who says we look for incidences?

[BentMikey]

Yes, even before you bring the camera field of view into the matter, it is hard to judge what is a dangerous pass and what is not, and we won't all agree on what makes one.

What is not a dangerous pass is almost certainly shown in the highway code picture on rule 163, together with the other standards of overtaking, do we agree on that? I'll often accept much closer passes than are specified there, and be quite happy with those, as I assume do most of us on here.

Where we draw the line from there is more difficult. Some of the things that I use to judge overtake quality would include:
The speed of the overtaker - the more speed, the more room I want.
My own speed - the faster I'm going, the more room I want too. 25mph and above usually means taking the lane.
3 feet/1m is a minimum safe overtaking distance, usually at a low speed differential. 2 feet from me and under will usually result in a youtubing.
Things such as overtakes on blind corners, in the face of oncoming traffic or pinch points, on double white centre lines, etc. will all make me more critical of overtakes and more likely to post them.
The amount of care or aggression shown by the driver.
Whether the driver cuts in aggressively close or doesn't move out early enough.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Close passes are potentially dangerous for sure, and as such are regarded by many as unpleasant, but the judgement of that potential danger is highly subjective, and an objective assessment of the UKnian (love it) (video) evidence seems to suggests only a tiny number are actually dangerous in that they have an affect on the rider's control of their bike. Yes, cyclists can then put forward a whole range of "But what if I swerved to avoid a pothole...." style arguments but those can be countered by a whole range of counter points about correct road position, defensive riding styles, and "What if never was"

As you say, the determination of how much danger is acceptable to a particular person is subjective. However, the "what if never was" argument is not helpful; what if sometimes is, and with extremely serious consequences. I think many of us have come across the attitude that even an extremely dangerous close pass is fine because "I didn't hit you, so it must be OK".

In health and safety, it is often the case that actual incidents are quite rare but have very serious consequences. Because the real incidents are so rare, there is very little data on which to base improvements, so the practice is to record near misses, and even not-so-near misses, and try to reduce those. These principles translate perfectly into the situation we face on the roads.

There is also the issue of living in a civilized society. One of the benefits of that is that you don't have to live constantly in fear for your life, which would (and did in the past) make life rather unpleasant. Again, this translates onto the roads, and cycling to work would be a much more pleasant experience if it weren't for the drivers who do dangerous things every single day, even though those mostly don't result in death or injury.

 

[Origamist]

I'm trying to tease something out of this... because it has been the subject of an interesting face-to-face debate in another place.

Close passes are potentially dangerous for sure, and as such are regarded by many as unpleasant, but the judgement of that potential danger is highly subjective, and an objective assessment of the UKnian (love it) (video) evidence seems to suggests only a tiny number are actually dangerous in that they have an affect on the rider's control of their bike. Yes, cyclists can then put forward a whole range of "But what if I swerved to avoid a pothole...." style arguments but those can be countered by a whole range of counter points about correct road position, defensive riding styles, and "What if never was"

It's probably worth exploring in more detail what other factors contribute to the unsettling feeling of a close pass.

Most people understandably consider it in terms of the proximity from the overtaking vehicle to the cyclist - this is important, but only part of the equation. The four major additional factors in my experience are the speed of the passing vehicle (or the speed differential/cyclist speed), the size/mass of the passing vehicle, the road conditions (and this can include a plethora of variables), and the cyclist's threshold for close passes and the interplay of circumstances.

For example, If I'm rolling along at 18mph and get passed by a HGV doing 60 mph with less than 2 foot passing distance on windy/wet day, I find this v unpleasant. If I pull away from a traffic light and a car pulls away at the same time and gives me 2 foot of passing distance, I'm comfortable with that. The passing distance is the same, but subjectively, the former shoots me up, the latter doesn't - this is due to an accretion of aggravating factors that affect my perception of the pass.

As regards the issue of close passes and actual or perceived danger, I've been passed too close for comfort 1000s of times and clipped/brushed, forced to the kerb a few times, but I am still here. However, close passes are potentially more dangerous than generous overtakes as the margin for safety/error is diminshed. This might only have a slight effect on actual casualty stats (a miss is as goos as a mile), but it's not something we should blithely accept (even though we can get inured to it) as it contributes to the perceived danger of cycling and the consequences can be fatal.

 

[BentMikey]

I seem to recall that close overtakes result in quite a few collisions (or through-takes), if I didn't misread the stats too badly.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Problem is with close passes it just needs one thing to go wrong & you're in trouble. Incidents very rarely have a single reason for happening. They're a compound problem with multiple small problems stacked on top of each other. Each problem on it's own would be a non-event, but stacked together they cause a dangerous incident.

In fact this morning was a good example of why close passes are potentially dangerous, a bit of frost on the road nothing major & for the most part it's all fine. However at one point I'm riding along in a strong secondary just cruising in a straight line when suddenly the rear wheel steps out. It slides down the camber of the road moving my angle of attack to about 30 degrees towards the centre of the road. I correct with steering & the rear catches, this causes the front wheel to slide sideways. To correct the front slide I straighten the front wheel up & slowly turn the bike back to running down the road again - there's obviously some black ice about so very easy does it. By this point I'm close to the centre line of the road. The stretch of road I was on at that point was a perfect overtaking place for a car... how about that for an example of a what if?

