Passing Cyclists

keithclancy

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/road-safety-officer-wants-law-on-gap-between-cars-and-cyclists-1.2057928

Seems to me that the road is not really fit for cyclists anyway.

My opinion would be that the cyclist should be further out in the middle of the driving lane, when cycling so far into the side of the road the person driving the car doesn't bother to overtake them and just passes them while staying in lane.

What would be your opinion ?

Caliden

Road seems more than fine for a cyclist, just a real **** driver who came within inches of hitting them.

keithclancy

Caliden wrote: »

Road seems more than fine for a cyclist, just a real **** driver who came within inches of hitting them.

Cyclists sharing a road with cars in a 100km/h zone and nowhere to go in the event of a problem ???

corktina

yes but the car doesn't have to be doing 100...when you see a bike,(or any vehicle/road user) you slow down and wait until there is room to pass them before passing. Oh and yes, they should be in the centre of their lane, they are entitled to their half of the road, same as any vehicle.

BMJD

waste of time, won't be enforced

Tombo2001

corktina wrote: »

yes but the car doesn't have to be doing 100...when you see a bike,(or any vehicle/road user) you slow down and wait until there is room to pass them before passing. Oh and yes, they should be in the centre of their lane, they are entitled to their half of the road, same as any vehicle.

All fine in theory......

seamus

Tombo2001 wrote: »

All fine in theory......

Seems to work just fine for tractors.

Caliden

keithclancy wrote: »

Cyclists sharing a road with cars in a 100km/h zone and nowhere to go in the event of a problem ???

What sort of problem are you talking about? What road are you comparing this to where there is room for these 'problems' ?

keithclancy

Caliden wrote: »

What sort of problem are you talking about? What road are you comparing this to where there is room for these 'problems' ?

Hang on ... you say a road with 2 vehicles travelling at 100km/h in opposite directions, sharing the same road space as a bicycle travelling at 30-40km/h that has zero protection is safe ?

Special Circumstances

keithclancy wrote: »

Hang on ... you say a road with 2 vehicles travelling at 100km/h in opposite directions, sharing the same road space as a bicycle travelling at 30-40km/h that has zero protection is safe ?

If the drivers are fit to be left out in public, yes.

Tombo2001

seamus wrote: »

Seems to work just fine for tractors.

Absolutely it does.

If a car hits a tractor then the risk is with the car.

If a car hits a bike then the risk is not with the car.

Tombo2001

Special Circumstances wrote: »

If the drivers are fit to be left out in public, yes.

That is the If......

Would you say 19 drivers out of 20 are in this category? If that was the ratio, it would still be very risky for the cyclist. If the ratio was 199 drivers out of 200, that would still be very risky for the cyclist.

Bearing in mind how many drivers are going around with a smartphone in their hands these days......

Edit: and don't get me wrong.....the fault could also be with the cyclists, obviously. How many are still going around at night time with black clothes and no lights.....

Special Circumstances

Tombo2001 wrote: »

That is the If......

Bearing in mind how many drivers are going around with a smartphone in their hands these days.......

Yup, pretty big If in a country where driving is seen as an almost automatic entitlement.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Edit: and don't get me wrong.....the fault could also be with the cyclists, obviously. How many are still going around at night time with black clothes and no lights.....

Yup, thickos not confined to cars by any means!

Actually, keithclancy , now that I think of it - there are very few 100kph rural roads that I can think of without hardshoulders, and yes the thought of cyling any of them as an individual would stress me out big time. I'm thinking of most of the N20 cattletrack between Limerick and Mallow, anywhere near Ballyvourney on the Cork Killarney road. Probably a lot of the N24 Limerick Tipp Waterford etc etc. I cycle for pleasure and relaxation and I can't see any of those roads providing that.

keithclancy

OSI wrote: »

If you can't see far enough ahead to know if a cyclist is on the road, you shouldn't be doing 100km/h. If you can see a cyclist on the road and it's not safe to pass, you shouldn't be doing 100km/h.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

If the drivers are fit to be left out in public, yes.

In a built up area the speed limit is 50 km/h, in residential areas 30km/h

Pedestrians have no protection, the limit exists from my understanding 2 reasons:
1. Stopping distance and the ability to react to a situation.
2. Probability of death increases dramatically as your impact speed increases.

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/speed_en.pdf



On an N road with no hard shoulder and an unprotected road user with a speed differential of up to 60-70 km/h the likely hood of death is extremely high.

That, in my point of view makes it not fit for purpose, there are many ways to make it safe for cyclists:

Dedicated Cycle lanes
or
Make the roads that are also used by cyclists into single lane roads with a cycle lane on either side and reduce the speed limit.
or
Reduce the speed limit to 60km/h where its not possible to see more than 300 meters ahead.

I for one would not cycle on that type of road anymore than I would walk down the hard shoulder of a motorway.

Pawwed Rig

Well I have to commend Mayo CC for this. It is actually a good idea. A huge step up from their strategy last year of blessing the roads in an effort to decrease fatalities.

Special Circumstances

keithclancy, I agree with you having thought about it - 100kph N roads edit-> without hard shoulders are mostly silly places to cycle.

keithclancy wrote: »

On an N road with no hard shoulder and an unprotected road user with a speed differential of up to 60-70 km/h the likely hood of death is extremely high.

That, in my point of view makes it not fit for purpose,
...

I for one would not cycle on that type of road anymore than I would walk down the hard shoulder of a motorway.

On the other hand, any driver faced with a cyclist and an oncoming vehicle who can't compute " can't pass safely, must slow down and wait for safe chance" is either:

a) an inexperienced driver
b) an utter imbecile
c) an utter pr1ck with no regard for other people

Only one of those situations can be improved to make the person suitable for continued use of a vehicle in public. Any adult in the other two categories is what they is...

What would they do if it was a horse or a cow? I bet they'd slow down rather than trying to muscle/squeeze by...

Tenzor07

This video would seem to apply to certain types of people who have problems passing slower road users:

visual

Following the logic that a cyclists should be in the middle of the lane should a walker or runner be in middle of road.

The push and promotion of cycling has been done without cycle pathways

traveling b roads between small towns there are hoards of cyclists that think they are in tour De France out in the middle of winding roads. These same roads are at best only wide enough for a car passing in either direction.
Walkers step in to the ditch and walk facing the traffic but come around a corner find a cyclist in middle of road there is no where to go.

Most of these cyclists are training / sport.

If I want to race my car I can go to a track and not abuse public roads but some cyclists are pushing the envelope and a danger to themselves and other road users if there isn't a hard shoulder or cycle lane then the small b road isn't suitable to be training on.

In fairness most cyclists that are out training are brightly lit with high visibility clothing and lights.

It's commuter cyclists that are more often unlit in dark clothing. Thankfully most of these cycle in towns and city where there is street lighting

Pawwed Rig

Just drive behind them until you find a safe place to over take? Your desire to drive from town to town is no more or less important than someones decision to cycle with their friends.

Casati

As a cyclist, I see a big risk with this minimum distance rule, as very often I find that cars overtaking on a country road already give too much room to the cyclist already and go to the opposite side of the road passing you out- without a care in the world about the on-coming cars. The risk here is that by giving too much room, the driver of the car is risking a head on crash, which could likely cause problems for both drivers and the cyclist

This is also v common with cars overtaking tractors, its like they feel they have the right to overtake, regardless of what might be coming, and often pass out on double yellows, or into a blind corner, and generally at very slow speed etc.

visual

Pawwed Rig wrote:

Just drive behind them until you find a safe place to over take? Your desire to drive from town to town is no more or less important than someones decision to cycle with their friends.

during tour de France they close the roads so they can race in safety. unlike selfish behavior of many race cyclist that expect motorists to make concessions to keep them safe. why are they in centre of roads is it because their very narrow light weight wheels and tubeless tyres aren't designed for thing more than a smooth road

Pawwed Rig

visual wrote: »

during tour de France they close the roads so they can race in safety. unlike selfish behavior of many race cyclist that expect motorists to make concessions to keep them safe. why are they in centre of roads is it because their very narrow light weight wheels and tubeless tyres aren't designed for thing more than a smooth road

So instead they have to make concessions for you? So you can get to your destination a minute quicker than if you drove is a safe manner? Motorists are the most dangerous thing on the road. That is the reason you need to get training and a permit before you drive. As part of your training you were surely informed as to how to behave towards more vulnerable road users like cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists?

Mycroft H

visual wrote: »

during tour de France they close the roads so they can race in safety. unlike selfish behavior of many race cyclist that expect motorists to make concessions to keep them safe. why are they in centre of roads is it because their very narrow light weight wheels and tubeless tyres aren't designed for thing more than a smooth road

That's rubbish. I've one of those "narrow light weight wheels". I could surprise you with the abuse they take. Look up cyclocross.

It's still safer to take a 3rd of the lane however. Defensive cycling keeps me safe and gives me room to react to hazards.

Casati

Casati wrote: »

As a cyclist, I see a big risk with this minimum distance rule, as very often I find that cars overtaking on a country road already give too much room to the cyclist already and go to the opposite side of the road passing you out- without a care in the world about the on-coming cars. The risk here is that by giving too much room, the driver of the car is risking a head on crash, which could likely cause problems for both drivers and the cyclist

This is also v common with cars overtaking tractors, its like they feel they have the right to overtake, regardless of what might be coming, and often pass out on double yellows, or into a blind corner, and generally at very slow speed etc.

This, it drives me insane when a car in front about to pass a cyclist feel the need to go out about 3 meters onto the other side of the road. It seems we have a large majority of drivers that have no spacial awareness and cannot judge the width of their cars, they mostly over compensate IMO.

The only time a cyclist has tried to give me hassle is one guy decided the cycle lane on the footpath was too good for him so due to it being a tight 3 lane approach to the port tunnel i had to pass him closer than normal. Theres a reason the cycle lane is on the footpath because there's no space for them. :mad:

Amirani

cisk wrote: »

Theres a reason the cycle lane is on the footpath because there's no space for them. :mad:

Yeah.

Except that's not the reason.

Pawwed Rig

cisk wrote: »

The only time a cyclist has tried to give me hassle is one guy decided the cycle lane on the footpath was too good for him so due to it being a tight 3 lane approach to the port tunnel i had to pass him closer than normal. Theres a reason the cycle lane is on the footpath because there's no space for them. :mad:

There was no space for you so you pushed your way through at an unsafe distance. Are you really so important that a few seconds of your time was worth endangering another human being?

I've been driving for 20 years now and I don't recall ever being delayed more than a minute by a cyclist.

CatFromHue

I don't really see a min passing distance making any difference to cyclist fatality's or crashes as I don't think a car passing a cyclist within the current min passing distance leading to a death or crash.

When a car passes me on my bike too close I think "**** that was close, fubbin backstard" but it doesn't lead to me crashing.

When I'm out on my bike the vast vast majority of motorists passing me give me plenty of space and I don't see this rule changing anything.

I've also been cycling along when a car passed me pretty close which had a dog in the back who leaned out and tried to lick me on the face lol

Spook_ie

I welcome a minimum passing distance, just remember to keep the same distance away from my car as you'd like me to keep away from you when you're overtaking on the left or right

Spook_ie

cisk wrote: »

This, it drives me insane when a car in front about to pass a cyclist feel the need to go out about 3 meters onto the other side of the road. It seems we have a large majority of drivers that have no spacial awareness and cannot judge the width of their cars, they mostly over compensate IMO.

The only time a cyclist has tried to give me hassle is one guy decided the cycle lane on the footpath was too good for him so due to it being a tight 3 lane approach to the port tunnel i had to pass him closer than normal. Theres a reason the cycle lane is on the footpath because there's no space for them. :mad:

I'm confused, which approach to the tunnel are you referring to?

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3530187,-6.2242226,3a,75y,41.32h,86.43t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sQPnAWbebEdYhlPDqSwAxtg!2e0
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3983106,-6.2376464,3a,75y,218.9h,97.43t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sybdC81JZcDdhW93B5_lAfg!2e0

Pawwed Rig

Spook_ie wrote: »

I welcome a minimum passing distance, just remember to keep the same distance away from my car as you'd like me to keep away from you when you're overtaking on the left or right

Ridiculous post. A cyclist passing a car too close is not a safety issue for the car driver. As a 'professional' driver you should be more aware of this than others.

ironclaw

This thread reminds of a particular cyclist who regularly travels this stretch at 4.30 / 5.30 in the evenings:

https://goo.gl/maps/DiBZN

Its an extremely fast piece of road with traffic merging into Bray South / Greystones and merging out onto the N11 for Kilmac and beyond. And yet, he merrily cycles through both the merging lanes to continue to Kilmac. Its all well and good saying 'you shouldn't be doing 100km/h if you can't see' but frankly I'm not expecting someone to be as daft as to cross a merging lane on a dark winters evening on what is effectively the busiest road in Ireland. In addition, sight-line can be greatly diminished as its a hill, cars in front and you often have trucks / buses at that time.

No issue sharing the road but spare a thought for your loved ones and the poor driver who cleans you out of it for being a moron.

Tzardine

Never mind this safe distance stuff. If cyclists are so worried about their safety can I suggest they start by staying off the pavements and maybe stopping at some red lights every now and then.

Danjamin1

Whatever about writing it in to law, I'd be happy enough with a campaign to raise driver awareness of giving cyclists enough space

furiousox

Tzardine wrote: »

Never mind this safe distance stuff. If cyclists are so worried about their safety can I suggest some of them start by staying off the pavements and maybe stopping at some red lights every now and then.

FYP

Tzardine

furiousox wrote: »

FYP

Come off it, it's most of them. As anybody who has ever stood at a traffic light in Dublin for 30 seconds could tell you.

furiousox

Yeah and they don't even pay road tax.

Tzardine

furiousox wrote: »

Yeah and they don't even pay road tax.

Sure I know Joe.

Danjamin1

Tzardine wrote: »

Come off it, it's most of them. As anybody who has ever stood at a traffic light in Dublin for 30 seconds could tell you.

I wouldn't agree that it's most, granted it does happen frequently but like anything you'll tend to notice/remember when someone does something wrong easier than if they do something right

Alanstrainor

Tzardine wrote: »

Never mind this safe distance stuff. If cyclists are so worried about their safety can I suggest they start by staying off the pavements and maybe stopping at some red lights every now and then.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the video, nor the discussion. Let's stop this train of discussion here.

Spook_ie

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'm confused, which approach to the tunnel are you referring to?

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3530187,-6.2242226,3a,75y,41.32h,86.43t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sQPnAWbebEdYhlPDqSwAxtg!2e0
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3983106,-6.2376464,3a,75y,218.9h,97.43t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sybdC81JZcDdhW93B5_lAfg!2e0

A little bit earlier, i was taking the left turn onto the east wall road, i may of not made it clear but this was at a low speed ~10kph.

https://goo.gl/maps/M5qAI

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Yeah.

Except that's not the reason.

Thanks for your enlightenment, great addition. The fact is there it is tight so it seems like one of the reasons to me, there is even a small wall between the road and cycle lane for more protection for cyclists.

Pawwed Rig

I am predominantly a pedestrian these days but have at various stages been a cyclist, motorist and mototcyclist.

Cyclists breaking red lights (generally) is not a safety issue where they are careful and look around them and proceed at a reasonable pace. Where I get the hump as a pedestrian is when they barrel through the lights with no concern for anyone else. Only yesterday evening I had to physically push a cyclist who went flew through when the pedestrian lights were green and passed within an inch of me.

Breaking red lights is not just reserved for cyclists though. I see many a car driver who has no idea what an ASL is for, goes through junctions late meaning by the time they reach the pedestrian lights people are already crossing but they still continue on their merry way, enter junctions where there is no clear way out thereby blocking pedestrians and other motorists, stop randomly and suddently regardless of the danger to others (taxi).

What both of these groups have in common has nothing to do with their chosen mode of transport, it is just people who don't give a crap about anyone else and consider themselves the 'important' road user (we have seen at least three of these guys posting on this thread).

TLDR Dicks are Dicks regardless if they drive or cycle or walk

laoisfan

furiousox wrote: »

Yeah and they don't even pay road tax.

No such thing as road tax :rolleyes:

jimgoose

Passing cyclists is quite simple. Treat it just like any other overtake, giving him/her plenty of room in which to fall off. Play nicely out there, kids. :cool:

Spook_ie

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Ridiculous post. A cyclist passing a car too close is not a safety issue for the car driver. As a 'professional' driver you should be more aware of this than others.

Not so ridiculous as you'd like to think.

Example.

Cyclist travelling at fairly constant 15kph, my speed varying because of traffic condition between 10-30 Kph, there will be stages whjere the cyclist will be causing me to break the law because THEY are within the safe passing distance attempting to overtake me as I accelerate back to 20Kph

You really haven't thought it through have you

Spook_ie

cisk wrote: »

A little bit earlier, i was taking the left turn onto the east wall road, i may of not made it clear but this was at a low speed ~10kph.

https://goo.gl/maps/M5qAI




Thanks for your enlightenment, great addition. The fact is there it is tight so it seems like one of the reasons to me, there is even a small wall between the road and cycle lane for more protection for cyclists.

So the cyclist was in the left turn lane, did they turn left? If so they actually did nothing legally wrong, however, if they went straight on as if to go to Dublin Port then they should have been one lane over

JRant

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not so ridiculous as you'd like to think.

Example.

Cyclist travelling at fairly constant 15kph, my speed varying because of traffic condition between 10-30 Kph, there will be stages whjere the cyclist will be causing me to break the law because THEY are within the safe passing distance attempting to overtake me as I accelerate back to 20Kph

You really haven't thought it through have you

Hold on now, how can anyone else make you break the law?

Spook_ie

jimgoose wrote: »

The 9th day of the new year already, I'd say it's time for a Motorists vs. Cyclists belt-up.

Motorists whose vehicles are fitted with belts are already required to belt up, fitting seat belts to cycles is a poor second to helmets and hi-viz



For those of you on cycles with no sarcasm detector engaged, go forth

Spook_ie

JRant wrote: »

Hold on now, how can anyone else make you break the law?

Because they have put themselves within the safe passing distance that I would be obliged to maintain by such an introduced law that cyclists only wish to apply to other vehicles rather than themselves

Mycroft H

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not so ridiculous as you'd like to think.

Example.

Cyclist travelling at fairly constant 15kph, my speed varying because of traffic condition between 10-30 Kph, there will be stages whjere the cyclist will be causing me to break the law because THEY are within the safe passing distance attempting to overtake me as I accelerate back to 20Kph

You really haven't thought it through have you

Wait. Who? Who's causing you to break the law? Someone else?

'Sorry Judge, the big bad cyclist made me do it'

MugMugs

I am a motorist.

I probably drive more per week than a lot of you per month.

I am also recently an avid cyclist. Both disciplines, Mountain Biking and Road Biking. I feel safer bouncing down a mountain than I do on a lot of our roads.

Now I am not niaeve enough to think that cyclists sh1t don't stink. It does. And there are an unending amount of wreckless cyclists out there.

What I've witnessed in the 9 months of taking up Road Biking though has just stunned me. I've been overtaken by people on blind narrow bends, close enough for the draft to unstablise me and in one instance had a car enroach onto me in a bike lane to undertake causing me to fall off the bike and hurt my sexy legs.

Something has to change. Enforcement is needed against motorists and cyclists. The consequence for me being struck is just too high. Without wanting to sound like a "Won't somebody think of the Children" the question needs to be asked, How many more people need to needlessly die ?

visual

visual wrote: »

Following the logic that a cyclists should be in the middle of the lane should a walker or runner be in middle of road.

The push and promotion of cycling has been done without cycle pathways

traveling b roads between small towns there are hoards of cyclists that think they are in tour De France out in the middle of winding roads. These same roads are at best only wide enough for a car passing in either direction.
Walkers step in to the ditch and walk facing the traffic but come around a corner find a cyclist in middle of road there is no where to go.

Most of these cyclists are training / sport.

If I want to race my car I can go to a track and not abuse public roads but some cyclists are pushing the envelope and a danger to themselves and other road users if there isn't a hard shoulder or cycle lane then the small b road isn't suitable to be training on.

In fairness most cyclists that are out training are brightly lit with high visibility clothing and lights.

It's commuter cyclists that are more often unlit in dark clothing. Thankfully most of these cycle in towns and city where there is street lighting

Roads are not for cars only. Roads for non motorised users are classed as motorways but people still decide to overtake motorcyclists using the same technique. Don't have a motorbike anymore but I remember the amount of cars, on a motorway, that would overtake by just edging out and not moving into the overtaking lane. A strong gust of wind pushing me to my right and I was done for