Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

odyssey06

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Don't just say it's cyclists that need to have their use of the road monitored/enforced.
It is also the law that there is no road side parking (non marked spaces) where there is a continuous white line on the road, or within 10m of a junction, but motorists do both all the time. Result - endangering other road users.
Little or no enforcement ..

Look back at my earlier comments on drink drivers etc - I've also said I think we should try better enforcement of what we already have before we bring in a new law and you have listed perfect example of laws we already have that are not being enforced.

But if it is going to come in come hell or high water, then I think the amendments above are a good idea.

Chips Lovell

If there's a continuous white lane, you won't be able to overtake anyone without crossing it on pretty much every road.

CramCycle

odyssey06 wrote: »

Yes... and no. In that I understand the general argument in its favour but I don't understand why the specific limitations noted above would unduly impact them.

For example, it's been noted here that it's quicker to overtake 20 cyclists in 10x2 than 20x1.
Right, but not if the road isn't wide enough to allow you to safely overtake 2 cyclists, either because of the width of the road or the presence of a continuous white line.
So what's the issue with restricting the right to cycle two abreast where it impedes a car's ability to safely overtake?

Mainly because the difference in width of two cyclist versus one cyclist is not much more than 0.5m. It is just that psychologically it looks like alot more. Basically this means that motorists without experience of either cycling or good perception, think that overtaking one cyclist is far easier than two, but when doing it safely, there is very little difference. Therefore you get clearly uninformed or unskilled drivers attempting unsafe overtakes with single file cyclists that they would not risk with cyclists riding two abreast.

TL: DR, if you cannot safely overtake cyclists riding two abreast, then you in almost every scenario, cannot safely overtake a cyclist riding in single file, even though you may think you can.

Lumen wrote: »

Are there many (any?) roads where it is safe to overtake a single cyclist in the same lane?

Motorways :pac:

PraxisPete

Lumen wrote: »

Are there many (any?) roads where it is safe to overtake a single cyclist in the same lane?

All along the canal from Crumlin to Baggot Street is one example where you have a lot of car and cycle traffic.

CramCycle

odyssey06 wrote: »

Look back at my earlier comments on drink drivers etc - I've also said I think we should try better enforcement of what we already have before we bring in a new law and you have listed perfect example of laws we already have that are not being enforced.

But if it is going to come in come hell or high water, then I think the amendments above are a good idea.

Like most Irish laws, it isn't there for enforcement until we invest in Garda numbers. Until then it is a band aid for the courts to have better ground to stand on.

CramCycle

PraxisPete wrote: »

All along the canal from Crumlin to Baggot Street is one example where you have a lot of car and cycle traffic.

Considering how many near misses I see on that stretch whenever I use it, safe is not the word I would use. Statistically survivable would be better.

odyssey06

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

If there's a continuous white lane, you won't be able to overtake anyone without crossing it on pretty much every road.

If that is the case (and I'm not 100% sure that it is) ... then there should be no objection to the condition, it can join all the other dead laws on the books

TheChizler

CramCycle wrote: »

Motorways :pac:

Not even! Maybe where they widen for tolls...

PraxisPete

CramCycle wrote: »

Considering how many near misses I see on that stretch whenever I use it, safe is not the word I would use. Statistically survivable would be better.

So what would you suggest happening along that stretch where one side of the road is at a complete standstill in the morning and the other in the evening? No cars on one side at all?

07Lapierre

PraxisPete wrote: »

So what would you suggest happening along that stretch where one side of the road is at a complete standstill in the morning and the other in the evening? No cars on one side at all?

Correct! A ban on private cars is already being proposed for the quays along the Liffey.

mrcheez

Annie get your Run wrote: »

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.

I noticed this as well! I thought it was drivers "feeling bad for me" that I had to cycle in high winds.

Only one or two passed close by.. evidently they weren't listening to the radio/news


I also notice that I get more aggressive approaches on the road whenever George Hook is babbling on too.

PraxisPete

07Lapierre wrote: »

Correct! A ban on private cars is already being proposed for the quays along the Liffey.

Makes sense along the Liffey but Crumlin, Rathmines, Terenure and Dublin 8 are densely populated residential areas. The canal is a main artery for commuters and if all of that traffic was directed through those areas which also have roads that are often much narrower there would be chaos.

