[PR] Cyclists Welcome Continuing Ban on Motorbikes Use of Bus Lanes

Del2005

monument wrote: »

Really, even in this thread, I'm amazed that the two of you could interpretation "like let them play chicken with on coming traffic down the central medium of our city streets" (as said by Halfdog) could somehow be "legal overtaking".

Perspective is where palying chicken and legal overtaking comes from. From someone sitting in a car or on a cycle lane it looks like a bike is playing chicken, but when on a bike you can see where you are going and use the gaps in traffic to overtake other vehicles.

monument wrote: »

Ok, lets look at what is fact and assumption...



"The majority (65%) of motorcyclists are killed in single vehicle crashes outside built-up areas" - these are facts. And this: "where it is more likely that high-speed and powerful bikes are major contributory factors" is really one educated guess or assumption.

So... where is "a lot of assumptions there with little to back them up"? Maybe you're looking at the stat that 65 percent of motorcyclists are killed in single vehicle crashes. And then like any reasonable person you're thinking if they are single vehicles at least the majority are likely to be the drivers' fault*.

The bit I've highlighted is the assumption. There has been no studies done to prove that driving powerfull motorbikes is more dangerous the less powerfull ones, and some anecdotal evidence that less power bilkes are more dangerous as they can't react quickly enough to dangers, all it is the EU and goverments don't like motorcycles. As they are disproportanly killed on all EU roads, and it's easier for goverments to try and ban them then implment proper safety procedures for them.

Also our RTA reporting is so bad no assumptions can be made from it. 65% of fatal motorcycle accidents are single vehicle, but since the report forms that our Gardai use don't record all the factors they are pretty much useless.

If you're thinking like that, or even thinking others may think like that, yeah, I can see why you'd want to debunk the fact 65 percent of motorcyclists are killed in single vehicle crashes. But if you're going to debunk something please do so.

[I'm open to suggestions of other reasons if anybody has them]

cyclopath2001

Del2005 wrote: »

but when on a bike you can see where you are going and use the gaps in traffic to overtake other vehicles.

In city traffic, wouldn't they be cutting into the the gaps left because drivers are driving at a safe distance from the car in front?

Del2005

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

In city traffic, wouldn't they be cutting into the the gaps left because drivers are driving at a safe distance from the car in front?

I've never seen cars leave enough of a gap on any road so they aren't really going into cars safe braking zone.

There are lots of gaps in traffic which bikes, and bicycles, can fit into that cars can't. It also relates to lane position, a bike/bicycle can take a position in a lane that won't affect cars safe braking distance.

Which brings us back to the original issue. Why needlessly place motorcycles into these positons when international studies have proven that if they use the bus lane it's safer for ALL road users, not just motorcycles?

Stark

ninja900 wrote: »

On your bicycle???

Some people do use more than one mode of transport you know...

monument wrote:

Really, even in this thread, I'm amazed that the two of you could interpretation "like let them play chicken with on coming traffic down the central medium of our city streets" (as said by Halfdog) could somehow be "legal overtaking".

As far as I know, it's legal if you do it at low speed (filtering). Illegal if done at high speed afaik.

seamus

monument wrote: »

Really, even in this thread, I'm amazed that the two of you could interpretation "like let them play chicken with on coming traffic down the central medium of our city streets" (as said by Halfdog) could somehow be "legal overtaking".

Provided that you don't pose a danger to yourself or the oncoming traffic (i.e. no-one has to change their road position), then overtaking on a broken white line is perfectly legal, whether or not there is oncoming traffic.

There was a discussion on the motorbikes forum recently enough about it and it turns out that the law doesn't require the oncoming lane to be empty, it simply requires the motorist to have adequate room to overtake such they don't present a danger to themselves or other motorists.

In city traffic, wouldn't they be cutting into the the gaps left because drivers are driving at a safe distance from the car in front?

I think he was referring to gaps in the oncoming traffic. You wait behind the vehicle, once there's a gap in the oncoming traffic, you overtake. Motorcycles are just exceptionally able for this because of their superior acceleration.

thebman

monument wrote: »

If you're thinking like that, or even thinking others may think like that, yeah, I can see why you'd want to debunk the fact 65 percent of motorcyclists are killed in single vehicle crashes. But if you're going to debunk something please do so.

