Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Poll: Should drivers be fined for driving too close to cyclists?

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,621 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    Bad analogy the train can't move sideways and is very predictable


    If I'm driving at 20 mph and overtake a cyclist doing 15 mph there is a certain danger the the cyclist.
    If I'm doing 15 mph and the cyclist is overtaking at 20 mph there is the same danger if not more to the cyclist.
    Why should I have to reduce their danger when I'm overtaking but they don't have reduce their own when they are

    Because they are the vulnerable road user, not you.


  • Options
    #63
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    What exactly is the counter-argument?
    The proposal is that if you are caught skimming by a cyclist too close in a motor vehicle you would be in line to get penalty points. So the counter to that would be that you can skim past as close as you like with impunity, and that's okay?

    For the purposes of this question you may assume that every too close skim will be caught and prosecuted by the Gardai. You may also assume a gravitational acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2, no atmospheric drag effects, and that the moon is made from cheese.


  • Options
    #64
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,512 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    Bad analogy the train can't move sideways and is very predictable


    If I'm driving at 20 mph and overtake a cyclist doing 15 mph there is a certain danger the the cyclist.
    If I'm doing 15 mph and the cyclist is overtaking at 20 mph there is the same danger if not more to the cyclist.
    Why should I have to reduce their danger when I'm overtaking but they don't have reduce their own when they are

    Because at least they have to then take personal responsibility. If a cyclist doesn't want to take their own safety seriously then that's to them to worry about. IF a driver doesn't want to take the cyclist's safety seriously, that's a serious matter


  • Options
    #65
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    fliball123 banned for ignore Captain Havoc's mod warning.

    Anyone who hasn't read it (or the charter for that matter) please do before posting again.


  • Options
    #66
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    If I'm driving at 20 mph and overtake a cyclist doing 15 mph there is a certain danger the the cyclist.
    If I'm doing 15 mph and the cyclist is overtaking at 20 mph there is the same danger if not more to the cyclist.
    Why should I have to reduce their danger when I'm overtaking but they don't have reduce their own when they are
    You're not comparing like with like. The difference is the person bringing the danger into the situation of the third party. A car driving fast close to a cyclist makes a dangerous situation for the cyclist, worst possible outcome for the third party being death. The same cannot be said for a bike being cycled close to a car, the worst possible outcome for the third party is dents or a knocked off wing mirror.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,515 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    ronoc wrote: »
    Because they are the vulnerable road user, not you.

    This is my point.
    As a vulnerable road user you could reduce the danger to yourself. In this case it is allowing enough room between yourself and the car


  • Options
    #68
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,515 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    TheChizler wrote: »
    You're not comparing like with like. The difference is the person bringing the danger into the situation of the third party. A car driving fast close to a cyclist makes a dangerous situation for the cyclist, worst possible outcome for the third party being death. The same cannot be said for a bike being cycled close to a car, the worst possible outcome for the third party is dents or a knocked off wing mirror.

    I'm not talking g about damage to the car.
    I'm talking about damage to the cyclist


  • Options
    #69
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users Posts: 8,849 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    This is my point.
    As a vulnerable road user you could reduce the danger to yourself. In this case it is allowing enough room between yourself and the car

    That makes no sense, please explain the logic in this statement?


  • Options
    #70
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,621 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    This is my point.
    As a vulnerable road user you could reduce the danger to yourself. In this case it is allowing enough room between yourself and the car

    Do I really have to explain the difference in momentum between a bike rider and 1000kg car?


  • Options
    #71
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    This is my point.
    As a vulnerable road user you could reduce the danger to yourself. In this case it is allowing enough room between yourself and the car

    Fair enough...i'll leave my bike at home and drive everywhere. problem solved.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,515 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    ronoc wrote: »
    Do I really have to explain the difference in momentum between a bike rider and 1000kg car?

    I'm know the difference between the 2
    All the more reason to get enough room


  • Options
    #73
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,515 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    That makes no sense, please explain the logic in this statement?