Pinch Flat

PraxisPete wrote: »

Makes sense along the Liffey but Crumlin, Rathmines, Terenure and Dublin 8 are densely populated residential areas. The canal is a main artery for commuters and if all of that traffic was directed through those areas which also have roads that are often much narrower there would be chaos.

What, you mean all these areas flow freely at the moment?

07Lapierre

PraxisPete wrote: »

Makes sense along the Liffey but Crumlin, Rathmines, Terenure and Dublin 8 are densely populated residential areas. The canal is a main artery for commuters and if all of that traffic was directed through those areas which also have roads that are often much narrower there would be chaos.

I agree... in a perfect world we would have a cheap reliable public transport system, which would encourage people to leave their private cars at home. But that's not the case in Ireland. It's far from ideal, but banning private cars from urban areas is/will happen.

07Lapierre

PraxisPete wrote: »

Makes sense along the Liffey but Crumlin, Rathmines, Terenure and Dublin 8 are densely populated residential areas. The canal is a main artery for commuters and if all of that traffic was directed through those areas which also have roads that are often much narrower there would be chaos.

There are schools in Crumlin,Terenure etc.?
Here's a thought: http://www.bikeradar.com/beginners/gear/article/ban-cars-school-run-49230/

timmy_mallet

What really baffles and worries me about this whole 'debate' - is that drivers are unwilling to make the road safer for other users, completely unwilling, unless those that the law aims to protect are willing to give some concession. It's utterly strange.

odyssey06

timmy_mallet wrote: »

What really baffles and worries me about this whole 'debate' - is that drivers are unwilling to make the road safer for other users, completely unwilling, unless those that the law aims to protect are willing to give some concession. It's utterly strange.

And what are you doing to make things safer for pedestrians, or urging other cyclists to do?

Pinch Flat

timmy_mallet wrote: »

What really baffles and worries me about this whole 'debate' - is that drivers are unwilling to make the road safer for other users, completely unwilling, unless those that the law aims to protect are willing to give some concession. It's utterly strange.

Don't under estimate the power of car dependency. There's people who would gladly sit in a car for an hour to travel 5km rather than cycle / walk or use public transport.

I met someone at a social event recently - drove daily from milltown to the city centre, virtually parallel to the Luas. I was surprised he didn't get it - he was bemoaning the car journey. His reason? Well, you're not guaranteed a seat on the LUAS.

CramCycle

PraxisPete wrote: »

So what would you suggest happening along that stretch where one side of the road is at a complete standstill in the morning and the other in the evening? No cars on one side at all?

Not a bad idea. Have traffic one way only, or if possible, switch direction at a certain time of the day. Road bollards on the road. Begin rising at 2pm, lower to let traffic out, switch direction, and lower bollards again for the rest of the evening. Make it single lane only, with the other lane being for buses only. Leave the bollards on the bus lane and give buses a signal to lower on approach. Any driver who gets stranded, faces a 300euro fine plus a repair bill and call out charge to whoever needs to get them down.

PraxisPete wrote: »

Makes sense along the Liffey but Crumlin, Rathmines, Terenure and Dublin 8 are densely populated residential areas. The canal is a main artery for commuters and if all of that traffic was directed through those areas which also have roads that are often much narrower there would be chaos.

If proper support for commuters was put in place then it would not be chocker block. At many times of day it is quicker to bus into the city centre and walk out or bus out. Horrible network but usable, only that you have to pay two fares, so no one will, as driving can be cheaper, rather than a point to point, cheaper fare that can be reconciled with very simple software for billing via Leap. that info could finally be used to design sustainable bus routes.

timmy_mallet

odyssey06 wrote: »

timmy_mallet wrote: »

What really baffles and worries me about this whole 'debate' - is that drivers are unwilling to make the road safer for other users, completely unwilling, unless those that the law aims to protect are willing to give some concession. It's utterly strange.

And what are you doing to make things safer for pedestrians, or urging other cyclists to do?

Nothing (and not sure why the whataboutery is relevant or why I should), but if cycling too close or some-other request to cyclists to refrain from some behaviour would make pedestrians safer, I would do it, and wouldn't request some other concession from them to comply.

CramCycle

odyssey06 wrote: »

And what are you doing to make things safer for pedestrians, or urging other cyclists to do?