[I'm open to suggestions of other reasons if anybody has them]

Crap roads and bad signs leading motor cyclists into dangerous situations I imagine could be one cause of it.

Quint

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Based on the high-speed and downright reckless riding what I've seen on motorways, that's debatable.

He was also trying to justify driving down the wrong side of a city street.

Small wonder nobody wants to share a lane with them.

Where do I start?
1. It's the motorcyclists fault when they have accidents on motorways? Nice generalisation and assumption!

2. Completely legal to drive on the wrong side of a street! But i'll make my own generalisation here, as a cyclist I assume you have no idea of the rules of the road.

3. Seems that no cyclists has a problem with it! Bus drivers certainly don't, they always wave me in to bus lanes, same with taxis. No cyclists here seem to mind either. Police certainly don't mind. "Nobody" seems to be just you!

cyclopath2001

Quint wrote: »

1. It's the motorcyclists fault when they have accidents on motorways? Nice generalisation and assumption!

I said that motorcyclists should take responsibility for their own safety. Shouldn't we all?

Quint wrote: »

2. Completely legal to drive on the wrong side of a street!

Actually I did not say that either. In general, in heavy traffic, it would be illegal.

Quint wrote: »

No cyclists here seem to mind either. Police certainly don't mind. "Nobody" seems to be just you!

Actually, if you read my postings you'll see that I was in favour as long as they did not obstruct cycle lanes. I'm nervous about making any concession as so many motorcyclists already drive illegally in bus lanes and frequently get in my way in cycle lanes.

Since then, an anti-cyclist element has tried to dismiss any reservations by cyclists by asserting that cyclists were less law-abiding than everyone. Which, of course, is both stupid and not true.

seamus wrote:

Provided that you don't pose a danger to yourself or the oncoming traffic (i.e. no-one has to change their road position), then overtaking on a broken white line is perfectly legal, whether or not there is oncoming traffic.

Alas, this is not an accurate quotation of the overtaking regulations. Not only must you overtake safely, but you must also do so without causing inconvenience to anyone else.

seamus wrote:

I think he was referring to gaps in the oncoming traffic.

I was referring to small safety gaps in the traffic being overtaken, left there by drivers to provide themselves with adequate space to stop if the vehicle in front slows or stops.

murphaph

I presume that legally a cyclist should overtake on the right of slow moving/stationary vehicles unless a cycle lane/track is present?

cyclopath2001

murphaph wrote: »

I presume that legally a cyclist should overtake on the right of slow moving/stationary vehicles unless a cycle lane/track is present?

No, the regulations permit the overaking of slow moving, stationary and right-turning traffic on the left, with or without a cycle lane being present.

Tarabuses

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

No, the regulations permit the overaking of slow moving, stationary and right-turning traffic on the left, with or without a cycle lane being present.

You seem to be quoting the circumstances when it is legal to overtake in the inside lane where there is more than one lane in the direction of travel. It does not apply to single lane roads.

seamus

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Alas, this is not an accurate quotation of the overtaking regulations. Not only must you overtake safely, but you must also do so without causing inconvenience to anyone else.

Alas, you seem to have missed the line after the one you quoted :rolleyes:

Del2005

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Actually, if you read my postings you'll see that I was in favour as long as they did not obstruct cycle lanes. I'm nervous about making any concession as so many motorcyclists already drive illegally in bus lanes and frequently get in my way in cycle lanes.

Since then, an anti-cyclist element has tried to dismiss any reservations by cyclists by asserting that cyclists were less law-abiding than everyone. Which, of course, is both stupid and not true.

You're complaining about motorcycles blocking you in cycle lanes. But if it has broken lines they are perfectly allowed into it, once they give right of way to bikes, and if they then happen to get blocked thereby blocking you it's not the motorbikes fault it's the damn cars:D If it has a solid line then yeah they are being muppets, but I'd bet more cars/buses/trucks block cycle lanes then motorbikes.

I was referring to small safety gaps in the traffic being overtaken, left there by drivers to provide themselves with adequate space to stop if the vehicle in front slows or stops.

