Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

CramCycle

AlanG wrote: »

On my daily commute close to 100% of cyclists I see undertake cars at less than 1.5 meters. I would say this is pretty safe as the cars are usually not moving but that argument just highlights the problems with absolute legislation rather than using the flexibility of the existing dangerous driving laws.

But you do understand why the two are in no way comparable, why the law is one way and not the other?

Weepsie

AlanG wrote: »

As both a driver and cycle commuter I can see how this would save a lot of trouble but I also think it would have to be combined with a serious clampdown on bikes undertaking. It may work in Queensland but most of the roads there are very wide and there are not many small city streets.
It is unreasonable to say it is unsafe for a car to overtake at less than 1.5 while cyclists undertake at far less than this regularly.
On my daily commute close to 100% of cyclists I see undertake cars at less than 1.5 meters. I would say this is pretty safe as the cars are usually not moving but that argument just highlights the problems with absolute legislation rather than using the flexibility of the existing dangerous driving laws.

AAAHH, cycling on the left is not the same as undertaking. This shouldn't have to be explained.

Cycling on the left passing slower moving traffic on the right is safer to the cyclist than a car overtaking closely at any speed.

Pinch Flat

AlanG wrote: »

As both a driver and cycle commuter I can see how this would save a lot of trouble but I also think it would have to be combined with a serious clampdown on bikes undertaking. It may work in Queensland but most of the roads there are very wide and there are not many small city streets.
It is unreasonable to say it is unsafe for a car to overtake at less than 1.5 while cyclists undertake at far less than this regularly.
On my daily commute close to 100% of cyclists I see undertake cars at less than 1.5 meters. I would say this is pretty safe as the cars are usually not moving but that argument just highlights the problems with absolute legislation rather than using the flexibility of the existing dangerous driving laws.

Let's break this down simply.

Cars passing on the right, fast and close - Nope
Cyclists passing up the left of stationary / slow moving cars - Yep

Moflojo

The Government has enacted legislation that will outlaw the striking of nails with hammers.

Outraged Hammer Representative Groups have called for similar legislation to outlaw the striking of hammers with nails.

buffalo

AlanG wrote: »

On my daily commute close to 100% of cyclists I see undertake cars at less than 1.5 meters. I would say this is pretty safe as the cars are usually not moving but that argument just highlights the problems with absolute legislation rather than using the flexibility of the existing dangerous driving laws.

What are the problems if it's pretty safe?

AlanG

buffalo wrote: »

What are the problems if it's pretty safe?

The problem is that undertaking is illegal.

My point is that it is already illegal for a driver to pass unsafely. This law brings in an absolute which a lot of cyclists like but as your post shows when absolute rules are applied it can often become confusing.
Sometimes it is safe for a car to pass at under 1.5 meters - especially when the bike has just undertaken it illegally.
I don't oppose this legislation if it is implemented correctly.

AlanG

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Let's break this down simply.

Cars passing on the right, fast and close - Nope
Cyclists passing up the left of stationary / slow moving cars - Yep

I may have missed it but I didn't see anything in the proposed legislation that specified that it would only apply to cars traveling fast. Can you let me know what speed is specified as fast. Thanks.

TheChizler

AlanG wrote: »

The problem is that undertaking is illegal.

No its not. You just need to be registered with the IAFD.

Cyclists are specifically allowed to overtake on the left in a number of circumstances by a law which came out a few years ago.

Motorised vehicles have always been allowed to overtake on the left subject to three circumstances.

Pinch Flat

AlanG wrote: »

I may have missed it but I didn't see anything in the proposed legislation that specified that it would only apply to cars traveling fast. Can you let me know what speed is specified as fast. Thanks.

From the proposed Bill:

"(a) if the applicable speed limit is not more than 50 kilometres per hour a lateral distance from the pedal bicycle of at least 1 metre, or
(b) if the applicable speed limit is more than 50 kilometres per hour a lateral distance from the pedal bicycle of at least 1.5 metres."

https://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2017/2217/b2217d.pdf

I agree 'fast' is a bit subjective, and my original comment perhaps a bit to simplistic, however if you're passed close by a vehicle travelling "fast" you'll understand what I mean. Survival when hit by a motorized vehicle travelling over 50km/hr diminishes significantly.

AlanG

TheChizler wrote: »

No its not. You just need to be registered with the IAFD.

Cyclists are specifically allowed to overtake on the left in a number of circumstances by a law which came out a few years ago.

Motorised vehicles have always been allowed to overtake on the left subject to three circumstances.

Fair enough, wasn't sure that legislation had actually been signed in.

I take it section 10 of the 1997 regulations are still in place which states.

"A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person."