What do you mean "you"? Statistically, both groups cause little danger to each other. There are already laws in place to deal with badly behaved cyclists, bar enforcement from more Gardai, and better education via the RSA, there is nothing else to be done there.

I call out cyclists who run pedestrian junctions, at least they can hear me, cars who do it can't hear me and won't as they are. Both are d1cks, one is more likely to kill than the other, but unless enforcement is brought up a notch, there is nothing "I" can do unless you want me to risk assault with a citizens arrest.

07Lapierre

odyssey06 wrote: »

And what are you doing to make things safer for pedestrians, or urging other cyclists to do?

"I" don't cycle on the footpath and use lights at night. Not sure what else "I" can do?

CramCycle

I wear all black, all of the time, I am like a middle aged version of Batman, just without, you know, any of the things that make him interesting. Except for the black bit. Sometimes when I am cycling I make car noises, and make fake skid noises as I slow down to stop at a red light.

This said the cape was a bad idea, but I might bring it back if this minimum overtake thing takes off.

magicbastarder

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Don't under estimate the power of car dependency. There's people who would gladly sit in a car for an hour to travel 5km rather than cycle / walk or use public transport.

or even just walk. during the bus strikes last year, someone posted on the commuting forum asking for an alternative way to get from ballymun to the city centre. the suggestion to walk was met with a reaction along the lines of 'are you ****ing kidding me?' (not phrased quite like that).

we live beside DCU and my wife has often walked into work in the city centre. it's actually not considerably longer than a bus commute at rush hour.

Pinch Flat

magicbastarder wrote: »

or even just walk. during the bus strikes last year, someone posted on the commuting forum asking for an alternative way to get from ballymun to the city centre. the suggestion to walk was met with a reaction along the lines of 'are you ****ing kidding me?' (not phrased quite like that).

we live beside DCU and my wife has often walked into work in the city centre. it's actually not considerably longer than a bus commute at rush hour.

In the really bad snow there a few years ago, I worked with a fella who insisted on driving the 4km from home to work - the roads were in a mess and it frequently took him 2 hours plus. He left work then at 3pm to "Beat the traffic".

I walked it door to door in 40 mins. He thought I was crazy, spending 4 hours plus a day travelling 8km sounded crazier to me.

Corca Baiscinn

magicbastarder wrote: »

are you 7 foot tall?

Ooops.....I misremembered my mother's axiom, she was a dress-maker and used to say that from the breastbone to the tips of the fingers was approximately a yard, so no I'm not 7' tall!

However, I logged on to make a more serious point. Seemingly Ciaran Cannon has had a horrendously negative public reaction to his MPDL Bill and is in need of support from cyclists by lobbying constituency TD's and welcoming it on mainstream and social media. I did see all the negative comments on the Indo and the Journal but I assumed that the posters were the usual keyboard warriors and thought that any sane motorist would welcome it. Seemingly not, so could all of you here who are supportive rally your friends and fellow cyclists and let Ciaran know he has support but more importantly get the word out to your TD' and.if you belong to a club or a campaign maybe get a press release out to your local media and use FB and twitter in support

Kaisr Sose

Turkeys would not vote for Christmas, so it's no wonder drivers are anti any law that would make them think twice about overtaking of a cyclist and whether it can be done legally and safely.

Keyboard warriors are just that...!

MediaMan

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

However, I logged on to make a more serious point. Seemingly Ciaran Cannon has had a horrendously negative public reaction to his MPDL Bill and is in need of support from cyclists by lobbying constituency TD's and welcoming it on mainstream and social media. I did see all the negative comments on the Indo and the Journal but I assumed that the posters were the usual keyboard warriors and thought that any sane motorist would welcome it. Seemingly not, so could all of you here who are supportive rally your friends and fellow cyclists and let Ciaran know he has support but more importantly get the word out to your TD' and.if you belong to a club or a campaign maybe get a press release out to your local media and use FB and twitter in support

This is the main reason that I raised this topic in the first place. I expect a lot of resistance to this proposal, and therefore effort will be needed by those who support it help it along. So if you support this proposal - do what you need to do!

tomasrojo

timmy_mallet wrote: »

What really baffles and worries me about this whole 'debate' - is that drivers are unwilling to make the road safer for other users, completely unwilling, unless those that the law aims to protect are willing to give some concession. It's utterly strange.

