Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

Eamonnator

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.

As far as I can see, the mirror of the car struck the cyclist.

Eamonnator

Wesser wrote: »

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.

I didn't twist anything.
I asked 2 simple questions!

07Lapierre

Tenzor07 wrote: »

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

Classic example of a motorist being too impatient to wait a few seconds to ensure he/she can overtake a cyclist safely.

odyssey06

Moflojo wrote: »

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.

In case the cyclist simply tipped over? I see where you are going, mathematically, but is that a likely scenario?

They could tip over to the left and hit a lamppost or railing on the footpath side... And no way are cyclists giving that much gap when overtaking pedestrians in shared spaces, in case they tipped over and clothes lined them!
So we if we need a minimum 1.5m for cars overtaking cyclists, then we need the same for cyclists overtaking pedestrians - or undertaking cars?

I get the point about having maneuvering space to avoid X, and ideally yes, but we don't have the road space... on a national road for example, a hard shoulder would enhance safety to allow vehicles to avoid sudden incidents or obstacles ahead (e.g. collision, animal), but we just don't have the road space.
Where we do have the road space the cycle lane should be widened to have maneuvering space.

Weepsie

HivemindXX wrote: »

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.

I don't think this can be given as a defence. Bicycles by their nature should be expect to have lateral motion on the road. I'm sure it came up in a court case years ago where the judge said so much.

07Lapierre

odyssey06 wrote: »

In case the cyclist simply tipped over? I see where you are going, mathematically, but is that a likely scenario?

.

You don't cycle much do you?

odyssey06

MediaMan wrote: »

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.

Will this law rely on the visual judgement of a Garda that a vehicle travelling at speed was within 1 or 1.5 metres of the bicycle? Will the Garda be getting special cameras?
If a driver is in court and his solicitor asks the Garda from across the room to determine if two objects at the other end of the court are or are not within 1 or 1.5 metres, how do you think the average Garda will fare?

How is that a big improvement on relying on the professional judgement of a Garda that a vehicle overtook another vehicle (car or bike) in a dangerous manner?
Now, the driver is in court and the solicitor asks the Garda, was my client, in your professional opinion as a Garda, overtaking in a dangerous manner, our Garda says, "Yes."

At 50kph if you're overtaking and you're at least an arms length from the cycle lane markings, how is that a dangerous maneuver?
Or more dangerous (to yourself or others) than any maneuver one is likely to make travelling at 50kph in the vicinity of cyclists, including having to cross an unbroken white line to move partly onto the other side of the road to overtake a cyclist with a 1.5 metre gap...

Weepsie

odyssey06 wrote: »

In case the cyclist simply tipped over? I see where you are going, mathematically, but is that a likely scenario?

They could tip over to the left and hit a lamppost or railing on the footpath side... And no way are cyclists giving that much gap when overtaking pedestrians in shared spaces, in case they tipped over and clothes lined them!
So we if we need a minimum 1.5m for cars overtaking cyclists, then we need the same for cyclists overtaking pedestrians - or undertaking cars?

I get the point about having maneuvering space to avoid X, and ideally yes, but we don't have the road space... on a national road for example, a hard shoulder would enhance safety to allow vehicles to avoid sudden incidents or obstacles ahead (e.g. collision, animal), but we just don't have the road space.
Where we do have the road space the cycle lane should be widened to have maneuvering space.

No. Doesn't deserve a response as it's silly, but I will. If undertaking a car or passing a pedestrian, the speeds are not the same as those the car overtaking the cyclist is at. The cyclist remains the vulnerable road user in the latter situation too.

Also, bikes can pass on the left with a few notable exceptions, so what you call undertaking is not in fact undertaking at all.

odyssey06

Weepsie wrote: »

No. Doesn't deserve a response as it's silly, but I will. If undertaking a car or passing a pedestrian, the speeds are not the same as those the car overtaking the cyclist is at. The cyclist remains the vulnerable road user in the latter situation too.
Also, bikes can pass on the left with a few notable exceptions, so what you call undertaking is not in fact undertaking at all.

