Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

07Lapierre

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.

A better test would be to cycle a bike on a train platform less than one meter from the edge while an express train approaches you from behind...if you think your going to fall (the air pressure wave off the front of the train),remember to fall onto the platform!

Annie get your Run

odyssey06 wrote: »

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?

Because too much of our roads are given over to cars - hopefully that will change.

Seriously, get out on the road (preferably on a bike) and see what it's like time and time again to be passed by cars who don't give you an inch. You can literally feel the hatred emanating from the vehicle. Thank god not all drivers are the same though. You are talking about other human beings here, people - fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, friends, children etc. What is the issue with improving safety on our roads for people who choose to travel on two wheels instead of four??

CramCycle

BlinkingLights wrote: »

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

It is not wide enough, a cycle track should never detract from pedestrian space.

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.

Slow down, Gardai have

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...

A better one would be to have the OP come to the station and be blindfolded before the train passes. Then allow you to maneuvre them to the yellow line. This gives a beeter appreciation of the trust in a driver you take when they do a close pass. They don't know will you be trustworthy, no more than a cyclist can trust a car not to make a mistake or error in judgement.

07Lapierre

CramCycle wrote: »

A better one would be to have the OP come to the station and be blindfolded before the train passes. Then allow you to maneuvre them to the yellow line. This gives a beeter appreciation of the trust in a driver you take when they do a close pass. They don't know will you be trustworthy, no more than a cyclist can trust a car not to make a mistake or error in judgement.

Probably controversial, but this is why i don't have mirrors on my bike. Most of the time, it's better if you don't actually know what's going on behind you!

MediaMan

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.

With no disrespect to the poster, this is the reason why a minimum passing distance is required in law. Currently it's a matter of opinion as to what constitutes a safe distance, and naturally enough, the opinion of someone in a car that's surrounded by a ton and a half of metal is going to be different from the opinion of someone on a bike who has little protection in the event of a collision. This is not necessarily due to any bad intent on the part of the driver - it's a matter of how we assess risk. In this case however, the person on the bike's assessment of the risk is much more accurate than that of the person in the car. When you combine this with the fact that most Gardai, judges and jurors travel around in cars rather than on bikes, the safe distance need to be defined clearly and unambiguously.

Edit: The proposed passing distance for 50km/h or less is actually 1.0m as pointed out by someone else on this thread, which I think is OK, or at least better than none at all, and it makes the proposal more workable in urban areas.

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.

I don't disagree that driver education and law enforcement are much needed, and for that matter that a lot of proposed new laws are just PR.

However in this case, I do not agree that it's just a PR exercise - I think it will have a big impact, even with minimal enforcement. That's because it will force people to at least think about the fact that they are passing a soft and crunchy human being on the road, and that they may be breaking the law while doing so.

Also, bringing in the law and enforcing both it and existing ones are not mutually exclusive options - the state can do both.

cdaly_

tabby aspreme wrote: »

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

Just make sure to drill them to find a safe place to do so and not to be under pressure to get out of the way RIGHT NOW!...

cdaly_

TheChizler wrote: »

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!

Being clipped by a close passing driver is pretty rare. Being blown or frightened off course is much more common.

07Lapierre wrote: »

A better test would be to cycle a bike on a train platform less than one meter from the edge while an express train approaches you from behind...if you think your going to fall (the air pressure wave off the front of the train),remember to fall onto the platform!

I've had this happen with a bus. A dirty, wet, windy night and a bus passed too close. The bus didn't touch me but I nearly ended up coming off. In dry, calm conditions it would have been fine but the wind, combined with the air pressure wave of the bus made all the difference.

MediaMan

MediaMan wrote: »

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?

I think that just like the driving and using phones, learner drivers driving unaccompanied, etc.... not much notice will be taken of them.

odyssey06

I'd like to point out today that a driver who killed a cyclist, after breaking a red light, while driving without insurance, who has previous road traffic offences, and fled the scene... originally received only 4 years custodial sentence, and this had to be appealed...
http://www.thejournal.ie/prison-cyclist-review-extension-3254296-Feb2017/

Do we really think the overtaking at less than 1.5 metres but at a distance not currently legally considered as dangerous, is one of the main issues for cyclists in terms of safety or stress? Is it even in the Top 10 reasons why people are afraid to take up cycling? Or the Top 10 reasons for accident, death and injury of cyclists?

Let's enforce the laws we have, with proper deterrent penalties, and see what impact that has - before we start lobbing more and more laws onto the books that are nearly never enforced.
People are concerned about road safety, politicians point to the new laws when put under pressure about road safety, and use that as an excuse not to tackle the more difficult aspect which is enforcement.

