Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

Chips Lovell

07Lapierre wrote: »

...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...

How do you establish though if someone overtakes at 1.5m or 1.3m for example?

We already have a law that prohibits overtaking if it endangers other road users. Not to mention general dangerous driving legislation.

magicbastarder

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.

let's look at it another way - if you're in a situation where it's *unsafe* to pass a cyclist while giving them more than 1m berth, or 1.5m berth, is it not safer to wait?

07Lapierre

derb12 wrote: »

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.

ENFORCEMENT of the ROTR is needed! Cyclist breaking the ROTR are easily spotted, because its usually in urban/city centre locations with lots of witnesses (in cars stuck in traffic). Cars speeding on the Motorway is a regular occurrence but goes un-noticed and unpunished

Ive no problem with Gardai enforcing the ROTR on cyclists. in fact I'd go as far as to say that it would do us a world of good!

07Lapierre

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

How do you establish though if someone overtakes at 1.5m or 1.3m for example?

We already have a law that prohibits overtaking if it endangers other road users. Not to mention general dangerous driving legislation.

you dont...but you can establish if a car passes at a few inches or mm's. at the moment theres nothing illegal about it.

actually, the width of the road and the cyclists poisition in relation to the centre line would be a good place to start!

TheChizler

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

How do you establish though if someone overtakes at 1.5m or 1.3m for example?

We already have a law that prohibits overtaking if it endangers other road users. Not to mention general dangerous driving legislation.

The Garda will give their opinion that the distance was less than 1.5 m. That's all that's required for lots of convictions. The message drivers need to take away that they should give greater than this distance, not that, like speeds, it's a target not a limit.

BlinkingLights

One thing they should do in Cork City is allow mixed-use of up-hill cycling on the pavements on certain roads.

If you take the route to St. Luke's / Montenotte / Mayfield in Cork which goes up Summer Hill North. This is a very steep hill for about 1km with a lot of traffic and it's narrow enough in spots to barely allow two cars to pass. This handles frequent double-decker busses and is on the busy 207 and 208 bus routes and a huge volume of traffic uses it almost at all times.

On the left side (looking up the hill) there's a fairly wide pavement. If bikes were allowed to use this on the UP ONLY route, it would make a lot of sense.

1. you can't cycle fast up this hill, it's not physically possible even a tour de france athlete would struggle.
2. it's wide enough and could be marked out with a cycle path.
3. Slow moving bikes on a very narrow road, hilly cause problems for cars and public transport and quite genuinely can cause significant delays at busy times.

All you would need is a very clear signage that this can only be used in one direction i.e. use of pavement permitted for bicycles in this direction only. Using the pavement downwards will result in a fine of € xx.xx.

Bikes are fine coming down the hill as they move pretty fast and can keep up with traffic, but upwards you're talking about people sometimes going at <2km/h.

I'm sure there are other examples around Cork in particular, as it's so steep.

Image / map:
https://goo.gl/maps/H6rF2a1UGgm

Chips Lovell

07Lapierre wrote: »

you dont...but you can establish if a car passes at a few inches or mm's. at the moment theres nothing illegal about it.

TheChizler wrote: »

The Garda will give their opinion that the distance was less than 1.5 m. That's all that's required for lots of convictions.

Again, dangerous overtaking is already prohibited by law. If that isn't being enforced, it's unlikely this one will be either.

cdaly_

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.

Is passing cyclists in the cycle lane at less than this distance at those speeds a significant stress factor?

Would you try something out for me please? Would you head down to Portarlington* train station and stand between the yellow line and the edge of the platform as the Dublin-Cork train passes? Then come back and tell us if a close pass feels unsafe**...




* Actually, any train station would do.

** That's how a close pass feels to a cyclist...

Thud

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?
Have you observed or read of accidents that resulted from such a scenario?

Have you ever stood 1m from a car traveling at 45kmh?

CruelCoin

MediaMan wrote: »

What do you think?

Does this mean we can abolish Cycle lanes altogether outside of urban areas?

If we can't approach a bike inside a certain distance, then having a reserved space demarcated on the road is redundant.

1bryan

CruelCoin wrote: »

Does this mean we can abolish Cycle lanes altogether outside of urban areas?

If we can't approach a bike inside a certain distance, then having a reserved space demarcated on the road is redundant.

no it isn't, particularly if it's a fixed white line.

07Lapierre

cdaly_ wrote: »

Would you try something out for me please? Would you head down to Portarlington* train station and stand WITH YOUR BACK TO THE ONCOMING TRAIN between the yellow line and the edge of the platform as the Dublin-Cork train passes? Then come back and tell us if a close pass feels unsafe**...




* Actually, any train station would do.

** That's how a close pass feels to a cyclist...

FYP

tabby aspreme

How will this new law be implemented on rural roads with an 80kph limit, a lot of these roads are 3 - 4 m wide , it would be physically impossible to pass a cyclist on such roads.

cdaly_

tabby aspreme wrote: »

How will this new law be implemented on rural roads with an 80kph limit, a lot of these roads are 3 - 4 m wide , it would be physically impossible to pass a cyclist on such roads.

That's pretty much true. Speed limits are too high on these roads.

What do you do if you meet an oncoming car on such a road? How about a car going the same direction at a reasonable (ie. slow) speed? Pretty much impossible to pass a car on such roads. I don't see a difference with a bike really.


OTOH, two bikes could safely pass each other...

TheChizler

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Again, dangerous overtaking is already prohibited by law. If that isn't being enforced, it's unlikely this one will be either.

True, but now there are numbers to gauge it.

It's not true that you can't establish whether they passed within that distance which is what you said.

Chips Lovell

TheChizler wrote: »

True, but now there are numbers to gauge it.

It's not true that you can't establish whether they passed within that distance which is what you said.

But you just said that measurement wouldn't be required and all it would take would be a Guard to say that in their opinion it was less than 1.5m?

07Lapierre

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Again, dangerous overtaking is already prohibited by law. If that isn't being enforced, it's unlikely this one will be either.

Can't argue with that..Enforcement is badly needed!

eoghan84

Hi lads,
do ye think it will actually get passed though? given all the vile thats come out and the usual road tax stuff? thanks

tabby aspreme

Usually a slow car will be doing at least a minimum of 30 - 40 kph or they will pull in and let you pass , same with tractors etc, a cyclist could be doing 5-10 kph and you could be stuck behind them and legally be allowed to pass unless they dismount. When meeting traffic on these roads you usually slow to 10-20 kph and put 2 wheels on the grass

TheChizler

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

But you just said that measurement wouldn't be required and all it would take would be a Guard to say that in their opinion it was less than 1.5m?

A Garda can give their opinion to a judge that the distance was less than that; no measurement required. A judge will consider this evidence and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, likely find that it has been established that they did pass within 1.5 m.

Happens all the time for other types of offences, including some cases of speeding.

cdaly_

tabby aspreme wrote: »

Usually a slow car will be doing at least a minimum of 30 - 40 kph or they will pull in and let you pass , same with tractors etc, a cyclist could be doing 5-10 kph and you could be stuck behind them and legally be allowed to pass unless they dismount. When meeting traffic on these roads you usually slow to 10-20 kph and put 2 wheels on the grass

So you pass by cooperation. Same thing with bikes.

A cyclist, particularly on small rural roads, is unlikely to want to have a car sitting on their ass and will, most likely, take the next safe opportunity to allow a pass.

Chips Lovell

TheChizler wrote: »

A Garda can give their opinion to a judge that the distance was less than that; no measurement required. A judge will consider this evidence and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, likely find that it has been established that they did pass within 1.5 m.

Happens all the time for other types of offences, including some cases of speeding.

A Garda can currently give their opinion to a judge that someone was overtaking in a fashion that would endanger other road users.

The law isn't the problem, enforcement is.

Tenzor07

tabby aspreme wrote: »

How will this new law be implemented on rural roads with an 80kph limit, a lot of these roads are 3 - 4 m wide , it would be physically impossible to pass a cyclist on such roads.

Bicyclist moves into the side of the road where possible/safe to do so and let the motor vehicle overtake..

TheChizler

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

A Garda can currently give their opinion to a judge that someone was overtaking in a fashion that would endanger other road users.

The law isn't the problem, enforcement is.

I agree, but it's not impossible to enforce which is what I thought I was responding to.

tabby aspreme

cdaly_ wrote: »

So you pass by cooperation. Same thing with bikes.

A cyclist, particularly on small rural roads, is unlikely to want to have a car sitting on their ass and will, most likely, take the next safe opportunity to allow a pass.

Hopefully so , and it's something I'm always trying to drill into my kids to pull up and let cars by .

secman

Not sure of the answer myself, but would a close pass caught on a HD helmet cam, clearly showing reg plate be used by guards to prosecute ?

odyssey06

cdaly_ wrote: »

Would you try something out for me please? Would you head down to Portarlington* train station and stand between the yellow line and the edge of the platform as the Dublin-Cork train passes? Then come back and tell us if a close pass feels unsafe**...
* Actually, any train station would do.
** That's how a close pass feels to a cyclist...

I agree there should be minimum passing distances for trains, should they ever share road space with other vehicles. Passenger jets on runways also should be more than 1.5 metres from other vehicles, I think you'll agree. And don't get me started on the backdraft from helicopters and jumpjets.
But that's not what we're talking about, here.

TheChizler

odyssey06 wrote: »

I agree there should be minimum passing distances for trains, should they ever share road space with other vehicles. Passenger jets on runways also should be more than 1.5 metres from other vehicles, I think you'll agree. And don't get me started on the backdraft from helicopters and jumpjets.
But that's not what we're talking about, here.

I agree a train isn't a great analogy. A train can't suddenly swerve in and clip you. So cars/trucks are more dangerous in my opinion!

odyssey06

1bryan wrote: »

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.

So what you really want is a 3 metre cycle lane - assuming the cycle lane is already 1.5 metres.
It would be ideal if that could be provided, but why do you think we don't have 3 metre cycle lanes today?

AndrewJRenko

I have some sympathy with the 'won't be enforced' point, but this may be an exception to the usual rule.

With the increasing availability of helmetcams at affordable prices, it will be fairly easy to give video evidence of a dangerous overtake. If the car is within arm's reach, it is too close - unless the cyclist is Stretch Armstrong.

There are a few devices out there that have been used for tests in this area, like the nearmissometer, so it is not unreasonable to think that with the combination of technology, cameras and phone apps, it will be very easy to identify dangerous overtakes in the not too distant future.