Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

magicbastarder

MediaMan wrote: »

Hang on, the OP has a point here. With the proposed law, if the space taken by the cyclist, plus the width of the vehicle, plus the required 1.5m between them, is less than the total width of the road ditch to ditch - which could be the case on a small country road

i think the question was about a 3-4m road.
with a 3m road certainly, there's barely enough room to have the car and bike sitting side by side anyway, so the issue exists even without this law.

Tenzor07

MediaMan wrote: »

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

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

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

Kaisr Sose

magicbastarder wrote: »

the law has a presumption of innocence.

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

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

That's good...!

MediaMan

Tenzor07 wrote: »

MediaMan wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Tenzor07

MediaMan wrote: »

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

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

magicbastarder

Tenzor07 wrote: »

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

well, there *is* quantum tunnelling. hard to write into law though.

tomasrojo

HivemindXX wrote: »

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

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

Chips Lovell

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

CramCycle

MediaMan wrote: »

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

And like most laws in Ireland, so long as a cautious, safe and respectable overtake is carried out, the gardai will not prosecute. There are a few roads I travel on the law here would not work. This does not mean the law should be scrapped. In most cases, cars on these roads wait behind until a wide point, till I pull over (when safe) or until someone waves them on (I know your not meant to).
All the arguments against the law are by people looking for issues that are not there unless they make them. There is the spirit of the law. In this case that spirit is quite clear. Anyone who does not understand the spirit of that law or how to act in accordance with the law, should not be driving or operating any vehicle. I'd be concerned if they were let out to walk to be honest.

Leroy42

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

The answer can never be to blame the cyclist.

PraxisPete

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

Leroy42

PraxisPete wrote: »

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

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

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

PraxisPete

Leroy42 wrote: »

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

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

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

Leroy42

PraxisPete wrote: »

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

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

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

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

odyssey06

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

PraxisPete

Leroy42 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

odyssey06

Leroy42 wrote: »

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

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

magicbastarder

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

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

maybe this is the one example where observing the cyclist ensures their waveform does *not* collapse.

PraxisPete

odyssey06 wrote: »

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

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

Chips Lovell

PraxisPete wrote: »

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

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

odyssey06

PraxisPete wrote: »

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

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

magicbastarder

PraxisPete wrote: »

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

here's a question - are you able to pass a single cyclist - safely - *without* putting your wheels over the white line (whether it is continuous or dotted)?

TheChizler

odyssey06 wrote: »

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

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

CramCycle

odyssey06 wrote: »

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

Do you understand why cyclists ride two abreast?

magicbastarder

TheChizler wrote: »

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

just to put this into context - 4.35m is about a metre wider than one of the lanes on the M50.

TheChizler

magicbastarder wrote: »

just to put this into context - 4.35m is about a metre wider than one of the lanes on the M50.

3.75 m at their widest I believe.

Kaisr Sose

odyssey06 wrote: »

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

Don't just say it's cyclists that need to have their use of the road monitored/enforced.

It is also the law that there is no road side parking (non marked spaces) where there is a continuous white line on the road, or within 10m of a junction, but motorists do both all the time. Result - endangering other road users.

Little or no enforcement ..

CramCycle

TheChizler wrote: »

3.75 m at their widest I believe.

3.25m is their minimum, with most being at 3.5m (or that was the intention) and above AFAIK. At certain junctions and blending they go up to 4m.

odyssey06

CramCycle wrote: »

Do you understand why cyclists ride two abreast?

Yes... and no. In that I understand the general argument in its favour but I don't understand why the specific limitations noted above would unduly impact them.

For example, it's been noted here that it's quicker to overtake 20 cyclists in 10x2 than 20x1.
Right, but not if the road isn't wide enough to allow you to safely overtake 2 cyclists, either because of the width of the road or the presence of a continuous white line.
So what's the issue with restricting the right to cycle two abreast where it impedes a car's ability to safely overtake?

Lumen

odyssey06 wrote: »

Yes... and no. In that I understand the general argument in its favour but I don't understand why the specific limitations noted above would unduly impact them.

For example, it's been noted here that it's quicker to overtake 20 cyclists in 10x2 than 20x1.
Right, but not if the road isn't wide enough to allow you to safely overtake 2 cyclists, either because of the width of the road or the presence of a continuous white line.
So what's the issue with restricting the right to cycle two abreast where it impedes a car's ability to safely overtake?

Are there many (any?) roads where it is safe to overtake a single cyclist in the same lane?