Petition for a minimum overtaking distance when drivers overtake bicycle riders

beazee

We're almost halfway! 889/2,000

LETTER TO
Irish Department of Transport, (tourism and sport) Minister Paschal Donohoe

We ask the department of Transport to amend current overtaking laws and persue the adoption of a law that requires motorists to give cyclists 1.5metres clearance when passing from the rear.

More: https://www.change.org/p/petition-for-a-minimum-overtaking-distance-when-drivers-overtake-bicycle-riders

Queensland's implementation of this safe overtaking law:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yYikzTBsA

Will you please sign the petition on your behalf?
Thank you.

Seaswimmer

signed.........

I would correct the spelling of "persue" (pursue)

looks more professional..

godtabh

What's the point? If existing laws arent enforced what hope does this have?

Beasty

What happens where a road does not allow for 1.5m? Be careful what you wish for, particularly as a lot of roads in Ireland are simply not wide enough (think about the number of unbroken white lines as well that would prevent motorists overtaking in many circumstances). I can see motorists lobbying for cyclists to be required to dismount to allow motorised vehicles pass if something like this gathers momentum

Dangerous driving laws are perfectly adequate to deal with this, but as pointed out by godtabh there is already a major enforcement issue in Ireland

barneystinson

I'll pass, thanks...

Sheldons Brain

Beasty wrote: »

What happens where a road does not allow for 1.5m? Be careful what you wish for, particularly as a lot of roads in Ireland are simply not wide enough (think about the number of unbroken white lines as well that would prevent motorists overtaking in many circumstances). I can see motorists lobbying for cyclists to be required to dismount to allow motorised vehicles pass if something like this gathers momentum

Cycling could be prohibited on such roads, as they are not suitable.

el tel

Is this a joke? How will such a law be enforced? Who on earth can judge if a car passed at 1.45m or 1.51m?

Of course 1.5m clearance would be desirable where conditions allow, but there are plenty of places where a vehicles can barely give 1.5 metres when passing in the opposite direction, let alone from behind!

degsie

If all cyclists endeavour to obey red light signals, I'll happily sign.

Seaswimmer

degsie wrote: »

If all cyclists endeavour to obey red light signals, I'll happily sigh.

Good man Degsie....

I didnt think sighing was associated with happiness

edit.. Beat me to the correction!!!

degsie

Huh?

Tenzor07

A number of European countries have a passing distance spelled out in law. France for example has a passing distance of 1.5 metres, reduced to 1 metres in urban areas where speeds are expected to be lower.

In September, when California became one of the latest jurisdictions to have a safe distance passing law, the LA Times reported: “Statewide regulations will require drivers to stay at least three feet away from cyclists while passing. If traffic is too heavy to change lanes, or if other conditions make a three-foot buffer impossible, drivers must slow to a “reasonable and prudent” speed and wait to pass until the cyclist is safe. Until now, California drivers were required to pass bicycles at ‘a safe distance,’ but the law did not specify what that meant.”

rp

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Cycling could be prohibited on such roads, as they are not suitable.

Perhaps it's the fat modern cars that are not suitable for our roads, and it is they that should be prohibited?

beazee

Agree with the poor enforcement and doubt this would change in the future.
And can't see punishing drivers for maintaining 1 m instead of 1.5 m at overtaking.

The current ROTR stand "should give extra space" is not descriptive enough IMHO.


And the goal would be to get drivers familiar with "1.5 m" as enough safe space to avoid 'confusion' as they assumed 6 inches was enough "extra space". How on earth could they know it wasn't?

Tenzor07

rp wrote: »

Perhaps it's the fat modern cars that are not suitable for our roads, and it is they that should be prohibited?

But how would children get to school unless in one of these?

feichin

I think this could be a great idea IF enforced properly AND applied to all road users.
Imagine, cyclists riding side by side would be required BY LAW to stay 1.5 meters apart, this would effectively mean that on a lot of our roads, most of the time one of them would be on the wrong side of the road. These cyclists would / should be liable to the same sanctions as motorists.
The plus side of this would be that riding two or more abreast would effectively be illegal, if cyclists complied with this law it would make the task of passing cyclists by motorists a lot easier and safer.

Eamonnator

If a law requiring a distance of 1.5 metres clearance was introduced, it would last until the 1st case was brought before a court, and the Garda, or whoever was bringing the prosecution, was asked how he measured the passing clearance distance.

Eamonnator

barneystinson wrote: »

I'll pass, thanks...