Yes, I can understand objections to the minimum passing law on grounds of enforcement and practicality, though I might not agree with them. But the "fairness" argument, the notion that, effectively, people who drive need a "concession" from people who cycle before they'll make a "concession" ...

#inconvenienceequalisation as the Road Sofa Authority has it.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

we live beside DCU and my wife has often walked into work in the city centre. it's actually not considerably longer than a bus commute at rush hour.

O'Brien Press had a decent enough book about the 1913 Lock-Out, and it mentioned how people from Inchicore couldn't get to the city centre because of the tram strike. Obviously people with mobility issues would be severely affected, but that's not a REALLY long walk. Not sure whether the author was accurately reflecting the feeling from 1913, or whether they were projecting modern sensibilities backwards.

tomasrojo

Bit about Sean O'Rourke's radio spot:

http://irishcycle.com/2017/02/23/forget-cyclists-think-humans-passing-distance-law-idea-gets-irrational-reaction/

(This chimes with my very limited exposure to his opinions on walking and cycling, hi-vizism included.)

(EDIT: The comments went Godwin in two posts.)

patrickbrophy18

The proposal is nice, in theory. However, in practical terms, it will be very difficult to enforce. Here are some points:

• There needs to be a radical change in culture between all groups of road users before we can even think of bringing in this law. The most important traits which come to mind are respect and honesty:
  • Respect: I've seen far too many cases where people (myself included) single out one or more road user groups when all groups have their fair share of bad eggs.
  • Honesty: Be it motorist, cyclists, pedestrian or skater, there are plenty in each of these groups who think the rules don't apply to them either because of a sense of entitlement or otherwise.
  
  
• Much of the infrastructure nationwide is deplorable and is completely riddled with flaws resulting in members of each road user group fighting for space. From potholes to a lack of footpaths and the classic lick of paint and calling it a cycle lane to poor permeability, each are very frustrating to road users who encounter them.

magicbastarder

was talking to a garda (who is also a qualified barrister) earlier. he scoffed at the idea of the law; he reckons it's unenforceable and is inaction dressed up as action.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

was talking to a garda (who is also a qualified barrister) earlier. he scoffed at the idea of the law; he reckons it's unenforceable and is inaction dressed up as action.

100% right but, and its terrible we are legislating for after the fact, but it gives judges and others a definitive line rather than an opinion. It should not be needed but that is how idiotic our judicial system is.

Kaisr Sose

On my short 40km cycle today, I witnessed the usual silly overtakes ( on bends/ /blind sections / with on coming traffic) and general close passes. Nothing will change until the law comes in but then enforcement is a key issue. No contact, no harm will still apply for many.

If all cyclists had cameras it would cetainly help. I would not see An Garda refusing camera evidence. Where there is no contact, it's the only way to determine behaviour.

Now to petition for fly12/6 or similar to be eligible purchases under the C2W scheme. If a hi-vis jacket is safety equipment then so should a camera...

magicbastarder

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I would not see An Garda refusing camera evidence.

this is one of the issues i discussed with the garda above earlier; generally, by design, such cameras tend to be wide angle and it's often very difficult to judge exact distances in them; it's only in unusually clear cut cases that the evidence would be usable.
couple that with the fact that the garda traffic corps is operating at just over half its peak staffing levels, makes such cases difficult to justify following up.

this is a garda who is quite sympathetic to cyclists; we also briefly discussed the cycle lane issue, with the 'explanatory note' problem; his attitude is that the explanatory note has no bearing in law, but simultaneously makes it impossible to apply.

Kaisr Sose

Our policing resources in general is a serious cause of concern. With the economy on the bounce, substantial resources and money should be thrown at policing. While the HSE is the basket case of black hole budgeting and spending, policing would offer a significant return above the spend.

Moving on, I posted this link earlier but it may have been missed in the thread as it was moving onto new pages quickly.

https://cycliq.com/blogs/74-74-west-midlands-police-use-cycliq-cameras-in-much-praised-operation-close-pass

It shows that where there is a will by police to embrace camera footage, it can prove dangerous driving.

