Petition for a minimum overtaking distance when drivers overtake bicycle riders

kandoola · 07-12-2014 9:50am

JayRoc wrote: »

As a cyclist, it sounds to me that you don't really know how to cycle properly. "0.5 metres" from the kerb??

And as a driver, are you saying you can see someone better when they're a foot or so to the left of you, rather than directly in front of you?

If there is room to overtake a cyclist, there is room, or there isn't. In the vast majority of cases, if you can't overtake a cyclist who is sat smack bang in the middle of your lane... you wouldn't have been able to overtake them if they were "0.5 metres" from the kerb.

I have no problem keeping in to about 0.5m of the kerb at all on my bike. If you have difficulty doing that then you cant control a bike.

As a driver I am saying that staying out of the way of the cars is what is going to save your life, not stopping the cars overtaking you, because you'll never do that.
You need to look after yourself instead of depending on every driver you come in contact in the day to keep you safe.

In the vast majority of cases if the driver is distracted and miss the brake or hit the accelerator for any reason at all when you are right in front of them you are in danger. If you are not right in front of them if that happens you are much safer.

Show me a driver who never lost control or concentration of a car for a split second and i'll show you a liar. Thats how cyclists get killed. And the cyclist can and should minimize their own risk to this possibility.

kandoola · 07-12-2014 10:02am

Duiske wrote: »

Around the area where I live, which is very popular with cyclists particularly at weekends, a 1.5m minimum passing distance would basically make it illegal to overtake a cyclist on many stretches of road due to an over abundance of continuous white lines. Also, very few incidents of dangerous overtaking of cyclists are actually witnessed by a Garda, so if a cyclist wants to make a complaint against a driver who passed inside the 1.5m minimum, how is he going to prove it ? The burden of proof is always going to be on the shoulders of the complainant, so baring actual contact, witnesses or video evidence, it would be very hard to be successfull.

As an aside, I worked as a van driver in Dublin for a number of years and have witnessed many incidents involving cyclists, including one sickening accident about which I still have the odd nightmare, well over a decade later. Most of the incidents involved cars and i'd say 70% of these were the fault of cars passing too close to the cyclists. Not talking feet here, but inches, and in somes cases actually clipping the cyclist. These types of drivers last concern is safe overtaking, so setting a minimum overtaking distance will make no difference to them.

By far the scariest incidents involved buses/HGV's, and the particular areas that spring to mind are the south quays, Marlborough rd out to Donnybrook and almost the entire Merrion rd. But thinking of these areas, is a 1.5m minimum overtaking distance even feasible, especially at peak times due to the narrow lanes/oncoming traffic ? With peak time traffic on both sides of the road, the "1.5m Rule" would essentially become the "No overtaking Cyclists Rule".

I think cyclists would be better served if they continuously lobbied for stricter enforcement of existing laws regarding careless/dangerous driving, instead of lobbying for this particular new rule which being realistic, is unlikely to be successful. Either that or reduce the minimum distance they are looking for, particularly for urban areas or those with 50 or 60km/hr speed limits. Maybe look for a 1m minimum distance and see what happens ? 1.5m in a city like Dublin is never going to fly.

Well said.
Sure you have Mr pound in here thinking that as a cyclist he is never in danger and has no duty to keep himself and the rest of the road users safe.
Well its people like him that are the danger to himself and everyone else on the road. Its not that he doesnt get the point. He doesnt want to get the point.

In the city cyclists should not be allowed to overtake cars within 100M of a juntion. Thats easily the best way to say safe. No enforcement though. Just like there is no enforcement of cyclists who are badly lit at night or who overtake cars on the left as they are turning left, or as they break traffic lights.

Its cyclists appearing from behind you as you are manoeuvring that is the cause of most incidents i see on the roads every day. And in winter with bad weather, in the dark and rubbish lighting and lack of hi viz clothes the risk is increased immeasurably. Even pedestrians not wearing hi viz are very hard to see under those conditions and they are moving much slower than cyclists.

I am very thankful to cyclists or pedestrians who i see decked out from head to toe in high viz gear. They are making the roads safer for themselves and for others. I am also thankful to cyclists who i can see are keeping an eye on the traffic rather than expecting the traffic to keep an eye on them.

monument · 07-12-2014 10:12am

jack presley wrote: »

Shouldn't all driving be done at a reasonable and prudent speed anyway? Where the road isn't too wide, it would certainly make it a lot safer if cyclists cycled in single file.

