Near Miss of the Day 782: No action taken on very close pass

Phteven wrote:

TBH I don't really see the issue here. This cyclist would lose their shit commuting in London where this is basically normal.

The fact that it's normal (and not just in London) is the issue.

That's because you're here from Pistonheads, a right-wing forum filled with people who complain when laws are enforced on them.

Yep; the problem is really the 'bike lane' lines painted on the road; drivers feel entitled to drive within their marked lane past a cyclist in their marked lane.

Indeed. I would say that 90% or more of motorists think that they can be anywhere within the white lines either side of them, and would be very surprised to be told that that is not the case if they are passing a cyclist - and that the reaction would be: Then what the bloody hell are the lines for?

Correct answer is that the lines are there for guidance on road positioning when not passing another road user

Drivers generally have no difficulty understanding that if they want to pass another car, or indeed motorcycle, that the location of bits of paint on the road aren't the determinant of where they need to be to pass safely.

Most drivers also inherently understand that they need to give reasonable space when passing a pedestrian on the road.

We just need a general mindset shift to where drivers in general understand that they need to leave at least as much space and care when passing a cyclist as if they were passing a pedestrian.

I don't know what to make of your assumption that drivers take due care when passing a pedestrian. I will never forget the occasion when I and my future wife were walking, correctly on the side facing incoming traffic, me closer to the kerb, she alongside me, when a car shot post us at high speed from behind, overtaking another car, and inches from my wife.

The fact is that when drivers are behind the wheel of a car, they no longer see things outside of their car as humans but as objects - not as someone who might be their son or daughter, but as a nondescript thing that is a nuisance.

Awavey wrote:

has anyone ever known a close pass in a cycle lane to get a prosecution ? just wondering if it just gets disregarded as theres no lane violation if you like, and the miss the distance is still too close.

I was told by the Met two years ago that they wouldn't action any close passes    if I was in a cycle lane and the car wasn't, even if (as in the case I was enquiring about) the driver quite clearly moved from a safe distance to "buzz" the cyclist as a punishment (in that case revenge for having the cheek to force him to stop on an amber light by doing so myself).

thats what I suspected, but havent had it confirmed before.

This now seems to be pretty much the rule of thumb by numerous forces due to the CPS and PF in order to take the pressure off the courts. It seems action will only be taken if you hit the deck. The only hope we have is that forces are more proactive in issuing endorsable FPNs. A way forward would be to have courts that solely deal with driving offences and have judges, magistrates and sheriffs who specialise in this area. 

JimM777 wrote:

What is needed is another lane, say perhaps with chevrons between the cycle lanes and the car lanes

Whilst I think that's a really good idea - like when you have chevrons between two lanes of 'normal' traffic, often in the space between two sets of pedestrian refuges - I can't imagine any council in the country going for it. After all, it would take up far too much road space and it's only for cyclists... 

JimM777 wrote:

. What is needed is another lane, say perhaps with chevrons between the cycle lanes and the car lanes - otherwise don't paint in cycle lanes at all.

I think what is needed is a minimum standard for cycle lanes, say 2.25m (75cm from the kerb plus 1.5m).

Agree - more and more I think we need a standard for cycle lanes: don't.  If as a council you're skint a minimum is a continuously protected cycle lane (which no-one seems to do - they're always interrupted for any reason or stopping and restarting).  False economy though - before you start you'll need resurfacing because the edge of the road is home to the worst of the potholes and gravel traps, continual maintenance (lanes fill up with rubbish) and enforcement (everything parked / dumped in the lane).

Unless the goal is largely "tick box, claim money".

So just don't (and shame on you) until you can save up the money (yeah, I know it doesn't work like that...) for a separated cycle path of appropriate standard.  If the questions are "what gets people cycling" and "what makes people on cycles safer" cycle lanes are scoring very few points.

I've hypocritically called for these in the past though - why?  For some drivers, until the paint wears off, they can help visually narrow the road which can keep (some drivers) speeds down.

The only thing those narrow cycle gutters are good for is creating a bit of space to filter up the left of a traffic jam.

Of course, it's been an increasing theme that the HA recognises that the average motorist is incapable of correct judgement.

The best examples of these are the old trunk roads with suicide lanes where motorists delighted in failing to play chicken successfully. For a while the tried the one solid white line and one broken one to imply priority to one side (I didn't ever see how that was underpinned by road laws though) then they got rid of the third lane and made it two extra wide lanes to allow overtaking by encroaching on the other lane with oncoming traffic. Then they realised that this didn't work either, so they now often paint a wide "only enter when necessary" striped section in the middle of the road. They also are inclined to delete the second lane of dual carriageway because motorists are incapable of managing to drive capably passing other cars when separated by magic paint (there is a notable section of road in and out of Kidderminster, for example, it requires motorists to turn corners occasionally which is obviously too challenging).

You'd think as motorists can't be trusted to assess safe overtaking when observing an HGV thundering towards them, that constraining their choices with cyclists would be an obvious extension.

Theoretically, self-driving cars is the next step, as even "professional" drivers can't be trusted to be competent. Unfortunately, self-driving cars are being developed by human beings, so there is little hope!

.

What's that song again?

.

Ah yeh, 'Always look on the bright side of life, da da, da da'.

.

IanMSpencer wrote:

.
Theoretically, self-driving cars is the next step, as even "professional" drivers can't be trusted to be competent. Unfortunately, self-driving cars are being developed by human beings, so there is little hope!

Fair point on human innovation though budget limits on testing are a common engineering issue. Bean counters in charge, so have we spent the budget not is it good enough...

One notable change is that almost no hard problems are solved with logic alone, any more. Machine Learning is now normal so the effect and efficiency of training is a competitive advantage. Further production at global scale in smartphone and GPUs mean that the future vehicles will be able to cope with several hard problems including video recognition, physical modelling and object tracking. In other words, the elements of driving in complex situations. Add Beacons for harder objects (cyclists) to track and the safety goes up.

The sooner we can get humans out of the loop, controlling vehicles, the better. However it's a slow process to establish trust and sell the benefits that people will buy with their own money...

Self-driving cars will remain 'theoretical,' as all the experts agree that the road conditions needed to make them safe to use, will never exist realistically.

My observation is that motorists now days tend to hug the nearside section of the road rather than keep out to the right which ironically given  the drivers position affords them with better sight lines. This was something my dad encouraged me to do when I was learning,  one reason was to make it easier to pass pedestrians/cyclists (most of our local roads were rural) and also to reduce risk of punctures due to the crap lying nearside which we do our best to avoid when cycling. 

They were centred in their marked lane, which would seem reasonable for most drivers; therein lies the problem.. the bike lane marking, meant to give cyclists 'protected space' makes it more dangerous for cyclists, than if cyclists just used the roadway without bike lane marking.