworth said sideswipe collisions between cyclists and motorists accounted for 14 per cent of fatal bicycle crashes and passing too closely was the most common incident."

Unless the cyclist drove Three feet sideways into the passing car ... the driver would be at fault. And if I made a really hard turn at speed while a car was passing me ... I'd hit the rear quarter panel, likely, and fall to the pavement, but I wouldn't get Hit by the car. For a car to Hit a cyclist, the car has to get within three feet, can we agree?

I am not giving cyclists a free pass to ride any way they want. But this "scientist" is saying "Don't blame drivers when they kill cyclists while making totally illegal and unsafe passes."

I find that offensive.

mr_bill

Pause huffing and puffing:

Not to get in the way of the click-bait, but everyone might want take a moment to read a summary of the actual research.

Resume huffing and puffing:

-mr. bill

Maelochs

“The results showed compliance levels are influenced by the characteristics of motorists and the roadway, but not of the rider."

In other words ... unless the road is driving the car, the driver is at fault. (https://www.qut.edu.au/news?id=129251)

To get the raw data I would have to send a request to the author. Not worth it o me. The conclusions seem pretty straightforward.

The Drivers Were at Fault.

Blaming the road, the weather, the aliens, the local sports team, the government ... whatever. if you are driving a car and hit a cyclist because you tried to pass too closely, you are at fault.

Her's the real takeaway----the researcher doesn't even consider trying to get drivers to actually care about cyclists.

She just accepts that in any situation where a driver has to pass a cyclist, the driver will hit the cyclist 16 percent of the time simply because.

sirkaos

+1
Specifically, if the driver is driving in the rain, he will take that into account how he/she drives. They will almost always slow down.


But the same drivers that simply bully their way past a cyclist with no regard to the 3' rule, is expecting us to modify our riding style to get the "F" out of their way. It is the drivers "mindset of priorities".


One side note, since I am a tall cyclist. I decided to take advantage of that and put a tail light on my helmet. I set my seat post light (cyclic camera) to the appropriate brightness and I set my helmet to more of a bright but slow pulse. I only use full bright on the cyclic during the daytime and I am by myself. If I am with a group, I go down one or two settings as not to annoy the others in the pace-line. I had favorable results and comments that because the drivers could see me in a distance from my helmet tail light, they had more time to plan a lane change or adjust their speed to pass me at a safe distance. I think a combination of tail lights can in some cases help us with visibility with drivers. There still are a lot of drivers out there who just are going to cut it to damn close no matter what.
That's what works for me, and I ride a lot of roads with speed limits 45-55mph range with various degrees of available road space for cycling.

hotbike

Yes, the article does say that the fault mostly lies with the poor condition of the roads...

hotbike

I'm back, sorry I was interrupted .

....Let me try to dig myself out of the hole I just dug:
1) Video Cameras- If we can get plate numbers of cars that pass too close, and if it turns out 90% of the close passes are by 1% of the drivers,(that's the way it seems)...then it becomes an Enforcement Issue, somebody needs to be arrested, loss of license, loss of car.

2) We have to realize that some fatal crashes are the cyclists fault, such as riding at night with no lights. Riding a bike off the roof of a three story building can be fatal as well, "stunts" are often included under the designation of "bicycle accident" in hospital reports.

3) Cycling Advocates want to keep bicycles cheap, apparently , that's why we hear nothing about Rear-View Mirrors or Daytime Running Lights. Yes, if Rear-View Mirrors were required tomorrow, it would be an Unfunded Mandate. Now your asking everyone to pay actual money, and retrofitting existing bikes is only part of the equation, the Bicycle Industry would need to install Mirrors on every new bike sold, so the Industry would be asking for a Grant, a Government Handout. Thirty years ago, the Bike Mirrors only showed the zipper on your trousers, not the traffic behind the bike. A little bit of tinkering goes a long way. But the mirror is still to this day NOT required, and someone needs to educate and alert motorists to that fact, with the implicit understanding that it is the MOTORISTS responsibility to pass safely from behind. God did Not give man eyes in the back of his head !

