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

tomasrojo

This argument is starting to sound like one of the Road Sofa Authority's arguments for "Inconvenience Equalisation".

the_pen_turner

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.

Exactly. I'm not great at explaining stuff like this

07Lapierre

the_pen_turner wrote: »

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

Depends on what goes wrong.

Car overtakes a bike 2ft..oncoming truck means the car has to move to the left...cyclist injured!

Car overtakes a bike 5ft..eh car is towing a trailer...trailer takes out the cyclist..cyclist injured/dies

Of course these are just suggestions..in both situations, luck might play a part and the cyclist is not injured in any way.

tomasrojo

the_pen_turner wrote: »

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

The rule is intended to minimise the likelihood of a close pass at 50km/h or higher going wrong. In that scenario, the motorist is passing the cyclist.

(It is possible that a cyclist would pass a motorist at that sort of speed, especially downhill, but not all that common.)

Daroxtar

the_pen_turner

the_pen_turner wrote: »

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

The level of force involved, the potential severity of injuries.

the_pen_turner

Tenzor07 wrote: »

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?

I don't know the measurement. Isn't 1.5 on so.e TV as by the RSS or similar.

It's the safety of cyclists I'm worried about.
I don't want to injure or kill anyone
I wouldn't want that on my conscience even if it was not my fault

NUTLEY BOY

Are they after the cyclist vote now ? What next ? No turning right in your own bed ?

Declaration of interest : I cycle, drive, walk and observe so I come at this even-handedly.

Devil's advocate. If I am supposed to pass at not less than 1.5 metres on roads with a speed limit of 50km/h or higher, and 1 metre for roads with a speed limit below that cyclists should be obliged to have a nice wavy flexible plastic arm that is 1.5 metres long for my guidance. Further, it should also be made an offence for them not to have one of those gadgets. What I have just suggested is absurd but it would be an equitable match for the inanity of what has been mooted. :mad:

Whoever thought up this latest bxollo needs a slap as it will be veritably impossible to work this in the real world where cyclists and motorists share the same space. For example, if I cycle up Nutley Lane from SVUH around 4:00 p.m. there is not a hope in hell of vehicles giving me that clearance.

On a more general note in the on-going war of cyclist v motorist v pedestrian and visa versa, if cyclists are expecting to get increasing rights they better be prepared to start taking comparable responsibilities. If a Garda could seize your bicycle more easily for certain traffic offences would you be more careful ?

As it is there are some RTA 1961 provisions which empower Gardaí to give cyclists official grief where it is appropriate - S.20. S118 to name but 2. Maybe an enforcement campaign would help. I have seen a few Gardaí on bicycles catching up to errant cyclists.....

TheChizler

It's in your best interest to give as wide a berth as possible, but why make it a fine when it's your own safety you're responsible for?

Besides if they were to implement it they'd be fining people for using cycle lanes as there are very few lanes out there which allow the cyclist to give that kind of room. All cyclists would have to take the defensive primary position all the time, can you imagine the reaction to that?

the_pen_turner

ronoc wrote: »

The level of force involved, the potential severity of injuries.

My point Exactly. Allowing more room reduces injuries

TheChizler

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

As it is there are some RTA 1961 provisions which empower Gardaí to give cyclists official grief where it is appropriate - S.20. S118 to name but 2. Maybe an enforcement campaign would help. I have seen a few Gardaí on bicycles catching up to errant cyclists.....

You might have missed all the fixed charge penalties which were announced for cyclists last year?

tomasrojo

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Declaration of interest : I cycle, drive, walk and observe so I come at this even-handedly.

As was foretold, trimodal Jesus has arrived.

the_pen_turner

the_pen_turner wrote: »

My point Exactly. Allowing more room reduces injuries

I'm pretty sure you are just trolling now :rolleyes:

ThisRegard

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

if cyclists are expecting to get increasing rights

So you're saying at the moment you don't think someone on a bike has the same rights on the road as someone on a car? Why should that same person who may then get in their car and drive to the shop when they get home have less rights than they did on the same road 5 minutes ago?

magicbastarder

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

On a more general note in the on-going war of cyclist v motorist v pedestrian and visa versa, if cyclists are expecting to get increasing rights they better be prepared to start taking comparable responsibilities. If a Garda could seize your bicycle more easily for certain traffic offences would you be more careful ?

oh god.
by 'comparable' do you mean 'equivalent' or 'proportional'?

Tenzor07

the_pen_turner wrote: »

I don't know the measurement. Isn't 1.5 on so.e TV as by the RSS or similar.
It's the safety of cyclists I'm worried about.
I don't want to injure or kill anyone
I wouldn't want that on my conscience even if it was not my fault

A more likely scenario is that the line of motor vehicles are been passed out by the bicyclist who is to the left of the road, and you have no choice about the distance you are passing these cars on...i.e the bicyclist has no control...

If the bicyclist has to pass the vehicles on the driver's/right side then they are exposed to extreme danger by passing at 1.5m which will place them in the opposing lane facing oncoming motor vehicles, and due to the lack of motor and low speed of the bicyclist the likely result will be serious injury or death...

