Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

RacoonQueen

If enforced, dangerous overtaking of cyclists probably a better law. It means other factors other than just distance come into it, a driver passing with space but going too fast can still be dangerous - particularly in bigger vehicles with wind factors. Can still either startle you, give you a sudden battle with wind/rain water etc

What we really need is to allow this to be punishable via video evidence. Cyclists/drivers can submit their complaint and dashcam/helmetcam video and the guards have to act on it. No point in the law be it MPDL or dangerous overtaking of cyclists if you're relying on the offchance of a guard being there.

Macy0161

RacoonQueen wrote: »

What we really need is to allow this to be punishable via video evidence. Cyclists/drivers can submit their complaint and dashcam/helmetcam video and the guards have to act on it. No point in the law be it MPDL or dangerous overtaking of cyclists if you're relying on the offchance of a guard being there.

But it seems like the mpdl was shot down on the basis of the video evidence. I haven't seen anything to suggest this will change with dangerous overtaking.

seamus

Realistically what will happen here is that the RSA (and other international bodies) will continue to push the message that 1.5m is the appropriate minimum amount of room.

This will trickle down into courtrooms to become the de facto standard when assessing whether an overtake was dangerous.

"How much room do you think you gave the cyclist?"

"Uh, about 3 feet judge, loads of room"

"So...not 1.5 metres then. Right".

This is a better outcome legally. A 1.5m rule would mean that basically nobody could ever be convicted because you could never prove they breached it. At least with the current rule in place someone can be convicted. Not that the charge is ever brought to court.

magicbastarder

people keep referring to this law having been passed in other countries. one question i've been asking and have yet to hear a decent answer on is the context in which it is actually enforced in other countries. does it require a police officer to cycle on a 'bait' bike with a calibrated piece of equipment to measure passing distance, or is video evidence legally permissible in court as evidence of a pass within the legal minimum?

AndrewJRenko

Lumen wrote: »

The close passing videos I've seen offer no way to accurately measure the passing distance.

If the passing vehicle hits the cyclist's outstretched hand, the driver didn't leave 1.5m passing.

magicbastarder wrote: »

people keep referring to this law having been passed in other countries. one question i've been asking and have yet to hear a decent answer on is the context in which it is actually enforced in other countries. does it require a police officer to cycle on a 'bait' bike with a calibrated piece of equipment to measure passing distance, or is video evidence legally permissible in court as evidence of a pass within the legal minimum?

Some UK forces have prosecuted based on video evidence submitted;


https://twitter.com/Trafficwmp/status/949985112996962304

magicbastarder

prosecuted based on what law though? it could be quite possible that they proceeded with a dangerous overtaking prosecution, due to that limitation in the evidence, rather than the specific MPDL law.

magicbastarder

some commentary that the IT are republishing old news. off to check now was this actually announced today:

https://twitter.com/sanzscript/status/1080422936828432384

tomasrojo

https://twitter.com/cianginty/status/1080465348514713600

terrydel

It really is depressing how hated cyclists are amongst the general public. And hate is the right word, because that is what it is.
Yes, there are plenty of asshole cyclists but it is in no way commensurate with the level of hate that is out there. Reading the comments on the Irish Times story now is utterly depressing, even if that paper is now basically another clickbait rag, and has undoubtedly decided to start the new year off with an inflammatory cycling story to try get some readers to keep it from going down the plughole a little longer.
It says a lot about the human race, and in this case the Irish general public in particular, and none of it good, that they can hate someone based purely on their choice of past time or method of travel.
2 days in and my hope for humanity in its descent into uncaring ignorance and stupidity has evaporated even more already this year. Sad times.

Chips Lovell

I don't think the comments section of any newspaper, even the Irish Times, is very representative of the general public. They seem to be mainly populated by the kind of people who ring Joe Duffy.

magicbastarder

i see the story about ross opining on hi vis and helmets in the irish times's facebook feed has garnered 177 comments in one hour, which is colossal for an IT story.
however, as BdC mentions, i suspect the number of commenters who actually are IT subscribers or customers is low.

Lumen

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If the passing vehicle hits the cyclist's outstretched hand, the driver didn't leave 1.5m passing.

Which is great if you cycle along with your arm outstretched as car pass at 80kph. And don't mind breaking your hand.

TheRiverman

The point is there is rules of the road breaking everday,some of it appalling by a big percentage or not only cyclists,but motorists and pedestrians also.
Maybe while on his crusade,Minister Ross might visit and drive,walk and cycle on some of the awful rural roads where 1.5 metres is almost have the width of the road.

magicbastarder

if 1.5m is half the width of the road, you're not talking about an 'overtaking' manouevre. you're talking about one vehicle having to pull in to let the other past.

AndrewJRenko

Lumen wrote: »

Which is great if you cycle along with your arm outstretched as car pass at 80kph. And don't mind breaking your hand.

I would often see close passes coming through a 'lifesaver' over-the-shoulder head turn. If they're coming too close, I will often push out my hand to signal to them to move the hell away from me. In those circumstances, it's not unusual for the body or window of the vehicle or more often the wing mirror to hit my hand. I've never any injury arising.