Really what we need is enforcement of the existing legislation and not something that will see drivers breaking the law if the accelerate faster than a cyclist who has just moved up their left hand side from lights in an urban area.
Dangerous overtaking is a big problem - but I think the current gov are too keen to bring in more rules rather than resource the Police to enforce existing rules. This is really a PR exercise.

AlanG

Pinch Flat wrote: »

From the proposed Bill:

"(a) if the applicable speed limit is not more than 50 kilometres per hour a lateral distance from the pedal bicycle of at least 1 metre, or
(b) if the applicable speed limit is more than 50 kilometres per hour a lateral distance from the pedal bicycle of at least 1.5 metres."

Thanks, I've learned a bit today :-)
I would have hoped it related to the speed of the vehicle in some way rather than just the applicable speed limit. Buses passing within 1 meter at 50km/h would still be a pretty frightening prospect.

The other question I would have is how this will be measured - the opinion of a Garda will surely not be enough in court when it comes to a distance. Could un-calibrated video evidence be used when it is not admissible for speeding prosecutions.
Prosecutions under the existing leglisation would seem more likely to succeed as it allows for opinion on what is deemed dangerous.

CramCycle

AlanG wrote: »

The problem is that undertaking is illegal.

But cyclist don't undertake, they overtake on the left, which is catered for in current legislation AFAIK

Kaisr Sose

AlanG wrote: »

As both a driver and cycle commuter I can see how this would save a lot of trouble but I also think it would have to be combined with a serious clampdown on bikes undertaking. It may work in Queensland but most of the roads there are very wide and there are not many small city streets.
It is unreasonable to say it is unsafe for a car to overtake at less than 1.5 while cyclists undertake at far less than this regularly.
On my daily commute close to 100% of cyclists I see undertake cars at less than 1.5 meters. I would say this is pretty safe as the cars are usually not moving but that argument just highlights the problems with absolute legislation rather than using the flexibility of the existing dangerous driving laws.

Huge difference in mass and kinetic energy. Worse case a cyclists falls under the wheels of a following vehicle but that's an unlikely occurance if the other vehicle is moving slower than the cyclist. Of course the opponents of any progressive amendment to the law to prevent high speed passes at close distance would /will use anything to proffer the argument that the law is unworkable. I am not saying you are but others like taxi driver federation will try and muddy it to suit their agenda of a free for all on the roads and smidsy...

AndrewJRenko

AlanG wrote: »

It is unreasonable to say it is unsafe for a car to overtake at less than 1.5 while cyclists undertake at far less than this regularly.
On my daily commute close to 100% of cyclists I see undertake cars at less than 1.5 meters. I would say this is pretty safe as the cars are usually not moving but that argument just highlights the problems with absolute legislation rather than using the flexibility of the existing dangerous driving laws.

Would you like me to explain the difference in risk between a 10 kg bike going at 10-20 kmph and a 1-5 tonne car going at 50-120 kmph?

But interestingly, if you reckon undertaking by cyclists is 'pretty safe' - why bring it up in the first place?

AlanG wrote: »

The problem is that undertaking is illegal.

My point is that it is already illegal for a driver to pass unsafely. This law brings in an absolute which a lot of cyclists like but as your post shows when absolute rules are applied it can often become confusing.
Sometimes it is safe for a car to pass at under 1.5 meters - especially when the bike has just undertaken it illegally.

Eh, no - filtering on the left is not illegal. But regardless, why is it relevant what the bike has just done? Either an overtake is legal/safe or it's not. It is entirely irrelevant what went on beforehand.

AlanG wrote: »

Really what we need is enforcement of the existing legislation and not something that will see drivers breaking the law if the accelerate faster than a cyclist who has just moved up their left hand side from lights in an urban area.
Dangerous overtaking is a big problem - but I think the current gov are too keen to bring in more rules rather than resource the Police to enforce existing rules. This is really a PR exercise.

You have a bit of a point here - but the presence of the legislation will make a difference to some drivers. It will help.

MediaMan

Perhaps the point here is what's a motorist to do if a cyclist (or a whole lot of them) start to pass on the left (legally) and have to stop for some reason alongside the car. The motorist now wants to proceed, but needs to now shift the car 1m away from the cyclist before they can do so.

To which I think the answer is that this is an infrequent occurrence, which will happen in heavy, slow moving traffic. In any case, you do what you can to establish the safe passing distance as you proceed.

Ultimately the objective is to pass safely, whether it's a car passing a bike or a bike passing a car. However, because of the differing masses and speeds, it is not a symmetric responsibility, no matter how some would like it to be so.