A great one.

[devil's advocate]What if... your skid takes you over the centre line and you get wiped out by a car coming the other way, or making a safe pass? What level of nested 'What ifs' are we trying to cater for?[/devils advocate]

 

[Origamist]

I seem to recall that close overtakes result in quite a few collisions (or through-takes), if I didn't misread the stats too badly.

Damn, I just lost my post.

TFL have a casualty causative factor: "cyclist and other vehicle travelling alongside one another", but it's opaquely worded. You're right that it does appear high up on the common causes of cycle collisions, but it could be interpreted in different ways. I'd speculate that it predominantly relates to close passes, clips and squeezes by an overtaking motor vehicle taking a cyclist down, but that's just my supposition.

I'd like to see if traffic calming measures have an impact on close overtakes and cut-in collisions as I'm sure they do.

 

[BentMikey]

Here's an exceptionally close pass!

 

[GrasB]

A great one.

[devil's advocate]What if... your skid takes you over the centre line and you get wiped out by a car coming the other way, or making a safe pass? What level of nested 'What ifs' are we trying to cater for?[/devils advocate]

You have to take some level of risk & at some point it gets to s**t happens. The thing is a close pass gives no room for error or problems. A wide path at least gives the opportunity for a problem/error to occur & give half a chance for the parties involved to avoid a collision.

 

[col]

Here's an exceptionally close pass!

Language timothyyyyyyyy

 

[Rancid]

Here's an exceptionally close pass!

All nutters.

So the bloke at the front gets cut up by a Motor bike thats undertaking a mini bus which in turn cuts the bike up again to stop very abruptly and top it off the bloke with the Cyclecam then decides he isnt going to make any space for the poor chap.

Makes my journey a positively descendant experience for sure.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

As you say, the determination of how much danger is acceptable to a particular person is subjective. However, the "what if never was" argument is not helpful; what if sometimes is, and with extremely serious consequences. I think many of us have come across the attitude that even an extremely dangerous close pass is fine because "I didn't hit you, so it must be OK".

In health and safety, it is often the case that actual incidents are quite rare but have very serious consequences. Because the real incidents are so rare, there is very little data on which to base improvements, so the practice is to record near misses, and even not-so-near misses, and try to reduce those. These principles translate perfectly into the situation we face on the roads.

I don't think they do. We live in a society that accepts death on the road as part of the price of doing business.

There is also the issue of living in a civilized society. One of the benefits of that is that you don't have to live constantly in fear for your life, which would (and did in the past) make life rather unpleasant. Again, this translates onto the roads, and cycling to work would be a much more pleasant experience if it weren't for the drivers who do dangerous things every single day, even though those mostly don't result in death or injury.

Can we ever reach a consensus of what is acceptable behaviour in the use of shared space in a civilised society? Is the fear of drivers who do potentially dangerous things based on the reality of risk or is it the cyclist's bogeyman? Isn't cycling, on otherwise empty roads still a potentially dangerous thing to do?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

You have to take some level of risk & at some point it gets to s**t happens. The thing is a close pass gives no room for error or problems. A wide path at least gives the opportunity for a problem/error to occur & give half a chance for the parties involved to avoid a collision.

I agree. The wide path ( a la HC picture) is the least risky option, and I've a lot of sympathy for the "a yard's not hard" and "a metre's sweeter" crew.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

All nutters.

So the bloke at the front gets cut up by a Motor bike thats undertaking a mini bus which in turn cuts the bike up again to stop very abruptly and top it off the bloke with the Cyclecam then decides he isnt going to make any space for the poor chap.

Makes my journey a positively descendant experience for sure.

So the bloke at the front, who has already crossed the stop line, RLJs and gets cut up by a motor bike that's undertaking a mini bus which in turn cuts the bike up again to stop very abruptly and top it off the bloke with the Cyclecam then decides he isn't going to make any space for the poor chap. On a cycling 'superhighway'.

EDIT: and the bloke at the front was probably distracted by the shouty cyclist behind him who, it does sound like, was clipped by the motorbike.

 

[BentMikey]

I'm not quite sure what bassjunkie did wrong in that video - the cyclist ahead was clearly going to brake and not swerve to avoid the left hooking mini-bus. I'm not sure how you both could expect him to have given any more room either.

The motorbike's pass on the bloke in front was bad enough, but it's his pass on bassjunkie that's really ridiculous.

 

[col]

Unless there is radical change in the way roads are built, this sort of thing is going to carry on happening. Its not a pleasant thought, but its the reality. What does make a difference is how we handle it, or avoid it. It doesnt make us moto apologists or people that always cede to another, its safety first . Most on here have experienced this in one way or another. Its not going to go away. This vid is a good example of how dangerous it can be, Im sure i heard contact as the motorbike passed, did I ? So what would you do to avoid or handle this particular incident in the future, have you learned something from it, or did it just shock and anger which it would to all of us.