Great, so you'd have no problem with a CA- like passing law.

ezra_pound · 07-12-2014 10:13am

kandoola wrote: »

Well said.
Sure you have Mr pound in here thinking that as a cyclist he is never in danger and has no duty to keep himself and the rest of the road users safe.
Well its people like him that are the danger to himself and everyone else on the road. Its not that he doesnt get the point. He doesnt want to get the point.

In the city cyclists should not be allowed to overtake cars within 100M of a juntion. Thats easily the best way to say safe. No enforcement though. Just like there is no enforcement of cyclists who are badly lit at night or who overtake cars on the left as they are turning left, or as they break traffic lights.

Its cyclists appearing from behind you as you are manoeuvring that is the cause of most incidents i see on the roads every day. And in winter with bad weather, in the dark and rubbish lighting and lack of hi viz clothes the risk is increased immeasurably. Even pedestrians not wearing hi viz are very hard to see under those conditions and they are moving much slower than cyclists.

I am very thankful to cyclists or pedestrians who i see decked out from head to toe in high viz gear. They are making the roads safer for themselves and for others. I am also thankful to cyclists who i can see are keeping an eye on the traffic rather than expecting the traffic to keep an eye on them.

Of course I have a duty of care to myself and have a responsibility to be safe and take precautions.

I am very well lit up and wear hi vis.

My disagreement with you is not that cyclists should be responsible and careful, which I think is very important. Rather, we disagree over what safe cycling is.

Cyclists b not allowed to overtake within 100 m of a junction is a ridiculous suggestion and will never happen. Would this happen in Denmark? In Holland? That is the direction we are heading where cyclists will be given priority in urban planning and law.

monument · 07-12-2014 10:23am

kandoola wrote: »

I am very thankful to cyclists or pedestrians who i see decked out from head to toe in high viz gear. They are making the roads safer for themselves and for others. I am also thankful to cyclists who i can see are keeping an eye on the traffic rather than expecting the traffic to keep an eye on them.

Experance on threads here shows that a notable amount of people who cycle dressed "as Christmas trees" get hit or close passed regularly. Good lights are great, but the benefits of decking your self out like a Christmas tree is highly questionable.

People on bicycles ARE traffic and you referring to motorised traffic as the only traffic shows a lot about your thinking.

People driving cars etc, people on foot and people walking are all required to look out for each other -- so, yes, "traffic" (people driving cars etc) are required to look out for people on bicycles and people walking.

There's a higher burden on those people driving cars, vans, trucks etc because these things can and do often kill and injury people.

Tenzor07 · 07-12-2014 11:10am

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

It's quite pointless to reference one type of vehicle. People in mini's or any other type of vehicle, including Motorcycles, are just as likely to pass too close to a cyclist. Its a driver issue - not a vehicle one.

If you had taken it in the context of the previous post then referencing the size of this vehicle, which is quite common in certain parts of Dublin on the school run etc, will make more sense to you.

ROK ON · 07-12-2014 11:12am

A number of posters on this thread have brought up the point of situations where it is not feasible to safely overtake.

That is entireely the point.

If it is not feasible then I would like that in law. Yes some people will flout the law but lots more may not precisely becasue of the awareness created around that it is now an illegal act.

Enforecability is less of a concern.

I regulalrly drive and cycle on roads where I see people attempt to overtake on narrow, twisty roads with no visibility of the next few meters.

I want as much of this prevented as is possible - making it illegal to overtake will help in this regard as much as anythiing else IMHO.

Tenzor07 · 07-12-2014 11:17am

Duiske wrote: »

But thinking of these areas, is a 1.5m minimum overtaking distance even feasible, especially at peak times due to the narrow lanes/oncoming traffic ? With peak time traffic on both sides of the road, the "1.5m Rule" would essentially become the "No overtaking Cyclists Rule".
Either that or reduce the minimum distance they are looking for, particularly for urban areas or those with 50 or 60km/hr speed limits. Maybe look for a 1m minimum distance and see what happens ? 1.5m in a city like Dublin is never going to fly.

The rule in some countries is 1.5m for roads with higher speed limits, and 1m for urban roads. Passing over solid white lines is also permitted.

machiavellianme · 07-12-2014 11:25am

ezra_pound wrote: »

But most cyclists DO drive as well.