As I said earlier I've rarely seen cars leave a proper gap for safe stopping, especially in cities, and generally if I leave a big enough gap a truck will jump in never mind a motorbike.

cyclopath2001

Tarabuses wrote: »

You seem to be quoting the circumstances when it is legal to overtake in the inside lane where there is more than one lane in the direction of travel. It does not apply to single lane roads.

The regulation (SI 182/1997) does not mention lanes at all. Are you looking at this regulation or another one?

If you are to insist that one can only overtake in a separate lane, then that would make any kind of same-lane overtaking, in heavy traffic, illegal.

seamus wrote:

Alas, you seem to have missed the line after the one you quoted

The line I quoted was "(1) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person."
The next lines are:

(2) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, unless the roadway ahead of the driver
( a ) is free from approaching traffic, pedestrians and any obstruction, and
( b ) is sufficiently long and wide to permit the overtaking to be completed without danger or inconvenience to other traffic or pedestrians.

seamus wrote:

You're complaining about motorcycles blocking you in cycle lanes. But if it has broken lines they are perfectly allowed into it, once they give right of way to bikes,

That's what I'm afraid of. At the moment I only have to contend with law-breaking motorcyclists.

Victor

OK folks, be nice to each other.

Hotblack Desiato

monument wrote: »

I like when people engage, but when you don't feel like it please don't tell me what's relevant or not.

I like it too. Unfotunately I am not getting the impression that you yourself want to engage here.

And this: "where it is more likely that high-speed and powerful bikes are major contributory factors" is really one educated guess or assumption.

Del2005 replied well to that already, so I'll just say this - why are the RSA making assumptions?
IF they gave a damn about really improving motorcycle safety, a little research would get real answers here. But they just want a stick to beat motorcyclists with. Real answers would require action - where is the basic training they promised years ago? Where are the local authorities being taken to task for leaving road surfaces in a dangerous condition? Just blaming the victim (even when it was their own fault, it's still a failure of the system) is a cop-out and achieves nothing, it is an abdication of responsibility by the RSA, a body I had high hopes for when it was set up. It's just been assimilated, same as all the rest were.

monument

Del2005 wrote: »

Perspective is where palying chicken and legal overtaking comes from. From someone sitting in a car or on a cycle lane it looks like a bike is playing chicken, but when on a bike you can see where you are going and use the gaps in traffic to overtake other vehicles.

Stark wrote: »

As far as I know, it's legal if you do it at low speed (filtering). Illegal if done at high speed afaik.

The point here is a poster has been criticised for criticising the use of "playing chicken" as a description for overtaking, and then other posters seam to think "playing chicken" could mean legal overtaking - please let me know if any of you are going to use that description on front of a judge, I'll pay to see it!

seamus wrote: »

Provided that you don't pose a danger to yourself or the oncoming traffic (i.e. no-one has to change their road position), then overtaking on a broken white line is perfectly legal, whether or not there is oncoming traffic.

There was a discussion on the motorbikes forum recently enough about it and it turns out that the law doesn't require the oncoming lane to be empty, it simply requires the motorist to have adequate room to overtake such they don't present a danger to themselves or other motorists.

Well I wouldn't call that "playing chicken". Would you? If not I don't know why you brought it up in the context of "playing chicken" being used.

Del2005 wrote: »

The bit I've highlighted is the assumption. There has been no studies done to prove that driving powerfull motorbikes is more dangerous the less powerfull ones, and some anecdotal evidence that less power bilkes are more dangerous as they can't react quickly enough to dangers, all it is the EU and goverments don't like motorcycles.

By the looks of it there probably is anecdotal evidence that speeding is involved in many of the cases. The assumption this was due to powerful motorbikes isn't too far fetched.

Del2005 wrote: »

As they are disproportanly killed on all EU roads, and it's easier for goverments to try and ban them then implment proper safety procedures for them.

Disproportionately compared to what countries?

Del2005 wrote: »

Also our RTA reporting is so bad no assumptions can be made from it. 65% of fatal motorcycle accidents are single vehicle, but since the report forms that our Gardai use don't record all the factors they are pretty much useless.

brim4brim wrote: »

Crap roads and bad signs leading motor cyclists into dangerous situations I imagine could be one cause of it.