4) Fatigue and Human Limitations. The Human body is Not a machine, it has certain frailties , notably the need for sleep, food, water, sensitivity to heat or cold. Old age too limits the speed at which a person can cross a street. Eyesight fails, some people are deaf. Motorists MUST be educated . We all too often compare the automobile to the elite cyclist who is in prime health, in terms of the cyclists ability to catch up with the light and , ummm , complain, and see if the driver is drinking , smoking or snorting something...

hotbike

5) There are times when cyclists could use more caution. I know speed is at a premium, because it comes at so high a cost. But riding in Fog, or riding into a sunset or sunrise (knowing the glare when it strikes a windshield) can render a cyclist invisible. And if the motorist can Not see the cyclist, then that driver can Not hit the brakes in time.
5b) Sometimes you should just be courteous , "Defensive Driving Rules" . You know you are "right" but we don't want you to be "dead right". And steer well clear of Cement Trucks, Dump Trucks, and Tractor Trailers. Beware of Pickup Trucks with "Dualies" on account they are wider than a normal Pickup Truck. Don't get hit by no Steam Roller, and don't get impaled on the prongs of a Forklift.

Maelochs

Dude ..... If a driver in a car is so unconcerned about t a cyclist that he cannot tolerate that cyclist being on the road and hits that cyclist ... why would you think a flashing light or a mirror would stop him? The thought of Crashing Into a Human Being With Potentially Deadly Force was not a deterrent ... so a flashing light would change that?

I can have six lights and three mirrors ... none of them alone nor all taken together can stop a 3,000-pound car if the driver hits me.

Also ... please drop all the crap about no lights at night and whatever .... No one is saying cyclists can't be smart---The point of the article YOU posted is that drivers are crashing into cyclists.

The researcher is Not talking about fog, rain, wearing black, no lights at night----YOU are making up all that stuff.

Did you even read the study?

The researcher did the research and found that 14 percent of the time cars were RUNNING INTO CYCLISTS AND KILLING THEM. Did you miss that part?

Do you realize that this is not "Potential cyclists meeting online to figure out what a bicycle is"? Most people here have ridden for years or decades. And frankly, cyclist too stupid to use lights at night is accepting the risk and I won't be pleased but I will be less upset if s/he gets hit. I don't pity kids who eat Tide Pods, either. Most people here, like yourself, KNOW how to ride safely on the road, and do---else we'd be dead.

Some folks no longer ride ... and some no longer post ... because of being hit by idiot drivers in cars.


Please, Read The Article you posted.

The article says clearly that DRIVERS are hitting cyclists, Not because they don't see the cyclists, Not because the cyclists don't see them, but because the DRIVERS are unwilling to give the cyclists room on the road, and are CRASHING INTO THEM.

RIDING A BIKE OFF A THREE-STORY BUILDING!!!! Are you on drugs?

This article----which YOU posted---is about cyclists riding normally on the road and getting run over by drivers who simply don't care.

if you have a Different study which is In Any Way related to the stuff you are inventing ... great. But right now you are fighting to disprove the scientific research which you posted, which really makes me wonder a bout how many Tide Pods you've eaten. (That's a joke, by the way ... but seriously, why post an article and then try to deny what it says?)

atbman

1. The trouble with cyclists without lights is that you can't see them
2. How do you know that there are cyclists riding around without lights?
3. I see them all the time (sic)

Maelochs

Well .... last week I went to my grocery run and on the way home I caught a driver at a four-way, who told me, "I can't see you from behind."

Turns out my tail light had died. (No sweat, as I always have at least one back-up.)

I was just thankful she told me ... if I hadn't reached the intersection right then ... I would have ridden home safely anyway, though.

I just mail-ordered a helmet mirror ... but I only wear a helmet on group rides. Riding solo I have never had a problem spotting cars, even cars coming up behind me ... but in a group, i feel I have certain responsibilities, and while I might be safe, it is partly my role to help everyone else stay safe.

But pretty obviously, i don't Need a mirror to be safe.

One other night I had a tail light die on the road ... i could tell by the way a car passed me ... it came a little closer than usual and slowed sharply. My immediate thought was, "My light has died and he didn't see my until his headlights hit me."

But ... his headlights hit me.

Fact is (in my opinion---(is that an oxymoronic construction?)) no one collides with anyone on the road almost ever without a strong does of idiot being involved.