Apparently it's likely (based on earlier comments) that a cyclist will unexpectedly tip over as a car is overtaking it on the right presumably due to debris or pothole, but we don't need to consider that the cyclist will tip over as it is undertaking a car on its right, even though the roadspace is just as likely to contain debris or pothole regardless of whether it is an over or undertaking situation ... Either the cyclist needs the space or they don't.

Bikes are permitted to pass on the left\undertake in certain circumstances (or rather are not permitted to in certain cases) - it's permitted undertaking but still, it is undertaking.

As for overtaking a pedestrian, pedestrians are clearly vulnerable to direct injury by cyclists, so I don't see how it can be justified to state that the cyclist is "the vulnerable road user". Both are.

Weepsie

odyssey06 wrote: »

Apparently it's likely (based on earlier comments) that a cyclist will unexpectedly tip over as a car is overtaking it on the right presumably due to debris or pothole, but we don't need to consider that the cyclist will tip over as it is undertaking a car on its right, even though the roadspace is just as likely to contain debris or pothole regardless of whether it is an over or undertaking situation ... Either the cyclist needs the space or they don't.

Bikes are permitted to pass on the left\undertake in certain circumstances (or rather are not permitted to in certain cases) - it's permitted undertaking but still, it is undertaking.

As for overtaking a pedestrian, pedestrians are clearly vulnerable to direct injury by cyclists, so I don't see how it can be justified to state that the cyclist is "the vulnerable road user". Both are.

No passing, on the left and undertaking are two different things

Weepsie

odyssey06 wrote: »

Apparently it's likely (based on earlier comments) that a cyclist will unexpectedly tip over as a car is overtaking it on the right presumably due to debris or pothole, but we don't need to consider that the cyclist will tip over as it is undertaking a car on its right, even though the roadspace is just as likely to contain debris or pothole regardless of whether it is an over or undertaking situation ... Either the cyclist needs the space or they don't.

Bikes are permitted to pass on the left\undertake in certain circumstances (or rather are not permitted to in certain cases) - it's permitted undertaking but still, it is undertaking.

As for overtaking a pedestrian, pedestrians are clearly vulnerable to direct injury by cyclists, so I don't see how it can be justified to state that the cyclist is "the vulnerable road user". Both are.

A cyclist was killed last year by a pedestrian. They're both likely to get injured to be honest. A driver hitting a cyclist or pedestrian is likely to be grand

TheChizler

Weepsie wrote: »

No passing, on the left and undertaking are two different things

Both can potentially involve dead people...

Edit: Not the first as much but had to slot the joke in there...

odyssey06

Weepsie wrote: »

A cyclist was killed last year by a pedestrian. They're both likely to get injured to be honest. A driver hitting a cyclist or pedestrian is likely to be grand

I don't imagine either cyclist or pedestrian coming off scot free in a collision, and it'd be a russian roulette as to who would come off worse... it's not a roll of the dice I'd like to take my chances in as a pedestrian.
There would be some exceptional situations where a driver hitting anything is in trouble, e.g. at motorway speeds, even a pigeon-sized bird hitting windscreen can do it. But yeah, I take your general point.

AndrewJRenko

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.

Do you have trouble seeing pedestrians crossing the road if they're wearing black? I agree with need for lights in hours of darkness, but we need to move away from the RSA/Gardai fetish for wrapping every man/woman/child in the country in hi-vis.

Corca Baiscinn

odyssey06 wrote: »

Will this law rely on the visual judgement of a Garda that a vehicle travelling at speed was within 1 or 1.5 metres of the bicycle? Will the Garda be getting special cameras?(Quote)

In the case of an overtake on a rural road for example we know the width. Ciaran Cannon explained on S O' R yesterday that if at least half the car does not cross the white line, then it's clear taht the driver is not giving the MPD. Gardai may well get special sensors in time, they are being trialled in other countries. In the meantime there is visual observation and/or cyclist cameras.

