Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

MediaMan

As reported in http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/new-laws-to-target-drivers-who-overtake-cyclists-too-closely-1.2985220 and many other places, there is a firm proposal in progress to introduce a minimum passing distance law to protect cyclists.

I believe this could make a huge difference to cyclist (and presumably pedestrian) safety, and having experienced the benefits of such a law in Spain while on holidays, it would also make people's daily cycle (whether commute or leisure) a much less stressful experience.

However acceptance of this law is by no means assured, and there is already a storm of protest, citing reasons such as:

• Impractical to pass at the minimum distance in many situations
• Cyclists are causing havoc by running red lights and cycling on footpaths and cycling two abreast so this protection should not be introduced
• It's not needed as cyclists are not killed or injured much on the roads

None of these points stand up to scrutiny, but nonetheless I think that in the the "middle ground" of public opinion there are very many people who believe at least one of these points.

Getting the middle ground on board is vital to the success of this initiative, as it was with drink-driving and smoking in public premises. So the question is, how do we get that middle ground (who are likely to be mostly non-cycling) on board?

Some ideas:

• Convince people that cyclist safety really is important and that we all have to share the road
• Highlight the benefits seen in other countries
• Highlight the benefits to all of cyclists cycling - less congested roads, better health, etc.
• Contact public representatives and other decision makers and influencers

I commute every day and over the past 12 months, things have got worse and worse with regard to close passing, with the result that my commute is much more stressful that it used to be. I also know multiple people who have been knocked off their bikes by close-passing vehicles, and the consequences in some cases have been very serious.

Therefore I am very keen that this law succeeds in making it to the books, as the first step in helping to change driver behaviour. I don't think this will happen without a lot of work, and those of us here on this forum have a role to play in that.

What do you think?

odyssey06

Let's take an example of the Howth Road in Dublin, which currently has cycle lanes on both sides.
If this law is passed, on many parts of that road (e.g. where there are two driving lanes and speed limit is 50kmh), a car could not legally overtake a cyclist in the cycle lane without crossing over onto the other side of the road. The car is not encroaching on the cycle lane.
This is a maneuver carried out hundreds of times daily and does not currently appear to endanger or cause stress to, cyclists.
Therefore, I deem it to be impractical in many situations and in need of further review.

Also, I cannot reconcile cycling two abreast with this minimum passing distance. If you have to clear two cyclists and 1 metres on the Howth Road you'll be driving on the cycle lane or footpath on the other side of the road. So, if minimum passing distance does come in, cycling two abreast must come out.

On a road sufficiently wide enough - and let's deem them to be 60kmh roads or higher - a minimum passing distance seems more practical and, more necessary - given the effect of being closely passed out on a bike by a vehicle travelling at high speed.

Annie get your Run

It hasn't even come into law yet and already it's helping (IMO). My cycle home yesterday evening was noticeably safer then ever before, not just on the close passing but also on roundabouts etc, it seemed I was suddenly more visible. Hopefully that lasts longer than a day! Bring on the debate and the discussions as that in itself will make people more aware and hopefully change some minds.

Enforcement will be an issue unless people have helmet cams (which I've been considering getting) but TBH if it simply makes drivers more aware of more vulnerable road users (all of them) and consequently changes their behavior, then it's doing a good job.

ted1

Impractical to pass at the minimum distance in many situations.....

If it's impractical, then it's simply not safe to pass

jon1981

odyssey06 wrote: »

If this law is passed, on many parts of that road, a car could not legally overtake a cyclist in the cycle lane without crossing over onto the other side of the road.

Why can't the car legally overtake? It's a dashed line along the middle of the road if i remember correctly. Nothing in law preventing a legal overtake while crossing the dashed line assuming it is safe. Safe for you, the oncoming driver and the cyclist.

odyssey06 wrote: »

Also, I cannot reconcile cycling two abreast with this minimum passing distance. If you have to clear two cyclists and 1 metres on the Howth Road you'll be driving on the cycle lane or footpath on the other side of the road. So, if minimum passing distance does come in, cycling two abreast must come out.

Two cyclist abreast will take up about 1.5 in width, this is not preventing an overtake while the car is partially over the centre dashed line.

