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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Close Pass

Options
12346

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    AltAccount
    Registered Users Posts: 2,058 ✭✭✭AltAccount


    droidus wrote: »
    Well, I think this is key, and Id like to ask AltAccount if his 'thousands of miles' ar done on city centre roads during rush hour.

    Both.

    I used to do a lot of road cycling. Now it's mostly commuting in and out of Dublin or on the roads around south Dublin (often with my baby on the bike with me).


  • Options
    #153
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    enas wrote: »
    The fact that a law in itself is clearly not sufficient to deal with the issue doesn't mean that the idea has to be dismissed. There's surely many things to do to improve conditions. Concentrating on each individually and dismiss it on the basis that it won't be sufficient in itself is not a very constructive attitude, and generally leads to doing absolutely nothing. Now, if you're happy with the status quo, that's probably fine for you.

    That's hardly me dismissing the idea, in fact I think the post you so selectively quote from concludes with a statement on the potential merits of the idea, in that as an act it might have wider application in changing attitudes because of its subtext rather than it's potential application - in other words it sends a signal that this is an issue that's important.

    Nor have I dismissed every idea and advocated the status quo - in fact I think I've brought some constructive ideas to the table including the most obvious one - better enforcement of existing laws - that could be done now, today or tomorrow at least!

    Quick email from the Chief Super in charge of the Traffic Corps is all it would take - I've yet to hear of anyone reporting a dangerous manoeuver and the Guard citing the absence of legislation as the reason for inaction.

    In my opinion the greatest improvements in road user behaviour came through tougher and more widespread enforcement - penalty points, speed vans (such and all as they are), and the expansion of the Traffic Corps did more to get drivers in particular to cop on than any hysterical ad, no matter how graphic they made them.

    ...and you only have to look at how driving improved during the various Freeflow operations, if you want further evidence.


  • Options
    #154
    rich.d.berry
    Registered Users Posts: 517 ✭✭✭rich.d.berry


    AltAccount wrote: »
    Well, it may be the sole "legal" responsibility for a driver not to endanger me when I'm cycling predictably, but that's cold comfort if I find myself waking up in a hospital/ambulance.

    I will forever consider myself responsible for doing everything I can to keep myself safe.
    I consider all other road users to be unpredictable morons, and I will not cede an ounce of responsibility for my safety onto another road user.

    When I am in an incident that is someone else's fault. I'll have no issue with bollocking them out of it/suing them/pressing for their prosecution.
    That level of paranoia must be quite debilitating. Obviously you'd never use public transport or be a passenger in a car.

    How do you handle oncoming traffic then? Do you turn into a side street or pull onto the hard shoulder as they approach? Surely they cannot possibly be trusted to hold their line and stay in their lane.

    What about going through traffic lights or using a roundabout? You have no control over whether people will stop and give you right of way. You must be a quivering wreck behind the wheel or on your bicycle, poor thing.


  • Options
    #155
    AltAccount
    Registered Users Posts: 2,058 ✭✭✭AltAccount


    droidus wrote: »
    You cede it every time you cross the road, get on your bike on in the car. You can do everything perfectly and still get knocked down or crashed into.

    Seriously, I cede my responsibility for my own safety every time I cross the road?

    This is getting mental.



    Basic example/simple question:
    You get to a pedestrian crossing, you push the button. The traffic lights go red and you get the green man.
    Do you look left and right before you walk, or do you just plough ahead safe in the knowledge that, because the lights are red, it's the responsibility of the driver to stop?


  • Options
    #156
    rich.d.berry
    Registered Users Posts: 517 ✭✭✭rich.d.berry


    AltAccount wrote: »
    Seriously, I cede my responsibility for my own safety every time I cross the road?

    This is getting mental.



    Basic example/simple question:
    You get to a pedestrian crossing, you push the button. The traffic lights go red and you get the green man.
    Do you look left and right before you walk, or do you just plough ahead safe in the knowledge that, because the lights are red, it's the responsibility of the driver to stop?

    I'll answer your question with another question.