Welcome to the cycling forum.

rp

I once read a case law report where an overtaking car had hit a cyclist. The (motorists) defense was that the cyclist had weaved.
The judgment was that cyclists can be expected to weave and that the recommended minimum safe overtaking distance of 1.5m had not been maintained.
The motorist was found guilty of dangerous driving causing an accident, and the ruling added to the body of case law in Ireland.
So, provided an accident occurs, we do have a minimum safe passing law.

bigar

degsie wrote: »

If all cyclists endeavour to obey red light signals, I'll happily sign.

I agree, plus of course:

- cars stop parking on footpaths and cycle lines
- cars, trucks, busses do not run the red lights
- no turns are done over continues white lines
- cars cut off cyclists on junctions
- cars switch on there headlights instead of just their parking lights when driving
- cars stop blocking crossroads

ROK ON

I think that it is a progressive idea to enshrine in law a minimum passing distance applying to all vehicles on the road.

ON todays spin, I had one car 'kiss' my thigh with the tip of a wingmirror on the Kilock - Maynooth road.
Lat week while commuting to work some asshat on a fixie decided that it was acceptable to halfwheel my rear wheel on my inside as I was truning right onto Capel street bridge - as I move from right to left on the bridge (after I had made the turn I realised that I was veering into him. A few week back on the Sneem to Caherdaniel road (very very narrow) I was driving my kids for a day at the beach. A truck overtokk our small car with no space. I was forced into the verge as the road narrowed.

Reality is that many road users do not know how to overtake and behave on roads - hence the need for legislation in my view (and education).

Is it enforcable - like much of our legislation it is not enforcable until the witness is a Gardai - that doesnt mean its not worthwhile.

I simply do not buy the earlier argument that it would lead to a heave against cyclists by making certain roads unsafe. That is an extreme scenario and one where I would ascribe the liklihood of that as being close to negative.
If on narrow roads other road users cannot overtake with this minimum space then it is simply unsafe to overtake.
Eductaion and PR will not change this alone.

I will support any reasonable petition seeking a minimum passing distance.

07Lapierre

bigar wrote: »

I agree, plus of course:

- cars stop parking on footpaths and cycle lines
- cars, trucks, busses do not run the red lights
- no turns are done over continues white lines
- cars cut off cyclists on junctions
- cars switch on there headlights instead of just their parking lights when driving
- cars stop blocking crossroads

You forgot one...cars stop KILLING PEOPLE ( nothing to do with who is a fault.. Just an incident between a cyclist and a car will always be worse for the cyclist )

miece16

cyclists should pay road tax in that case

Beasty

miece16 wrote: »

cyclists should pay road tax in that case

Why pick on cyclists? - if you want to make them pay road tax surely motorists should also pay such a tax

Ryath

miece16 wrote: »

cyclists should pay road tax in that case

How about pedestrians then or horse riders or like a elderly neighbour of mine in her late 70's who goes for a walk every day on a country road who was over taken with about 2 feet to spare by twit in front of me doing 80kph+ on a bend despite her being bedecked in the magical RSA vest.

Ole Rodrigo

As a matter of interest, do large vehicles like Range Rover SUVs have to be approved for Irish roads ?

Beasty

ror_74 wrote: »

As a matter of interest, do large vehicles like Range Rover SUVs have to be approved for Irish roads ?

Approved in what way? If tractors and lorries are allowed why would there be any restrictions on large cars?

Ole Rodrigo

Beasty wrote: »

Approved in what way? If tractors and lorries are allowed why would there be any restrictions on large cars?

For general rather than commercial use under B license.

K.Flyer

degsie wrote: »

If all cyclists endeavour to obey red light signals, I'll happily sign.

I will go a step further,

When ALL cyclists have a clear understanding of the importance of having Bright and Clear lighting to the front and rear of their bikes so that they can be seen during dark evenings and sh!te weather.
Until then I will give as much of a wide berth and time as I have done.
(Thanks to those cyclists who give the nod or little wave of thanks when I do, its nice to receive an acknowledgement)

Calhoun

What happens when folks are cycling two abreast, some roads you may just get the 1.5 meters for a single cyclist but no way you would get it if two side by side.

If something like this is implemented. they might just have to bring in a ban on certain roads. I know a few 80KM bog roads that you would not make that minimum safe distance but you can overtake today.

Beasty

ror_74 wrote: »

For general rather than commercial use under B license.