Tenzor07

This unfortunate chap would have benefitted from a more attentive driver, who knocks into him with the passenger side of his car....

JayRoc

It's worrying how many drivers seem to think that you must be close enough to actually hit a cyclist in order to be a danger to them when passing close by.

odyssey06

Annie get your Run wrote: »

Because too much of our roads are given over to cars - hopefully that will change.
Seriously, get out on the road (preferably on a bike) and see what it's like time and time again to be passed by cars who don't give you an inch. You can literally feel the hatred emanating from the vehicle. Thank god not all drivers are the same though. You are talking about other human beings here, people - fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, friends, children etc. What is the issue with improving safety on our roads for people who choose to travel on two wheels instead of four??

Have I anywhere in this thread or on this forum emanated hatred towards cyclists, or encouraged cars not to give an inch or suggested that cyclists are not people? If I have, please point out the specific comment, otherwise your premise is rejected as untrue and unjustified. Please withdraw it.

Please point me to the statistics that justify this measure ... how many accidents would have been prevented by this law, as opposed to enforcement of what is already on the statute books in relation to dangerous overtaking.

We could ban all cars, that would make things safer for cyclists, we don't because it is impractical. We could reduce the speed limit to 30kmh on every road. We don't, because it is impractical.
We could ban all trucks, which would make things safer for cars, cyclists and pedestrians, but we don't...
So safety is one priority - among others, so just because something would improve safety marginally for cyclists, that does not mean it should be done.
We could put traffic lights on every junction in Dublin, it would make things safer for pedestrians, we don't and no one is proposing that we do so.

I am arguing this law is impractical and needs to be revised to be more specific. It is up to the people proposing a new law to make the case as to why it is necessary and why it needs to be so wide-ranging in scope and applicable to all roads and all situations.

Annie get your Run

odyssey06 wrote: »

Have I anywhere in this thread or on this forum emanated hatred towards cyclists, or encouraged cars not to give an inch or suggested that cyclists are not people? If I have, please point out the specific comment, otherwise your premise is rejected as untrue and unjustified. Please withdraw it.

I am referring to the hatred emanating from some motorists on the road, something I can almost feel every day I choose to commute by bike (as I clearly stated in my post). I was not referring to you so I won't be withdrawing it.

Annie get your Run

odyssey06 wrote: »

Please point me to the statistics that justify this measure ... how many accidents would have been prevented by this law, as opposed to enforcement of what is already on the statute books in relation to dangerous overtaking.

We could ban all cars, that would make things safer for cyclists, we don't because it is impractical. We could reduce the speed limit to 30kmh on every road. We don't, because it is impractical.
We could ban all trucks, which would make things safer for cars, cyclists and pedestrians, but we don't...
So safety is one priority - among others, so just because something would improve safety marginally for cyclists, that does not mean it should be done.
We could put traffic lights on every junction in Dublin, it would make things safer for pedestrians, we don't and no one is proposing that we do so.

I am arguing this law is impractical and needs to be revised to be more specific. It is up to the people proposing a new law to make the case as to why it is necessary and why it needs to be so wide-ranging in scope and applicable to all roads and all situations.

This video posted above should tell you all you need to know about why we need this law. Tease out the various scenarios by all means but bring in the law.

[/QUOTE]

MediaMan

odyssey06 wrote: »

Do we really think the overtaking at less than 1.5 metres but at a distance not currently legally considered as dangerous, is one of the main issues for cyclists in terms of safety or stress? Is it even in the Top 10 reasons why people are afraid to take up cycling? Or the Top 10 reasons for accident, death and injury of cyclists?

Absolutely yes I do and yes I think it is. Because the distance that many drivers currently think is OK is "as long as I didn't hit them" and sometimes they get it wrong and they do hit them.

Of course there are other reasons cyclists get injured or killed but the only one that's left up to the driver's judgement is the passing distance, because the law says "not too close" or something similarly vague.

odyssey06 wrote: »

Let's enforce the laws we have, with proper deterrent penalties, and see what impact that has - before we start lobbing more and more laws onto the books that are nearly never enforced.

Agree,with the enforcement thing but let's do both.

odyssey06

Annie get your Run wrote: »

I am referring to the hatred emanating from some motorists on the road, something I can almost feel every day I choose to commute by bike (as I clearly stated in my post). I was not referring to you so I won't be withdrawing it.