This research bothered me for one reason only---the person didn't draw the right conclusion. Wider roads, wider bike lanes? How about sever penalties for idiocy on the road?

How many of the dangerous drivers were cited and tried on the basis of her videotaped encounters?

So long as people are willing to blame the cyclists, or say that cyclists create difficulties (the road wouldn't be too narrow if there wasn't a cyclist using it---Until we start training children in elementary school to give a flaming frog .... we are going to have people running into bikes "because it was there."

Maybe.

mcours2006

I understand what @Maelochs is saying, and it would be great if all road users care enough about one another's safety to not drink and drive, to not text and drive, to not speed, to obey all traffic signs and signals, to pay attention to what's ahead/beside/behind you, to be courteous to each other to ensure that everyone gets where he/she's going safely. Severe penalties and fines do not seem to deter any of these behaviours; there is not sufficient manpower to enforce enough of these laws to disincentivize these kinds of behaviour behind the wheel.

Then what's the alternative? Well, build wider lanes. Build segregrated bike trails/lanes. Educate. Autonomous self-driving vehicles that take the human factor out of driving.

Daves_Not_Here

In any collision between a motorist and a cyclist, the cyclist is far more likely to be injured or killed. We have way more skin in the game. Yet, many (not all) cyclists speak and act as if it is entirely the motorist's responsibility to avoid collisions, regardless of the actions or visibility of the cyclist. And that cyclists have zero responsibility for their own safety. This is the "motorists are responsible adults, cyclists are children to be protected" view held by cyclists, as manifested in four observations:

1. Most cyclists do not use mirrors -- why be visually aware of approaching vehicles if you have no responsibility to avoid collisions? Plus, cyclists have bionic directional ears that are every good as vision, except
2. Most cyclists do not use cat-ears or other means to reduce wind noise -- why hear an approaching vehicle if you have no responsibility to avoid collisions?
3. Many cyclists do not employ means to increase their visibility such as reflectors, bright clothing and flashing lights - hey, it's 100% up to motorists to avoid hitting me. If they can't see me, that's their problem.
4. The whining cyclist-as-victim identification on this forum. Cyclists are angry. Not enough to assume any responsibility for their outcomes, but angry nevertheless.

Here are some factoids to get through your thick skulls: every car in the United States is involved in a fender-bender every 8 years on average. 86% of new drivers have an accident in the first 3 years of their driving careers. All these motorists are running into pedestrians, dogs, guard-rails, cows, trees, and other motorists when they're not running over cyclists. And it does not matter how much sniveling and whining happens on A&S -- this reality is not going to change until we have self-driving cars. So, given that these very numerous collisions are all potentially fatal to cyclists, it behooves us to take more personal responsibility to avoid collisions than whining about motorists and waiting for reality to change.

Maelochs

Open carry.

mcours2006

Not here in Canada...but I can just imagine a cyclist with an assault r!fle slung on his back. That might be an effective deterrent.

Maelochs

Did YOU read the article? The article which we are discussing was Not about the things cyclists do wrong ... but about the fact that some 16 percent of drivers drive dangerously close to cyclists. Nothing about all the stuff you seem to want to see there ... sorry. These were drivers driving badly. Read the article.


Here is a fact FOR yOU to absorb Regardless of whether your skull is thick or not---NONE OF THAT IS ON POINT.

I get that you want to say what you want to say, regardless of what the conversation might be about .. but this was a discussion of an article which showed that 16 percent of drivers came dangerously close to cyclists while overtaking, and 14 percent of collisions were sideswipes and rear-enders---NOT because the cyclist didn't have lights, but because the driver didn't have brains.

You drive, I suspect.

I ride a bike, and after five decades on the road, I have never been sideswiped or rear-ended. One could almost think that, whatever I was doing, I was doing it right, and all you people ignoring the point and whining about stupid things like "cat-ears" ... if you need them, good for you. I have never had a problem hearing cars ... and guess what--I LOOK too.

Here is some data----fifty-plus years on the road, never rear-ended. never used cat-ears. Seems to me ... like the rest of your post, your point about cat-ears is invalid.

Your grasp of what is written is pretty well lacking too ... but that's okay,. You rant on. There is lots of room on the internet. Fill it up with whatever you like.

"Against ignorance, the gods themselves contend in vain."