CramCycle

odyssey06 wrote: »

Let's take an example of the Howth Road in Dublin, which currently has cycle lanes on both sides.
If this law is passed, on many parts of that road (e.g. where there are two driving lanes and speed limit is 50kmh), a car could not legally overtake a cyclist in the cycle lane without crossing over onto the other side of the road. The car is not encroaching on the cycle lane.
This is a maneuver carried out hundreds of times daily and does not currently appear to endanger or cause stress to, cyclists.
Therefore, I deem it to be impractical in many situations and in need of further review.

Also, I cannot reconcile cycling two abreast with this minimum passing distance. If you have to clear two cyclists and 1 metres on the Howth Road you'll be driving on the cycle lane or footpath on the other side of the road. So, if minimum passing distance does come in, cycling two abreast must come out.

On a road sufficiently wide enough - and let's deem them to be 60kmh roads or higher - a minimum passing distance seems more practical and, more necessary - given the effect of being closely passed out on a bike by a vehicle travelling at high speed.

Where you are talking about is a seperate lane of traffic though, surely the law relates to vehicles initially in the same lane of traffic?

odyssey06

jon1981 wrote: »

Why can't the car legally overtake? It's a dashed line along the middle of the road if i remember correctly. Nothing in law preventing a legal overtake while crossing the dashed line assuming it is safe. Safe for you, the oncoming driver and the cyclist.

Yeah that's what I said, you would have to cross the dashed line along the middle of the road - if there is one. If there is a solid line, the car is stuck behind the cyclist even though the car could overtake without encroaching on the cycle lane.

It does not seem to be a major issue for cyclists on 50kmh roads which have cycle lanes, where cars are overtaking cyclists in the cycle lane at less than 1 metres and not encroaching on the cycle lane. I have heard a lot of complaints from cyclists about cars getting too close - but not in this particular scenario.

So, I'm saying this is impractical and unwarranted on such roads, as long as the car does not encroach on the cycle lane.

odyssey06

CramCycle wrote: »

Where you are talking about is a seperate lane of traffic though, surely the law relates to vehicles initially in the same lane of traffic?

Not saying that you are wrong - just from the information I've read on the Irish Times article etc that distinction has not been made apparent. At the moment, I haven't seen clarity on how this relates to cycle lanes.

1bryan

odyssey06 wrote: »

Yeah that's what I said, you would have to cross the dashed line along the middle of the road - if there is one. If there is a solid line, the car is stuck behind the cyclist even though the car could overtake without encroaching on the cycle lane.

It does not seem to be a major issue for cyclists on 50kmh roads which have cycle lanes, where cars are overtaking cyclists in the cycle lane at less than 1 metres and not encroaching on the cycle lane. I have heard a lot of complaints from cyclists about cars getting too close - but not in this particular scenario.

So, I'm saying this is impractical and unwarranted on such roads, as long as the car does not encroach on the cycle lane.

what do you think a safe passing distance would be?

Chips Lovell

CramCycle wrote: »

Where you are talking about is a seperate lane of traffic though, surely the law relates to vehicles initially in the same lane of traffic?

Surely it's either safe to pass someone at less than 1.5 metre distance or it isn't though? I mean the presence of a white line between the bike and the car doesn't alter the distance.

TheChizler

CramCycle wrote: »

Where you are talking about is a seperate lane of traffic though, surely the law relates to vehicles initially in the same lane of traffic?

Considering I've seen some cycle lanes with pinch points less than a foot wide I hope not.

odyssey06

1bryan wrote: »

what do you think a safe passing distance would be?

If the cyclist is in the cycle lane on a 30kmh or 50kmh road, then primarily, no encroachment of the vehicle (or its wing mirrors) over the line of the cycle lane, so in practice to be sure you would need to give 0.5 metres???

MediaMan

I think that the "impractical to pass at the minimum distance" point is one that is a legitimate initial concern, but it can be shown by example to be indeed practical. I do think this point needs to be teased out so that people can understand that it is indeed feasible to implement this law.

From my reading of the comments in the media over the past couple of days, one thing that a lot of people don't seem to accept is that it really is dangerous to pass cyclists and pedestrians closely. The chances of an incident happening are small, but the consequences are enormous. Many people seem to focus on the "small chance" but block their mind to the "enormous consequences".