I've seen hatred from all road users towards all others, including cyclists towards pedestrians and drivers going about their lawful business and cyclists going about theirs.
It is not the basis for rational policy, what can be (and will be) enforced is. We have a situation today in the country where something like 40% of people caught on the roadside for drink driving escape without caution or penalty points. And we have talk of reducing the drink drive limit further, instead of catching the 39% of drivers who are currently getting away with breaking the law, closing off loopholes, tightening up followup and identification and the bench warrant process and getting the person to court etc etc
To me, this law is similar to that.

odyssey06

MediaMan wrote: »

Absolutely yes I do and yes I think it is. Because the the distance that many drivers currently think is OK is "as long as I didn't hit them" and sometimes they get it wrong and they do hit them.
Of course there are other reasons cyclists get injured or killed but the only one that's left up to the driver's judgement is the passing distance, because the law says "not too close" or something similarly vague.

If you're in a cycle lane, and a private car (not a bus or large vehicle) passes you at 50kmh without encroachment... there's no draught effect - on the basis that people have been using trains and buses as their examples of draught effects.
So, I'm saying that's a safe maneuver. Convince me otherwise.

I'm not challenging having specific overtaking distances for large vehicles (we already have many laws that apply to large vehicles specifically), or faster roads.
I'm challenging the proposal on this point.

Agree,with the enforcement thing but let's do both.

Theoretically, yes, I think politically no. Political capital and energy is limited. If it's spent on new laws, it's not going to be spent on toughening up enforcement... The serious politicians will find their time is spent bogged down in legislation... The photoshoot politicians will use the new laws as cover for not enforcing the laws that were already on the books.

Wesser

I think in theory it is a good law but it should only be applicable in cases where the cyclist is adequately lit up.

If the cyclist is not adequately lit up then it should not apply as sometimes cyclist dress all in black and are essentially invisible.

dreamerb

odyssey06 wrote: »

Do we really think the overtaking at less than 1.5 metres but at a distance not currently legally considered as dangerous, is one of the main issues for cyclists in terms of safety or stress?

Well, since you asked... close overtakes are exactly my single biggest stressor when cycling. Anything else is pretty much controllable. Bad road surface / slippy surface? Slow down / take careful line / avoid, as the case may be. Wind? Adjust cycling to take account (or, like this morning, join the wimp list). Heavy rain? Slow down / wait it out. Animals / children / zombie-peds in the area? Watch the road ahead, anticipate, adjust speed / line, be ready to brake.

If something does go wrong, including by my own misjudgement, and I come off the bike, my fall is going to be at a survivable speed.

But where a vehicle overtakes very close, there's no margin for error, mine or the driver's. The driver is not the one who'll be hurt.

MediaMan

odyssey06 wrote: »

I am arguing this law is impractical and needs to be revised to be more specific. It is up to the people proposing a new law to make the case as to why it is necessary and why it needs to be so wide-ranging in scope and applicable to all roads and all situations.

I think this is an argument that needs to be addressed by the proponents of the new law, and I think it will be addressed.

Genuine question: if not with a minimum passing distance, how would you address the situation that applies today where cyclist are passed by vehicles much too closely on an regular and ongoing basis? There is no point in saying that we should just enforce the existing laws, because that cannot be made to work when there is no definition of too close, resulting that "too close" is interpreted as "contact". I genuinely am interested in their being alternative approaches.

magicbastarder

Wesser wrote: »

I think in theory it is a good law but it should only be applicable in cases where the cyclist is adequately lit up.

If the cyclist is not adequately lit up then it should not apply as sometimes cyclist dress all in black and are essentially invisible.

you're going to fit in well around these parts.

Moflojo

Why are people getting caught up in this "draught effect" argument? It's irrelevant.

My understanding of safe passing of a cyclist was always that you'd give at least the same distance as the cyclist's height, so that if the cyclist simply tipped over sideways you'd still be likely to avoid them.

That safe distance also gives the cyclist enough room to manoeuvre if an obstruction suddenly appears in their path.

If you're close enough, and fast enough, to have a 'draught effect' on a cyclist you have already gone way beyond what is the minimum safety standard.

And while people are talking about 'specifics', let's not forget that this new standard is being proposed as the minimum passing distance. If you're close enough that there's some doubt over whether you were 1.49m or 1.5m from the cyclist, then you're probably too close.

Weepsie

I've been passed close enough that I could touch the passing car. One time when I did , the driver stopped to give out to me not realising that he was being a complete muppet.

The fact that posters don't want it as they feel it will be an inconvenience and they can't see the safety aspects says it all.

As others have noted. Nearly everything else can be controlled when out on a bike, but I can't control some idiot who thinks it's okay to basically brush past me to save themselves a second.

Eamonnator

Wesser wrote: »

I think in theory it is a good law but it should only be applicable in cases where the cyclist is adequately lit up.