Chuchote

MediaMan wrote: »

Perhaps the point here is what's a motorist to do if a cyclist (or a whole lot of them) start to pass on the left (legally) and have to stop for some reason alongside the car. The motorist now wants to proceed, but needs to now shift the car 1m away from the cyclist before they can do so.

I think in this case the titter-of-sense rule comes into play.

tomasrojo

Chuchote wrote: »

I think in this case the titter-of-sense rule comes into play.

Yes, people do seem to be treating laws as if they were computer algorithms. They're not. And as far as I know, passing distances usually make reference to passing speed, so if you're going at less than 10km/h the passing distance can be smaller than when you're going at 50km/h or more, which is where the actual problem lies.

Beasty

If I was overtaken by a vehicle travelling at 10 km/h I would probably feel as if something has gone badly wrong....

I actually prefer a vehicle to overtake me that bit faster as it means they complete the manoeuvre quicker. With cars whether it's 1m or 1.5m does not really bother me. Large vehicles cause much more turbulence and that's where I feel the extra clearance is required

magicbastarder

MediaMan wrote: »

Perhaps the point here is what's a motorist to do if a cyclist (or a whole lot of them) start to pass on the left (legally) and have to stop for some reason alongside the car. The motorist now wants to proceed, but needs to now shift the car 1m away from the cyclist before they can do so.

it's not an overtaking manouevre if the cyclist has pulled up alongside a stationary car and the car pulls away first. at not point has the cyclist actually been in front of the car, rendering the concept of overtaking irrelevant. for bot cyclist and motorist.

Corca Baiscinn

[QUOTEOn my daily commute close to 100% of cyclists I see undertake cars at less than 1.5 meters. I would say this is pretty safe as the cars are usually not moving but that argument just highlights the problems with absolute legislation rather than using the flexibility of the existing dangerous driving laws.[/QUOTE]

But if the flexibility of the existing dangerous driving laws were enough Phil Skelton (www(safecyclingireland, and FB stayin alive at 1.5) and cycling supporters would not have been campaigning for years to have MPD legislation introduced. In the current situation it's the driver's word against the cyclist's, the driver can say he "thought" or he "intended" to leave enough room when overtaking, whereas with a specified minimum distance there is an objective measure. You also asked how the distance would be measured, well there may be a witness, camera or sensor (currently being trialled by police in US), or quite simply on most roads in order to give sufficient clearance at least two wheels of the car need to cross to the other carriageway. However, I think the hope is that the legislation will create awareness of what constitutes a safe passing distance and that motorists will learn to give sufficient room.
You mentioned something re Government bringing in legislation as an easier option that enforcement but it's not a Government Bill and as yet there is no guarantee that the Government will support it. It's a Private Member's Bill introduced by Government TD, Ciaran Cannon, supported by Regina Doherty. There is no guarantee at this point that it will be supported, the DTTAS turned down the same idea a few years ago.

Weepsie

Beasty wrote: »

If I was overtaken by a vehicle travelling at 10 km/h I would probably feel as if something has gone badly wrong....

I actually prefer a vehicle to overtake me that bit faster as it means they complete the manoeuvre quicker. With cars whether it's 1m or 1.5m does not really bother me. Large vehicles cause much more turbulence and that's where I feel the extra clearance is required

Had a truck give me the entire road width of clearance today around the airport.

Jimoslimos

Weepsie wrote: »

Had a truck give me the entire road width of clearance today around the airport.

IME trucks will generally start off giving a lot more clearance than smaller vehicles but then either misjudge a) my speed or b) their length and cut back in too quickly. Usually compounded by there nearly always being another vehicle immediately behind them trying to squeeze into that tiny gap between me and the back of the truck.

Borderfox

Had a landscape gardener go past me on the Summerhill Road yesterday with a rake hanging out of the left side of his trailer, missed me be about a foot. Shouted at him and seen him further down the road pulled over moving it.

MediaMan

Article by Ciarán Cannon in today's Indo about the proposed law (sign-in required):

Overtaking law will give our cyclists a safe space on the roads - and save many lives

It is time to move on from the perception that there is some kind of road-user hierarchy where cyclists are treated as little more than an annoyance. Instead, we need to acknowledge that everyone has a legitimate right to a safe space on our roads where their life is not put at risk simply because they choose a bicycle as their mode of transport. It's also important to note that the vast majority of adult Irish cyclists are also motorists, yet we have managed to create an illogical "them and us" scenario and it needs to be addressed.

Hard to argue about any of that you would think, and about the overall theme of helping to keep road users safe. Think again! If you want to be thoroughly depressed, have a read of the comments following the article. Truly, I despair when I read many of these comments and the attitudes that they convey. We have a very long way to go before many people will convert from the religion of the car and the belief that their hurry is more important than someone else's well-being. And the commandment that those someone elses better get out of their way or suffer the consequences.