    If I'm driving at 15 mph and a cyclist overtake me. If so.thing goes wrong for either of us then the cyclist will come off far worse.
    If that cyclist can give me 1.5 m like I have to give them then it will reduce the likelihood of I hurt to the cyclist if something goes wrong


  • Options
    #74
    timmy_mallet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,165 ✭✭✭timmy_mallet


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    I'm know the difference between the 2
    All the more reason to get enough room

    Your logic doesn't work.


  • Options
    #75
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,515 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Fair enough...i'll leave my bike at home and drive everywhere. problem solved.

    I'm not suggesting that. Stop twisting my words.
    You are more that welcome.e on the roads.


  • Options
    #76
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,515 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    timmy_mallet wrote: »
    Your logic doesn't work.

    Please explain in detail why it is wrong


  • Options
    #77
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users Posts: 8,849 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    If I'm driving at 15 mph and a cyclist overtake me. If so.thing goes wrong for either of us then the cyclist will come off far worse.
    If that cyclist can give me 1.5 m like I have to give them then it will reduce the likelihood of I hurt to the cyclist if something goes wrong

    Why 1.5m for someone on a bicycle overtaking a car, on what basis should it be that distance, what will it prevent exactly?


  • Options
    #78
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,515 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    Why 1.5m for someone overtaking a car, on what basis should it be that distance, what will it prevent exactly?

    Is that not the recommended distance that I have to leave for a cyclist.


  • Options
    #79
    timmy_mallet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,165 ✭✭✭timmy_mallet


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    Please explain in detail why it is wrong

    If you're willing to leave your prejudices aside, I will.


  • Options
    #80
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,515 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    timmy_mallet wrote: »
    If you're willing to leave your prejudices aside, I will.

    Enough of this crap. I'm out. This is the reason Why all these threads go this way. Why can't we have a civil conversation . There is no talking to some people


  • Options
    #81
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users Posts: 8,849 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    Is that not the recommended distance that I have to leave for a cyclist.

    Cyclist = approx 75KG of flesh and Blood
    Person in car: Surrounded by metal and glass cage with crumple zones and airbags..


    So again, explain the basis for a bicyclist needing to give a vehicle operator 1.5 metres in overtaking distance?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,515 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    Cyclist = approx 75KG of flesh and Blood
    Person in car: Surrounded by metal and glass cage with crumple zones and airbags..


    So again, explain the basis for a bicyclist needing to give a vehicle operator 1.5 metres in overtaking distance?
    So that the cyclist can reduce the likelihood of Injury if something goes wrong


  • Options
    #83
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users Posts: 8,849 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    So that the cyclist can reduce the likelihood of Injury if something goes wrong

    Sorry, I think your logic is the wrong way around, this law is meant to afford a vulnerable road user some protection under the law...


  • Options
    #84
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,621 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    So that the cyclist can reduce the likelihood of Injury if something goes wrong

    Ok I'll ask it another way. Would you rather be hit by a bike doing 15km/h or a car doing 15km/h?


  • Options
    #85
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,769 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    If a cyclist is passing a car, then the car is not going all that fast (apologies to the fitter people here).

    In particular if a car is stationary, it has a momentum of zero. There is no safety issue in passing the car with less than 1.5m (actually the suggested passing distance for cars passing bikes on roads where the limit is under 50km/h is 1m anyway).


  • Options
    #86
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,512 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    Say a car hits diesel and skids or veers ever so slightly. At the same time a cyclist is passing. Would it not be in the cyclist's best interest to pass at 1.5 metres pr more for such circumstances. I think this is what the_pen_turner is trying to say, just not saying it well.

    I'd give cars as wide a berth as possible when passing them personally, more than a doors width certainly.


  • Options
    #87
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,769 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Weepsie wrote: »
    Say a car hits diesel and skids or veers ever so slightly. At the same time a cyclist is passing. Would it not be in the cyclist's best interest to pass at 1.5 metres pr more for such circumstances. I think this is what the_pen_turner is trying to say, just not saying it well.