All cars can be driven on any open road within the EU - no special licence (beyond a driving licence) required

aFlabbyPanda

degsie wrote: »

If all cyclists endeavour to obey red light signals, I'll happily sign.

If all traffic lights were applicable to cyclists I'd happily obey them all but since some are sensor driven I could wait all day long and they'll never change to green.

DoomZ

Nope...not till I see some common sense in this area first. Worst traffic law offenders.

kandoola

is there a petition to require cyclists to cycle no further away from the side of the road or kerb than 0.5 meters?

I would gladly sign that, and it would make cycling safer too.

As both a cyclist and a driver i am continually flabbergasted at the amount of times i have come close to killing a cyclist as they swing out to overtake another cyclist, or i just dont see them fast enough with darkness, raindrops on mirros and inadequate lighting, especially those **** flashing lights, that look like just another rain drop reflection on your windscreen or mirror. I just dont understand how so many people put themselves in danger of getting flattened all the time.

Be aware that a motorist doesnt always see you when you think they do and putting yourself further into the way of a vehicle that could end your life id not a good idea. And before people start saying that the drivers should be watching out - yes they should - but they arent always vigilant enough to safe your life for you. The driver may be at fault but the cyclist is the pancake.

A law (which is actually enforced) should be made to not allow cyclists to overtake either. That is when the most danger happens.

monument

K.Flyer wrote: »

I will go a step further,

When ALL cyclists have a clear understanding of the importance of having Bright and Clear lighting to the front and rear of their bikes so that they can be seen during dark evenings and sh!te weather.
Until then I will give as much of a wide berth and time as I have done.
(Thanks to those cyclists who give the nod or little wave of thanks when I do, its nice to receive an acknowledgement)

Imagine if we stopped all nice things / safety measures / road improvements for motorists until ALL motorists learned how to use their fog lights and dippers or until all motorists made sure they never drive with a defective bulb.

You'd never suggest that but you're suggesting something similar for cycling!?!

monument

kandoola wrote: »

is there a petition to require cyclists to cycle no further away from the side of the road or kerb than 0.5 meters?

That goes against cycling safety training and err... a basic ability to cycle anywhere.

You being both a motorist and cyclist is meaningless when you say daft things which shows you don't have a clue.

ezra_pound

kandoola wrote: »

is there a petition to require cyclists to cycle no further away from the side of the road or kerb than 0.5 meters?

I would gladly sign that, and it would make cycling safer too.

As both a cyclist and a driver i am continually flabbergasted at the amount of times i have come close to killing a cyclist as they swing out to overtake another cyclist, or i just dont see them fast enough with darkness, raindrops on mirros and inadequate lighting, especially those **** flashing lights, that look like just another rain drop reflection on your windscreen or mirror. I just dont understand how so many people put themselves in danger of getting flattened all the time.

Be aware that a motorist doesnt always see you when you think they do and putting yourself further into the way of a vehicle that could end your life id not a good idea. And before people start saying that the drivers should be watching out - yes they should - but they arent always vigilant enough to safe your life for you. The driver may be at fault but the cyclist is the pancake.

A law (which is actually enforced) should be made to not allow cyclists to overtake either. That is when the most danger happens.

Face palm moment.

Bad cyclist/driver alert

ezra_pound

kandoola wrote: »

is there a petition to require cyclists to cycle no further away from the side of the road or kerb than 0.5 meters?

I would gladly sign that, and it would make cycling safer too.

As both a cyclist and a driver i am continually flabbergasted at the amount of times i have come close to killing a cyclist as they swing out to overtake another cyclist, or i just dont see them fast enough with darkness, raindrops on mirros and inadequate lighting, especially those **** flashing lights, that look like just another rain drop reflection on your windscreen or mirror. I just dont understand how so many people put themselves in danger of getting flattened all the time.

Be aware that a motorist doesnt always see you when you think they do and putting yourself further into the way of a vehicle that could end your life id not a good idea. And before people start saying that the drivers should be watching out - yes they should - but they arent always vigilant enough to safe your life for you. The driver may be at fault but the cyclist is the pancake.

A law (which is actually enforced) should be made to not allow cyclists to overtake either. That is when the most danger happens.

As a cyclist and a motorist I find it disturbing how many motorists believe that cyclists should be kept to the side of the road. And no it does not make cycling safer.

I sense that you do not regularly actually cycle at all.

Jawgap

Not convinced.

Getting overtaken at 1.5m by a truck doing 80km/hr is different to getting passed at the same distance by a mini.

I'd prefer if there was a petition calling for some enforcement of the existing law on safe passing.

YellowSheep

Is this 1.5 meter for a single cyclist or 3 side by side chatting?

SimonLynch

Impossible to overtake cyclists by any width when they're three abreast having a natter and pretending not to see the queue of considerate but fuming drivers behind them on the winding bits of the Blessington road.

kandoola

ezra_pound wrote: »

As a cyclist and a motorist I find it disturbing how many motorists believe that cyclists should be kept to the side of the road. And no it does not make cycling safer.

I sense that you do not regularly actually cycle at all.

I drive and cycle every day.
I have nearly killed several cyclists while driving.

Always seems to be the ones wearing lycra who are in a hurry to just swerve out to pass another cyclist. Or who overtake me when i am indicating left, slowing to a crawl at the turn and then they overtake me on the inside as i am turning.

When cycling I have never been nearly killed as i have a healthy fear of the machines which can kill me and i do everything i can to make sure that i stay as much as i can out of those situations.

Too bad most cyclists dont drive as well as cycle. They would see from both sides of the windshield just how exposed they are making themselves to injury or even death.

ezra_pound

kandoola wrote: »

I drive and cycle every day.
I have nearly killed several cyclists while driving.

Always seems to be the ones wearing lycra who are in a hurry to just swerve out to pass another cyclist. Or who overtake me when i am indicating left, slowing to a crawl at the turn and then they overtake me on the inside as i am turning.

When cycling I have never been nearly killed as i have a healthy fear of the machines which can kill me and i do everything i can to make sure that i stay as much as i can out of those situations.

Too bad most cyclists dont drive as well as cycle. They would see from both sides of the windshield just how exposed they are making themselves to injury or even death.

But most cyclists DO drive as well.

ezra_pound

kandoola wrote: »

I drive and cycle every day.
I have nearly killed several cyclists while driving.

Always seems to be the ones wearing lycra who are in a hurry to just swerve out to pass another cyclist. Or who overtake me when i am indicating left, slowing to a crawl at the turn and then they overtake me on the inside as i am turning.

Surely this demonstrates just one of the many circumstances where it is safer to be cycling in the middle of the road, directly behind the left turning car?

Are you contradicting yourself?

kandoola

ezra_pound wrote: »

Surely this demonstrates just one of the many circumstances where it is safer to be cycling in the middle of the road, directly behind the left turning car?

Are you contradicting yourself?

Yeah i heard that one before.
Its never safe to put yourself into the middle of the road. I just hope the person coming behind you isnt wearing high heels or has wet shoes or even is picking their nose.

Far better not to be in front of them if their foot slips or they sneeze.

Also causing a problem with the car having to cross partly into the opposite lane then to overtake you too. Might not cause the cyclist in the middle of the road a problem but it could cause an accident that didnt need to happen for the driver or other drivers/cyclists.

Beasty

Just checked my usual commute route this evening - of the first 10km or so, it would only be legal to overtake cyclists for about 600m, assuming no oncoming traffic. I really cannot see something like this as workable, and will have a real potential for winding up a lot of motorists.

Then there's the issue of cycle lanes - if we demand our "personal space" plus another 1.5m you can reckon there would be a stronger lobby to re-introduce mandatory use of them. I'll say it again, but be careful what you wish for.

All that's really needed is the recommended 1.5m being included in the RoTR as the space that motorists should leave whenever possible, and a statement from the Gardai saying that they will assume anyone not giving adequate space, with reference to the RoTR specification, is driving dangerously and will act accordingly

ezra_pound

kandoola wrote: »

Yeah i heard that one before.
Its never safe to put yourself into the middle of the road. I just hope the person coming behind you isnt wearing high heels or has wet shoes or even is picking their nose.

Far better not to be in front of them if their foot slips or they sneeze.

Also causing a problem with the car having to cross partly into the opposite lane then to overtake you too. Might not cause the cyclist in the middle of the road a problem but it could cause an accident that didnt need to happen for the driver or other drivers/cyclists.

Why would car be overtaking me? I'm behind another car (turning left). If car behind me decides to overtake me then it also has to overtake left turning car which would put it further out into oncoming traffic lane. After left turning car has turned I resume in secondary positioning if it is safe for car behind to overtake me.

This is official recommended safe cycling policy in UK.

kandoola

ezra_pound wrote: »

Why would car be overtaking me? I'm behind another car (turning left). If car behind me decides to overtake me then it also has to overtake left turning car which would put it further out into oncoming traffic lane. After left turning car has turned I resume in secondary positioning if it is safe for car behind to overtake me.

This is official recommended safe cycling policy in UK.

That makes no sense. There is not just one situation ever on the road.
You, drivers and the road can be in many different states and positions on your daily commute.

Are you always turning left when you are cycling in the middle of the road, with another car in front of you turning left and a car behind you too?

I think not.

So at any time you go into the middle of the road in front of a car how can you be sure that the driver doesnt get distracted by something else or is even drunk?

My point is that anything could happen and if something goes wrong with the driver behind yous concentration you are the one that is going to die, if you have put yourself right in the middle of his path.

It might never happen, but i certainly wouldnt want to be in front of the out of control car behind me when i could have been beside the kerb.

When you are driving have you never had to take action to avoid a cyclist getting himself killed. It happens to me at least once a week in Dublin. Lucky for the cyclists that im watching them closely. And off they go and never know how close they came to injury or death. Im sure ive had near misses that i never even noticed too.

One guy i was working with got knocked down (he only ended up with a broken wrist) by a driver who slightly jumped the green light one morning. The workmate went past me at the lights and through the junction while they were just turning red for us. I could see the other car moving even before my light turned red. I knew exactly what was going to happen. It all happened in split second. Hes lucky he didnt get killed. Strictly it was the drivers fault but the workmate was not being careful. Even though he still thinks he didnt do anything wrong try telling that to his mother at his funeral if he had been killed.

He still tells the story about how this driver broke the red light and nearly killed him. but neglects to add that he could have easily avoided it by being more careful too.

JayRoc

kandoola wrote: »

is there a petition to require cyclists to cycle no further away from the side of the road or kerb than 0.5 meters?

I would gladly sign that, and it would make cycling safer too.

As both a cyclist and a driver i am continually flabbergasted at the amount of times i have come close to killing a cyclist as they swing out to overtake another cyclist, or i just dont see them fast enough with darkness, raindrops on mirros and inadequate lighting, especially those **** flashing lights, that look like just another rain drop reflection on your windscreen or mirror. I just dont understand how so many people put themselves in danger of getting flattened all the time.

Be aware that a motorist doesnt always see you when you think they do and putting yourself further into the way of a vehicle that could end your life id not a good idea. And before people start saying that the drivers should be watching out - yes they should - but they arent always vigilant enough to safe your life for you. The driver may be at fault but the cyclist is the pancake.

A law (which is actually enforced) should be made to not allow cyclists to overtake either. That is when the most danger happens.

As a cyclist, it sounds to me that you don't really know how to cycle properly. "0.5 metres" from the kerb??

And as a driver, are you saying you can see someone better when they're a foot or so to the left of you, rather than directly in front of you?

If there is room to overtake a cyclist, there is room, or there isn't. In the vast majority of cases, if you can't overtake a cyclist who is sat smack bang in the middle of your lane... you wouldn't have been able to overtake them if they were "0.5 metres" from the kerb.

Sheldons Brain

rp wrote: »

Perhaps it's the fat modern cars that are not suitable for our roads, and it is they that should be prohibited?

It is they that distinguish us from the 19th century and make modern life possible.

jack presley

What happens when you're driving on a Sunday morning on a country road and you come up behind a group of cyclists 2-3 abreast. If you have to keep 1.5m away from them, you'll be in the hedge on the other side of the road.

monument

jack presley wrote: »

What happens when you're driving on a Sunday morning on a country road and you come up behind a group of cyclists 2-3 abreast. If you have to keep 1.5m away from them, you'll be in the hedge on the other side of the road.

Beasty wrote: »

Just checked my usual commute route this evening - of the first 10km or so, it would only be legal to overtake cyclists for about 600m, assuming no oncoming traffic. I really cannot see something like this as workable, and will have a real potential for winding up a lot of motorists.

In September, when California became one of the latest jurisdictions to have a safe distance passing law, the LA Times reported: “Statewide regulations will require drivers to stay at least three feet away from cyclists while passing. If traffic is too heavy to change lanes, or if other conditions make a three-foot buffer impossible, drivers must slow to a “reasonable and prudent” speed and wait to pass until the cyclist is safe. Until now, California drivers were required to pass bicycles at ‘a safe distance,’ but the law did not specify what that meant.”