If the cyclist is not adequately lit up then it should not apply as sometimes cyclist dress all in black and are essentially invisible.

Are you saying that cyclists, who dress in all black, are fair game and can be "close passed" with impunity?
Are you saying that anything, that is all black, is essentially invisible? For example: black cars!

diarmaidol

odyssey06 wrote: »

I am arguing this law is impractical and needs to be revised to be more specific. It is up to the people proposing a new law to make the case as to why it is necessary and why it needs to be so wide-ranging in scope and applicable to all roads and all situations.

The point with specific law is to remove judgment of an action being this or that. So if I was to take a court case with out this law, then I would have to prove that passing less than 1.5m is dangerous and thus against the law. However if there is a specific law as people pointed out it just needs to be proven that the overtaking breached a distance of 1.5m. A judgment can be made based on this.

Law is also applied with discretion. If I'm caught traveling at 102km/h then I'm technically breaking the law. But typically discretion would dictate that the law not be enforced as we would fill the enforcement system. However the effect is generally people tend towards the speed limits thus reducing speed from the situation as if there was none. On the whole making things safer.

The same effect can be expected with people passing cyclists.

Annie get your Run

odyssey06 wrote: »

I've seen hatred from all road users towards all others, including cyclists towards pedestrians and drivers going about their lawful business and cyclists going about theirs.
It is not the basis for rational policy, what can be (and will be) enforced is. We have a situation today in the country where something like 40% of people caught on the roadside for drink driving escape without caution or penalty points. And we have talk of reducing the drink drive limit further, instead of catching the 39% of drivers who are currently getting away with breaking the law, closing off loopholes, tightening up followup and identification and the bench warrant process and getting the person to court etc etc
To me, this law is similar to that.

I don't agree (which is fine, we are discussing our opinions here). I think it's the very basis for policy. If someone in control of a 4,000LB metal tube travelling at speed can't be counted on to behave rationally and safely towards more vulnerable road users of their own accord then it's right that laws are brought in. Ironically, if all drivers just had more respect for fellow road users there would be no need for this law but sadly many don't (that's not to take away from the ones who do). The impact of pedestrians & cyclists behaving similarly towards each other, while equally despicable, would in most cases have lesser consequences (I say most, I'm aware there has been a fatality involving a cyclist & pedestrian).

Wesser

Eamonnator wrote: »

Are you saying that cyclists, who dress in all black, are fair game and can be "close passed" with impunity?
Are you saying that anything, that is all black, is essentially invisible? For example: black cars!

No that's not what I'm saying at all and you have taken my comments and twisted them

The term fair game indicates that you have the right to go for someone. I am not advocating that at all and you are twisting my words. These cyclists should be passed with care.
However there are many cyclists who cycle without any lights or reflective gear at all on dark nights and I feel they have responsibility to.light themselves up. There was a recent thread on this forum where many posters including cyclists were posting the same thing and agreeing that cyclists should light up better.
I say this as a cyclist myself, I use two strong lights and reflective gear always.
It is very very hard to see cyclists who are not lit up on winter nights.

Black cars tend to be visible as they have their lights on.

I do , on the whole, support the new proposed law.

CruelCoin

Tenzor07 wrote: »

This unfortunate chap would have benefitted from a more attentive driver, who knocks into him with the passenger side of his car....

From what i can see, no contact was made, and just before he came off he even swerved towards the car.

He got a fright, panicked and came off. Car didn't touch him.

HivemindXX

Here is a case that always comes to my mind when the subject of safe passing distance comes up.

http://irishcycle.com/2013/12/11/gardai-refuse-to-fine-driver-who-hit-cyclist-says-mother/

This is a situation where a driver hit and injured a cyclist but the guards refused to even fine them, apparently because it can't be dangerous driving if you aren't going fast and so long as he didn't mean to do it there is no offence. This basically means that drivers can skim past cyclists at high speed and very close and if they hit one then, sure, it was just a misjudgement.

It is not every week, or even every month, but a few times a year I get passed at speed by someone giving me less than half a meter. It is a fact that these drivers are endangering me, a minor misjudgement by them has major consequences for me, and the fact that if they did hit me they would get to claim they just 'misjudged the distance' or that I 'must have swerved' sickens me. I don't actually expect much, if any, enforcement of this law, but I would consider it a positive effect if any time a driver knocks down a cyclist while overtaking they have to explain how they could possibly have done so while also giving the required amount of space.

Tenzor07

CruelCoin wrote: »

From what i can see, no contact was made, and just before he came off he even swerved towards the car.
He got a fright, panicked and came off. Car didn't touch him.

Sorry but that's complete BS!