Legally close passed in Luxembourg
Some car drivers do expose cyclists to dangerous situations when overtaking because they do not respect enough lateral distance. A long, but necessary cyclist’s comment on a local Twitter survey triptych leading to the global disease of “close pass” and how it should be addressed!
End of January, a video tweeted by Gérard Floener demonstrated how fast things can mess up for a cyclist, despite being on a painted bike lane:
It remains unclear if driver’s action could have been intentional, perhaps it was not. Nevertheless, the cutting by the car suddenly blocked the way of the cyclist, who had to brake.
Knocking on a car as a way to communicate with motorists: how did we land here?
That situation of a car suddenly entering a cyclist’s “vital space” was inspiration enough for a small opinion poll on the use by cyclist of knocking on a car as a form of communication:
Only a very small minority (6%) would never knock on the car coming too close, whatever the consequence for themselves (e.g. crashing because the car driver was not aware of them).
Few (16%) would prefer to brake when car is coming too close, and so avoid a dangerous situation. As a cyclist, you don’t have any special protection compared to a car. Wearing a helmet just gives you the illusion of being protected, but think again: most injuries of cyclists are not sustained by the head in case of a crash! Needless to say that braking is without a doubt the wisest attitude to adopt.
Half of the people (50%) answering the poll said that knocking on a car is “fair/active assertiveness”. That is quite a lot, because that answer implies that the knocking does not take place in a life-threatening situation. Indeed the last possible answer, knocking on a car as a “rare, life-saving move”, still got 28% of approval!
It is safe to deduce that more cyclists that took part in the poll are favorable to knocking on a car than there are who are not in favor of that action. A clear majority (50% + 28% = 78%!) would at least approve that action if a close pass situation happened to them.
So, B_Loft raised the question of what to do with such a result?
At that point, investigating that issue further and commenting it seemed appropriate. Here a first reaction:
The everyday cycling avatar of this blog post’s author can remember of at least one situation where knocking on a car while being close passed was the last resort to avoid crashing. It happened in Avenue Marie-Thérèse in City of Luxembourg, on way to center. Cyclist on painted bike lane suddenly faced situation of being squeezed between car and the (raised) sidewalk. Braking was not an option anymore and would have been too late anyway. That situation was in some aspects comparable to that of Gérard Floener at the beginning, as the car was suddenly entering vital space, while using totally illegally the bike lane as an overtaking opportunity without even noticing cyclist in dead angle.
During rush hour, no driver will hear you ring a bike bell!
Knocking on car can actually in such a sudden unexpected and dangerous situation be that “rare, life-saving move”. To be accurate, we are probably not talking about a simple knock, but more of a hammering your fist on the roof or the side windows of the car. This immediately alerts the driver inside, as this is a totally unusual noise he can’t overhear. The justification of knocking is simple: a simple ringing of a bike bell would not be heard by the motorist inside his car and cyclist’s life is at stake. Period.
A bike bell may be legally required (except if you are on a road bike, aka racing bike), but it will not save your life. In fact, only pedestrians can hear it.
Nevertheless, in a non life-threatening situation, knocking on a car is certainly a rude action and will not increase motorists sympathy levels towards cyclists. It should be avoided, as it will only lead to aggressive situations.
A second opinion poll was started to dig deeper into the issue.
What makes cycling unsafe or annoying at rush hours?
It is known that City of Luxembourg and surroundings are sadly renowned for huge traffic jams in the morning and in the evening rush hours. Massive flows of cars are a side-effect, as population of city roughly doubles at work hours. This turned out to be a good topic for the next opinion poll.
Not very surprisingly, nobody voted that overall cycling conditions are “ok” during rush hours. Some sort of surprise is the fact that distracted drivers are only the main concern of 1 out of 5 people that took part in vote. Those drivers not paying attention do daily cause unsafe situations, typically by using their smartphone. But they are not considered to be the biggest issue.