I hope that in the real world people have more sense, but I do wonder.

Chiparus

MediaMan wrote: »

Perhaps the point here is what's a motorist to do if a cyclist (or a whole lot of them) start to pass on the left (legally) and have to stop for some reason alongside the car. The motorist now wants to proceed, but needs to now shift the car 1m away from the cyclist before they can do so.

ballyharpat

I would ask everyone, to please email you local td's and councillors on this issue, we can change the law, I am receiving a very positive response, they do care about their constituents, just send an email and be counted, we have a voice.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fneil.fox.545%2Fposts%2F1943998519254208

Delighted with the latest step forward in cycling bill.
Very grateful to Robert Troy TD, FF Spokesperson for Transport, who is bringing forward amendment to the #RoadTraffic bill before Minister for Transport Shane Ross, to include the Minimum Passing Distance bill, championed by Regina Doherty and Ciaran Cannon FG Ministers and cycling campaigner and recent Road Safety Authority Award Winner Phil Skelton. Let's hope Minister Ross will agree to this and we will see this incredible bill become law soon.
YOU CAN HELP BY
writing to OR emailing your local TD's and politely but clearly asking them to support this brilliant piece of legislation. www.whoismytd.com will give you there names and contacts.
Great to see growing evidence of cross-party cooperation on cycling road safety measures.

expectationlost

ballyharpat wrote: »

I would ask everyone, to please email you local td's and councillors on this issue, we can change the law, I am receiving a very positive response, they do care about their constituents, just send an email and be counted, we have a voice.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fneil.fox.545%2Fposts%2F1943998519254208

Delighted with the latest step forward in cycling bill.
Very grateful to Robert Troy TD, FF Spokesperson for Transport, who is bringing forward amendment to the #RoadTraffic bill before Minister for Transport Shane Ross, to include the Minimum Passing Distance bill, championed by Regina Doherty and Ciaran Cannon FG Ministers and cycling campaigner and recent Road Safety Authority Award Winner Phil Skelton. Let's hope Minister Ross will agree to this and we will see this incredible bill become law soon.
YOU CAN HELP BY
writing to OR emailing your local TD's and politely but clearly asking them to support this brilliant piece of legislation. www.whoismytd.com will give you there names and contacts.
Great to see growing evidence of cross-party cooperation on cycling road safety measures.

Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2017

Bill entitled an Act to provide for automatic disqualification from driving in the case of a person paying a fixed charge in respect of a drink driving offence; for that purpose to amend the Road Traffic Act 2010 and the Road Traffic Act 2002 and to provide for related matters

https://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=36763 exceptionally cynical for Robert Troy to try use cycling safety to impede an anti-drink driving laws, and disappointing for any who'd help him.

ballyharpat

this is another part of it....



This Bill addresses an anomaly in current law which allows some people guilty of driving while above the legal alcohol limit to receive penalty points rather than the usual disqualifcation. The Bill will remove the penalty points option in these cases and thereby ensure that all drivers intercepted while driving over the legal alcohol limit will receive a disqualifcation.In place of the current 3 penalty points provided in these cases, the Bill will introduce a 3-month disqualifcation period.Financial Implications - The Bill will not have any fnancial impact for the Exchequer.Section 1 - Amendment of Road Traffc Act 2010.This section amends section 29 of the Road Traffc Act 2010 so as to remove the current option which allows some people found to be driving over the alcohol limit to receive penalty points. In place of penalty points it creates a three-month disqualifcation period.The specifc amendments made to section 29 are –• Subsection (1) will be amended to change cross-references to subsection (8). Currently the cross-reference is to penalty points or disqualifcation under subsection (8), and this will be changed to refer only to disqualifcation.• Subsection (5) will be substituted to make a similar change, so that it will refer to disqualifcation only and not also to penalty points.• Subsection (6), which deals entirely with the existing penalty point option, is deleted.

CramCycle

expectationlost wrote: »

Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2017 https://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=36763 exceptionally cynical for Robert Troy to try use cycling safety to impede an anti-drink driving laws, and disappointing for any who'd help him.

I may be misreading it but surely it is improving the situation, by giving no option except a fine and disqualification. This said, it maybe worded poorly that if you choose not to pay and face a court date, you are not automatically disqualified.

Chips Lovell

Dangerous overtaking is already an offence. Department of Transport has already advised the minister that introducing a minimum passing distance would make it unenforceable.

We'd be going from a situation where you have a law that is enforceable (but rarely enforced) to one which is unenforceable (in which case it hardly matters if its enforced).