nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

MediaMan

As reported in http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/new-laws-to-target-drivers-who-overtake-cyclists-too-closely-1.2985220 and many other places, there is a firm proposal in progress to introduce a minimum passing distance law to protect cyclists.

I believe this could make a huge difference to cyclist (and presumably pedestrian) safety, and having experienced the benefits of such a law in Spain while on holidays, it would also make people's daily cycle (whether commute or leisure) a much less stressful experience.

However acceptance of this law is by no means assured, and there is already a storm of protest, citing reasons such as:

Impractical to pass at the minimum distance in many situations
Cyclists are causing havoc by running red lights and cycling on footpaths and cycling two abreast so this protection should not be introduced
It's not needed as cyclists are not killed or injured much on the roads

None of these points stand up to scrutiny, but nonetheless I think that in the the "middle ground" of public opinion there are very many people who believe at least one of these points.

Getting the middle ground on board is vital to the success of this initiative, as it was with drink-driving and smoking in public premises. So the question is, how do we get that middle ground (who are likely to be mostly non-cycling) on board?

Some ideas:

Convince people that cyclist safety really is important and that we all have to share the road
Highlight the benefits seen in other countries
Highlight the benefits to all of cyclists cycling - less congested roads, better health, etc.
Contact public representatives and other decision makers and influencers

I commute every day and over the past 12 months, things have got worse and worse with regard to close passing, with the result that my commute is much more stressful that it used to be. I also know multiple people who have been knocked off their bikes by close-passing vehicles, and the consequences in some cases have been very serious.

Therefore I am very keen that this law succeeds in making it to the books, as the first step in helping to change driver behaviour. I don't think this will happen without a lot of work, and those of us here on this forum have a role to play in that.

What do you think?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

CramCycle

zerks wrote: »

Sure I'll drive to work shortly in the middle of the road in case there's something near the road edge I don't like:rolleyes:,the blind defence of stupid behaviour in this forum is mid boggling at times.
I'm out and I'll leave you guys in your echo chamber.

There is a bit of a difference and you are being facetious in the utmost to imply there is no difference here. Surprised he was cycling on the cats eyes though as that would be difficult. Maybe he wasn't but on hearing a car approaching he pulled in a bit and then hit the cat eye. Maybe the cateye is not the reason he ended up bouncing out.

Its not an echo chamber, it is more trying to establish, are you sure what you think happened is what actually happened. i would never cycle along the cateyes as I know they will throw you off line so I would either be inside or outside of them, depending on the situation. On the N81 for example, I would be outside of them as despite the poor driving the hard shoulder is a mess and ofter disappears/reappears for no reason. Down in Wexford, for the most part, I would be in the hard shoulder although there are several times where that is not appropriate (high number of walkers, cars pulled in, people selling potatoes and jam etc. My point was, there may have been a good reason for the cyclist to be there, there may not have. You do not know, neither do I. He may just have been an idiot, but he may have had a genuine reason that you travelling at 100kmph would not have been able to ascertain.

Just saying.

doozerie

Macy0161 wrote: »

Yeah, but would traffic watch have worked just for the close pass? They were bang to rights on the bus lane violation, which would be easier to prove.

The close pass, and the aggression that it represented, was what was of interest to the garda that spoke to me.

From what I have seen, being in a bus lane might well be illegal but it gets largely ignored except for those rare occasions where the driver does something else stupid to attract garda attention, or a garda is tasked specifically with tackling illegal use of the bus lane. Which goes some way towards explaining why driving in bus lanes is so popular, because the risks of being penalised are small.

doozerie

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is the bit that, IMO, a change of law would start to change. Of course he could be dismissive. He had, under the current reg's done nothing 'wrong'.

I don't beleve that is correct. He was using he bus lane illegally, he was using it to undertake, my guess is that he was speeding, he was driving recklessly, and he was aggressive (= road rage).

Some of those things are certainly hard to actually prove, while some aren't. In particular, there seems a very real reluctance on the part of gardai to label driving as aggressive. But actually proving a close overtake would be yet another case of one person's word against another.

Witnesses would change that of course, but anyone who witnessed this incident couldn't possibly have described it as anything less than driving without due care and attention so even in the absence of a close overtaking law the driver could have been charged I reckon.

That's not to say that I think a new law is a bad thing, as such, I'm just not sure it's the best option to try to reduce ignorant and dangerous driving. I'm also not sure what would be the best option, in general I favour education above all else but some people couldn't have common sense or empathy beaten into them with a stick and for people like those laws and penalties are hard to see past.

doozerie

zerks wrote: »

I moved out and luckily I did,he clipped a cats eye and ended up being flung out into the road,had I been in a HGV or even not expecting the worst by seeing where he was riding things could have been very nasty.The 1.5 rule would never have saved him. I had said to myself "what the fook is this fella at cycling along the yellow line"? I kept out as far as I could,it's a wide road.Was I to slam on and have the car behind me smash into me all because one eejit thought it sensible to play Russian roulette with his life? Even if he kept in a foot or so he'd have been grand,he didn't need to hug the kerb or anything just don't put yourself in harms way and then blame somebody else is my point.As I said before,I cycle along there too and the last place I'd be is hugging the yellow line.

If you have to slam on the brakes, for any of the perfectly valid reasons that might necessitate it, and the driver behind you smashes into you, then they were at fault for driving too close for the conditions and speed they were travelling.

Arguing that the cyclist, in this case, would have been responsible for the rubbish driving of the person behind you is ridiculous. Making that argument undermines your position, it doesn't support it.

[Deleted User]

zerks wrote: »

What do you mean? .

Well, you told us how 'zero cyclists' had problems on that road, then you tell us about the cyclist who had problems on that road. Do you not see the direct contradiction?

zerks wrote: »

He cycled along the cats eyes beside traffic that was moving at 100kph or faster rather than along the part of the hard shoulder that was clear of ANY obstacles and that was utterly stupid. Isn't the first thing you learn when going out into the world self preservation?

If he's cyclist on the cats eyes or close to the hard-shoulder border, it is up to any following traffic to leave room. It's generally not that difficult, and if there is no room, it's just a matter of waiting a few minutes.

zerks wrote: »

If a lion is in a cage you stay outside of it,you don't sit on the edge.

Exactly - if the dangerous lion is in a cage - you keep him in a cage. You don't let him out of the cage, mixing with other people and them victim-blame the other people for getting too close to him. The lion (that's the car, in case I'm being too subtle) is the dangerous bit .

zerks wrote: »

Since when has the mantra parents drummed into kids to "keep in and watch out for cars" turned into "you own the road, ride where you like along it"?

Since the RSA saw the light and came out with - "you are as entitled to your road space as any other road user, so take the space you need to cycle safely".

It is slightly counter-intuitive, but it is the best option - to take the space you need on the road and let following traffic overtake safely.

zerks wrote: »

I didn't want to turn this into a driver v cyclist argument, I do both and can see both points of view.My point was if you are cycling, walking,whatever just make sure you are as safe as possible on the road and don't put yourself in harms way deliberately.

doozerie

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Only 2 in 2 days... Fairly low innings there!

Only 2 that I considered dangerous, based not just on proximity but also the speed of the cars.

Which perhaps highlights the scale of the problem. I commute by bike 5 days a week. It's rush hour traffic each way so mostly I'm passing stopped cars, but I must get passed by hundreds of cars each week. The vast majority of those passes don't "feel" dangerous, but with the exception of when I'm in an empty bus lane they would typically be no further away than 1 metre.

Passing within 1 metre of a cyclist really isn't a "safe" overtake even at urban driving speeds but it has become my normal and I'm sure it's the normal of the majority of cyclists. There is clearly something wrong there.

Jimoslimos

doozerie wrote: »

Only 2 that I considered dangerous, based not just on proximity but also the speed of the cars.

Speed is definitely a massive risk factor when it comes to safe passing distances.

Two identical instances happened to me, first a few weeks back., the second one a few hours ago.

Background: Tipping along on an A road at around 30kph (UK so 60mph limit - single carriageway). Keeping left but not hugging the line or in the hard shoulder (which is in poor condition with muck, potholes and stones). Road itself is wide and in decent condition (aside from one or two sunken drains) and traffic was light in both directions so plenty of overtaking opportunities (and room for as well).

Anyway car came up close behind me, was there for a while until traffic eased in the opposite direction. Started overtaking BUT at the exact same time car immediately behind them also went and overtook the first car. End result two cars side-by-side overtaking and me being pushed towards the hard shoulder.

Same thing happened today, except this time the first vehicle was a double-decker bus :eek:. Luckily wasn't as close and this time it was the second driver whose wheels went into the hard shoulder (on the opposite side of the road).

Both incidents/near misses could have been prevented if the first driver had pulled out far enough to make the manoeuvre and also to prevent the following driver trying a sneaky pass on the outside.

MediaMan

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

http://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/9/34410/06th_March_2017_-_High_Noon_Part_1/

But Media Man you're the OP! The ROTR page 53 I think does focus on the safe overtaking of cyclists and the RSA has had an extensive advertising campaign about it but still the close and punishment pass stories abound. Listen to the Newstalk interview above by George Hooke of all people with an Australian Researcher in Road Safety about the Queensland experience with MPDL. She says if I recall correctly that enforcement isn't an issue, that the mere fact of there being a specific offence is enough to ensure compliance. She didn't disagree when Hookie asked if the effect was more due to psychology than law. she said that the Queensland trial of 1.5 was made permanent, that other States have either introdued a MPDL or are trialling it

Obviously proof becomes an issue in the event of a collision but once there is a specific offence it will be up to the driver to show that he was allowing a safe overtaking distance, eg by claiming that half his car width was over the broken line

I should have made it more clear that I was talking about how to describe and introduce the proposal rather than what ultimately is in the proposal detail. I absolutely believe that the safe passing distance needs to be quantified in law - and I am reminded of this twice every day on my way to and from work. Many drivers' judgement of safe passing distance reflects the fact that they don't cycle and are insulated from the harsher effects of the laws of physics by their car.

Let's say I lead off a discussion like this:
Me: You need to leave at least 1.5m of space when you pass a cyclist.
You: That's impossible!
Me: Well, it works in some countries already.
You: Well it would never work here. I'd spend all my time behind bikes.
...
This might or might not convince someone of the merits of the proposal, but I'd say it will not shift the viewpoint of a car-only person, even a moderate one.

On the other hand, might I not have a better chance of persuading someone like this:
Me: Do you think it's important that cars/busses/trucks/etc. pass cyclists in a safe manner?
You: Of course!
Me: What distance do you think would be safe?
You: I dunno, maybe 1 ft?
Me: What about if I wobble or hit a stone, get a flat tyre or have to suddenly avoid someone stepping into the road?
You: Hmm...
...
This won't convince a diehard, but for people in the middle ground, it might shift their views.

On your other point, very interesting that GH even entertained the point of view of someone that's pro-cycling (or even pro-safety)!

Chuchote

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Speed is definitely a massive risk factor when it comes to safe passing distances…

Anyway car came up close behind me, was there for a while until traffic eased in the opposite direction. Started overtaking BUT at the exact same time car immediately behind them also went and overtook the first car. End result two cars side-by-side overtaking and me being pushed towards the hard shoulder.

Same thing happened today, except this time the first vehicle was a double-decker bus :eek:.

A campaign to get the principle into drivers' heads that "you protect the most vulnerable" - and that the driver who's passing out can take his own stupid risks - is necessary.

I remember driving on the M50 and two cars passing me, one on the inside, one on the outside, both pushing me. The sheer terror stayed with me.

Annie get your Run

6 close passes on the R149 between Clonee and Ongar this morning in the lashing rain. The honeymoon period is well and truly over

Several drivers gave me room but put themselves and the oncoming cars in serious danger :mad: It's a short enough stretch of road, probably takes me less than 3 mins to get from one end to the other - what is so important that you can't wait a couple of mins to overtake safely??! Am seriously considering getting a camera.

Macy0161

Annie get your Run wrote: »

Several drivers gave me room but put themselves and the oncoming cars in serious danger

Yeah, well that's a whole other concern. That's happened to me solo and in groups where overtakes on bends when they couldn't possibly see. A few seconds the other way, and the driver would have the choice of literally taking the hit themselves or swinging in on top of the cyclist(s).

Pinch Flat

Annie get your Run wrote: »

6 close passes on the R149 between Clonee and Ongar this morning in the lashing rain. The honeymoon period is well and truly over Several drivers gave me room but put themselves and the oncoming cars in serious danger :mad: It's a short enough stretch of road, probably takes me less than 3 mins to get from one end to the other - what is so important that you can't wait a couple of mins to overtake safely??! Am seriously considering getting a camera.

Never underestimate the drivers urge to overtake at all costs. Had plenty of it on the Sunday spin - absolutely crazy overtaking around blind corners, over blind bridges etc.. One lady in a range rover over took us, into oncoming traffic then turned right into a road about 200 meters ahead of us,

I know that stretch too well - it's a night mare for close passing. Had my fair share of close passes there as well - and those manhole covers are a pain in the a$$.

tomasrojo

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Never underestimate the drivers urge to overtake at all costs.

I had someone in my estate try to pass me in the corridor formed by all the parked cars. Decided the best tactic was the accelerate hard and aim for a small gap. Then realised the small gap wasn't big enough for his car and had to brake hard. Five seconds or so later, I was through the corridor of parked cars and was able to let him pass. Now that's poor judgement.

Pinch Flat

tomasrojo wrote: »

I had someone in my estate try to pass me in the corridor formed by all the parked cars. Decided the best tactic was the accelerate hard and aim for a small gap. Then realised the small gap wasn't big enough for his car and had to brake hard. Five seconds or so later, I was through the corridor of parked cars and was able to let him pass. Now that's poor judgement.

My god, you held someone up for 5 seconds? The inhumanity. :pac:

CramCycle

My favourite is where I slow up because either there is a red light very shortly (sub 25m), I am keeping up with traffic (but have left a safe braking distance) or the car in front of me has slowed down. Normal behaviour, the car behind pays no heed to the situation and attempts an overtake, normally necessitating me slamming on the brakes to accomodate them pulling in almost immediately. this happens whether cycling or driving.

check_six

Pinch Flat wrote: »

My god, you held someone up for 5 seconds? The inhumanity. :pac:

Personally I think it's a disgrace that everyone on bikes becomes an immobile traffic island as soon as a car approaches from behind. If only there was some way the cyclist could keep moving forward *somehow* it might start to resolve these kind of problems.

Welshkev

Annie get your Run wrote: »

6 close passes on the R149 between Clonee and Ongar this morning in the lashing rain. The honeymoon period is well and truly over Several drivers gave me room but put themselves and the oncoming cars in serious danger :mad: It's a short enough stretch of road, probably takes me less than 3 mins to get from one end to the other - what is so important that you can't wait a couple of mins to overtake safely??! Am seriously considering getting a camera.

Always, always happens to me along that stretch of road. No idea why it's that road in particlar. Worst thing about it is, half of them then get stuck in traffic by cars waiting to right towards Lucan, or the rest get stuck themselves waiting to cross the lane to go to Lucan - and I then pass them all again!

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

I had someone in my estate try to pass me in the corridor formed by all the parked cars. Decided the best tactic was the accelerate hard and aim for a small gap. Then realised the small gap wasn't big enough for his car and had to brake hard. Five seconds or so later, I was through the corridor of parked cars and was able to let him pass. Now that's poor judgement.

That's not an unusual occurrence around my place too. It's the 'must overtake' mentality. Only last night I had someone accelerate to overtake as we approached a blind right-hand corner - front bumper got to alongside my person before an oncoming car came around the corner, and they had to brake hard and pull back. No evaluation of whether it's a safe spot to overtake, is there time to complete the manoeuvre, etc...

Anyway, that's my rant of the day done. Feels good to get it out.

Chips Lovell

About 90% of the bad behaviour on roads is caused by people being impatient f**ks.

Riding home one night recently I twice had a driver attempt to overtake me only to have to slam on because there was no room to move back in (i.e. I was keeping pace with the car in front of me but he'd assumed the gap would have widened by the time he got around me). Both times it was the same car, as if he didn't cop the mistake he'd made the first time around.

tomasrojo

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

About 90% of the bad behaviour on roads is caused by people being impatient f**ks.

Yeah, people often talk about all the "lunatics" on the road, but it is mostly simple impatience. Not that it's acceptable, or that the end result can't be lethal.

Chuchote

There are cycling tops with "Don't kill me texting" in big letters; unfortunately they're $99, the price going to pay for US consciousness-raising on close passes:

http://dontkillmetexting.com/

Annie get your Run

Chuchote wrote: »

There are cycling tops with "Don't kill me texting" in big letters; unfortunately they're $99, the price going to pay for US consciousness-raising on close passes:

http://dontkillmetexting.com/

Presumably the drivers texting won't see that message :rolleyes:. The guys in 'stayin alive at 1.5' also have tops here. http://www.safecyclingireland.org/store/
Pity they don't have bag covers, I'd definitely get one of those!

Chuchote

odyssey06 wrote: »

So what you really want is a 3 metre cycle lane - assuming the cycle lane is already 1.5 metres.
It would be ideal if that could be provided, but why do you think we don't have 3 metre cycle lanes today?

Because 3-metre-wide sections are used at either side of roads for parking private cars?

AlanG

As both a driver and cycle commuter I can see how this would save a lot of trouble but I also think it would have to be combined with a serious clampdown on bikes undertaking. It may work in Queensland but most of the roads there are very wide and there are not many small city streets.
It is unreasonable to say it is unsafe for a car to overtake at less than 1.5 while cyclists undertake at far less than this regularly.
On my daily commute close to 100% of cyclists I see undertake cars at less than 1.5 meters. I would say this is pretty safe as the cars are usually not moving but that argument just highlights the problems with absolute legislation rather than using the flexibility of the existing dangerous driving laws.

CramCycle

AlanG wrote: »

On my daily commute close to 100% of cyclists I see undertake cars at less than 1.5 meters. I would say this is pretty safe as the cars are usually not moving but that argument just highlights the problems with absolute legislation rather than using the flexibility of the existing dangerous driving laws.

But you do understand why the two are in no way comparable, why the law is one way and not the other?

Pinch Flat

AlanG wrote: »

As both a driver and cycle commuter I can see how this would save a lot of trouble but I also think it would have to be combined with a serious clampdown on bikes undertaking. It may work in Queensland but most of the roads there are very wide and there are not many small city streets.
It is unreasonable to say it is unsafe for a car to overtake at less than 1.5 while cyclists undertake at far less than this regularly.
On my daily commute close to 100% of cyclists I see undertake cars at less than 1.5 meters. I would say this is pretty safe as the cars are usually not moving but that argument just highlights the problems with absolute legislation rather than using the flexibility of the existing dangerous driving laws.

Let's break this down simply.

Cars passing on the right, fast and close - Nope
Cyclists passing up the left of stationary / slow moving cars - Yep

Moflojo

The Government has enacted legislation that will outlaw the striking of nails with hammers.

Outraged Hammer Representative Groups have called for similar legislation to outlaw the striking of hammers with nails.

buffalo

AlanG wrote: »

On my daily commute close to 100% of cyclists I see undertake cars at less than 1.5 meters. I would say this is pretty safe as the cars are usually not moving but that argument just highlights the problems with absolute legislation rather than using the flexibility of the existing dangerous driving laws.

What are the problems if it's pretty safe?

AlanG

buffalo wrote: »

What are the problems if it's pretty safe?

The problem is that undertaking is illegal.

My point is that it is already illegal for a driver to pass unsafely. This law brings in an absolute which a lot of cyclists like but as your post shows when absolute rules are applied it can often become confusing.
Sometimes it is safe for a car to pass at under 1.5 meters - especially when the bike has just undertaken it illegally.
I don't oppose this legislation if it is implemented correctly.

AlanG

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Let's break this down simply.

Cars passing on the right, fast and close - Nope
Cyclists passing up the left of stationary / slow moving cars - Yep

I may have missed it but I didn't see anything in the proposed legislation that specified that it would only apply to cars traveling fast. Can you let me know what speed is specified as fast. Thanks.