    It depends on the speed of the car. If the car is stationary, it's not skidding on anything. If it's going at 5km/h, who cares. If it's going at 50km/h, the cyclist (with a few exceptions) isn't passing the car; the car is passing the cyclist.


  • Options
    #88
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    the_pen_turner wrote: »
    I'm not suggesting that. Stop twisting my words.
    You are more that welcome.e on the roads.


    Thanks...all I ask is that cars don't pass too close, say 1.5 meters. I already do what i can to keep myself as safe as i can..the rest is up to others. Unfortunately a lot of motorists are not as welcoming/tolerant as you, which is why this law is a good idea.


  • Options
    #89
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,083 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    onmebike wrote:
    So, according to this, the indication is that 58% of respondents think that it's OK or acceptable to drive too close to a cyclist.

    That's how I read it too.
    fliball123 wrote:
    The opening post set the terms for this..cyclists in this country have no repercussions no matter how good, bad or ugly they are. They have no training they have to fulfil in order to use the road and they have no one to track them if they are guilty of being at fault and can flaunt the law due to no accountability.

    fliball123 wrote:
    In my experience they are the worst users of the road. I have had one incident with a cyclist who was all set to sue me due to me simply stopping at a light on a cross road. Now I did stop quickly due to the light going from orange to red and knowing I would of been blocking the cars crossing..this cylcist hit into a van that was parallel to me and then smacked into my mirror nearly taking it completely off..He tumbled and limped to the side of the road..I pulled in above asked if he was ok..He got annoyed said I should not of stopped.. I pointed out that the rules of the road are at red lights you should stop and you should give the vehicle in front of you enough space to allow you to stop..This gob****e tried to go through the red light by overtaking me but hit the van and was trying to say it was my fault. This is where the problem is even if the cyclist is at fault he can still sue. I simply pointed up to the traffic cam and said..bring it on pal as the cam will show all i did was stop and it was his fault..That was 2 years ago and funnily enough I never got a call from a solicitor, yet my broken mirror I had to pay the damage..How the hell is that far. I am all for making sure cyclists are safe but they must pay their own way to use the roads and they should have some kind of training (for their own safety), insurance (for incidents where they are at fault) and tax (as they use the road so they should pay for it as well)

    I find car drivers, pedestrians and cyclists equally good & bad.
    I'm a van driver. Because motorists can kill a pedestrian or cyclists the onus is on us to be more careful. We drive the vehicle that can kill.
    I've seen terrible cyclists, drivers and pedestrians. I've even seen terrible passengers, not taking care while opening doors etc. I have my own issues with SOME very bad cyclists but I can't blame everyone because of the few.


  • Options
    #90
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,515 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    ronoc wrote: »
    Ok I'll ask it another way. Would you rather be hit by a bike doing 15km/h or a car doing 15km/h

    Of course .it s obvious. That's not what I'm saying.

    Let's look at 4 versions of the Situation
    Car overtakes bike. 2 ft Something goes wrong
    Cyclist Injured
    Car overtake s at 5ft . SAmething goes wrong. Cyclist un injured

    Cyclist overtakes car. 2ft gap. SAmething goes wrong cyclist Injured
    Cyclist overtakes car 5 ft gap. SAmething goes wrong. Cyclist un injured

    What's the difference


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users Posts: 8,849 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Weepsie wrote: »
    Say a car hits diesel and skids or veers ever so slightly. At the same time a cyclist is passing. Would it not be in the cyclist's best interest to pass at 1.5 metres pr more for such circumstances. I think this is what the_pen_turner is trying to say, just not saying it well.
    I'd give cars as wide a berth as possible when passing them personally, more than a doors width certainly.

    My question to the poster was, why does it have to be 1.5 metres (or why would it have to be a law?) on what basis? Safety of the vehicle operator?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement