Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Journalism and cycling

1…112113115117118…331

Comments

  • #3422
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,276 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Oh I know it's not. But it does beg the question of why less than 1.5m is safe in some circumstances (approaching oncoming traffic) and unsafe in others (overtaking).


  • #3423
    Macy0161
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,662 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    Oh I know it's not. But it does beg the question of why less than 1.5m is safe in some circumstances (approaching oncoming traffic) and unsafe in others (overtaking).
    Is it? Any group I've ridden with would call "car down" and tighten up in such circumstances, if we hadn't tightened up given the road conditions anyway. tbh, just seems more excuse making - add it to the whataboutery list.


  • #3424
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,276 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    In fairness, I don't think its excuse making. There's a lot of potential pitfalls. As a cyclist, I think 1.5m is very effective as a guideline for motorists, but makes for a very poor law, as it makes dangerous overtaking harder to prosecute, not easier.


  • #3425
    Macy0161
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,662 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    In fairness, I don't think its excuse making. There's a lot of potential pitfalls. As a cyclist, I think 1.5m is very effective as a guideline for motorists, but makes for a very poor law, as it makes dangerous overtaking harder to prosecute, not easier.
    So I ask again, why are the motoring lobby groups (AA, Taxi reps, haulage reps) so against it? Poor law, unenforceable, less prosecutions - they should be fully supportive! They aren't against it because of bs reasons that it might be bad for cyclists that is 100%!


  • #3426
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,276 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Maybe they haven't thought it through either?

    Dangerous overtaking is already an offence. The problem is that it (along with a rake of other offences) isn't enforced in any meaningful way. But expanding the Traffic Corps and actually enforcing the law will cost money.

    Minimum passing laws are great PR for politicians, because they can claim to be doing something for cyclists without having to spend a penny.


  • Advertisement
  • #3427
    NyOmnishambles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 901 ✭✭✭NyOmnishambles


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    Oh I know it's not. But it does beg the question of why less than 1.5m is safe in some circumstances (approaching oncoming traffic) and unsafe in others (overtaking).

    The fact that you can see the car coming towards you and make a judgement on it might have something to do with it

    with a car coming from behind you have no real idea of how close they might be to you until they do it


  • #3428
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,320 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    Oh I know it's not. But it does beg the question of why less than 1.5m is safe in some circumstances (approaching oncoming traffic) and unsafe in others (overtaking).
    maybe because you're not expecting an oncoming car to be changing direction as it's coming towards you, but an overtaking car has to change direction?
    also, a cyclist should usually be able to see an oncoming car much more easily than an overtaking one.


  • #3429
    minikin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,983 ✭✭✭minikin


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    In which case the traffic isn't actually overtaking.

    I'm not suggesting that the traffic in the oncoming lane is overtaking, I'm suggesting that the outside cyclist (if riding two abreast) would be putting themselves within 1.5m of that oncoming traffic... why is it important that the car must stay 1.5m away from cyclists but not vice versa? Makes no sense. I'm not anti-cyclist, I am anti-cyclists getting killed. Not putting themselves in danger is also an important factor (no need to mention the black-clad cyclists on our roads... daft)


  • #3430
    Macy0161
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,662 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    minikin wrote: »
    why is it important that the car must stay 1.5m away from cyclists but not vice versa? Makes no sense.
    The cyclist would be making the choice in that example, not relying on someone else doing the overtaking.
    minikin wrote: »
    no need to mention the black-clad cyclists on our roads... daft)
    There's a hiviz thread if you want to go down that deadend.


  • #3431
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,161 ✭✭✭buffalo


    minikin wrote: »
    I'm not suggesting that the traffic in the oncoming lane is overtaking, I'm suggesting that the outside cyclist (if riding two abreast) would be putting themselves within 1.5m of that oncoming traffic... why is it important that the car must stay 1.5m away from cyclists but not vice versa? Makes no sense. I'm not anti-cyclist, I am anti-cyclists getting killed. Not putting themselves in danger is also an important factor (no need to mention the black-clad cyclists on our roads... daft)

    Because you can predict and see what an oncoming car will do (most of the time). They're incredibly likely to continue going in a straight line, on the other side of the road. If you are riding your bike and need to avoid a pothole, it's unlikely that your move to the right will put you into the path of the oncoming car, or if it is, you can predict that and adjust your action as appropriate.

    None of the above applies to overtaking traffic. It's hard to predict what someone you can't see will do, someone who needs to perform an overtaking manoeuvre (i.e. they can't continue in a straight line). Sometimes they come dangerously close to you, meaning any adjustment you have to make for the road surface could result in an accident. Sometimes they even clip you! Sometimes they approach at speed so that you don't even realise they're overtaking until the blast of noise and air scares the bejaysus out of you.

    Oncoming traffic rarely has any of these issues, although occasionally on narrow streets I've encountered dangerously close passes too. They're easier to anticipate though.


  • Advertisement
  • #3432
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,570 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    As mentioned above; a) the cyclist can see oncoming traffic and prepare themselves if necessary, and b) oncoming traffic won't have to manoeuvre out and around the cyclist (unless the road is unusually narrow) whereas vehicles coming from behind will have to, and due either to laziness or aggression (or even ignorance) don't always leave a margin for safety.

    Every day we hear of dangerous overtakes where the cyclist is nearly blown over or contact made with them, there's very rarely any reports of incidents with oncoming vehicles.


  • #3433
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,320 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    minikin wrote: »
    why is it important that the car must stay 1.5m away from cyclists but not vice versa? Makes no sense.
    it makes perfect sense, precisely because a cyclist is never going to do as much damage to the car as the car will to the cyclist. so the onus is on the car to give a greater margin for error.

    and in the trivial situation where a car is stationary, it's not even worth arguing about.


  • #3434
    greenspurs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,143 ✭✭✭✭greenspurs


    :rolleyes:
    minikin wrote: »
    I'm not suggesting that the traffic in the oncoming lane is overtaking, I'm suggesting that the outside cyclist (if riding two abreast) would be putting themselves within 1.5m of that oncoming traffic... why is it important that the car must stay 1.5m away from cyclists but not vice versa? Makes no sense. I'm not anti-cyclist, I am anti-cyclists getting killed. Not putting themselves in danger is also an important factor (no need to mention the black-clad cyclists on our roads... daft)

    :rolleyes: Mentioning hiviz, without actually mentioning hiviz ........ :rolleyes:
    247469249_2017413731748359_7675802031635703098_n.jpg

    "Bright lights and Thunder .................... " #NoPopcorn



  • #3435
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,161 ✭✭✭buffalo


    buffalo wrote: »
    Oncoming traffic rarely has any of these issues, although occasionally on narrow streets I've encountered dangerously close passes too. They're easier to anticipate though.

    Here's a great example of where I often encounter the above: https://goo.gl/maps/ejQLrJNF8nL2

    I approach the junction wanting to turn right, and so am in the right hand side of my lane. A car approaches from the opposite direction, and must overtake the parked car and therefore move into my lane - note the position of the oncoming car in the image. Do they wait for oncoming traffic (i.e. me) to clear? When I'm in the car, often yes. When I'm on the bike, never. It's odd that. I'd almost call it arrogance.

    At least in this scenario (rather than being overtaken), I'm ready for it.


  • #3436
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,333 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    minikin wrote: »
    Would the minimum passing distance of 1.5m mean the end of people cycling two or more abreast? To do so (venture outside of a 1m space to left of the lane) would mean that they would be within 1.5m of traffic in the opposing lane..

    That just doesn't make any sense at all!


  • #3437
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    buffalo wrote: »
    Here's a great example of where I often encounter the above: https://goo.gl/maps/ejQLrJNF8nL2

    I approach the junction wanting to turn right, and so am in the right hand side of my lane. A car approaches from the opposite direction, and must overtake the parked car and therefore move into my lane - note the position of the oncoming car in the image. Do they wait for oncoming traffic (i.e. me) to clear? When I'm in the car, often yes. When I'm on the bike, never. It's odd that. I'd almost call it arrogance.

    At least in this scenario (rather than being overtaken), I'm ready for it.

    Ah now, remember it's cyclists that are arrogant, not motorists.


  • #3438
    minikin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,983 ✭✭✭minikin


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    That just doesn't make any sense at all!

    What doesn’t make sense about it?
    Cycling two abreast puts the outer cyclist within 1.5m of traffic coming in the opposite direction on narrow streets or country roads. The effect of being run over at 50km or faster is pretty catastrophic no matter which direction the vehicle is travelling in. I’m saying if it makes sense for cars to stay 1.5m laterally from a cyclist then it makes as much sense for the cyclist to stay that distance from the vehicle too... the onus is on all road users to protect themselves and each other, no???

    Just to clarify, if it’s needed -
    I am all in favour of giving cyclists a massively wide berth when overtaking.
    I am all in favour of keeping everyone safe and alive on our roads.

    When it comes to hivis, I haven’t seen that thread but surely people aren’t arguing that greater visibility is a bad thing??? That would be nuts.


  • #3439
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,320 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    minikin wrote: »
    What doesn’t make sense about it?
    Cycling two abreast puts the outer cyclist within 1.5m of traffic coming in the opposite direction on narrow streets or country roads. The effect of being run over at 50km or faster is pretty catastrophic no matter which direction the vehicle is travelling in. I’m saying if it makes sense for cars to stay 1.5m laterally from a cyclist then it makes as much sense for the cyclist to stay that distance from the vehicle too...
    whatever the proposed law says, if you gave me a chance of a car overtaking me from behind, at speed, and it passing 1m from me, and a car passing me in the opposite direction - both of us on the correct side of the white line - i know which situation i'd prefer.


  • #3440
    minikin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,983 ✭✭✭minikin


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    it makes perfect sense, precisely because a cyclist is never going to do as much damage to the car as the car will to the cyclist. so the onus is on the car to give a greater margin for error.

    and in the trivial situation where a car is stationary, it's not even worth arguing about.

    This isn’t a comparison of what damage either party can do to each other.

    If, which I’m sure we all accept, the wider the gap between a cyclist and a vehicle the better for all.
    1. motorists play their part by staying at least 1.5m away when overtaking
    2. cyclists not dangerously widen their collective presence on the road
    (thereby narrowing the gap between themselves and motorists)
    3. Cyclists protect themselves by not cycling around the colour of roads and ditches.


  • #3441
    minikin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,983 ✭✭✭minikin


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    whatever the proposed law says, if you gave me a chance of a car overtaking me from behind, at speed, and it passing 1m from me, and a car passing me in the opposite direction - both of us on the correct side of the white line - i know which situation i'd prefer.

    ‘At speed’ is a red herring.

    Would you not rather be as far away from vehicles no matter which way they were travelling???


  • Advertisement
  • #3442
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,995 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    minikin wrote: »
    ‘At speed’ is a red herring.

    Would you not rather be as far away from vehicles no matter which way they were travelling???

    Its not a red herring, the faster a vehicle is travelling, the less control a driver has. This is why lanes on motorways are wider, and why speed limits are often directly linked to lane width.

    Drivers tend not to notice the drift at higher speeds, whereas at slower speeds, they notice more and can correct without huge issues.


  • #3443
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,161 ✭✭✭buffalo


    minikin wrote: »
    What doesn’t make sense about it?

    Did you read my post?


  • #3444
    minikin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,983 ✭✭✭minikin


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Its not a red herring, the faster a vehicle is travelling, the less control a driver has. This is why lanes on motorways are wider, and why speed limits are often directly linked to lane width.

    Drivers tend not to notice the drift at higher speeds, whereas at slower speeds, they notice more and can correct without huge issues.

    I understand the effect driving at speed has, thanks, I said it was a red herring because he said ‘I would rather x than to be overtaken ‘at speed’. It was a straw man introduced unnecessarily. Might as well have said i’d Rather x that to be overtaken by a car with 1m long spikes for hubcaps.

    Do we agree that the more lateral distance between a cyclist and a car (overtaking or oncoming) the better?


  • #3445
    minikin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,983 ✭✭✭minikin


    buffalo wrote: »
    Did you read my post?

    Why do you ask?


  • #3446
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,333 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    minikin wrote: »
    What doesn’t make sense about it?
    Cycling two abreast puts the outer cyclist within 1.5m of traffic coming in the opposite direction on narrow streets or country roads. The effect of being run over at 50km or faster is pretty catastrophic no matter which direction the vehicle is travelling in. I’m saying if it makes sense for cars to stay 1.5m laterally from a cyclist then it makes as much sense for the cyclist to stay that distance from the vehicle too... the onus is on all road users to protect themselves and each other, no???

    You don't cycle at all yourself no?


  • #3447
    minikin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,983 ✭✭✭minikin


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    You don't cycle at all yourself no?

    What led you to ask that question, I’ve a nice mountain bike, thanks.

    I wouldn’t assume or accuse you of not driving because we may have differing opinions on the matter.


  • #3448
    ED E
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,170 ✭✭✭✭ED E


    minikin wrote: »
    What led you to ask that question, I’ve a nice mountain bike, thanks.

    That I suspect you drive to the trails.


  • #3449
    minikin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,983 ✭✭✭minikin


    ED E wrote: »
    That I suspect you drive to the trails.

    I mostly use it to cycle around collecting awards for my excellent road safety sense and high visibility. 😀


  • #3450
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,161 ✭✭✭buffalo


    minikin wrote: »
    Why do you ask?

    Because it explains why the passing distance of oncoming traffic to a cyclist is almost irrelevant, and yet you're saying it doesn't make sense why there isn't a rule for the safe distance between oncoming traffic and a cyclist.


  • Advertisement
  • #3451
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,320 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    several posts about clothing and visibility have been moved to the hi-vis megathread.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057136508#


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement