3' Laws - No Statistical Safety Benefit
06-13-17, 11:49 AM
#27
Seņior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 13,749
Bikes: Windsor Fens, Giant Seek 0 (2014, Alfine 8 + discs)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
7 Posts
Heck, most motorists don't remember half the laws that were in effect when they were first licensed. Cops don't even keep up with the law regarding cyclists.
__________________
Work: the 8 hours that separates bike rides.
Work: the 8 hours that separates bike rides.
06-13-17, 01:02 PM
#28
Senior Member
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.
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.
It has already been noted that states like Florida have accident rates that are outrageously high, probably due to a combination of factors including optimum cycling weather, and more retirees on bikes and in cars. So, Florida could potentially bias the studies towards whatever law has been passed.
A before & after study would be a much better way to study the phenomenon, using control states to help account for nationwide changes in cycling trends. Ideally one would do say 5 years before and 5 years after implementation of the law or so.
As far as single accident type or all accident types. Yes, the just riding along rear-end accidents are the most critical for passing lane distance laws. Left Turn rear-end accidents would also have to be excluded. However, passing distance laws could also be associated with greater cyclist and driver awareness, and ideally would affect all accident types.
Actually, it is my belief that Oregon's pedestrian crosswalk laws have positively benefited cyclists by increasing driver awareness and courtesy of "vulnerable road users", whether or not bicycles are specifically mentioned.
Still, one would have to look at the types of fatal (or serious injury) passing accidents.
The majority likely fall into what the British call the SMIDSY (sorry mate I didn't see you) accidents. Passing lane distance laws just won't help the incidents related to inattentive divers or camouflaged riders. Or perhaps riders that move from off the roadway onto the roadway.
There are likely a few mirror clearance related injuries, or perhaps vehicles pulling trailers wider than the tow vehicles that would be affected by passing distance laws. Do those accidents tend to propel riders into a ditch?
Or bicycle swerved for reason X (road debris, car door, inattention, etc). These are probably the ones most likely affected by the passing lane
06-13-17, 04:53 PM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 2,665
Bikes: Airborne "Carpe Diem", Motobecane "Mirage", Trek 6000, Strida 2, Dahon "Helios XL", Dahon "Mu XL", Tern "Verge S11i"
Liked 633 Times
in
436 Posts
This is the best reason I can think of for using a rear-view mirror. You're likely to get more than propulsion into a ditch if you're hit from behind by something moving several times your speed. If there's a way to tell by sound that the vehicle approaching from the rear has an outrigger mirror or is pulling a wide load, I'd like to know what it is. IMO, riding in traffic without a mirror is a lot like playing Russian Roulette. Yet mirror use is not that common... even on Rides of Silence I've seen images of.
Steve
06-13-17, 06:29 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,279
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
A study should check accident statistics somewhere that actually enforces the law. If such place exists. That an unenforced law is almost meaningless should come as no surprise.
06-13-17, 06:57 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: 961' 42.28° N, 83.78° W (A2)
Posts: 2,344
Bikes: Mongoose Selous, Trek DS
Liked 319 Times
in
189 Posts
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 days 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 -- ."
06-14-17, 05:55 AM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 2,665
Bikes: Airborne "Carpe Diem", Motobecane "Mirage", Trek 6000, Strida 2, Dahon "Helios XL", Dahon "Mu XL", Tern "Verge S11i"
Liked 633 Times
in
436 Posts
I see what you did there!But I've been riding in Chicago city traffic for 15 years without a problem involving motorists. I feel comfortable in traffic, and the rear-view mirror is a major contributor to that.
Steve
06-14-17, 06:56 AM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Posts: 6,209
Bikes: ...a few.
Liked 410 Times
in
236 Posts
The most useful thing about the mirror is for changing lanes when making left turns. Also useful for looking out for motorists who might potentially right-hook you...And for inconspicuously observing people.
06-14-17, 07:27 AM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 2,665
Bikes: Airborne "Carpe Diem", Motobecane "Mirage", Trek 6000, Strida 2, Dahon "Helios XL", Dahon "Mu XL", Tern "Verge S11i"
Liked 633 Times
in
436 Posts
My commuter bike has a round bar-end mirror (Third Eye); on the road bike I use a Third Eye mirror which mounts on my glasses. I've found this kind more stable than the helmet mount; as well, the glasses-mounted mirror is closer to the rider's eye, which allows a wider rear field of view for a given size of mirror. Both glasses-mount and helmet-mount have the advantage over a fixed mirror that by moving the rider's head the whole area behind the bike can be scanned.
Steve
06-14-17, 08:34 AM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 588
Bikes: Gary Fisher Hi-Fi Deluxe, Giant Stance, Cannondale Synapse, Diamondback 8sp IGH, 1989 Merckx
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I have noticed that drivers give me more room when they pass now that the 3' rule applies here in California.
As others have stated, indirectly perhaps, correlation is not causation. Still, I am sure there has been a change in driver behavior in my area since implementation of the 3’ rule.
Joe
As others have stated, indirectly perhaps, correlation is not causation. Still, I am sure there has been a change in driver behavior in my area since implementation of the 3’ rule.
Joe
06-14-17, 10:53 AM
#37
Senior Member
I'm mildly curious as the OP's interpretation of the article, or intent with the post.
Otherwise, the issues with these laws (major loopholes allowing passing less than the "mandatory" distance, no enforcement, and variation among different laws) would make it surprising if the study did find any impact.
I'd also expect any impacts to vary significantly by location and to include any potential changes to actual passing distance and collisions without fatalities. It looks like the study recognized that these may exist, but made no effort to quantify them since the fatality data was easier to find
Otherwise, the issues with these laws (major loopholes allowing passing less than the "mandatory" distance, no enforcement, and variation among different laws) would make it surprising if the study did find any impact.
I'd also expect any impacts to vary significantly by location and to include any potential changes to actual passing distance and collisions without fatalities. It looks like the study recognized that these may exist, but made no effort to quantify them since the fatality data was easier to find
06-14-17, 11:02 AM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 588
Bikes: Gary Fisher Hi-Fi Deluxe, Giant Stance, Cannondale Synapse, Diamondback 8sp IGH, 1989 Merckx
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Community is the answer. When we accept, respect and understand one another, practical roadway rules are easy. This is the great truth that the Scandinavian countries have embraced; they work together for the common good.
Joe
Joe
06-14-17, 02:20 PM
#39
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Novi Sad
Posts: 4,435
Bikes: Heavy, with friction shifters
Liked 223 Times
in
135 Posts
Riding in northern Italy - filtering and in lane passing is the norm. Perfectly safe, since most drivers do, or used to ride bicycles, scooters and motorcycles. No right hooks, no "sorry, didn't see you situations".
Safe passing distance depends on speed and speed difference. 1.5 m passing distance is nonsense IMO. Driver education is the way to go.
Safe passing distance depends on speed and speed difference. 1.5 m passing distance is nonsense IMO. Driver education is the way to go.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Wilbur Bud
Advocacy & Safety
26
12-31-13 08:26 PM
FBinNY
Advocacy & Safety
36
12-31-13 02:13 PM
DP1112
Advocacy & Safety
79
12-27-12 08:59 AM
