Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

CramCycle · 16-09-2018 09:31PM

Rechuchote wrote: »

Unless - like the mandatory cycle lane (continuous white line) on Harold's Cross Road where they're building the unfortunately-named St Pancras development - that lane coexists with parking spots painted over it…

Unless it has a time stamp to allocate hours, then the car park spaces are just lines of paint/grafetti, worth contacting the council to remove them.

RobertFoster · 16-09-2018 10:35PM

The signs say on Monday - Saturday from 07:00 - 10:00 it's a clearway, and from 10:00 - 19:00 it's pay & display. Perhaps it's only a mandatory cycle track for the 18 hours per week when it's a clearway? Who gets evenings and weekends?

I wonder when stats are put forward about how many kilometres of cycle track there are, do they note that some stretches are only part of the network for 10.7% of the time?

CramCycle · 17-09-2018 09:36AM

RobertFoster wrote: »

The signs say on Monday - Saturday from 07:00 - 10:00 it's a clearway, and from 10:00 - 19:00 it's pay & display. Perhaps it's only a mandatory cycle track for the 18 hours per week when it's a clearway? Who gets evenings and weekends?

I wonder when stats are put forward about how many kilometres of cycle track there are, do they note that some stretches are only part of the network for 10.7% of the time?

Alas I fear you are right and it is only a mandatory cycle track for 18hours a week.

magicbastarder · 20-09-2018 02:14PM

a tiny bit oppportunistic, considering roisin shortall has a minor history of slight antagonism towards cycling:

https://twitter.com/RoisinShortall/status/1042736888329785346

Macy0161 · 20-09-2018 03:49PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

a tiny bit oppportunistic

From the Social Democrats? I don't believe it!

Corca Baiscinn · 20-09-2018 09:00PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

a tiny bit oppportunistic, considering roisin shortall has a minor history of slight antagonism towards cycling:

https://twitter.com/RoisinShortall/status/1042736888329785346

Two possible responses:

1. Campaigners need to take support where they find it. Anyone who challenges SR re % of Transport budget allocated to cycling as she did in Dáil yest is their friend

2. Politicians have been known to have Road to Damascus moments!

tomasrojo · 20-09-2018 10:22PM

It's a bit encouraging, in that politicians are starting to see cyclists as a sufficiently large voting bloc to target. Even if it's cynical, good may well come of it.

Chiparus · 21-09-2018 04:35PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's a bit encouraging, in that politicians are starting to see cyclists as a sufficiently large voting bloc to target. Even if it's cynical, good may well come of it.

I dont think there is any doubt that cyclists are now a significant voting block, Why would the party of Charles Haughey and Bertie Ahearne go to the effort? You really think they care about cyclists or about votes?

https://www.fiannafail.ie/ff-proposes-new-measures-to-overhaul-cycling-infrastructure-and-improve-safety-troy/

Rechuchote · 27-09-2018 08:39AM

Time to take the incentive and really push the demand for a safe cycling network in Dublin.

The embarrassingly dangerous plan for the Dodder Greenway is an example of the kind of infrastructure being offered - the councils plan to mix cyclists (average speed 15km/h but many much faster) and walkers (average speed 5km/h; many much slower, many with dogs) on a too-narrow walkway beside the river.

When this starts to be used by cycletourists - cycling fast and loaded down with panniers increasing their weight - it is inevitable that there will be dangerous crashes.

This "have your say" page has a link for submissions; the link isn't working. Has the date expired? https://www.dlrcoco.ie/en/news/general-news-public-notices/have-your-say-dodder-greenway

magicbastarder · 02-01-2019 10:33AM

MPDL has been officially abandoned:

New law on drivers overtaking cyclists abandoned
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/new-law-on-drivers-overtaking-cyclists-abandoned-1.3745451

godtabh · 02-01-2019 10:36AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

MPDL has been officially abandoned:

New law on drivers overtaking cyclists abandoned
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/new-law-on-drivers-overtaking-cyclists-abandoned-1.3745451

Ross on news talk this morning saying its not abandoned but in its current form not implementable. He is going to take a different route with the legislation.