Tenzor07

MediaMan wrote: »

What do you think?

It's a step in the right direction.

odyssey06

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Surely it's either safe to pass someone at less than 1.5 metre distance or it isn't though? I mean the presence of a white line between the bike and the car doesn't alter the distance.

I don't think it is unsafe to pass someone at less than 1.5 metre distance if travelling at 50kmh or less.

Is passing cyclists in the cycle lane at less than this distance at those speeds a significant stress factor?
The presence of the white line might be alleviating it psychologically... From other threads on this forum the stress factors are junctions, layouts, turning right, cars "not seeing the cyclist", but this one less so.

1bryan

odyssey06 wrote: »

If the cyclist is in the cycle lane on a 30kmh or 50kmh road, then primarily, no encroachment of the vehicle (or its wing mirrors) over the line of the cycle lane, so in practice to be sure you would need to give 0.5 metres???

0.5 meters from where? The cyclist themselves, or the end of the cyclists' handlebars (the extremity of the bicycle)?

Tenzor07

1bryan wrote: »

0.5 meters from where? The cyclist themselves, or the end of the cyclists' handlebars (the extremity of the bicycle)?

Distance is calculated from the edge of the bicycle handlebar to the passing vehicle....

1bryan

odyssey06 wrote: »

I don't think it is unsafe to pass someone at less than 1.5 metre distance if travelling at 50kmh or less.

do you feel safe, when you are cycling, when someone passes you at less than 1.5m distance?

1bryan

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Distance is calculated from the edge of the bicycle handlebar to the passing vehicle....

thanks. I wasn't sure. Obviously, it makes sense.

1bryan

1bryan wrote: »

do you feel safe, when you are cycling, when someone passes you at less than 1.5m distance?

also, is this not more about safety from the cyclist's point-of-view, rather than the motorist? Hence, how you feel as a motorist is entirely irrelevant?

average_runner

Must be a general election on the way!!

CramCycle

odyssey06 wrote: »

I don't think it is unsafe to pass someone at less than 1.5 metre distance if travelling at 50kmh or less.

How much less by your standards. At 0.5M, any slight deviation due to road surface for the motorist or the cyclist and I am touching the car. Where is the line?

Chips Lovell

I think it's just a PR exercise. We don't have enough traffic cops to enforce existing laws and even if we did, how you do properly enforce this one?

The emphasis should be on driver education on what constitutes a safe overtaking manouvere, e.g. you can rarely pass a bike safely without leaving your lane.

Of course, putting another token law on the statute books costs an awful lot less than sending more recruits to Templemore.

fat bloke

The more coverage I see and hear of this the more ignorance and animosity I hear from motorists. It's like the Trump phenomenon. I know decent, friendly, hard-working Americans who I like and get on with, and then they turn around and tell me they voted for Agent Orange. It's hard to square it in my own head.
Similarly I have colleages and aunties and friends and cousins to whom I would entrust my children and the fcukin bile and nonsense they allow themselves to spout when it comes to cyclists on the road - it's nothing short of astonishing. And it's deeply deeply depressing.

I know it's been proposed before, but never actually been done, but a day or even a couple of days or an entire week of absolutely no biking - a day where everyone who cycles deliberately took the car or the bus to work, I'm convinced would make a difference and make people see the sense that every bike you see is one less car on the roads, and one more free parking space at your destination. Any car driver or commuter with an ounce of sense should be actively encouraging more and more people off the (their?!) roads and onto bikes.


This impotent, illogical, apoplexy is.... What is it? I dunno. It's ... words fail me.

CramCycle

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Surely it's either safe to pass someone at less than 1.5 metre distance or it isn't though? I mean the presence of a white line between the bike and the car doesn't alter the distance.

Of course not, in fact where the OP is talking about is a 50kmph zone and my understanding this law will not apply there, just the usual due care and attention. This said, it should be quite easy to give 1 to 1.5M around there without much issue. Can anyone explain the difference between an on lane cycle track and a seperated one. My presyumption was for a sepeated one but I was initially thinking of a different part of DNS.

TheChizler wrote: »

Considering I've seen some cycle lanes with pinch points less than a foot wide I hope not.