I think it's very easy to conclude that driver behaviour accounts for a high percentage of the 65% single vehicle fatal motorcycle accidents. And we haven't very good driver generally so it's not really a stretch.

If bad roads are a factor, you can still conclude that the driver was at least partly at fault. You're meant to travel at a speed that you can react to change in conditions etc.

The stat from the RSA that "males in the 25 to 34 year age bracket are over-represented in motorcycle fatalities (34%) and injuries (27%)" also points driver behaviour as a large factor.

And no, before somebody says it, I'm not saying all drivers are bad drivers.

ninja900 wrote: »

Del2005 replied well to that already, so I'll just say this - why are the RSA making assumptions?
IF they gave a damn about really improving motorcycle safety, a little research would get real answers here. But they just want a stick to beat motorcyclists with. Real answers would require action - where is the basic training they promised years ago? Where are the local authorities being taken to task for leaving road surfaces in a dangerous condition? Just blaming the victim (even when it was their own fault, it's still a failure of the system) is a cop-out and achieves nothing, it is an abdication of responsibility by the RSA, a body I had high hopes for when it was set up. It's just been assimilated, same as all the rest were.

Let me get this straight, you have just said if a driver is at fault we should blame the system?

monument

ninja900 wrote: »

I like it too. Unfotunately I am not getting the impression that you yourself want to engage here.

Unless you want the thread locked, it's better to stick to the ball and not the man.

Hotblack Desiato

monument wrote: »

Let me get this straight, you have just said if a driver is at fault we blame the system?

Yes. Otherwise why have a driving test at all, or indeed licences?

monument

ninja900 wrote: »

Yes. Otherwise why have a driving test at all, or indeed licences?

You do know that by your logic, if a driver is found at fault for a crash where people have been killed s/he should go free, because it's really the fault of the system?

seamus

monument wrote: »

Well I wouldn't call that "playing chicken". Would you? If not I don't know why you brought it up in the context of "playing chicken" being used.

I was just popping the oar in there

There's a common feeling from people who've never driven a motorcycle that when a motorcyclist is overtaking a line of traffic they must be playing chicken or are otherwise doing something dangerous & illegal.

Let me get this straight, you have just said if a driver is at fault we should blame the system?

I think what he's trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the substantially higher level of blame attributed to car drivers in car -v- bike accidents, points to something fundamentally wrong with driver training.
Taken individually, of course, it's simply a mistake on the part of the driver, but taken as a whole, it becomes a trend which needs to be addressed.

carsQhere

The cold hard reality is that, legality notwithstanding, motorcycles have safely been sharing bus lanes with push bikes from day one.

I mostly ride a motorcycle, and occasionally a push bike. I've never had a problem with using bus lanes on the motorcycle, although I have been ticketed for it. I've never had a problem with a motorcyclist while on the push bike either.

I cannot understand the Dublin cycling campaign position on this, because it flies in the face of reality. We have so much more in common with eachother as road users - what with the state of the roads, shoddy repairs, slippery metal plates, potholes, gravel etc. all of which could be the focus of a joint campaign for the benefit of all two wheeled road users.

I have never met a cyclist who actively opposed sharing bus lanes with motorcycles. Cycle tracks, yes, but not bus lanes. Fair enough, practically all motorcyclists will avoid cycle tracks anyway since it's almost never necessary to be in one. Many are not even on roadways.

All that's needed here is a bit of common sense on all sides. Obviously, that's too much to ask in some quarters.

gjim

I cannot understand the Dublin cycling campaign position on this, because it flies in the face of reality. We have so much more in common with eachother as road users - what with the state of the roads, shoddy repairs, slippery metal plates, potholes, gravel etc. all of which could be the focus of a joint campaign for the benefit of all two wheeled road users.

Agree 100%. I haven't driven a motorbike around Dublin but when I cycle I always feel empathy with motorcyclists. In slow traffic, cyclists and motorcyclists move in similar patterns and often move together. Ahead of the traffic stopped at lights, I often nod or get a nod of acknowledgement from motorcyclists.

I've never had any sort of negative interaction or experience with a motorcyclist; the few minor cycling incidents over the years have involved cars or pedestrians. Like you I don't understand the cycling campaign making an issue of what I consider a complete non-issue.