Journalism and cycling

Macy0161

The proposed bill is...

Section 2(2)(b) sets out the sufficient distance required when passing as 1 metre in an area where the speed limit is not more that 50 kilometres per hour and 1.5 metres in an area where the speed limit is more than 50 kilometres per hour.

RSA belatedly running with adds as a recommendation, but they're not commited to legislation. They seem to like pushing things that have no legal back up rather than pushing for legislation or enforcement of legal requirements when it comes to bicycles...

plodder

TheChizler wrote: »

I had the opposite impression, up to and including 50 km/h is a 1 m gap, and above 1.5 m. Trying to remember where I read that.

That's exactly what the RSA radio ad says - up to and including 50km/h is 1 metre which is consistent with the proposed bill also.

It seems like a very blunt instrument though, and 1 m at 50km/h doesn't seem sufficient.

AndrewJRenko

plodder wrote: »

and 1 m at 50km/h doesn't seem sufficient.

I agree - the recent RSA TV ads (lady cyclist in red raincoat, remember) show 1.5m passing space at all times, but the current radio ads are down to 1m - one step forward and two steps back?

Pinch Flat

Coming from an organisation that recommends helmets and hi-vis as a sticking plaster to road safety, I'm not surprised they've made a hames of the MPD. In saying that' I'd be happy with 1 meter in most situations. It's more than many drivers give.

Tenzor07

Well Oslo gets it, gradual removal of all on-street parking over the next few years....

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jun/13/oslo-ban-cars-backlash-parking

plodder

If they bring in an MPD law, would it make sense maybe as a quid pro quo, to allow cars to cross a continuous white line when passing cyclists? Just thinking that on my commute for example, there is a stretch of almost 2 miles of continuous white line. The traffic levels are not high, but if you were to strictly enforce MPD and the existing law, no motorist could pass any cyclist along that stretch, which of course wouldn't happen and we'd probably be back to square one with MPD being ignored as well.

To be fair to motorists, the vast majority on that stretch give me plenty of room, even though they are technically breaking the rules already by crossing the white line.

I love Sean nos

plodder wrote: »

allow cars to cross a continuous white line when passing cyclists?

I didn't think that was prohibited.

HivemindXX

I love Sean nos wrote: »

I didn't think that was prohibited.

You can cross the line if the road is obstructed so the loophole is considering cyclists to be an obstruction. I've no idea if that's really what the wording of the rule meant but having said that I'm fine with cars crossing the white line so long as they are sure there is nothing oncoming at the time.

AndrewJRenko

HivemindXX wrote: »

You can cross the line if the road is obstructed so the loophole is considering cyclists to be an obstruction. I've no idea if that's really what the wording of the rule meant but having said that I'm fine with cars crossing the white line so long as they are sure there is nothing oncoming at the time.

The problem arises when they start the overtake over the white line without full visibility ahead, and then find themselves facing an oncoming car. When the driver is given a choice between a head-on crash to an oncoming car and side-swiping a cyclist into the ditch, we know what the outcome is going to be.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The problem arises when they start the overtake over the white line without full visibility ahead, and then find themselves facing an oncoming car. When the driver is given a choice between a head-on crash to an oncoming car and side-swiping a cyclist into the ditch, we know what the outcome is going to be.

Well rationally the second option affects less people.

Anyway it shouldn't be done. White line is there for a reason because it dangerous to cross it and I really can't see the difference between overtaking pedestrian, cyclist, car or a tractor if you are crossing the line. If there is a line forming behind tractor, cyclist or whatever other accommodating slower road user will move to the side where it is safe and let others pass but it's not mandatory.

Macy0161

I love Sean nos wrote: »

I didn't think that was prohibited.

It's just something else that isn't enforced. You're not supposed to park a vehicle where you'd force other cars over a solid white line - also zero enforcement.

The circumstances described are why we need a MPDL, as some motorists will close pass rather wait for a broken line, or more importantly to be able to see.

Not sure who's going to report a safe overtake over a solid white line anyway tbh.

plodder

I don't think you can regard slow moving traffic as an obstruction tbh.

ThisRegard

I often cross a solid white line when it's safe when I come upon cyclists. It's not like overtaking a car and the move is done pretty quickly.

plodder

ThisRegard wrote: »

I often cross a solid white line when it's safe when I come upon cyclists. It's not like overtaking a car and the move is done pretty quickly.