1 out of 2 people voted that being stuck as a cyclist with cars in traffic is biggest issue. Not all streets and roads in City of Luxembourg do feature some sort of dedicated bike lane, and in a gridlocked situation, “sharrows” (painted bike on road indicating that users shall share the road) are of no help. The most intrepid cyclists will in such a situation overtake standing cars, trying not to touch them. The others, more careful cyclists, will be stuck behind cars, inhaling their exhaust pipes. Not every cyclist is familiar with side itineraries suitable for bikes. Biking on sidewalks, which is of no help for pedestrians, is another solution that then happens in real life.
Nearly 1 out of 3 people voted that aggressive driving, e.g. close passes, are in their opinion the biggest annoyance during rush hours.
Nearly 1 out of 3 people voted that aggressive driving, e.g. close passes, are in their opinion the biggest annoyance during rush hours. This at least proves that this issue cannot be considered to be a marginal one, and at the end of the day, it does not make a difference whether this is real or only felt by cyclists. Some, like the author of this post, probably already experienced close passes while biking. The point is that a person feeling unsafe about cycling in traffic will choose to avoid it.
Does law in Luxembourg even know the concept of a “close pass”?
The traffic law in Luxembourg requires drivers to stay far enough away from other vehicles (this includes bicycles!), pedestrians and animals, to ensure that they are not endangered by an overtaking.
“Before starting overtaking on the left side, a driver has to make sure that a) he has enough space to do so, b) he has the possibility to insert again in normal traffic flow after finishing overtaking, c) his vehicle must be able to reach a speed high enough compared to that of vehicle to be overtaken to make that action as short as possible, and d) that vehicle following him closely did not start overtaking himself.”
From an urban cyclists view, one could wish that there would be a new condition added: driver intending to overtake a cyclist must make sure that he will not have to stop again at a traffic light 50m later, as overtaking will then have been completely useless.
The second red marked section is essential from a “close pass” point of view (translation): “When overtaking on the left side or on the right side, the driver has to keep his vehicle at a lateral distance far enough from the vehicle, pedestrian or animal to be overtaken, that makes sure that the latter will not be put into danger. After having overtaken on the left, the driver must as soon as it is possible to do so safely go back to his position on the right.”
The third red marked section says this: “A road user that has been made aware by whatever mean that a vehicle is preparing to overtake him by the left side, has to facilitate that move, by staying as closely to the right side of the road as possible [sic!] and by not accelerating himself.”
Often pointed out by motorists but not helpful: “staying as right as possible” on the road in fact puts cyclist into more trouble
For a cyclist, staying as right as possible on the road is generally not a good advice, as this exposes him or her to specific dangers: parked cars suddenly opening doors (=”dooring”), potholes, sewer covers and gullies.
Another risk clearly created by staying completely on the right of the road is that of calling forth dangerous overtaking: drivers can easily misjudge available space and start to overtake in situations creating danger for cyclist.
When one car does overtake another car, the situation is more clear: the overtaking car has to completely leave his lane and use the (then car-free) adverse lane.
As the Code de la Route suggests that cyclist has to stay as closely to the right side of the road as possible, situations can easily result where 3 vehicles will be side by side: 1 car on adverse lane, 1 car overtaking and 1 cyclist being overtaken. In theory, such a situation must not necessarily be dangerous when the road is large enough and leaving enough space “to live” for everyone, especially the cyclist.
But here lies the problem. When the road is too narrow, and a scenario of 3 vehicles (one of them a cyclist) abreast is happening, the cyclist as the weakest and most vulnerable vehicle will be the one in danger. Every time!
One can’t rely on the judgement of car drivers to correctly estimate in 100% of overtaking situations if road will be large enough for safety. That is why people cycling do recommend other cyclists to make full use of the lane, riding in the plain middle of it. If on the other hand motorists would handle every cyclist like a car, and make full use of the adverse lane when overtaking, everything would be fine and close pass would not exist anymore.