True, I tend not to use the cycle lanes in most places unless they are fit for purpose, so my mind was ignoring all the really sh1t ones (ie most of them), there are a few around my old place where the road itself was barely 1.5m wide, and had a track painted on. In these cases though, I had always considered them not to be separate lanes of traffic. Not sure what the law says though.

Tenzor07 wrote: »

It's a step in the right direction.

+1, it may only be an advertisement but if it gives cause to some motorists to take a second thought on their actions around other road users, then it is worth doing, even if unfortunately the lack of Gardai means it is going to see minimal enforcement.

07Lapierre

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think it's just a PR exercise. We don't have enough traffic cops to enforce existing laws and even if we did, how you do properly enforce this one?

The emphasis should be on driver education on what constitutes a safe overtaking manouvere, e.g. you can rarely pass a bike safely without leaving your lane.

Of course, putting another token law on the statute books costs an awful lot less than sending more recruits to Templemore.

Kinda agree with you. But i do think that in the event of a RTA involving a cyclist and a motorist, if the Motorist is at fault, failure to give 1.5m clearance can be added to the charge sheet, which may result in a longer sentence.

Example: http://www.thejournal.ie/prison-cyclist-review-extension-3254296-Feb2017/

Annie get your Run

odyssey06 wrote: »

I don't think it is unsafe to pass someone at less than 1.5 metre distance if travelling at 50kmh or less..

I'd respectfully disagree. In my own estate recently (speed limit is 30kph although cars never pay heed to that) I was a few hundred meters from home, the road curves around to the right and a neighbour almost ran me over as he came far too close around the bend (in order to avoid a car coming the opposite direction, never mind avoiding me!!). When I 'discussed' his maneuver with him he said I was too far out from the curb (which is filled with potholes). I doubt I changed his mind but my shear fury, spurred adrenaline from the fright of my life, was evident. Ever since that incident I make sure I'm out in the middle of that road to avoid any passes. The law here will be 1m space which is far more than I was given that day.

Is there any practical way we can get motorists who are vehemently against this law to just travel one day from their home to their job on a bike in order to understand the feeling of fear that's very real?

With regard to close passes in a cycle lane I think the law should apply to that too. The bits of cycle lane on the North Quays that are marked with a white line (for e.g.) do not protect you from buses who fly past at speed leaving no space because they are in the next lane, it's still too close!

Annie get your Run

fat bloke wrote: »

I know it's been proposed before, but never actually been done, but a day or even a couple of days or an entire week of absolutely no biking - a day where everyone who cycles deliberately took the car or the bus to work, I'm convinced would make a difference and make people see the sense that every bike you see is one less car on the roads, and one more free parking space at your destination. Any car driver or commuter with an ounce of sense should be actively encouraging more and more people off the (their?!) roads and onto bikes.

Totally agree with this, have suggested it before too. Can we rally the troops? Contact the organisers of yesterdays rally and every other cycle friendly organisation?

odyssey06

1bryan wrote: »

do you feel safe, when you are cycling, when someone passes you at less than 1.5m distance?

Why would you not feel safe if you are in a cycle lane and a car passes you out at 45 kmh and without encroaching on the cycle lane at 1 metre from you?
Have you observed or read of accidents that resulted from such a scenario?

derb12

I agree with you media man but the reaction to the news re the 1m/1.5m safe passing law yesterday was depressing. On journal.ie 57% voted no when asked "should drivers be fined for driving too close to cyclists". I wonder if it was changed to "should drivers be fined for driving too close to your child?" what would the response be?
I know some cyclists do the rest of us no favours hopping up on footpaths, cycling with no lights at night and breaking red lights, but the level of anti cyclist sentiment around is off the scale. Perhaps we need some sort of overarching organisation and spokesperson a la Conor faughnan of the AA - to put our case more persuasively and lobby for improved facilities and more public information ads, but the problem is how to fund something like that.

1bryan

odyssey06 wrote: »

Why would you not feel safe if you are in a cycle lane and a car passes you out at 45 kmh and without encroaching on the cycle lane at 1 metre from you?

I'd be worried the car might hit me if I, or they, had to deviate from my line for any reason (such as road debris, potholes, etc).

1 meter is too close, in my opinion. 1.5 meters offers a buffer of sorts.