(Quote) How is that a big improvement on relying on the professional judgement of a Garda that a vehicle overtook another vehicle (car or bike) in a dangerous manner? (Quote)
It is an improvement because it will give a more precise measure and a better guideline to drivers of what they need to aim for when overtaking

Quote)At 50kph if you're overtaking and you're at least an arms length from the cycle lane markings, how is that a dangerous maneuver?(Quote)

It isn't, a metre (or roughly arm's length) is exactly what's proposed in 50kmp zones

Kaisr Sose

Interesting way of the Police proving a close pass from our neighbours

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

Having had a motorist drive their car at me with a view to forcing me off the road (at best) I would love to have footage of it to have the driver prosecuted. Any law which would lead to questions as to why a motorist was so close (inside a prescribed legal distance) to a cyclist is absolutely essential. Even in the UK, they accept their law is not clear enough.

Donal55

Hard to believe that Paul Williams and George Hook are right.

odyssey06

On the standard two car wide rural road that is a good rule of thumb re: half the car... I am just not sure it scales up to the random sized roads in urban locations, or scales down to boreen level where there there is no dividing line.

Having a line to guide by is helpful... which is why I keep using cycle lanes in my scenario.

I think the average arms length is two thirds of a metre, so not quite the full metre ... which is what I would have in my head as my minimum passing distance on built up urban roads.

odyssey06

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Interesting way of the Police proving a close pass from our neighbours

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

Having had a motorist drive their car at me with a view to forcing me off the road (at best) I would love to have footage of it to have the driver prosecuted. Any law which would lead to questions as to why a motorist was so close (inside a prescribed legal distance) to a cyclist is absolutely essential. Even in the UK, they accept their law is not clear enough.

What the driver did, if as described, breaks at least two laws on the statute books today. If you had footage of the incident, why wouldnt it be enough to secure a prosecution for what is a more serious offence?

magicbastarder

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

It isn't, a metre (or roughly arm's length) is exactly what's proposed in 50kmp zones

are you 7 foot tall?

flatface

I think this law would have a big impact if successfully introduced. As many have pointed out here being overtaken close especially at speed is particularly frightening. I really don't think if many drivers experienced it for themselves they would drive in the same manner at all.

I have had close passes a few times by disgruntled road users punishing me for my road position or whatever - this law will probably not change the Crazies out there - luckily they are rare enough.

Many times though it's joe blogs who encounters a cyclist out in front and has a choice between slowing down and squeezing past in the available road space. Many people will just go for it, rather than have to slow, even if it means squeezing past closer than they would normally do in order to stay within the white line and / or avoid oncoming traffic. It's scary as hell hearing someone approach from behind and seeing oncoming traffic, you almost wince from the expected rushed close pass.

I think the law would effect the decision making in this case, it's acceptable and appropriate to slow down and do a proper overtake. Most people think they are great drivers and are sticklers for their perception of the rules.

Enforcement or not I think it will dramatically help.

magicbastarder

flatface wrote: »

I think this law would have a big impact if successfully introduced. As many have pointed out here being overtaken close especially at speed is particularly frightening.
...
Enforcement or not I think it will dramatically help.

this is the issue though. unless cyclists start carrying cameras as standard kit, 99 times out of 100, it'll be your word against theirs.
while not unwelcome, i'd welcome enforcement of existing, easier to police, laws more than this.
the gardai are probably just throwing their hands up at this.

robyntmorton

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is the issue though. unless cyclists start carrying cameras as standard kit, 99 times out of 100, it'll be your word against theirs.
while not unwelcome, i'd welcome enforcement of existing, easier to police, laws more than this.
the gardai are probably just throwing their hands up at this.

That's it right there. I don't want to be one of those cyclists who feels the need to record everything that moves. I fear it will get to the point where I have to be though.

Kaisr Sose

odyssey06 wrote: »

What the driver did, if as described, breaks at least two laws on the statute books today. If you had footage of the incident, why wouldnt it be enough to secure a prosecution for what is a more serious offence?

It would be, but I don't have it so its my word against theirs. That's not robust enough to secure a conviction. It's the "no contact, no harm" in play. It was 100% deliberate and also in a cycle lane...really close pass. Had I not space on my left, I was into the kerb and maybe under the car.

Lemming

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.