    You're driving along the N7 approaching Newlands Cross and the light is green for you. Do you slow down and prepare to stop or do you just plow on through at the same speed as the traffic around you with expectation that the cars approaching from right and left will stop?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    droidus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    AltAccount wrote: »
    Seriously, I cede my responsibility for my own safety every time I cross the road?

    This is getting mental.

    Basic example/simple question:
    You get to a pedestrian crossing, you push the button. The traffic lights go red and you get the green man.
    Do you look left and right before you walk, or do you just plough ahead safe in the knowledge that, because the lights are red, it's the responsibility of the driver to stop?

    Yes, you look left and right and then proceed, but what happens when someone comes around the corner at 60mph and runs you down? Or when the car you thought was slowing down to stop guns it and flattens you?

    Perhaps 'control' is a better term to use than responsibility here?


  • Options
    #158
    doozerie
    Registered Users Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    In my view there are far too many variables, most of which are completely unknown in this particular case, to be able to say one way or the other whether any particular cyclist is contributing significantly to the risks they face. Amongst (many) other things you'd have to know how much time they spend on their bike (more time on bike = more exposure to possible dangers), the nature of the roads they travel on (is poor road surface a contributory factor, is poor road design a factor, are cycle lanes a factor,...), are they riding on a heavily used route, the times of day they cycle (during rush hour, during the school run, etc.), their cycling speed (do they keep pace with traffic generally), their spatial awareness, their general mood/attitude/outlook/stress level (e.g. if car A passes too close will they vent their frustrations on car B later that doesn something silly but relatively innocuous), etc., etc.

    For example, I know that on my commute it can be quite stressful during rush hour on a day where I'm tired, traffic is especially heavy and it's raining (rain seems to bring out the worst of peoples' driving/cycling/walking habits). The same commute an hour later can be a very different experience simply due to there being less traffic.

    Yet another factor is that different people have different views as to what is dangerous behaviour on the part of others - not everyone is good at assessing risk. There are obviously many reasons for that, psychological and otherwise. I've had a middle-aged woman on a bicycle panic when I cycled up to within a bike length of her back wheel prior to overtaking - for someone like that, the most minor of incidents can seem life threatening and she might see the roads as an extremely dangerous place to be. I've also seen people cycle up the inside of cars that are clearly turning left, and some of the cyclists in question seemed to shrug off the incident as trivial and in no way dangerous - clearly such people are a danger to themselves but if they are oblivious to the dangers of their own actions then they might deem their ride to have been entirely safe and without incident.

    About the only generalisation that I think it is reasonable to make is that humans are volatile and unpredictable creatures and we suck at "getting along".


  • Options
    #159
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    AltAccount wrote: »
    ......

    I will forever consider myself responsible for doing everything I can to keep myself safe.
    I consider all other road users to be unpredictable morons, and I will not cede an ounce of responsibility for my safety onto another road user.

    ......

    that's pretty much my attitude - as I cycle and observe other road users, I try and think what is the most stupid, insane, off-the-wall thing those other road users can do? And frequently, I fail to come even close to anticipating their recklessness and stupidity, but it generally means I'm not in situations where I have to worry about my safety.

    And just as an aside - I racked up nearly 8,500 km in 2011 and over 7,000 km to date this year - most of it commutes, on the full mix of road from rural through to the centre of the Dublin- my last near miss was about 2 years ago.

    Maybe the problem here is one person's close pass is another's chance to gawp into a car at the passenger's legs:)


  • Options
    #160
    AltAccount
    Registered Users Posts: 2,058 ✭✭✭AltAccount


    rich.d.berry wrote: »
    That level of paranoia must be quite debilitating. Obviously you'd never use public transport or be a passenger in a car.

    How do you handle oncoming traffic then? Do you turn into a side street or pull onto the hard shoulder as they approach? Surely they cannot possibly be trusted to hold their line and stay in their lane.

    What about going through traffic lights or using a roundabout? You have no control over whether people will stop and give you right of way. You must be a quivering wreck behind the wheel or on your bicycle, poor thing.

    Don't be facetious. It does nothing for your argument


  • Options
    #161
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,050 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Jawgap wrote: »
    that's pretty much my attitude - as I cycle and observe other road users, I try and think what is the most stupid, insane, off-the-wall thing those other road users can do? And frequently, I fail to come even close to anticipating their recklessness and stupidity, but it generally means I'm not in situations where I have to worry about my safety.

    This might be the source of the disagreement over 'average amount of near misses'. I would class something like that as an 'incident'. Where I took action - anticipatory or otherwise - to prevent a collision, and the other road user carried on oblivious. To me, that counts in my unsafe column. Whereas for you, it appears not to.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    AltAccount
    Registered Users Posts: 2,058 ✭✭✭AltAccount


    droidus wrote: »
    Yes, you look left and right and then proceed, but what happens when someone comes around the corner at 60mph and runs you down? Or when the car you thought was slowing down to stop guns it and flattens you?

    Perhaps 'control' is a better term to use than responsibility here?

    Maybe control is better, but if I had said control, I'd have gotten replies asking how I was going to control the driving of others, probably with some joking reference to telekinesis or something... :p


    As to your other point, if someone's coming around the corner at speed, I'll probably hear them and adjust my plans.
    If I don't hear them, or if they maliciously accelerate towards me (or any of the other myriad ways in which someone can endanger me without my input), then so be it. I'll have done my best, and as I've said earlier, I won't hesitate to pursue them with the full rigour of the law (if I survive)

    rich.d.berry wrote: »
    I'll answer your question with another question.

    You're driving along the N7 approaching Newlands Cross and the light is green for you. Do you slow down and prepare to stop or do you just plow on through at the same speed as the traffic around you with expectation that the cars approaching from right and left will stop?

    I do my best to look into the junction left and right, I get ready to cover the brake pedal, I put myself in a mindset where I'm prepared to stop.
    It's what I was taught in my driving lessons and it's the right thing to do.

    I won't stop, I won't slow down unless I see something that makes my antennae stand up, but I certainly won't plough through expecting some red lights on 10 foot poles to protect me.


  • Options
    #163
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,445 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Finally got around to looking at that "choke point" video. Not very clear cut as I couldn't tell if deadly spot done much in the way of looking over his shoulder. While the bus was wrong and should have held back (and in my experience, more and more drivers are doing this because of the increased volume of cyclists), deadly spot undertook the bus earlier, he knew it would be coming up once the two cars passed, he also knew that he was approaching a "pinch point".
    Personally I would have taken the time to indicate as the second car was passing, giving the driver plenty of time to see me attempting to pull out, make sure to look back (a few times if possible) so the driver knows that I see him and that I am alive and paying attention, and merge over, the lane would have been held for less than 20seconds after whuich the aircoach could easily catch the traffic ahead. Friendly wave to acknowledge I was let out, job done, no one is offended. It won't always work this way but I find drivers are far more considerate to you and others when you indicate, you make eye contact (or make it appear by flicking your head to make it appear that way) and most importantly, you wave to say thanks or "I appreciate you letting me in" same as showing your hazards after being let merge in a car.
    Maybe he did do this and the driver was an ass, in that case, you just accept that some people are dicks and they will eventually (in some cases) get their come uppance. Slow down and merge in behind him, not fun, but safer in this case.

    On a seperate note, a guy pulled out in front of me as I was using a filter light, 2 cars behind me. Had to slam on the brakes. I shouted "F***" as in "oh F, I nearly sh1t myself, because the car behind me might not stop". Guy shouted at me to F off and pulled in up the road to let out his missus (10 yards up the road), the plank missed the Garda van behind him, who pulled in front, waved at me, told me he seen it and proceeded to give the guy a bollicking, at which point he became quite sheepish. The Gard came back to me and advised I change my shorts when I get home :D


  • Options
    #164
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    buffalo wrote: »
    This might be the source of the disagreement over 'average amount of near misses'. I would class something like that as an 'incident'. Where I took action - anticipatory or otherwise - to prevent a collision, and the other road user carried on oblivious. To me, that counts in my unsafe column. Whereas for you, it appears not to.

    No, I probably didn't explain myself well - these would be 'non-happenings' - in other words it's impossible to know if the action you took prevented a situation arising, rather than the reaction to the incident.

    Like taking a different route home on a crappy wet evening because it's better lit and quieter; or slowing coming up to lights even if they are green; or even slowing coming up to lights so you get the red and can position yourself better for the junction; staying away from learner drivers under instruction; and definitely, definitely avoiding nuns in Yarises!


  • Options
    #165
    rich.d.berry
    Registered Users Posts: 517 ✭✭✭rich.d.berry


    AltAccount wrote: »
    Don't be facetious. It does nothing for your argument

    And what is my argument except highlighting how ridiculous the statement that you made is!!!

    I would assume by your reply that you therefore do cede responsibility for your safety, as we all do, and that you are not some superhuman who is fully in control of their destiny.

    I personally knew a young man who was killed by a drunk driver who turned the wrong way onto the N7 from The Poitin Still in Rathcoole. What do you think he could have done to avoid that? From the opinions you've been expressing he was obviously being too reliant on other people doing the right thing and therefore was partly responsible for the collision. Am I reading you right?


  • Options
    #166
    AltAccount
    Registered Users Posts: 2,058 ✭✭✭AltAccount


    rich.d.berry wrote: »
    I personally knew a young man who was killed by a drunk driver who turned the wrong way onto the N7 from The Poitin Still in Rathcoole. What do you think he could have done to avoid that? From the opinions you've been expressing he was obviously being too reliant on other people doing the right thing and therefore was partly responsible for the collision. Am I reading you right?

    Nope.

    If you've done everything you reasonably can be expected to do to keep yourself safe, and you still get hit, then it's entirely the other person's fault and they deserve to be prosecuted (depending on the seriousness of the incident, of course).

    I've said that several times now, and I'm only one voice on this thread, but you are happier to pick up on the "but it's just impossible, you can't control everything, what if a plane fell on you, etc" part of my posts.


  • Options
    #167
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,008 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    AltAccount wrote: »
    If you've done everything you reasonably can be expected to do to keep yourself safe, and you still get hit, then it's entirely the other person's fault and they deserve to be prosecuted (depending on the seriousness of the incident, of course).

    I've said that several times now, and I'm only one voice on this thread, but you are happier to pick up on the "but it's just impossible, you can't control everything, what if a plane fell on you, etc" part of my posts.

    It's a bit of a moot point. There is no single definition of "fault".

    If you want a guess at how an insurer would allocate blame, ask an insurer.
    If you want a guess at how an judge would allocate blame, ask a lawyer.
    If you want to guess at how God will allocate blame, ask a priest.

    These are all just opinions within particular frames of reference.

    Pragmatically the only things that matter are (a) how to avoid an accident, and (b) what to do when you have one anyway, assuming you survive it.


  • Options
    #168
    enas
    Registered Users Posts: 585 ✭✭✭enas


    Beasty wrote: »
    Having a statutory minimum passing distance is difficult to enforce, but also I'm not sure it actually achieves much. Yes if someone is passing at 100kph I would hope for 1.5m clearance, but if they are only passing at 40kph I really don't mind if they are a bit closer.

    I can only talk about France, because this is what I personally know. The minimum passing distance is only 1m in built-up areas (where the speed limit is 50km/h or less), 1.5m for all faster roads. Apart from enforcement (and it is enforced in France), such a law gives a clear definition of what a close pass is, should the matter be raised in a court (in Ireland, as far as I know, you can only claim that a close pass endangers you or causes you inconvenience). But most importantly, it means that there is a proper driver education about overtaking cyclists and pedestrians. I got my driving licence in France. In the theory test, you're literally brainwashed with questions such as this or this or this (ask me for translations if you're interested). During training (you can only drive in a driving school's car with an instructor until you get your licence), you continue being briefed about how to overtake cyclists. Try to pass a cyclist just a bit to close and the instructor will immediately emergency brake the car. Same reaction as if you pass a red light, nothing less. If you ask how you can judge the distance, he will explain you that you can't really, but since 1m/1.5m is a minimum distance, you just leave much more than that. In fact, he will tell you to leave as much distance as you practically can given the conditions, which most of the times means that you have to pretend you're overtaking a car, so to speak. The result is that when you have your licence, the passing distance became deeply ingrained.

    This long story just to show you one very specific reason why having an overtaking distance set by law has a genuine and concrete impact on drivers. Incidentally, passing distances apply to both cyclists and pedestrians, and regardless on whether pedestrians are on a footpath or not (it is crazy how the vast majority of drivers in Ireland don't give any consideration for passing pedestrians safely, especially when the pedestrians walks on a surface that is 10cm higher than the road, commonly called a footpath). Now, not all French drivers will pass you with a good distance, but those who don't do so fully consciously. Thankfully that excludes many people. In my experience, the impatient driver in France is more likely to stay behind you and show his frustration by tooting at you rather than to overtake you too closely.


  • Options
    #169
    enas
    Registered Users Posts: 585 ✭✭✭enas


    Jawgap wrote: »
    [...]
    In my opinion the greatest improvements in road user behaviour came through tougher and more widespread enforcement - penalty points, speed vans (such and all as they are), and the expansion of the Traffic Corps did more to get drivers in particular to cop on than any hysterical ad, no matter how graphic they made them.

    ...and you only have to look at how driving improved during the various Freeflow operations, if you want further evidence.

    You're making very valid points, no objection. My point was just that none of that is in opposition with having a minimum passing distance law.


  • Options
    #170
    enas
    Registered Users Posts: 585 ✭✭✭enas


    doozerie wrote: »
    Yet another factor is that different people have different views as to what is dangerous behaviour on the part of others - not everyone is good at assessing risk.

    That! I'm happy that someone finally mentions this. This is in my opinion the one main difference between individuals. When you think of it, you hardly ever get into a life threatening situation as such, unless, God forbid, you're actually hit by a car and struggle between life and death for a few days after that. What we call a life threatening incident is an incident where you felt there was a potential, or a risk, that something happened that could ultimately lead to your death. As we all assess risks differently, we get very different definitions of what constitutes a life-threatening incident.


  • Options
    #171
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,445 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    enas wrote: »
    You're making very valid points, no objection. My point was just that none of that is in opposition with having a minimum passing distance law.
    I think a better question is why is a minimum safe driving distance needed when we have laws against dangerous driving, requiring due care and attention, against reckless driving.

    There are many more, mentioned earlier I think, these alone should be enough for the Gardai to crack down, make the minimum safe distance part of the driving test so no one (new admittedly) has an excuse.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean it'll be enforced.

    Until 2006 the Statute of Winchester was still on the law books in Ireland - this legislation required "......that every man have in his house arms for keeping the peace" and should be "sworn to arms according to the amount of his lands and of his chattels." It also made archery practice compulsory!

    Point being that a law that is not enforced is a useless curiosity.

    In France, it was only when Chirac got involved was there really a significant change in emphasis and effect.

    From an FIA Report on the French experience [my emphasis added] (pg 39):-

    "Exactly thirty years later, a shift of a similar magnitude in the trend took place in the period 2002-2004. In just over two years, the annual death toll fell from a level of around 8,000 to just over 5,000.

    This time the triggering factor was a clear statement of government determination reflected in a series of regulatory and legislative measures but also, and more importantly, by the announcement and widespread media reporting of a consistent and massive programme of controls and sanctions."


    They also spent 400 million euros on 1,000 automatic radar devices, as well as a large number of vehicles and modern breath-testing equipment (breathalysers and ethylometers).
    The number of speeding offences recorded rose from 1.6 million in 2003
    to 4.8million in 2004 and 2005 saw this increase continue. In 2005,
    4.2million drivers were caught speeding by the automatic radar devices.

    .......which is a very long winded way of returning to my original point about the fact that we have sufficient laws, it's more vigorous, targeted enforcement we need.

    I'm also assuming that everyone is as bored reading this repeated point as I am typing it, so I won't make it again.




  • Options
    #173
    doozerie
    Registered Users Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    CramCycle wrote:
    I think a better question is why is a minimum safe driving distance needed when we have laws against dangerous driving, requiring due care and attention, against reckless driving.

    An actual law might help reinforce in peoples' minds that overtaking "too close" is dangerous. And it gives them an actual measure of what is "too close". I think that unless people cycle themselves they may have a very skewed perception of what is "too close" (or even what is dangerous) to a cyclist.

    Laws attempt to make things a bit more black and white, removing (theoretically anyway) some freedom for people to make their own potentially biased judgements about what is acceptable behaviour. That tends to make people classify laws as either useful/effective or impractical/stupid, depending on which side of the law they fall on :)


  • Options
    #174
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,445 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    doozerie wrote: »
    An actual law might help reinforce in peoples' minds that overtaking "too close" is dangerous. And it gives them an actual measure of what is "too close". I think that unless people cycle themselves they may have a very skewed perception of what is "too close" (or even what is dangerous) to a cyclist.
    You forget that we are in Ireland, it won't be regarded as a minimum safe distance, it will be the aim, give or take, with no regards to road conditions taken into account. In a traffic jam you will have some cyclists giving out that not enough space is left when it is unnecessary or impractical, in fast moving traffic you will have drivers speeding a meter away (or close enough) at 100km/hr, never taking into account it should be more at such a speed and that they can't accurately judge it at such a speed.


  • Options
    #175
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    doozerie wrote: »
    An actual law might help reinforce in peoples' minds that overtaking "too close" is dangerous. And it gives them an actual measure of what is "too close". I think that unless people cycle themselves they may have a very skewed perception of what is "too close" (or even what is dangerous) to a cyclist.

    Laws attempt to make things a bit more black and white, removing (theoretically anyway) some freedom for people to make their own potentially biased judgements about what is acceptable behaviour. That tends to make people classify laws as either useful/effective or impractical/stupid, depending on which side of the law they fall on :)

    It might help to consider that we had speed limits, drink driving limits and safety belt laws for years before compliance with them significantly improved. The catalyst for that was simplified and simple enforcement.

    I'm not saying education, the plain existence of laws, and public information don't have a role, but there nothing like the impact of the increased probability of a Fixed Penalty Notice and / or a trip to the local District Court to get someone's attention.

    Whether it's speeding, red light jumping or ninja cycling - there's nothing like a Garda jihad to get the message across that a particular behaviour is unacceptable:)


  • Options
    #176
    doozerie
    Registered Users Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    I'm not trying to suggest that the existence of a law will dramatically change things in itself, but I believe that it might be a useful part of the overall solution. Enforcement of the laws is certainly still necessary, and undoubtedly still lacking, but I think that education is vital too. Admittedly a specific law is quite a crude version of education but I think it can have a role.

    I still believe that perhaps the best form of education would be that car drivers and cyclists swap roles for a few weeks. There is nothing like personal experience to hammer home the risks that we pose to one another by stupid and/or careless behaviour. That'll never actually happen, of course, not least because some of the sources of danger on the road no doubt believe the roads to be too dangerous to try tackling on a bicycle - the irony would be funny if it wasn't tragic.


  • Options
    #177
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,285 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    doozerie wrote: »
    I still believe that perhaps the best form of education would be that car drivers and cyclists swap roles for a few weeks.
    I know I'm generalising a bit here, but it seems to me that a lot of posters here do actually drive and cycle, but a higher proportion of those posters seem to be advocating better enforcement of existing laws as opposed to introducing stricter laws.

    Not sure, but perhaps this is indicative of a preference to avoid creating more of an "us and them" culture (which probably results in more confrontation)


  • Options
    #178
    enas
    Registered Users Posts: 585 ✭✭✭enas


    Once again, I don't understand why you guys claim that having a minimum safe passing distance has to be in opposition with stricter enforcement. Of course I would embrace stricter enforcement, including of a new passing distance law, and other existing laws. I also showed some concrete examples of driver education about safe passing in France, with detailed analysis about road positioning for cyclists, safe passing distance, understanding a cyclist's intentions, etc. so that you don't have to be a cyclist yourself to understand those basics.

    As to why a precise figure is better than a general law, both in terms of education and enforcement, let's just make the parallel with drink driving. Would you be happy having a law similar to that for cyclists for motorists, instead of the current law that specifies an exact maximum allowed concentration of alcohol for driving? This is precisely the text that applies to cyclists:
    A person shall not, in a public place drive or attempt to drive a pedal cycle, while he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle or cycle.