Macy0161 · 02-01-2019 10:43AM

Disappointed, but not surprised. There was no support for the RSA, as it didn't fit their victim blaming/ motorist focused mentality, and seeming no support from the gardai either. Both could've looked at how it is implemented in other countries and other police forces (in the UK for example), but as they weren't interested they never pursued it.

Again, I'll bring up that the gardai say camera footage is unreliable, yet when theres what they perceive as a "real" crime, they put out appeals for dashcam and cctv footage. Including in the last couple of days.

magicbastarder · 02-01-2019 10:44AM

as a specifically 'minimum passing distance' law, it's abandoned, in favour of a less specific dangerous overtaking law from what i can see.

Chips Lovell · 02-01-2019 10:47AM

So we think that Ross and the Guards should have ignored advice from the Attorney General and implemented it anyway? And when cases started getting thrown out of court, they'd no doubt be pilloried for ignoring that advice.*

*Assuming any cases did make it to court. The current dangerous overtaking law (which is much easier to enforce) is rarely enforced.

Macy0161 · 02-01-2019 10:54AM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

So we think that Ross and the Guards should have ignored advice from the Attorney General and implemented it anyway? And when cases started getting thrown out of court, they'd no doubt be pilloried for ignoring that advice.

I would say the AG was pushing an open door. Our legal system is based upon the UK one, but they seem to be able to action based upon camera evidence. We're told cameras are "unreliable" without evidence, or what needs to change to make them reliable instead?

I don't see what's debateble about most of the close pass footage we see on the likes of sticky bottle. They're generally not marginal between 1.3m and 1.5m.

CramCycle · 02-01-2019 10:56AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

as a specifically 'minimum passing distance' law, it's abandoned, in favour of a less specific dangerous overtaking law from what i can see.

Which would already be covered under dangerous driving.

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

So we think that Ross and the Guards should have ignored advice from the Attorney General and implemented it anyway? And when cases started getting thrown out of court, they'd no doubt be pilloried for ignoring that advice.*

*Assuming any cases did make it to court. The current dangerous overtaking law (which is much easier to enforce) is rarely enforced.

This one, IMO, would be too raise awareness of dangerous driving habits that many do not even realise. Many a conversation I have had with others and their opinion has been that if they didn't hit me, they were not close enough, and not in an aggressive fashion, just complete obliviousness to the danger and intimidation.
I wouldn't have wanted gardai out with Hi tech devices trying to catch people out. What I wanted was that in the case of a collision, that the law cleared up alot of "I said, you said" rubbish in court. If you collided, then you were to close. Dangerous driving and dangerous overtaking still leave alot of wiggle room for the legal eagles. A minimum distance sets a standard and makes it harder to defend against. It could be referenced in cases, whereas the opinion that we should give that distance means little in a court of law.

Chips Lovell · 02-01-2019 10:57AM

Macy0161 wrote: »

I don't see what's debateble about most of the close pass footage we see on the likes of sticky bottle. They're generally not marginal between 1.3m and 1.5m.

Which would be easily covered by existing legislation.

Our constitution is very different from UK's one (if you can call it that).

Macy0161 · 02-01-2019 10:58AM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Which would be easily covered by existing legislation.

That's been effective so far...

Lumen · 02-01-2019 10:59AM

The close passing videos I've seen offer no way to accurately measure the passing distance.

Chips Lovell · 02-01-2019 11:06AM

Macy0161 wrote: »

That's been effective so far...

Exactly. What's the point in introducing more new legislation, with a higher burden of proof, when the existing legislation isn't enforced? It's just tokenism.

TheChizler · 02-01-2019 11:08AM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Exactly. What's the point in introducing more new legislation, with a higher burden of proof, when the existing legislation isn't enforced? It's just tokenism.