Where'd you pull that stat from? Cyclists include persons under 17, many of whom cycling is their main form of personal transport as they cannot drive. Lots of students also have bikes as they cannot afford to drive. Just because you and your peers have both doesn't make it the norm. The Lycra clad community are just a subset of those who cycle.

mickdw · 07-12-2014 11:35am

When cyclists are required to have compulsory insurance and a registration number printed across their back, then we can talk. As it stands they are a nightmare, a law onto themselves, ignoring traffic laws where it suits them but wanting strict laws enforced on other road users to further suit them.
I've lost count of the number of times I've seen cyclist give a kick to the side of a car in traffic.
Makes me sick. They then cycle of into the traffic untouchable.

jack presley · 07-12-2014 11:49am

ROK ON wrote: »

I regulalrly drive and cycle on roads where I see people attempt to overtake on narrow, twisty roads with no visibility of the next few meters.

I want as much of this prevented as is possible - making it illegal to overtake will help in this regard as much as anythiing else IMHO.

If a road is narrow and twisty with no visibility wouldn't the continuous white line already make it illegal to overtake? If a road is so narrow that it doesn't have road marking, then driving with due care and attention should apply anyway.

If you did want to bring in some no overtaking law, there would have to be some onus on the cyclist(s) to pull over when a convoy of traffic has built up behind them, kind of like what tractors and the farm machinery do and that would drive the cyclist mad as I'd imagine getting your rhythm interrupted every 5 minutes would be a nightmare.

monument · 07-12-2014 12:04pm

mickdw wrote: »

When cyclists are required to have compulsory insurance and a registration number printed across their back, then we can talk. As it stands they are a nightmare, a law onto themselves, ignoring traffic laws where it suits them but wanting strict laws enforced on other road users to further suit them.
I've lost count of the number of times I've seen cyclist give a kick to the side of a car in traffic.
Makes me sick. They then cycle of into the traffic untouchable.

Will we also stop building motorways until motorists stop killing people?* Or do you only get sick of the sight of cars being kicked and not when people keep getting killed?

* I'm not arguing for this, I'm just mirroring your argument to show how silly it it.

jack presley wrote: »

If a road is narrow and twisty with no visibility wouldn't the continuous white line already make it illegal to overtake? If a road is so narrow that it doesn't have road marking, then driving with due care and attention should apply anyway.

So the min passing distance really does not change things on those roads and using those roads as an example of why not to bring in the min passing distance is a red herring.

jack presley · 07-12-2014 12:15pm

monument wrote: »

So the min passing distance really does not change things on those roads and using those roads as an example of why not to bring in the min passing distance is a red herring.

I've no problem with a minimum passing distance but if any restrictions are being put on motorists, whether it be minimum distances or no passing at all (which is what my text you quoted was in response to), there would have to be a corresponding rule that makes it necessary for cyclists to pull in at the next safe spot (farm, house entrance etc.) if a convoy of traffic build up behind them.

K.Flyer · 07-12-2014 12:20pm

monument wrote: »

Imagine if we stopped all nice things / safety measures / road improvements for motorists until ALL motorists learned how to use their fog lights and dippers or until all motorists made sure they never drive with a defective bulb.

You'd never suggest that but you're suggesting something similar for cycling!?!

Believe me, if I was a Garda on a bike I would have a field day stopping every gobsh!te car driver that I would come across with defective or inappropriate lighting and bad driving with disregard to cyclists.
1.5 meter distance is not a practical proposal as there is not enough room on most Dublin roads without crossing the centre line.
But in my book a better proposal would be mandatory minimum lighting on bikes with set standards for minimum allowable lux levels and locations of the lamps.
1.5 meter gaps won't save lives, visibility and awarness will.

beazee · 07-12-2014 12:28pm

kandoola wrote: »

I have no problem keeping in to about 0.5m of the kerb at all on my bike. If you have difficulty doing that then you cant control a bike.

Ehm!

It's not about skills. It's about safety.
With 2 ft of the kerb you leave yourself no margin for escape is things go hairy.

JayRoc · 07-12-2014 12:37pm

kandoola wrote: »

I have no problem keeping in to about 0.5m of the kerb at all on my bike. If you have difficulty doing that then you cant control a bike.

As a driver I am saying that staying out of the way of the cars is what is going to save your life, not stopping the cars overtaking you, because you'll never do that.
You need to look after yourself instead of depending on every driver you come in contact in the day to keep you safe.