07Lapierre

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

As it is there are some RTA 1961 provisions which empower Gardaí to give cyclists official grief where it is appropriate - S.20. S118 to name but 2. Maybe an enforcement campaign would help. I have seen a few Gardaí on bicycles catching up to errant cyclists.....

Believe it or not...most cyclist would welcome more enforcement by the Gardai! I personally think Gardai should confiscate bikes from cyclist who cycle at night with no lights. But no, what do they do...they had out FREE hi viz jackets and cheap crappy lights that are not fit for purpose!

buffalo

07Lapierre wrote: »

Believe it or not...most cyclist would welcome more enforcement by the Gardai! I personally think Gardai should confiscate bikes from cyclist who cycle at night with no lights. But no, what do they do...they had out FREE hi viz jackets and cheap crappy lights that are not fit for purpose!

A fine would be a start before getting into the logistics of transporting, storing and returning bikes. Likewise for people driving using their parking lights or with only one headlight.

Tenzor07

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Devil's advocate. If I am supposed to pass at not less than 1.5 metres on roads with a speed limit of 50km/h or higher, and 1 metre for roads with a speed limit below that cyclists should be obliged to have a nice wavy flexible plastic arm that is 1.5 metres long for my guidance. Further, it should also be made an offence for them not to have one of those gadgets. What I have just suggested is absurd but it would be an equitable match for the inanity of what has been mooted. :mad:.

If you can't visualise what a metre or a metre and a half is I sincerely hope you're not a carpenter/brick layer or engineer!

In the UK for example, plain clothes bicycle officers will alert a Police car which is further up the road if a motor vehicle makes a close pass, and the driver is then educated using visual aids as to what the safe passing distances are...

solerina

I have no issue with cyclists in fact I like cycling but I hate the Sunday morning club spins that have large numbers cycling 2/3/4 abreast who block the road and don't care about any other road user, you already have to take a chance to get by them and risk your own safety, therefore I would vote no on the poll purely because it's difficult enough to get by some cyclists already. Cycle lanes are a different matter, I would never enter one with my car and always give the cyclist space, but generally they are cycling in single file so to copy the GAA 'give respect, get respect'

MayoAreMagic

Tenzor07 wrote: »

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...

It's not as simple as that in fairness though. An erratic cyclist could potentially cause an accident between vehicles also.

TheChizler

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

It's not as simple as that in fairness though. An erratic cyclist could potentially cause an accident between vehicles also.

At cyclist speeds it wouldn't be likely to come to much. At car speeds it could be devastating. Hence the restriction on the bigger vehicle with the higher speed.

07Lapierre

buffalo wrote: »

A fine would be a start before getting into the logistics of transporting, storing and returning bikes. Likewise for people driving using their parking lights or with only one headlight.

Fines are already there and most go unpaid. Fines are not working.

As for logistics? How many bikes would fit in the back of ONE Garda van (or even a Garda car)

Confiscate the bike, owner pays the fine up front at the garda station the next day. if they dont, a storage charge is applied for every days extra storage. if the bike is not reclaimed its auctioned off.

Tenzor07

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

It's not as simple as that in fairness though. An erratic cyclist could potentially cause an accident between vehicles also.

Possible but highly unlikely, i'd have to hit the Google machine for a long time to find an instance of that..

jon1981

You know I was thinking I might need to carry a camera after some recent spins and close encounters... but since reading the journal and indo comments I'm thinking a gun might also be required for protection!

( I broke my rule of never reading that sh*te)

NUTLEY BOY

Tenzor07 wrote: »

If you can't visualise what a metre or a metre and a half is I sincerely hope you're not a carpenter/brick layer or engineer!

In the UK for example, plain clothes bicycle officers will alert a Police car which is further up the road if a motor vehicle makes a close pass, and the driver is then educated using visual aids as to what the safe passing distances are...

To visualise against a fixed target is very easy .e.g. approaching a runway on final approach.

Motorists may be expected to visualise against a moving target which may itself of necessity take up an erratic heading.

TheChizler

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

To visualise against a fixed target is very easy .e.g. approaching a runway on final approach.

Motorists may be expected to visualise against a moving target which may itself of necessity take up an erratic heading.

If a motorist can't visualise against a moving target they shouldn't be on the road. How else do they merge at junctions etc.?

solerina

solerina wrote: »

already have to take a chance to get by them and risk your own safety, '

Just FYI it's entirely your own responsibility to overtake safely.

magicbastarder

quite simple really - if you're trying to visualise what a metre and a half is in relation to a moving cyclist, this is quite close to the actual height of the cyclist. the benchmark is almost built in to the object you're planning to overtake.

ThisRegard

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

To visualise against a fixed target is very easy .e.g. approaching a runway on final approach.

Motorists may be expected to visualise against a moving target which may itself of necessity take up an erratic heading.

So if cars are to be granted the same 1.5 metre space when passing, they all need to be retrofitted with 1.5m wide safety aids?