Journalism and cycling

Macy0161

Swanner wrote: »

This is regularly trotted out here but it's nonsense.

Off the top of my head I can think of numerous roads where I could safely overtake one cyclist but not 2 cycling abreast.. Happy to link a few if you wish but i reckon you know this too.

I can think of some, but wouldn't say most regional roads (in my experience) wouldn't have the space. All assuming allowing for the cyclist being a safe distance from the edge of the road and a safe overtaking distance of 1.5m.

Plenty of regional roads barely have enough space for motorhomes, vans, lorries etc to fit on the single side of the road, let alone overtake without crossing the white. And my group spins would single out if one those was coming up behind on such a road.

ThisRegard

amcalester wrote: »

I've emailed the Garda Press Office asking them if they are going to release a statement correcting Superintendent Reid's factually inaccurate statement.

Wait and see what they say.

I've had reason to contact them before, under a different press officer, and they were quite responsive at the time. Somehow I don't think they'll be as reactive to this.

amcalester

ThisRegard wrote: »

I've had reason to contact them before, under a different press officer, and they were quite responsive at the time. Somehow I don't think they'll be as reactive to this.

Yeah, not expecting much of a response to be honest.

TheChizler

Macy0161 wrote: »

I can think of some, but wouldn't say most regional roads (in my experience) wouldn't have the space. All assuming allowing for the cyclist being a safe distance from the edge of the road and a safe overtaking distance of 1.5m.

Plenty of regional roads barely have enough space for motorhomes, vans, lorries etc to fit on the single side of the road, let alone overtake without crossing the white. And my group spins would single out if one those was coming up behind on such a road.

If you do the maths even our officially widest roads, motorways at 3.75 m, don't even have enough for a bike (0.5 m), 1.5 m space, and a Smart Car (1.66 m plus mirrors). Every so often you get a local road wider than this but they're not all that common.

Chuchote

rubadub wrote: »

I certainly don't think it is, but the way he said it he seemed absolutely certain and so should be questioned more and made an example of.

It would be good if there was some official & public site you could question stuff like this, having say a judge or some government official forced to reply and publicly say the Garda was incorrect. He should be repreimanded.

Maybe if lots of people asked various authorities like the RSA on twitter it would get attention.

The most read public forum would be the letters page of The Irish Times. It would be worth an official cycling body writing a letter and quoting the law, and suggesting that gardaí should know this law.

mr spuckler

interesting move...

ThisRegard

Headcase of a truck driver. I don't think I've ever seen that lane free of cars, vans or trucks.

Macy0161

TheChizler wrote: »

If you do the maths even our officially widest roads, motorways at 3.75 m, don't even have enough for a bike (0.5 m), 1.5 m space, and a Smart Car (1.66 m plus mirrors). Every so often you get a local road wider than this but they're not all that common.

The only ones that come readily to mind are former National Routes, now reclassified as Regional roads because of motorways and dual carriageways.

Macy0161

One of the three vehicles I don't even pay road tax on is a 6 berth motorhome. I can't think of one time I've been held up unduly by cyclists and waiting to safely overtake.

We've done the burren, west cork, dodgy roads following sat nav. Definitely been stuck behind lines of cars plenty of times (normally a micra/ march at the front if we're going to generalise!).

mr spuckler

Macy0161 wrote: »

One of the three vehicles I don't even pay road tax on is a 6 berth motorhome. I can't think of one time I've been held up unduly by cyclists and waiting to safely overtake.

We've done the burren, west cork, dodgy roads following sat nav. Definitely been stuck behind lines of cars plenty of times (normally a micra/ march at the front if we're going to generalise!).

motor tax :pac:

Macy0161

mr spuckler wrote: »

motor tax :pac:

Turn on your sarcasm meter spuckler ffs!

mr spuckler

Macy0161 wrote: »

Turn on your sarcasm meter spuckler ffs!

i just couldn't take the risk

I love Sean nos

Swanner wrote: »

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

I don't think that bit means what you think it means. It refers to a 3rd cyclist overtaking 2 others already in side-by-side formation.

The GMan

I love Sean nos wrote: »

I don't think that bit means what you think it means. It refers to a 3rd cyclist overtaking 2 others already in side-by-side formation.

I believe "I love Sean nos" is correct

The relevant legislation is
S.I. No. 332/2012 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/332/made/en/print
The Original legislation was 1964, amended in 1997 and again in 2012.

Each of these say exactly the same thing in slightly different language.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/332/made/en/print
S.I. No. 332/2012 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012.
Section 47 of this legislation states

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.


The important words to keep in mind are “more than 2”.

The statements in the acts above state that a cyclist

(1) must not cycle "more than 2 abreast"
except when over taking another cyclist
and even if they are over taking another cyclist they cannot be "more than 2 abreast" if it would endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

(2) must cycle in single file when passing other traffic.


In simple language the acts state
a) In general cycling
a.1) Cyclist cannot cycle more than 2 abreast
a.2) Cyclist can cycle 2 abreast

b) Cyclists when overtaking
b.1) When overtaking other traffic - must cycle in single file.
b.2) When overtaking other cyclist - can be more than 2 abreast as long as they do not inconvenience or obstruct other road users.



No matter what part of the sentence you might try to interpret the conditions to apply to the effect is still the same in relation to cycling “more than 2 abreast”

Possible Interpretation 1
A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

Possible Interpretation 2
A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast. Save when overtaking other pedal cyclists and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

I love Sean nos

mr spuckler wrote: »

interesting move...

There are double yellow lines in the article picture.

mcgratheoin

rubadub wrote: »

It would be good if there was some official & public site you could question stuff like this, having say a judge or some government official forced to reply and publicly say the Garda was incorrect. He should be repreimanded.

Like an official from the Dept. of Transport telling us that it's still mandatory to use cycle lanes?

Eamonnator

After listening to that bell end on the radio this morning, I was beside myself with anger, so I went for a spin on the bike by myself and cycled two abreast with no helmet and no hi viz. That'll larn him!!!

RacoonQueen

Granolite wrote: »

I've done the same too.


their email is here;
pressoffice@garda.ie

Cheers folks. Was looking earlier for a way to contact about this rubbish. Never thought of the press office.

mr spuckler

I love Sean nos wrote: »

There are double yellow lines in the article picture.

yep, and a clearly marked cycle lane. makes no difference to some people.

just read the comments on the irishcycle.com fb page for further annoyance - "what illegal loading are you an idiot how the hell is the shops to get the deliveries they need to stock up". verbatim.

Pinch Flat

mr spuckler wrote: »

yep, and a clearly marked cycle lane. makes no difference to some people.

just read the comments on the irishcycle.com fb page for further annoyance - "what illegal loading are you an idiot how the hell is the shops to get the deliveries they need to stock up". verbatim.

Sure cyclists are only using the lanes for the craic. We don't even have jobs or cars. Just cycling around aimlessly all day making a nuisance of ourselves, holding up traffic, breaking red lights.....


AAAAAHHHHHH

papu

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Cheers folks. Was looking earlier for a way to contact about this rubbish. Never thought of the press office.

Just got a response from the press office there..

It is accepted that cyclists may travel two abreast but only under certain conditions. It is also accepted that vehicles are not permitted to cross a single or continuous white line, and indeed it is a penalty point offence to do so. The only exceptions are in an emergency or for access.

Every road user also has a right to share the road equally with others and every road user has a duty to respect and obey all road traffic laws.

Chief Superintendent Reid’s example was intended to illustrate that cycling two abreast in groups or in large numbers on a road governed by a continuous white line may not be advisable in this particular scenario, as it may cause a vehicle to traverse the continuous white line if they felt they were impeded in some way by the slower moving vehicle. This could create risk for any vehicle in the immediate vicinity. It was in no way intended that it would be permissible or legal to cross a continuous white line.


In relation to your complaint, the Rules of the road are clear, reference page 189 and 191 of the current edition states:-

· “In the company of one or more cyclists, you must have due regard to other users of the road, and you must take full account of prevailing road conditions. On occasion, it may be safe to cycle two abreast, but you must not cycle in a manner likely to create an obstruction for other road users.”
· “Do cycle in single file if cycling beside another person would endanger, inconvenience or block other traffic or pedestrians.”
· “Don’t ever cycle side-by-side with more than one cyclist.”
· “Do cycle in single file in heavy traffic”

Cycling is a safe and healthy mode of transport and it is the aim of An Garda Sh to endorse that as such, and indeed liaise with cycling groups regularly.

All road users have a responsibility to abide by all the rules of the road and various road traffic acts at all times but equally importantly, act courteously to each other, no matter how they use the road.”

Pinch Flat

papu wrote: »

Just got a response from the press office there..

Interesting that they quote the Rule of the Road. People are not prosecuted under this - they are prosecuted under the Road Traffic Act.

magicbastarder

probably standard practice, and i wouldn't have too much issue with it. the act is designed to be read by legal type, the ROTR by the average joe.

rubadub

So it's gone from the law being "very clear" that it is always illegal, to "may not be advisable"

papu

rubadub wrote: »

So it's gone from the law being "very clear" that it is always illegal, to "may not be advisable"

It's all a joke, it seems the enforcement and perception of the laws are subject to change dependent on the personal views of members of the Gardai and the RSA.

Eamonnator

Reid is a very good example of the Peter Principle.

Fian

https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2017/0623/885078-prime-time/

Prime time debate.

Conor Faughan, as always, comes accross as very reasonable.

It probably says bad things about me that i am always wondering whether this means he is clever and a polished media performer or actually has reasonable views and beliefs.

<.<

>.>

>.<

magicbastarder

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Interesting that they quote the Rule of the Road. People are not prosecuted under this - they are prosecuted under the Road Traffic Act.

also, it ignores the question of whether if the road is too narrow for a car to overtake two cyclists, it's almost certainly going to be too narrow to overtake a single one.

amcalester

Hello,

I would like to know if it is possible to complain about statements made by a member of An Garda Síochána on today's Morning Ireland TV show.

In the segment talking about cyclists Chief Superintendent Aiden Reid made the statement that cyclists should not cycle 2 abreast on roads with a single white line and that the law was very clear on this.

This is untrue and is a gross misrepresentation of the law, and downright dangerous.

I point you to S.I. No. 182 of 1997 section 47

"47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians."


Will the Garda Press Office be issuing a statement clarifying Superintendent Reid's inaccurate statement?

Regards,

amcalester

Received a reply from the Garda Press Office

Good afternoon amcalester,


An Garda Síochána encourage all road users to exercise care and common sense. Please see details below.

An Garda Síochána wish to stress “In the company of one or more cyclists, you must have due regard for other users of the road and the prevailing conditions’’.

“So far in 2017, 10 cyclists have been fatally injured compared to 10 in total for 2016. This is a concern to An Garda Síochána and the RSA and as a result a decision was made to raise awareness of this fact as part of a joint Summer Safety press release, issued yesterday, and additionally featuring on two recent Crimecall programmes and other media outlets.

It is accepted that cyclists may travel two abreast but only under certain conditions. It is also accepted that vehicles are not permitted to cross a single or continuous white line, and indeed it is a penalty point offence to do so. The only exceptions are in an emergency or for access.

Every road user also has a right to share the road equally with others and every road user has a duty to respect and obey all road traffic laws.

Chief Superintendent Reid’s example was intended to illustrate that cycling two abreast in groups or in large numbers on a road governed by a continuous white line may not be advisable in this particular scenario, as it may cause a vehicle to traverse the continuous white line if they felt they were impeded in some way by the slower moving vehicle. This could create risk for any vehicle in the immediate vicinity. It was in no way intended that it would be permissible or legal to cross a continuous white line.

In relation to your complaint, the Rules of the road are clear, reference page 189 and 191 of the current edition states:-

· “In the company of one or more cyclists, you must have due regard to other users of the road, and you must take full account of prevailing road conditions. On occasion, it may be safe to cycle two abreast, but you must not cycle in a manner likely to create an obstruction for other road users.”

· “Do cycle in single file if cycling beside another person would endanger, inconvenience or block other traffic or pedestrians.”

· “Don’t ever cycle side-by-side with more than one cyclist.”

· “Do cycle in single file in heavy traffic”

Cycling is a safe and healthy mode of transport and it is the aim of An Garda Síochána to endorse that as such, and indeed liaise with cycling groups regularly.

All road users have a responsibility to abide by all the rules of the road and various road traffic acts at all times but equally importantly, act courteously to each other, no matter how they use the road.”

Edited:
I see my response is word for word the same as above.

AndrewJRenko

Chief Superintendent Reid’s example was intended to illustrate that cycling two abreast in groups or in large numbers on a road governed by a continuous white line may not be advisable in this particular scenario, as it may cause a vehicle to traverse the continuous white line if they felt they were impeded in some way by the slower moving vehicle.

Interesting to hear that cyclists can now control the vehicles coming behind them and 'cause them' to do things, not their drivers. Is this some special telepathy gift, or hacking into car control systems or what is this great trick that cyclists have to cause the cars behind them to do things?