Sure, everyone does. Just I find it a bit incongruous to specify exact passing distances but then not deal with this issue at the same time.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

Well rationally the second option affects less people.

I don't think many of the dodgy overtakers are making rational decisions about the number of people affected. They are making selfish decisions about what will result in the least direct impact to them personally and directly.

Chuchote

Irish Times letter from John Mulligan of Boyle, Co Roscommon:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/towpaths-and-greenways-1.3117079

Paddy Woodworth (inadvertently, I trust) gives too much oxygen to the Nimby view in his piece “Grass or tarmac? The towpath debate” (Weekend Review, June 10th).
The opinion of a handful of locals who oppose having the peace and quiet of their locality disturbed by tourists, or by the jobs that go with them, is the narrative that has made most of the running in this debate over the last year or so. It is far from the full picture.
The success of the recently opened Deise Greenway in Waterford has shown that greenways don’t just create superb and safe amenities for families and people who like fresh air and exercise, but they bring jobs too, often to the places that need them the most. There are plans afoot to extend the Deise trail back to New Ross, a stone’s throw from St Mullins at the end of the Barrow Way. Using publicly owned land along the Barrow and Grand Canal corridors, a long trail could connect the heart of Dublin to Dungarvan and beyond, finally delivering the mileage that sustains the kind of tourism business that is the norm in European countries.
Such infrastructure doesn’t have to impact negatively on the environment. The banks of the Barrow already have an overgrown roadway, the towpath that was built to allow horse drawn barges to ply the navigation. The Waterways Ireland proposal to restore some of this strip still leaves plenty of room for plants and wildlife.
The choice on the Barrow is between the desire of a local (and vocal) minority to prevent change, and the creation of a superb amenity for the people of Ireland that will also create jobs and sustain services for the same people who are now so firmly opposed to it. Once it is built, the controversy will be a nine-day wonder and people will question what all the fuss was about. If in doubt, ask any of the councillors in Waterford who were intransigently opposed to the construction of the Deise Greenway, but who still smilingly took their seats at the official opening in March. There isn’t a peep out of them now.

magicbastarder

i'm a bit of a tree-hugger, and i would be very worried that the losses and gains are far more evenly balanced on the barrow than they would have been on the waterford greenway prior to construction.

meeeeh

Maybe it's because of my background, growing up in country with plenty of forest paths and Alpine trails but tarmac there would be absolutely awful and totally unsympathetic to environment. I love cycling with kids on scenic roads, cycle paths on disused railways are brilliant but there should be some consideration for environment and tarmac is not appropriate everywhere. I've read the article and thought objections were completely reasonable and valid (I have no connection to the area). They were also a lot less self serving than arguments made by author of that letter. The author of that letter should get himself an off road bike instead of demanding places of natural beauty and it's wildlife should be adapted to his preferred type of cycling.

magicbastarder

agreed; there's far more to lose in tarmacing a grassy river bank than there is to gain.

Chuchote

But why are we talking about tarmac - wouldn't the surface used be… what's it called, hard stone, something like that - a stone surface designed for walking and cycling and not for cars? People were talking about it here the other day.

Incidentally, wouldn't it be sensible for a company or section or several to be set up that specialised in sensitive and cyclist-friendly greenway construction, that could move from council to council, rather than each council's unskilled-in-this workers having to try each time to reinvent the wheel?

Chuchote

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/fitness/i-started-cycling-lost-weight-and-the-diabetes-disappeared-1.3105728

I started cycling, lost weight and the diabetes disappeared
It's National Bike Week, so take up cycling for health, fitness and fun

Mon, Jun 12, 2017, 06:00
George Winter

The health benefits conferred by cycling are probably best explained by a leading surgeon for whom pedal power proved life-changing. Prof Chris Oliver who is on Twitter @CyclingSurgeon, is the professor of physical activity for health at the University of Edinburgh, and consultant orthopaedic surgeon at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. “I cycled as a schoolboy,” Oliver told The Irish Times, “and as a medical student, I rode all over London. But later I became obese, weighed over 28 stone, developed Type 2 diabetes and couldn’t cycle. However, I underwent gastric band surgery and got fit again; so fit that in 2013, I rode 3,500 miles across US from Los Angeles to Boston. The Type 2 diabetes disappeared when I lost weight.”

(In new money, that's 178kg that he weighed.)

It goes on:

Regular cycling, says Oliver, is a great way to increase longevity: “Middle-aged people who cycle regularly typically enjoy the fitness level of someone 10 years younger, and gain two years in life expectancy; and cycling, combined with a healthy diet, helps control weight and lower the risk of diabetes. It raises the metabolic rate, builds muscle, burns body fat, and is a comfortable form of exercise which you can vary and build up slowly. A daily half-hour bike ride burns nearly five kilograms of fat over a year.”
Oliver also notes that cycling can reduce one’s risk of contracting cardiovascular disease, with regular cycling stimulating heart, lungs and circulation, reducing the risk of stroke, high blood pressure and heart attack: “In addition, exercise reduces your risk of colon and breast cancer, and research has found cycling reduces the risk of bowel cancer.” For bones and joints, he says, cycling improves co-ordination, strength and balance and may help prevent falls and fractures: “Being low-impact, with little stress on joints, cycling is an ideal form of exercise for osteoarthritis. Around 70 per cent of body weight goes through the saddle and handlebars instead of your ankles; and the bigger you are, the more important that is!”
As for mental health, “Conditions like depression, stress and anxiety,” explains Oliver, “can be reduced by regular cycling. This is due to the effects of the exercise, producing endorphins, and because riding a bike can bring great enjoyment.”

meeeeh

This is project under Waterways Ireland and they are planning to lay down tarmac (as per original article). It smells of public servants getting the task of improving tourist amenities around rivers and canals and first and laziest thing they came up with was tarmac. Which is finally in some places. The grass in those areas is already cut so it's not like they are impassable.

Chuchote

meeeeh wrote: »

This is project under Waterways Ireland and they are planning to lay down tarmac (as per original article). It smells of public servants getting the task of improving tourist amenities around rivers and canals and first and laziest thing they came up with was tarmac. Which is finally in some places. The grass in those areas is already cut so it's not like they are impassable.

Maybe a letter to The Irish Times by someone who knows about the stone surface and where it's used (Waterford Greenway?)

Chiparus

Perhaps if they sold it as "cinder path" it would be more appealing to the luvvies?

Chuchote

Blinded stone, that's the name of it - people were talking about it on this thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=103684265

Speaking as a card-carrying luvvie, I'd love the Barrow to be a wonderful cycle path - and walking path, and sitting-and-looking-thoughtfully-into-the-water path, and a place where you can see kingfishers and egrets and otters and herons, and a place where they can continue to live peacefully and in love of their place.

magicbastarder

Chuchote wrote: »

But why are we talking about tarmac - wouldn't the surface used be… what's it called, hard stone, something like that - a stone surface designed for walking and cycling and not for cars? People were talking about it here the other day.

one immediate concern would not be just the long term visual impact, but the construction impact; of the machinery required to dig out the route for the path, carry and compress the hardcore, etc.

josip

magicbastarder wrote: »

one immediate concern would not be just the long term visual impact, but the construction impact; of the machinery required to dig out the route for the path, carry and compress the hardcore, etc.

Couldn't the machinery just work its way along the greenway in the same way the railroads were laid in the wild west?

I love Sean nos

plodder wrote: »

If they bring in an MPD law, would it make sense maybe as a quid pro quo, to allow cars to cross a continuous white line when passing cyclists?

I don't think this is something that should be negotiated. If I was a cyclist, I wouldn't consider offering something in return for not being threatened with death or serious injury.

How's this? Don't threaten my safety and society won't remove your driving privileges.

Doctor Bob

meeeeh wrote: »

The author of that letter should get himself an off road bike

Or an off-road wheelchair.

NeedMoreGears

I respectfully disagree with Sean nos' post above. I don't believe it is a matter of " you do this and i'll let you do that". To me a risk assessment approach is needed. I suggest that, in the main, the design constraint for white lines is the relative speed of the two vehicles - the white line indicates that there isn't enough time to safely pass a vehicle without the risk of another on-coming vehicle coming into the passing zone. Those times are designed around the relative speeds of motorised vehicles, which can be quite low assuming both are within the speed limit. Speed differences between cyclists and motor vehicles tend to be significantly higher and therefore the passing manoeuvre takes place more quickly. In such cases white lines may be overly restrictive. Hence I believe there is some room for relaxation of rule if a mandatory passing distance is introduced.

FWIW - I have had several instances of a close passes on a clear road with a white line, seemingly because the driver didn't want to cross the white line, even though it would have been perfectly safe to do so.