AndrewJRenko

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is one of the issues i discussed with the garda above earlier; generally, by design, such cameras tend to be wide angle and it's often very difficult to judge exact distances in them; it's only in unusually clear cut cases that the evidence would be usable.
couple that with the fact that the garda traffic corps is operating at just over half its peak staffing levels, makes such cases difficult to justify following up.

If the cyclist can reach out and tap the wing mirror or window during the overtake, ideally on camera, then the car is clearly <1.5m away.

And it won't be that long before there is an easy version of the nearmissometer or similar devices available at low cost.

magicbastarder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If the cyclist can reach out and tap the wing mirror or window during the overtake, ideally on camera, then the car is clearly <1.5m away.

if i'm being passed by a bus eireann bus with about two foot to spare (which has happened), the very, very, very last thing that is on my mind is 'oh, i could reach up and tap his wing mirror'. one reason being is that i don't have the reflexes of batman. and another reason being that a camera will not catch this manouevre; main't because it'll be happening 90 degrees to the direction of travel, and cameras aren't *that* wide, unless helmet mounted.

TheChizler

Plus the very real risk of causing yourself to fall over.

CramCycle

When I did use a camera, the grates on the road provided more than ample reference for the camera to get an accurate distance. One BE gave me less than 40cm. My handlebars are 38cm and my elbow touched the bus. Thankfully I was able to skim the edge of the pavement and did not come off. BE denied the incident and there own footage was not recoverable. Another company, done similar, gave me about 70cm but I was OK. Driver apologised, and said he thought it was enough. His trainer on the bus informed me he was a cyclist and it was plenty of space. I preferred the driver to his trainer who should be banned from driving, let alone training.

Higher fines thrown straight into a department that focused solely on analysing dashcams and helmet cams, as well as investment in red light cameras with ANPR.

Kaisr Sose

Nailed above by CramCycle.

It's amazing how dashcam footage disappears when there is a complaint made. Claims of technical issues etc. It's just deleted as a defence. As is said, "no contact, no harm"

The absence of red light cameras in this country baffles me. Hardly new tech!! These are the only things that will stop red light running - you can't have a Garda at every junction 24/7 but with these you can and there is no overtime payable!! They could also get the untaxed, uninsured and non nxt' vehicles too.

Any investment in safety infrastructure would save lives but instead the money is all spent on awareness campaigns by the almost not fit for purpose RSA. Somebody described it as the Road Sofa Association here. Funny and quite apt!. It costs a lot and takes a long time to change human behaviour. Forcing a behaviour change through enforcement measures would deliver a quicker and better outcome.

AndrewJRenko

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Nailed above by CramCycle.

It's amazing how dashcam footage disappears when there is a complaint made. Claims of technical issues etc. It's just deleted as a defence. As is said, "no contact, no harm"

I wonder if you'd be better off submitting an FOI claim for the camera footage before submitting the complaint?

Kaisr Sose

FOI requests only apply to bodies covered by the legislation - it does not apply to private motorists, coach or haulage companies. Where it does apply (and I am not sure if video footage is covered by the legislation) digital files may be deleted before the request is made or information supplied following a request. How can you prove a negative?

AndrewJRenko

Sorry, I should have said Data Protection, not FOI. You are entitled to a copy of any video footage that you feature in, and this applies to public and private bodies.

Kaisr Sose

Good point. My hunch would be its deleted on receipt of request if it's not going to help them...just a hunch but people change stories and make things up so why would they want to keep a record of what actually happened? In any event, there is no law that say they must keep it. At least with own footage, you have a reasonably good chance of preserving a record.

MediaMan

Even if there are enforcement issues, we should still have the law, if the law reflects the needed behaviour, which it does in my view. It will change the behaviour of many even if enforced poorly.

As mentioned previously, it will also shift the burden of proof when there is an incident.

Should we get rid of the law on red light jumping because it is not being enforced properly?

Tenzor07

MediaMan wrote: »

Should we get rid of the law on red light jumping because it is not being enforced properly?

add to that casual speeding and driving in the bus lane which aren't really enforced due to the lack of Gards to physically catch people...

magicbastarder

well, considering the bus (and cycle) lane outside my local garda station has cars parked permanently in it, i doubt it's lack of gardai available which is the issue there.

Kaisr Sose

Like magicbaatsrder, I have seen some woeful "enforcement/policing" by AGS right under their noses!! Would be like taking candy from a baby but they drive on....(routine patrol by the way)