TheRiverman wrote: »

The point is there is rules of the road breaking everday,some of it appalling by a big percentage or not only cyclists,but motorists and pedestrians also.
Maybe while on his crusade,Minister Ross might visit and drive,walk and cycle on some of the awful rural roads where 1.5 metres is almost have the width of the road.

If there's no room to overtake safely, then there's no room to overtake - just wait until you have a safe place to pass. It's called traffic, and cyclists manage to deal with such conditions all the time in traffic.

terrydel wrote: »

It really is depressing how hated cyclists are amongst the general public. And hate is the right word, because that is what it is.
Yes, there are plenty of asshole cyclists but it is in no way commensurate with the level of hate that is out there. Reading the comments on the Irish Times story now is utterly depressing, even if that paper is now basically another clickbait rag, and has undoubtedly decided to start the new year off with an inflammatory cycling story to try get some readers to keep it from going down the plughole a little longer.
It says a lot about the human race, and in this case the Irish general public in particular, and none of it good, that they can hate someone based purely on their choice of past time or method of travel.
2 days in and my hope for humanity in its descent into uncaring ignorance and stupidity has evaporated even more already this year. Sad times.

It would be really helpful to understand more what is behind this hatred. Certainly, the media have significant responsibility to bear for this, with Hook, Kenny, Yeates and the rest of the Newstalk gammon top of the queue. But other even more reputable outlets just love to pit two sides against each other to rile up the audience. We've seen this nonsense on Prime Time and other outlets.



I think part of it is the 'create a diversion' approach too. For many drivers, they reckon that if they focus attention of legislators and Gardai on cyclists, then they will be able to continue to get away with the crap that they get away with all the time.

tomasrojo

Newstalk is a very peculiar class of a station these days, isn't it?

magicbastarder

did i read correctly that they've signed up peter casey to appear as a talking head?

magicbastarder

i did read correctly: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/casey-delighted-to-get-radio-role-with-newstalk-37583665.html

Corca Baiscinn

magicbastarder wrote: »

people keep referring to this law having been passed in other countries. one question i've been asking and have yet to hear a decent answer on is the context in which it is actually enforced in other countries. does it require a police officer to cycle on a 'bait' bike with a calibrated piece of equipment to measure passing distance, or is video evidence legally permissible in court as evidence of a pass within the legal minimum?

I wondered the same around last Feb when all the kerfuffle was going on re whether a MPDL was enforceable, asked a contact in California & he said police dont bother, same reply from a contact in Belgium. Read a blog then by Phil Skelton re police in Texas I think it was who use electronic sensors.

As mentioned some UK police forces enforcing safe overtaking v successfully but not a specific mpd as not in their legislation either. Not just video evidence though tho that too, it's police on bikes observing driver behaviour around cyclists and radioing up ahead to a colleague who stops them for "a chat on the mat" or prosecution depending on severity of offence. West midland's Police twitter a/c & in particular PC Mark Hodson's replies to drivers are an absolute breath of fresh air when you start to despair re our helmet/hi-vis/share-the-road lot here

Think the main aim of @Safe Cycling Éire's campaign was to change the culture over time so that drivers would become aware of the space needed for an overtake and while the near miss thread here is nowhere near redundant I have noticed lots of good safe passing in my neck of the woods especially over the summer

CramCycle

And that's what they missed or misunderstood. It's not a law for catching or prosecuting on a Monday morning commute. The truth is that was never or should never have been the purpose of this law. That's why Garda numbers need to be increased and discretion kept.
When I pass or am passed by a car on a laneway, who has waited patiently behind me (or I have waited behind) and overtook when we both accept it's safe, even if it's closer than 1.5m, it's not an issue as a Garda has the discretion to realise. It's when friends of mine, and loved ones of friends, and friends of friends or even just random strangers are killed and the driver gets away scot free because the DPP isn't confident that an overtaking lorry at a pinch point is enough of a justification for prosecution. Hopefully this will eventually teach some people that those 12seconds are not worth a person's life.

Personally though, we are a few days in to 2019 and all I can think is it's not worth the effort.

RobbieMD

Macy0161 wrote: »

I would say the AG was pushing an open door. Our legal system is based upon the UK one, but they seem to be able to action based upon camera evidence. We're told cameras are "unreliable" without evidence, or what needs to change to make them reliable instead?

I don't see what's debateble about most of the close pass footage we see on the likes of sticky bottle. They're generally not marginal between 1.3m and 1.5m.

It’s not that cameras are unreliable. It’s that “proving” Cctv to allow it be admitted in evidence in a prosecution by AGS is far more complex than people think it is. Other police forces may accept email submission and be able to prosecute off that. In Ireland that’s not the case. The original must be retained by AGS. Original as in the micro SD in your dash cam or whatever device. I wonder if you make a complaint by email, and it’s a false complaint, what recourse do the UK police have? In Ireland you won’t be prosecuted for making a false complaint unless you’ve made a signed witness statement with statutory declaration. I imagine it harkens to Blackstones Ratio to let 10 guilty walk than convict one innocent person, is the grounds to that.

