Search

Issues addressed Cyclists' perceptions of harassment from motorists discourages cycling. This study examined changes in cyclists' reporting of harassment pre- to post-introduction of the Queensland trial of the minimum passing distance road rule amendment (MPD-RRA). Methods Cross-sectional online surveys of cyclists in Queensland, Australia were conducted in 2009 (pre-trial; n=1758) and 2015 (post-trial commencement; n=1997). Cyclists were asked about their experiences of harassment from motorists while cycling. Logistic regression modelling was used to examine differences in the reporting of harassment between these time periods, after adjustments for demographic characteristics and cycling behaviour. Results At both time periods, the most reported types of harassment were deliberately driving too close (causing fear or anxiety), shouting abuse and making obscene gestures or engaging in sexual harassment. The percentage of cyclists who reported tailgating by motorists increased between 2009 and 2015 (15.1% to 19.5%; P<0.001). The percentage of cyclists reporting other types of harassment did not change significantly. Conclusions Cyclists in Queensland continue to perceive harassment while cycling on the road. The amendment to the minimum passing distance rule in Queensland appears to be having a negative effect on one type of harassment but no significant effects on others. So what? Minimum passing distance rules may not be improving cyclists' perceptions of motorists' behaviours. Additional strategies are required to create a supportive environment for cycling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most countries have detailed lists of traffic rules and elaborate legal regimes for penalizing drivers who break them. Previous research has suggested that drivers tend to drive more safely after receiving penalties for traffic infringements.Methods: We linked driver-level data on infringements and crashes in Queensland, Australia (1995-2010) with information on the licence histories of all drivers in the state. We used a case-crossover design to examine drivers' risk of crashing in the month following an infringement penalty. We also examined whether changes in crash risk following infringement penalties varied according to driver age and gender, type of infringement and whether the offender was at fault in a subsequent crash.Results: Drivers had higher risks of crashes following infringement penalties [odds ratio (OR) 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29-1.36], especially crashes in which the offender was at fault (1.41; 1.36-1.46). Crash risk relative to a comparable period was particularly high for teenage drivers (1.55; 1.34-1.78) and among drivers penalized for dangerous driving (3.19; 2.52-4.03) or driving under the influence of alcohol (1.99; 1.67-2.37). The risk remained relatively high for more than 6 months after the penalty, but declined steadily over this period.Conclusions: Crash risk among drivers in Queensland was higher, not lower, following receipt of penalties for traffic infringements. Penalties themselves are unlikely to increase crash risk. A more likely explanation is that penalties (or the corresponding infringements) mark episodes of risky driving. Our findings suggest that such episodes trounce any deterrent effect penalties may produce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]