Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

Options
12357…22

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Fian
    Registered Users Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭Fian


    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.

    I don't agree, i think contact was made.

    Leaving that aside is the point you are making that this video demonstrates that it is very dangerous to pass close to a cyclist without making contact, evidencing the justification of the proposed legislation?


  • Options
    #123
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,406 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    If there is an accident, the car driver now carries a certain weight of evidence to prove they were within the law
    the law has a presumption of innocence.


  • Options
    #124
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,584 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    the law has a presumption of innocence.

    Of course it does, but evidence will trump that.

    The cyclist will be claiming that the car passed too close and has the accident to prove that at least something happened. The driver would need to give some indication that they didn't get too close.

    It is then up the Garda to weigh up whether enough evidence exists, but having a clear law means that rather than arguing over whether or not a law was broken, the discussion will be if the evidence supports the claim.


  • Options
    #125
    HivemindXX
    Registered Users Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭HivemindXX


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    the law has a presumption of innocence.

    That's somewhat the point of this. Currently you have to PROVE that a driver was careless or that a manoeuvre was dangerous. This turns out to be very difficult to do when people can just claim they weren't. If you hit a cyclist while overtaking then this should be sufficient proof that you were within the required minimum distance. I've no doubt some people will claim that they weren't and that the cyclist must have magically teleported in to their cars path in the same way that they currently claim that even though they pulled out in front of an oncoming cyclist they weren't careless but hopefully that will get short shrift from most judges and guards.


  • Options
    #126
    MediaMan
    Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭MediaMan


    Lemming wrote: »
    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 regardless 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.

    Hang on, the OP has a point here. With the proposed law, if the space taken by the cyclist, plus the width of the vehicle, plus the required 1.5m between them, is less than the total width of the road ditch to ditch - which could be the case on a small country road - then a driver can't overtake *at all* unless the cyclist gets of the bike and stands to the side.

    Of course that prohibition should apply with existing law as well, but today much of the time people will squeeze by, most likely dangerously.

    I think guidance needs to be provided for when this this situation could occur over an extended period (e.g. on a long narrow road), which accommodates faster traffic getting past safely. I don't think it's reasonable for slower traffic to hold up faster traffic indefinitely. However the risk here is that, since may drivers get upset if help up for even a few seconds, they will want cyclists to pull off the road immediately, so the guidance would have to be clear about that.

    Much the same situation applies where there is an extended stretch of road (e.g. several km) with a continuous white line down the middle, which is not uncommon in rural areas.

    In most cases common sense would prevail anyway, but it's for the cases that it would not that the guidance would be needed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,406 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    MediaMan wrote: »
    Hang on, the OP has a point here. With the proposed law, if the space taken by the cyclist, plus the width of the vehicle, plus the required 1.5m between them, is less than the total width of the road ditch to ditch - which could be the case on a small country road
    i think the question was about a 3-4m road.
    with a 3m road certainly, there's barely enough room to have the car and bike sitting side by side anyway, so the issue exists even without this law.


  • Options
    #128
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users Posts: 8,686 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    MediaMan wrote: »
    Hang on, the OP has a point here. With the proposed law, if the space taken by the cyclist, plus the width of the vehicle, plus the required 1.5m between them, is less than the total width of the road ditch to ditch - which could be the case on a small country road - then a driver can't overtake *at all* unless the cyclist gets of the bike and stands to the side..

    Are we getting into the realm of physics here? Can two physical objects occupy the same space at the same time? No...!

    So if in your example the space is not sufficient for a vehicle to pass then the guidance provided in your driving test is all you need..!


  • Options
    #129
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    the law has a presumption of innocence.

    The judicial system carries a presumption of innocence, laws don't have a view on innocence or guilt, they merely state what the offence is.

    Where it is alleged a person has commited an offence under statute, they may be questioned under caution about that and anything they say can be used as evidence. A motorist charged with say a close pass offence would therefore be questioned and anything they say may be used in evidence to determine if they broke the law

    That's good...!


  • Options
    #130
    MediaMan
    Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭MediaMan


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    MediaMan wrote: »
    Hang on, the OP has a point here. With the proposed law, if the space taken by the cyclist, plus the width of the vehicle, plus the required 1.5m between them, is less than the total width of the road ditch to ditch - which could be the case on a small country road - then a driver can't overtake *at all* unless the cyclist gets of the bike and stands to the side..

    Are we getting into the realm of physics here? Can two physical objects occupy the same space at the same time? No...!

    So if in your example the space is not sufficient for a vehicle to pass then the guidance provided in your driving test is all you need..!

    Perhaps, but I'm imagining that there will be people conjuring up scenarios of being stuck behind cyclists travelling at 10km/h along a 5km stretch of road and using that scenario to beat down the law with.


  • Options
    #131
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users Posts: 8,686 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    MediaMan wrote: »
    Perhaps, but I'm imagining that there will be people conjuring up scenarios of being stuck behind cyclists travelling at 10km/h along a 5km stretch of road and using that scenario to beat down the law with.

    I'm sure all sorts of ridiculous scenarios will be thought up, just listen to some of the radio shows, e.g, Sean O'Rourke, Hook and Williams to hear the most off the wall objections to the new proposed law...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,406 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    Are we getting into the realm of physics here? Can two physical objects occupy the same space at the same time? No...!
    well, there *is* quantum tunnelling. hard to write into law though.


  • Options
    #133
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,766 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    HivemindXX wrote: »
    That's somewhat the point of this. Currently you have to PROVE that a driver was careless or that a manoeuvre was dangerous. This turns out to be very difficult to do when people can just claim they weren't. If you hit a cyclist while overtaking then this should be sufficient proof that you were within the required minimum distance.


    The go-to strategy in this scenario is to remind the judge that cyclists are impossible to see. Next case!


  • Options
    #134
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    "He came out of nowhere and caused me to quantum tunnel all over the road, your honour".


  • Options
    #135
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,781 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    MediaMan wrote: »
    Perhaps, but I'm imagining that there will be people conjuring up scenarios of being stuck behind cyclists travelling at 10km/h along a 5km stretch of road and using that scenario to beat down the law with.
    And like most laws in Ireland, so long as a cautious, safe and respectable overtake is carried out, the gardai will not prosecute. There are a few roads I travel on the law here would not work. This does not mean the law should be scrapped. In most cases, cars on these roads wait behind until a wide point, till I pull over (when safe) or until someone waves them on (I know your not meant to).
    All the arguments against the law are by people looking for issues that are not there unless they make them. There is the spirit of the law. In this case that spirit is quite clear. Anyone who does not understand the spirit of that law or how to act in accordance with the law, should not be driving or operating any vehicle. I'd be concerned if they were let out to walk to be honest.


  • Options
    #136
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,584 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    But in all these scenarios in is the 'fault' of the road design. It is not fir for purpose. Go a car simply needs to stop using the road or get used to the idea that from time to time the road will slow due to other traffic.

    The answer can never be to blame the cyclist.


  • Options
    #137
    PraxisPete
    Registered Users Posts: 98 ✭✭PraxisPete


    I'm all for this law but cycling two abreast should be banned altogether when this comes in.


  • Options
    #138
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,584 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    PraxisPete wrote: »
    I'm all for this law but cycling two abreast should be banned altogether when this comes in.

    Why? It makes little difference to the ability to pass safely.

    Would you prefer a line of 30 cyclists in a single line or 15 in double? (hint it has been shown to be quicker to pass the 15)


  • Options
    #139
    PraxisPete
    Registered Users Posts: 98 ✭✭PraxisPete


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Why? It makes little difference to the ability to pass safely.

    Would you prefer a line of 30 cyclists in a single line or 15 in double? (hint it has been shown to be quicker to pass the 15)

    On my drive to work on the way up to the Wicklow mountains there is a km stretch where I won't be able to pass at all.


  • Options
    #140
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,584 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    PraxisPete wrote: »
    On my drive to work on the way up to the Wicklow mountains there is a km stretch where I won't be able to pass at all.

    And? Would having them in single file really make it safer and/or easier to pass?

    The road must be pretty small is the addition of another cyclist means you now cannot pass at all.

    And an entire KM? So slows you down by what 5 minutes. Golly.


  • Options
    #141
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 29,379 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Cyclists should not be cycling two abreast where:
    (i) This leaves insufficient road space for a car to overtake them leaving a minimum passing distance.
    (ii) Where there is a continuous white line, and there would be sufficient road space for a car to overtake a single cyclist without crossing the continuous white line.
    (iii) Where there is a marked cycle path, except where the cycle path is large enough to accomodate two cyclists .

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    PraxisPete
    Registered Users Posts: 98 ✭✭PraxisPete


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    And? Would having them in single file really make it safer and/or easier to pass?

    The road must be pretty small is the addition of another cyclist means you now cannot pass at all.

    And an entire KM? So slows you down by what 5 minutes. Golly.

    Yeah, if they are single file I have the 1.5 metre space to pass legally. It's uphill and these lads tend to be travelling at a speed where they're almost stopped.


  • Options
    #143
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 29,379 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Why? It makes little difference to the ability to pass safely.
    Would you prefer a line of 30 cyclists in a single line or 15 in double? (hint it has been shown to be quicker to pass the 15)

    There are plenty of roads (boreens, urban medieval one way streets) in the country where there is not enough room for 2 cyclists and a car to overtake, but where there is enough room for 1 cyclist and a car to overtake safely.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #144
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,406 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Jep Gambardella wrote: »
    "He came out of nowhere and caused me to quantum tunnel all over the road, your honour".
    maybe this is the one example where observing the cyclist ensures their waveform does *not* collapse.


  • Options
    #145
    PraxisPete
    Registered Users Posts: 98 ✭✭PraxisPete


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    Cyclists should not be cycling two abreast where:
    (i) This leaves insufficient road space for a car to overtake them leaving a minimum passing distance.
    (ii) Where there is a continuous white line, and there would be sufficient road space for a car to overtake a single cyclist without crossing the continuous white line.
    (iii) Where there is a marked cycle path, except where the cycle path is large enough to accomodate two cyclists .

    Wasn't aware of this. Unfortunately enforcement is next to impossible.


  • Options
    #146
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    PraxisPete wrote: »
    Wasn't aware of this. Unfortunately enforcement is next to impossible.

    That's his opinion on what the law should be, not what it actually is


  • Options
    #147
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 29,379 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    PraxisPete wrote: »
    Wasn't aware of this. Unfortunately enforcement is next to impossible.

    It was a proposal of what should be put in black and white in the new bill.
    Arguably several of the conditions would be covered under the unduly holding up traffic clause already, but if apparently we need to spell out a defined minimum passing distance, then this should be spelt out and defined also.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #148
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,406 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    PraxisPete wrote: »
    On my drive to work on the way up to the Wicklow mountains there is a km stretch where I won't be able to pass at all.
    here's a question - are you able to pass a single cyclist - safely - *without* putting your wheels over the white line (whether it is continuous or dotted)?


  • Options
    #149
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,452 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    (ii) Where there is a continuous white line, and there would be sufficient road space for a car to overtake a single cyclist without crossing the continuous white line.

    Assuming 1 m from kerb to bike RH handlebar, 1.5 m clearance, and a vehicle width of say 1.85 m, you'll be hard pressed to find a 4.35 m wide carriageway.


  • Options
    #150
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,781 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    Cyclists should not be cycling two abreast where:
    (i) This leaves insufficient road space for a car to overtake them leaving a minimum passing distance.
    (ii) Where there is a continuous white line, and there would be sufficient road space for a car to overtake a single cyclist without crossing the continuous white line.
    (iii) Where there is a marked cycle path, except where the cycle path is large enough to accomodate two cyclists .

    Do you understand why cyclists ride two abreast?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,406 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Assuming 1 m from kerb to bike RH handlebar, 1.5 m clearance, and a vehicle width of say 1.85 m, you'll be hard pressed to find a 4.35 m wide carriageway.
    just to put this into context - 4.35m is about a metre wider than one of the lanes on the M50.


Advertisement