While riding in the middle of the lane can really prevent some silly overtaking while traffic on adverse lane exists, it does on the other hand not present a final guarantee against intentional close passing as soon as adverse lane is free for overtaking.
To go straight into center of the issue, a third opinion poll completing the triptych was launched.
The true a**holes on the road: drivers intentionally close passing a cyclist
We are not talking here about unintentional close passes, where car driver did not see the cyclist (dead angle, distracted or whatever was the reason). We are clearly talking about the driver starting overtaking move and passing a cyclist so close that the later could reach out his left arm and touch the car. We are talking about close passes where the slightest deviation of cyclist from his line could make him collide with the car come too close. We are talking about an overtaking where cyclist is condemned to feel the air rush of the car without the possibility to escape the situation, hoping that the car will not ram into him and not cut off his way in front of him.
The “Code de la Route” is of no help to the cyclist, as there is no minimal lateral overtaking distance mentioned in the text: as long as the car does not touch the cyclist and hurt him, nothing legally enforceable happened.
A small minority of really nasty drivers even seems to know that, and will even take advantage of that to scare the cyclist on purpose. So, drivers intentionally close passing a cyclist was topic of final opinion poll.
Nearly 3 out of 4 people taking part in vote consider that the issue of close passing in Luxembourg can be explained by (at least) three factors: lack of legal rules, lack of safety training and lack of enforcement. In other words, when it comes to close passes, Luxembourg feels like Wild Wild West to them. And that feeling is for sure and understandably a very strong deterrent for everyday cycling. Being close passed is frightening, and the author of this post speaks out of experience!
Lack of segregated urban cycling infrastructure forces cyclists to close pass cars when overtaking gridlocked traffic
It may sound rather unexpected, but it is fair to say that lack of bike infrastructure puts urban cyclists into a situation where they have themselves to close pass standing cars to make their way to the front of the traffic light to the “bike envelop” or “bike box” painted at junctions. While this is legal for cyclists, it creates an asymmetric situation that could send a wrong message about safe lateral overtaking distances to some car drivers deprived of basic common sense.
Conclusion: make close passing by cars on vulnerable road users illegal and start enforcing it!
It has been shown (someone prove it wrong) that there is only a vague definition of what could be considered a close pass in “Code de la Route”. There is no specific minimum safety distance (e.g. 1,5 meters) that can be found in the law. That may be fine for cars, as the car body protects driver and passengers inside.
But: cars do not swerve inside a lane like a cyclist does in his natural movement. And foremost, people inside a car are not physically vulnerable as are cycling people.
One can even observe car drivers who pedantically stay inside the limits of their lane while overtaking a cyclist! This sounds insane, but it can be observed in real life.
It seems obvious that law should adapt to be clearer in favour of a more protective and safe approach for the overtaking action on a cyclist. Such clarity would also offer better leverage for enforcement. The current state of close pass enforcement seems to be that absolutely no legal action is possible if no crash happened.
After all, a person running with a kitchen knife in a public place would promptly get arrested by police, even before having stabbed somebody! A driving license should not be any longer a potential license to kill.
Bullying actions, e.g. close passing, by a small minority of car drivers cannot be tolerated any longer. It should be put into law that reported intentional dangerous behavior of drivers inflicted on vulnerable road users (walking and cycling people), even if there is no material damage, should have consequences.
A last word on “yes, but autonomous cars will solve the problem!”
Autonomous cars will only improve road safety for vulnerable road users if programmed properly. Reality already shows that they are for the moment not up to the expectations.
Disclaimer: the opinion polls used in this blog post do not pretend to be scientifically valid, as the number of respondents is rather small and as it cannot be proven that they truly belong to the target group. It can nevertheless be assumed that the answers given are more or less an accurate account of reality as experienced by cycling interested followers of @luxembourgize.