Often AGS will appeal for dash cam footage. This is generally for very serious incidents only. This may not be for court use and may be for confirming or dismissing information already at hand.

I’m not saying footage can’t be used, I’m just saying it’s not as easy as it ought to be, or people assume it to be.

Macy0161

CramCycle wrote:

And that's what they missed or misunderstood. It's not a law for catching or prosecuting on a Monday morning commute. The truth is that was never or should never have been the purpose of this law. That's why Garda numbers need to be increased and discretion kept

This. It was about setting minimum expectations. And even talk of it worked for a while. Having it in the rules of the road and advertising campaigns is worth even less in court than apparently unenforceable mpdl.

At least with a mpdl, there was little room for a motorist who hits a cyclist during an overtake to get off, like they do under dangerous driving or whatever other bs that opponents claim can be used instead.

RobbieMD wrote: »

I’m not saying footage can’t be used, I’m just saying it’s not as easy as it ought to be, or people assume it to be.

And what moves are being made to address this flaw in our system? None, because they're not interested/ it'd create too much work.

It's actually worse than just the mdpl, it's basically advertised that video footage isn't worth a damn, so so what if more and more motorists, bikers, cyclists are using camera's. It should be an opportunity to enhance enforcement, not a road block to safety measures.

Let's be frank, our politicians and road safety authority are so interested in Cyclist safety that the laws around bicycle lights are in yards and feet, with the light specifications in inches. The vast majority of (far superior to the time) lights don't technically comply with the law. But helmets and hi viz...

Fian

There are benefits to laws which are not enforceable - when publicised they can impact behaviour because people become aware that failing to give 1.5m is criminal even if there is little real prospect of enforcement. The general public at large would probably underestimate the difficulties in enforcement anyway. Conversely I am worried that the abandoning of the law will be taken as an endorsement of close passing as being perfectly fine/legal.

The enforcement difficulties are not insurmountable. You could have an offence of passing a cyclist without (partially or wholly) crossing the lane dividing line. That would be perfectly enforceable based on eye-witness evidence. Unless a lane is >5m wide (and I have never seen one) it is not possible to give 1.5m without at least partially crossing into another lane. This would be appropriate in >95% of all circumstances. Where you have a solid white line it could give rise to some difficulties though, unless there was an exception to the rule against crossing the solid white line to pass cyclists (when safe to do so.)

Very disappointed with this decision.

terrydel

tomasrojo wrote: »

Newstalk is a very peculiar class of a station these days, isn't it?

Its a right wing cesspool of conservative, nasty thinking.
I'd go as far as saying anyone listening and agreeing with their editorial viewpoint is a first class t**t, simple as that.
A horrible media outlet that exists to serve the agenda of its majority owner.

Lumen

terrydel wrote: »

Its a right wing cesspool of conservative, nasty thinking.
I'd go as far as saying anyone listening and agreeing with their editorial viewpoint is a first class t**t, simple as that.
A horrible media outlet that exists to serve the agenda of its majority owner.

I'm intrigued to know whether my regular Newstalk consumption qualifies me as a first class t**t, as I've never achieved more than mediocrity in anything.

How can I find out what their editorial viewpoint is? I thought radio stations just chased ears for ads.

magicbastarder

maybe he meant tart? could be a compliment or a slur.

Macy0161

I generally like Off The Ball. Except when they cover cycling. Must be nearly time for them to roll out Tyler. Again. Although they'll probably wait until Dan or Sam are doing well in a world tour race to justify their non-coverage...

CramCycle

Lumen wrote: »

I'm intrigued to know whether my regular Newstalk consumption qualifies me as a first class t**t, as I've never achieved more than mediocrity in anything.

How can I find out what their editorial viewpoint is? I thought radio stations just chased ears for ads.

I presume it depends on what you listen too on it. Off the Ball is a sports show, other than their fascination with promoting gambling, they seem grand. The Science shows and NPR/TED talks and interviews are quite intriguing.

This said, I moved the dial awhile ago as the Paul "pretends to be a hard hitting journalist" Williams was a bit much in the morning.

Sadly I have moved into middle age in style and the rare time i listen too radio it is Radio 1, although that station has its faults as well (how does Joe Duffy still have a job).

Lumen

CramCycle wrote: »

I moved the dial awhile ago as the Paul "pretends to be a hard hitting journalist" Williams was a bit much in the morning.

He's gone now. As has Hook.

Ciara Kelly and Pat Kenny are OK. They both have a tendency to veer off into uninformed bull but at least they come across as rational human beings.

Anything but Tubs.

terrydel

Lumen wrote: »

I'm intrigued to know whether my regular Newstalk consumption qualifies me as a first class t**t, as I've never achieved more than mediocrity in anything.

Only if you are agreeing with it, and even then its purely in my opinion. I doubt that holds much sway with you, it shouldnt anyway.

How can I find out what their editorial viewpoint is?

Listen to it, its hardly difficult to work out.