Critical Mass/Cyclists' Rights

blorg

The actual law says:

S.I. No. 182/1997: ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997 wrote:

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.

Note the ROTR is an interpretation of the legislation.

There are a good number of motorists that consider that cycling two abreast is simply illegal in any circumstance which is just not the case.

In any case I was making the point that Critical Mass did not seem to be limiting themselves to cycling two abreast but were spreading themselves all over the road which is clearly illegal. So we seem to be on the same page.

-Chris-

blorg wrote: »

In any case I was making the point that Critical Mass did not seem to be limiting themselves to cycling two abreast but were spreading themselves all over the road which is clearly illegal. So we seem to be on the same page.

Excellent, let's move on.

seamus

TimAllen wrote: »

The Rules of the Road CLEARLY state that cyclists must cycle in single file as follows:
page 161 Rules of the Road
"Do cycle in single file if cycling
beside another person would
endanger, inconvenience or block
other traffic or pedestrians."
....
Instead, cyclists seek full enforcement of the rules for other road users while ignoring "inconvenient" rules for themselves.

Tim, I suggest you read how the ROTR interprets itself. Where something is written as "do" or "do not", this is a best practice suggestion and not a legal requirement. Legal obligations are written as "must" or "shall not". Cyclists are not legally obliged to ride in single file. However, there are obviously other laws they could fall foul of if they cause undue delay to following motorists.

The problem with the public's perception of cyclists is that they're all lumped in together as, "cyclists". However, exactly the same as with cars, you have a number of clear (and easily spotted) subsets:

• Bog-standard commuters
• Grannies & Grandads on bikes
• Enthusiasts - sports and leisure cyclists (i.e. people who do it because they enjoy it and maybe even compete)
• People who are paid to do it (i.e. couriers)

The first and last groups here are the ones most likely to break the law, but unfortunately they ruin it for the lot of us.
But unlike car drivers, instead of saying, "Feckin couriers", you say, "Feckin cyclists". When the taxi drivers have a protest and block up the roads, we don't say, "Feckin car drivers". Why not? It's the same thing.

I don't consider every other car driver to be as contemptable as most taxi drivers, so why do non-cyclists treat all cyclists as if they're crusty-haired, hippy activists with no respect for the road? The reality couldn't be further from the truth.

This post is related to critical mass . You'll see from the thread on cycling that there's a sizeable amount of resistance to CM events from sports and enthusiast cyclists - the people most likely to obey the law in an increasingly hostile road space. Couriers and commuters will just get more aggressive as car drivers get aggressive, but for those of us who actually give a **** it affects us the hardest - and we don't even support it!

So instead of viewing critical mass events as "cyclists out to get us", they need to be viewed in exactly the same way you'd view a taxi strike - as one small group of individuals with an agenda using stupid protest mechanisms to try and get what they want. Most people who care about cycling, don't attend or condone critical mass events. Just like most people who care about driving don't attend taxi protests.

Any "cyclists rights" event should actually be focusing on two primary problems:
1. Enforcing/modernising the road laws where they affect cyclists - including laws applying to cyclists, but also those applying to cars (such as parking)
2. Turning commuters into leisure cyclists through free or subsidised training. Proper road technique actually allows you to *enjoy* the morning commute rather than see it as a battle for your life. I've never been involved in an incident on the road in the morning which wasn't mostly or entirely down to me dropping my attention for a split second, even when the other party (where there was one!) would be legally in the wrong.

alastair

bladebrew wrote: »

i have no problem with cyclists as long as there not causing mayhem,the problem as mentioned is like a bad motorist but worse,a bad cyclist!!, i have seen people dressed in black cycling into oncoming traffic,old men on ancient bikes struggling up tiny hills,holding up cars, and the worst of all on rte news on the lauch day of the bike scheme in dublin,after they pointed out how important it was to wear a helmet,,then showed a woman smiling then cycling off with no helmet through a red light:eek:

if they want to be on the road,obey the rules of the road!

Down with old men cycling up hills! Those coffin-dodgers should just stay indoors and stop the 'mayhem' they cause on the public highway.

maidhc

I do a lot of cycling, and to be honest I find peoples attitudes to cyclists to be pretty OK for the most part.

I doubt if too many half serious cyclists would want cycle lanes. After all a reasonably fit person on a decent bike can maintain an average of 30km/h+ quite easily which won't unduly slow any car in the city centre.

TimAllen

maidhc wrote: »

I do a lot of cycling, and to be honest I find peoples attitudes to cyclists to be pretty OK for the most part.

I doubt if too many half serious cyclists would want cycle lanes. After all a reasonably fit person on a decent bike can maintain an average of 30km/h+ quite easily which won't unduly slow any car in the city centre.

The flaw I see in your last sentence is that cycling at 30km/h+ in the city centre is undesirable given the:
inferior braking power of bikes versus cars
the smaller size (and therefore visibility) of bikes versus cars means theres a much greater risk of the unexpected pedestrian walking out in front of you.

Given that all road users must "expect the unexpected" it is difficult to see how cycling at an AVERAGE of 30km/h could be justified in built up urban areas.

In any case, the subject matter is not about cyclists going 30km/h, its about the ones who group up and go at 5-10 km/h taking over the roads and inevitably, causing gridlock!
Another cyclist poster has said, CM activities are not supported by many cyclists so, even just on that basis, I think that CM events are wrong

Jip

Donnelly117 wrote: »

they don't pay road tax so they shouldn't be allowed on the road

Wow, again the presumption that cyclists don't own cars.

TimAllen

seamus wrote: »

Tim, I suggest you read how the ROTR interprets itself. Where something is written as "do" or "do not", this is a best practice suggestion and not a legal requirement. Legal obligations are written as "must" or "shall not". Cyclists are not legally obliged to ride in single file.

While I dont want to get involved in an off topic debate, I must correct your inaccurate statement above and suggest that it is you, in fact, who needs to read how the ROTR interprets itself. The terms it uses to differentiate legal requirement is "must" and best practice is "should"
A quick read of the rules I quoted on page 161 of the ROTR reveals that the two quoted rules appear under the "must" column i.e. legally obliged.

seamus

TimAllen wrote: »

While I dont want to get involved in an off topic debate, I must correct your inaccurate statement above and suggest that it is you, in fact, who needs to read how the ROTR interprets itself. The terms it uses to differentiate legal requirement is "must" and best practice is "should"
A quick read of the rules I quoted on page 161 of the ROTR reveals that the two quoted rules appear under the "must" column i.e. legally obliged.

Actually you're right (I must have been working off the older version in my head!), but interestingly the second item of cycling in single file in heavy traffic is not written anywhere in law. So the ROTR is wrong, pretty much. There is no legal obligation on cyclists to cycle single file in heavy traffic and heavy traffic by definition is slow-moving therefore cycling two abreast in heavy traffic will not endanger, block or inconvenience other road users (assuming both cyclists are moving at the pace of the traffic).

Note that I'm not even attempting to defend CM events. They *do* routinely break the ROTR and no doubt cruise effortlessly through lights too
They would call it "civil disobedience", but civil disobedience isn't an effective bargaining tool when your cause isn't one of humanitarian grounds.

Saab Ed

Cycling debates have no place in a motors forum IMO. Now on yer bike the lot of ye....

maidhc

TimAllen wrote: »

The flaw I see in your last sentence is that cycling at 30km/h+ in the city centre is undesirable given the:
inferior braking power of bikes versus cars
the smaller size (and therefore visibility) of bikes versus cars means theres a much greater risk of the unexpected pedestrian walking out in front of you.

Given that all road users must "expect the unexpected" it is difficult to see how cycling at an AVERAGE of 30km/h could be justified in built up urban areas.

In any case, the subject matter is not about cyclists going 30km/h, its about the ones who group up and go at 5-10 km/h taking over the roads and inevitably, causing gridlock!
Another cyclist poster has said, CM activities are not supported by many cyclists so, even just on that basis, I think that CM events are wrong

I have never heard of CM, and really if people want to protest by blocking roads that is their right within the confines of the law. The farmers and taxi drivers have done it... this in my eyes is just another protest.

I'm just making a general comment that cyclists in general are not a particular hinderance. Your comment about the brakes in bikes is wrong, I have little doubt but that a bike will stop from 30km/h as quickly as a car, and in most cases quicker (some bikes now have hydraulic disc brakes... which is complete overkill)

And would you rather be hit by a cyclist or a car? lets get real here!

I love cars... that is why I have about 5k posts in the motors forum, and I own two dirty polluting petrols as well as a slightly less polluting diesel. However there has to be common sense... from both sides.

seamus

maidhc wrote: »

I'm just making a general comment that cyclists in general are not a particular hinderance. Your comment about the brakes in bikes is wrong, I have little doubt but that a bike will stop from 30km/h as quickly as a car, and in most cases quicker (some bikes now have hydraulic disc brakes... which is complete overkill)

Without getting too much into it (it's not relevant here), disc brakes are only overkill depending on how you use the vehicle. In the same way that any engine over 1.2L is "overkill" if all you want to be able to do is get from A to B.

Tim is fundamentally right in that there are stark differences between a bike braking from 30km/h to zero and a car braking the same. Under normal braking circumstances, the difference is negligible, but in an emergency the car can slam on and they'll slide. A bike slamming on will usually result in flying over the bars or otherwise losing control. However, the same basic physics also apply to motorcycles and in both cases a 30km/h average is perfectly safe, assuming you get the lights to allow you to maintain your speed through the city. The higher riding position provides vastly improved vision over a car and provides the rider with the means to spot potential problems well before a car could ever hope to spot them.

high horse

Given the attitude towards motorists from the cyclists posting in this thread I don't expect any mutual respect any time soon

As far as cyclist safety on the roads, well you are the first person responsible for your safety, so just follow the rules of the road and we'll all be fine...

seamus

high horse wrote: »

Given the attitude towards motorists from the cyclists posting in this thread I don't expect any mutual respect any time soon

Well herein lies the problem. Most of the cyclists posting here (and in the cycling forum) *are* motorists. The sooner that all sides stop having an "us -v- them" attitude, the sooner progress can be made. CM unfortunately does absolutely nothing to combat this attitude and in fact explicitly enforces it.

As far as cyclist safety on the roads, well you are the first person responsible for your safety, so just follow the rules of the road and we'll all be fine...

One of the few aims of CM that I agree with is to highlight the existing rights afforded to cyclists under existing road traffic laws.

Motorists in general who don't cycle seem to have the above attitude, but often take it to the next level - i.e. "Cyclists are responsible for their own safety, it's none of my concern". When in reality you should react to a bike exactly the same way as you'd react to another vehicle on the road.

high horse

seamus wrote: »

Motorists in general who don't cycle seem to have the above attitude, but often take it to the next level - i.e. "Cyclists are responsible for their own safety, it's none of my concern". When in reality you should react to a bike exactly the same way as you'd react to another vehicle on the road.

Thats not what I was saying at all. I'm saying that cyclists are much less visible on the road than any other road users and they should take that into account when using the roads

An example of this was a few years back I was cycling two abreast on the hard shoulder with a friend when a car pulled out from a side road. I could see from the drivers face that she hadn't seen us so I came to a stop but my friend kept going and the woman pulled right out on the road. My friend crashed into the side of her car and took off her wing mirror with his knee. He was limping for two weeks - I was fine. Basically I think if you pay closer attention to whats going on around you, you're less likely to encounter any problems on the road (of course this is no guarantee)

Danbo!

high horse wrote: »

Given the attitude towards motorists from the cyclists posting in this thread I don't expect any mutual respect any time soon

The problem is also the fact that each forum is used by enthusiasts of driving and cycling, generally the ones that know the rules and obey them. So shouting at each other regarding different rules is counterproductive.

The problem is when a cyclist has a run in with someone who does not know the rules of the road and decides to hate all motorists. Flipping this is also true, a motorist meets a cyclist who doesnt care about rules, that hops on a bike and breaks every red with the attitude of "I'm on a bike, its your fault if you touch me"

I've witnessed both terrible driving and terrible cycling, while driving and cycling.

But I do think the discussion is healthy, clearing up matters such as two abreast riding to motorists who are unaware of the logic behind it, and drivers input, for example in my experience driving, a high viz will do nothing for a cyclist without a light source, especially when viewed through a wing mirror covered in beaded rain

tallnik

Stee wrote: »

The problem is also the fact that each forum is used by enthusiasts of driving and cycling, generally the ones that know the rules and obey them. So shouting at each other regarding different rules is counterproductive.

The problem is when a cyclist has a run in with someone who does not know the rules of the road and decides to hate all motorists. Flipping this is also true, a motorist meets a cyclist who doesnt care about rules, that hops on a bike and breaks every red with the attitude of "I'm on a bike, its your fault if you touch me"

I've witnessed both terrible driving and terrible cycling, while driving and cycling.

But I do think the discussion is healthy, clearing up matters such as two abreast riding to motorists who are unaware of the logic behind it, and drivers input, for example in my experience driving, a high viz will do nothing for a cyclist without a light source, especially when viewed through a wing mirror covered in beaded rain

Well said, you covered a number of points I was going to make.

There have been a number of excellent posts in this thread - I'm hopping over here from the cycling forum thread on Critical Mass.

I'm a cyclist who has owned cars. I would never use my car to commute on a regular basis in a city like Dublin or in any city where I can use a bicycle reasonably safely. I enjoy cycling, it's fast, finding parking is easier, and it's cheap.

I have attended Critical Mass rides in the past for the simple reason that I feel the need to voice in protest the lack of adequate cycling infrastructure in a number of the places I've lived. (New to Dublin, while having lived in many different cities in Europe and N. America). Now I personally prefer the style espoused by the Courteous Mass rides (see here http://www.ajc.com/print/content/printedaition/2008/07/17/bikescl.html - for the best explanation I've found) and the Dublin monthly ride seems to have evolved into this recently.

That's not to say that I don't support other avenues of cycling advocacy, but simply that I still feel the need to hop on a bike once a month and go protest about the lack of safe(r) facilities for cycling around cities.

Having always worn a helmet, used lights (very bring and flashy), worn bright clothing when possible, and signaled my turns I've still had my share of close calls, even when paying attention! For the simple fact that cyclists are so much more physically vulnerable than drivers I'd like to see ways to improve the interaction of cars, buses, etc as traffic and cyclists.

A courteous mass style ride hardly inconveniences drivers on a friday during rush hour. Given that traffic is already terrible. But the riders are seen in numbers, and every month more and more people see the group ride, and sometimes will learn about what it's goals are. Media attention I believe is the best way to disseminate that information to as many people as possible, although critical mass have often handed out informational leaflets as they 'corked' side lanes.

Thoughts?

Nik