It's an objective well defined offence for one, instead of the current subjective dangerous driving.

Chips Lovell · 02-01-2019 11:08AM

CramCycle wrote: »

This one, IMO, would be too raise awareness of dangerous driving habits that many do not even realise. Many a conversation I have had with others and their opinion has been that if they didn't hit me, they were not close enough, and not in an aggressive fashion, just complete obliviousness to the danger and intimidation. I wouldn't have wanted gardai out with Hi tech devices trying to catch people out.

1.5m is great is guidance on what constitutes a safe pass, but makes for poor law because of the difficulty in enforcement. So by all means promote that message, but putting it on the statute books is a mistake.

RacoonQueen · 02-01-2019 11:17AM

If enforced, dangerous overtaking of cyclists probably a better law. It means other factors other than just distance come into it, a driver passing with space but going too fast can still be dangerous - particularly in bigger vehicles with wind factors. Can still either startle you, give you a sudden battle with wind/rain water etc

What we really need is to allow this to be punishable via video evidence. Cyclists/drivers can submit their complaint and dashcam/helmetcam video and the guards have to act on it. No point in the law be it MPDL or dangerous overtaking of cyclists if you're relying on the offchance of a guard being there.

Macy0161 · 02-01-2019 11:23AM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

What we really need is to allow this to be punishable via video evidence. Cyclists/drivers can submit their complaint and dashcam/helmetcam video and the guards have to act on it. No point in the law be it MPDL or dangerous overtaking of cyclists if you're relying on the offchance of a guard being there.

But it seems like the mpdl was shot down on the basis of the video evidence. I haven't seen anything to suggest this will change with dangerous overtaking.

seamus · 02-01-2019 11:47AM

Realistically what will happen here is that the RSA (and other international bodies) will continue to push the message that 1.5m is the appropriate minimum amount of room.

This will trickle down into courtrooms to become the de facto standard when assessing whether an overtake was dangerous.

"How much room do you think you gave the cyclist?"

"Uh, about 3 feet judge, loads of room"

"So...not 1.5 metres then. Right".

This is a better outcome legally. A 1.5m rule would mean that basically nobody could ever be convicted because you could never prove they breached it. At least with the current rule in place someone can be convicted. Not that the charge is ever brought to court.

magicbastarder · 02-01-2019 11:56AM

people keep referring to this law having been passed in other countries. one question i've been asking and have yet to hear a decent answer on is the context in which it is actually enforced in other countries. does it require a police officer to cycle on a 'bait' bike with a calibrated piece of equipment to measure passing distance, or is video evidence legally permissible in court as evidence of a pass within the legal minimum?

AndrewJRenko · 02-01-2019 02:38PM

Lumen wrote: »

The close passing videos I've seen offer no way to accurately measure the passing distance.

If the passing vehicle hits the cyclist's outstretched hand, the driver didn't leave 1.5m passing.

magicbastarder wrote: »

people keep referring to this law having been passed in other countries. one question i've been asking and have yet to hear a decent answer on is the context in which it is actually enforced in other countries. does it require a police officer to cycle on a 'bait' bike with a calibrated piece of equipment to measure passing distance, or is video evidence legally permissible in court as evidence of a pass within the legal minimum?

Some UK forces have prosecuted based on video evidence submitted;

https://twitter.com/Trafficwmp/status/949985112996962304

magicbastarder · 02-01-2019 02:41PM

prosecuted based on what law though? it could be quite possible that they proceeded with a dangerous overtaking prosecution, due to that limitation in the evidence, rather than the specific MPDL law.

magicbastarder · 02-01-2019 03:25PM

some commentary that the IT are republishing old news. off to check now was this actually announced today:

https://twitter.com/sanzscript/status/1080422936828432384

tomasrojo · 02-01-2019 04:54PM

https://twitter.com/cianginty/status/1080465348514713600

Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

Comments