Factors influencing noncompliance with bicycle passing distance laws

Abstract

Many jurisdictions around the world have implemented laws to require a minimum distance when motor vehicles pass cyclists, but research into the factors influencing passing distances has produced inconsistent results, indicating the need for future research. This study examined the factors influencing motorists' compliance with a legislated bicycle passing distance rule in Queensland, Australia. Unlike the earlier studies, which used volunteer riders to record passing events, this study used a naturalistic study design to record passing events where none of the motorists or the cyclists were aware of being studied. As a result, this study captured the 'true' driving and riding behaviours during passing events. The likelihood of non-compliance was greater on higher (70-80 km/h speed limits) and lower (40 km/h) speed roads than 60 km/h roads, at curved road sections, and on roads with narrower traffic lanes. Rider characteristics (age, gender, helmet status, type of clothing, type of bicycle, and individual or group riding) had no statistically significant association with compliance status. The findings indicate that efforts to improve cyclist safety during overtaking events should focus on non-rider related factors, such as roadway infrastructure characteristics.

How much space do drivers provide when passing cyclists? Understanding the impact of motor vehicle and infrastructure characteristics on passing distance

“…In other regions of Australia (with the exception of our region of Victoria), legalisation or trials of minimum passing distances have been legislated and stipulate that drivers must provide a passing distance of at least 1 metre when the speed limit is 60 km/h or less, and 1.5 metres when the speed limit is more than 60 km/h. In line with our finding that passing distance did not differ between speed zones, and consistent with Debnath et al (2018), 15 we observed a higher proportion of passing events in which the passing distance was less than these suggested boundaries in speed zones of greater than 60 km/h. Given that passing vehicle speed is known to be a major concern for cyclists, 33 speed-based minimum passing distance regulations are justified, and our results demonstrate the need to increase education for drivers to provide greater passing distance at higher vehicle speeds.…”

“…In the current study, we observed a mean passing distance of 173cm. This is slightly lower than data from another Australian state, Queensland, in which a mean passing distance of 186cm was reported, 15 and 6.4 ft (195cm) reported in Wisconsin, United States. 13 In contrast to our study, both of these prior studies were conducted in settings with legislated bicycle passing distance rules.…”

“…Previous studies that have quantified the passing distance that motor vehicles provide to cyclists have commonly used an instrumented bicycle on a set route, [10][11][12][13] or have used a limited number of fixed traffic cameras to estimate passing distance. 15 To our knowledge, our study is the first study to use technology mounted on cyclists' own bicycles to quantify passing distance with cyclists riding on self-selected routes. Furthermore, the number of passing events in our study (n=18,527) is substantially larger than that previously reported (e.g.…”

“…[6][7][8][9] Therefore, quantifying how close motor vehicles pass cyclists and identifying the characteristics of close passing events provides an opportunity to develop interventions that address key barriers to increased cycling participation. Prior studies of passing distance have typically been conducted using a single instrumented bicycle on a set route, [10][11][12][13] using data collected only on a single cyclist, 14 or have used a limited number of fixed traffic cameras to estimate passing distance, 15 thus limiting the generalisability of these findings. Naturalistic driving studies have also been used to study the lateral distance that vehicles provide when passing cyclists, but have been limited to a small number of passing events, 16 or have used surrogate measures of passing distance, such as the distance to the bicycle lane marking, rather than quantifying lateral passing distance.…”

On-road bicycle lane types, roadway characteristics, and risks for bicycle crashes

“…Of the assessed bicycle lane types, exclusive bicycle lanes generally provide the greatest physical separation between bicycles and vehicular traffic, and kerbside bicycle lanes provide the least separation. Greater separation will increase passing distance for motor vehicles and may aid visibility for cyclists and motorists, cue motorists to be aware that cyclists are present, and provide greater protection against human error, thereby leading to fewer crashes (Apasnore et al, 2017;Debnath et al, 2018).…”