    How many people do you know, including yourself, that feels incapable of having proper control of its vehicle after having consumed 0.5g/l worth of alcohol (less than a pint)? In all honesty, and if I wasn't particularly aware of the effects of alcohol on your driving, I would still feel perfectly capable of driving even after 2 or 3 pints. In fact I do feel capable. I just don't do it because I know that it's illegal, and for a good reason. Now make a game and ask your non-cycing friends and relative what they consider to be a good passing distance for cyclists. Then look at their bemused faces when you tell them it should be much more than what they guessed.


  • Options
    #179
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    enas wrote: »
    Once again, I don't understand why you guys claim that having a minimum safe passing distance has to be in opposition with stricter enforcement. Of course I would embrace stricter enforcement, including of a new passing distance law, and other existing laws. I also showed some concrete examples of driver education about safe passing in France, with detailed analysis about road positioning for cyclists, safe passing distance, understanding a cyclist's intentions, etc. so that you don't have to be a cyclist yourself to understand those basics.

    As to why a precise figure is better than a general law, both in terms of education and enforcement, let's just make the parallel with drink driving. Would you be happy having a law similar to that for cyclists for motorists, instead of the current law that specifies an exact maximum allowed concentration of alcohol for driving? This is precisely the text that applies to cyclists:



    How many people do you know, including yourself, that feels incapable of having proper control of its vehicle after having consumed 0.5g/l worth of alcohol (less than a pint)? In all honesty, and if I wasn't particularly aware of the effects of alcohol on your driving, I would still feel perfectly capable of driving even after 2 or 3 pints. In fact I do feel capable. I just don't do it because I know that it's illegal, and for a good reason. Now make a game and ask your non-cycing friends and relative what they consider to be a good passing distance for cyclists. Then look at their bemused faces when you tell them it should be much more than what they guessed.

    This is me not being dismissive or hostile, but that's not the best example - until the Lion Intoxilyzer came in and the law was changed, a lot of Guards didn't use breathalysers.

    This seems daft, but previously a Guard could get quite a hard time in court from the defence if he breathalysed someone on the basis that he (the Guard) had formed the opinion that person was intoxicated so why would he need to breathalyse him - was the Guard not sure? - that was the line often pursued.

    Result was Guards formed the opinion then arrested the driver and took them for a confirmatory blood or urine test at the station.

    The bit you quote isn't too bad as legislation goes, as it allows the Guard to observe you, form an opinion and do you! He / she doesn't even have to prove what your intoxicant of choice was - he just needs to swear in court that he formed the view you were intoxicated and you didn't have control of the bike.

    If we had a minimum passing distance on the books, I'd be advocating that it be enforced - but we don't. The way politicians operate in this country you could lobby them, they could pass it then they'll say "there, you got what you wanted, now go away" and things will not be any better.

    Generally, the Guards are pretty good at what they do, but it's a hierarchical organisation - if the word comes down from on high that dangerous passing of cyclists is to be addressed they'll set to it and no better boys and girls to do it - until that happens they'll work to the other priorities they are assigned.

    btw if you asked my wife if we should have a minimum passing distance she'd say it was a bad idea on the basis that most male drivers think this represents 6 inches:

    <
    >

    They'd never judge a meter-and-a-half:D


  • Options
    #180
    el Bastardo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 573 ✭✭✭el Bastardo


    Well, just this afternoon I was very nearly run off the road by a very willful driver that was just being a bollix.

    I heard him coming behind me, cars moving slowly in front of me, and he clearly didn't enjoy looking at my backside... so he tried to 'elbow' his way in front of me! Only thing that saved me was an on-coming car!

    This is why, from now on, I will endeavour to use my cam (and keep a lock handy!!!).

    Two incidents, same road, same day - and I got pissed on! (I normally don't bother to rant about it, but these guys nearly killed me - twice).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,445 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Jawgap wrote: »

    btw if you asked my wife if we should have a minimum passing distance she'd say it was a bad idea on the basis that most male drivers think this represents 6 inches:

    <
    >

    They'd never judge a meter-and-a-half:D

    On my phone but it looks right :eek:


Advertisement