I'm sorry to all and sundry that I am about to play the poster and not the ball, but there is a point so please bear with me.

Tabby; do you have a full drivers license? Can we assume that you have been deemed qualified to operate a motor vehicle unsupervised, and deemed capable of determining when it is safe to proceed on a road due to conditions in front of you, be they environmental or other traffic? What's your confusion about encountering a cyclist on a narrow country road? Would you overtake them if there was traffic coming the other way, regardless of the 1.5m proposal? Would you have to move your vehicle to take ownership of both sides of the road in order ot effect an overtake regarless of the 1.5m proposal? Most likely. So what's your complaint exactly? Because it's moot and you're making up something to complain about that you have to do anyway.

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

Other traffic pulling over is a courtesy, not an expectation. You should still be able to - as a fully qualified driver - confidently execute an overtaking manouvre when safe to do so regardless of whether or not you are extended such a courtesy.

Much of this moaning about overtaking shows up how woefully oblivious a sizeable portion of drivers are in general towards driving conditions and other traffic.

There are, however, times where sticking to the letter of the law would render normal traffic operation illegal - most notably in urban areas, not rural where on narrow roads a driver would have to move over to overtake anyway, and truth be told I have my misgivings about the application of this proposed legislation, if not the proposal itself. There would need to be latitude for an application of common sense to make it work; as if it is shown to be unworkable in some circumstances, the Gardai will get fed up with it and not bother, and the general population will get fed up with it also and it'll all just fall apart.

flatface

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is the issue though. unless cyclists start carrying cameras as standard kit, 99 times out of 100, it'll be your word against theirs.
while not unwelcome, i'd welcome enforcement of existing, easier to police, laws more than this.
the gardai are probably just throwing their hands up at this.

That's not my point though. Yes it is hard to prove your word against theirs in many cases of law breaking, unless you have a witness - this law may make it no easier to prosecute. But I think the law will effect behaviour and thus reduce the occurrence of incidents in the first place

onmebike

I had my first cycle this morning since the publicity on Wednesday and noticed more good overtakes than usual. I cycle to work early (leaving home by 6:30) so roads are relatively quiet, but there was a noticeable amount of cars giving me a good berth by swinging wide of me.

There were still a couple that squeezed me because they couldn't manage slowing down for 3 seconds to let a car on the other side of the road pass. Hopefully as awareness spreads, this will all become less common.

CramCycle

Same here, most cars gave alot more space.

1bryan

Is the conversation about how enforceable this proposed law is, somewhat moot? I'm not privy to how laws are passed, the discussion that goes into it, etc, but I can't imagine any law was ever refused on the basis that it would be hard to enforce. With the amount of loopholes and red-tape in the system at the moment, isn't every law hard to enforce? (enforce = the ease with which to secure a prosecution for).

Surely the idea behind introducing a law is to dictate to people the rights and wrongs? Like, people speed, people break traffic lights, etc, but far less people do so than would be the case were there not a law prohibiting such actions.

If introducing this law meant that, say, 80% of (good and fair-minded) people adhered to it, then aren't we, as cyclists, far better off than if it does not get introduced?

People adhere to laws, not out of fear of prosecution, but out of fear of inconvenience. If I think it's unlikely I'll get prosecuted for breaking a law, but that I'll end up in the courts having to fight my corner, that's deterrent enough for me.

As regards how practical it is, that's also a separate argument, and also irrelevant to whether or not it should be introduced.

All in my opinion, of course.

Leroy42

It is not just about enforcement though.

If there is an accident, the car driver now carries a certain weight of evidence to prove they were within the law, i.e can sufficient room when they passed.

Of course having a camera will help, but based on the evidence given by the parties, if for example a person is knocked off their bike by a passing car overtaking them, that is pretty hard for the driver to make a case that they were giving more than enough room. They now need to lie about it. Much harder to lie than simply not have to say anything as there was no law.

Will it stop it completely? No, no law does. Will it lead to a reduction, yes I think so. And based on that it's a good rule. Start preaching this to all new drivers (well everyone) and in time it will become more like the rest of Europe.