In the vast majority of cases if the driver is distracted and miss the brake or hit the accelerator for any reason at all when you are right in front of them you are in danger. If you are not right in front of them if that happens you are much safer.

Show me a driver who never lost control or concentration of a car for a split second and i'll show you a liar. Thats how cyclists get killed. And the cyclist can and should minimize their own risk to this possibility.

I don't think you understand what I wrote at all. Read it again

mickdw · 07-12-2014 12:55pm

monument wrote: »

Will we also stop building motorways until motorists stop killing people?* Or do you only get sick of the sight of cars being kicked and not when people keep getting killed?

* I'm not arguing for this, I'm just mirroring your argument to show how silly it it.

So the min passing distance really does not change things on those roads and using those roads as an example of why not to bring in the min passing distance is a red herring.

I don't see any relationship between my point and yours.
Cyclists are flying through gaps that are not suitable or at far too fast speed. When they occasionally have a near coming together with a car, instead of realising that maybe both were at fault or maybe that they are difficult to see etc, the cyclist will abuse the car driver and their car.
I'm not talking about life death situations. It is just quite sickening that the cyclist is all powerful in such a situation being in a position to cause criminal damage and flee the scene unknown.

ezra_pound · 07-12-2014 1:02pm

mickdw wrote: »

When cyclists are required to have compulsory insurance and a registration number printed across their back, then we can talk. As it stands they are a nightmare, a law onto themselves, ignoring traffic laws where it suits them but wanting strict laws enforced on other road users to further suit them.
I've lost count of the number of times I've seen cyclist give a kick to the side of a car in traffic.
Makes me sick. They then cycle of into the traffic untouchable.

What do you mean then we can talk?

This is about road safety not collective bargaining between cyclists and motorists on a quid pro quo basis. It is about ensuring that the law promotes public safety. It could also be seen as part of general pro cycling policy.

If motorists are concerned that this will negatively their freedom on the roads, it is likely that this is of minor significance compared to the overall priority that is to be transferred from cars to bikes in our towns and cities.

There is no rational reason for cyclists to have insurance or a licence/registration.

K.Flyer · 07-12-2014 1:16pm

ezra_pound wrote: »

There is no rational reason for cyclists to have insurance or a licence/registration.

Sorry, but on any given day in Dublin city I will see a cyclist taking chances, eg. breaking lights being the most common, that puts them, or others, at risk of injury or personal loss. There is a good case for it.
BTW. I am not saying car drivers are saints or angels either.

bobcranfret · 07-12-2014 1:33pm

Beasty wrote: »

All that's really needed is the recommended 1.5m being included in the RoTR as the space that motorists should leave whenever possible, and a statement from the Gardai saying that they will assume anyone not giving adequate space, with reference to the RoTR specification, is driving dangerously and will act accordingly

That's the first sensible suggestion I've seen in this thread. The rest of the thread reminds me why I never cycle in Dublin.

monument · 07-12-2014 1:36pm

mickdw wrote: »

I don't see any relationship between my point and yours.
Cyclists are flying through gaps that are not suitable or at far too fast speed. When they occasionally have a near coming together with a car, instead of realising that maybe both were at fault or maybe that they are difficult to see etc, the cyclist will abuse the car driver and their car.
I'm not talking about life death situations. It is just quite sickening that the cyclist is all powerful in such a situation being in a position to cause criminal damage and flee the scene unknown.

Motorists are killing them selfs and others -- yeah, that's far worse than what you're taking about!

Alias G · 07-12-2014 2:03pm

K.Flyer wrote: »

Sorry, but on any given day in Dublin city I will see a cyclist taking chances, eg. breaking lights being the most common, that puts them, or others, at risk of injury or personal loss. There is a good case for it.
BTW. I am not saying car drivers are saints or angels either.

And what about the costs of administering such licensing and insurance schemes which would run far higher than the negligible amount of damage that cyclists are currently committing? Poorly behaved cyclists may be conspicuous and a pest but there are no stats to back up that they are causing any serious amounts of damage or injury. Your idea is utter utter rubbish.

Kaisr Sose · 07-12-2014 2:18pm

Tenzor07 wrote: »

If you had taken it in the context of the previous post then referencing the size of this vehicle, which is quite common in certain parts of Dublin on the school run etc, will make more sense to you.

Size of vehicle is not the issue. Whether on school run, shopping trip, Sunday spin, commute... Its the driver in charge of the vehicle that causes it behave in a manner which may endanger other road users. You may disagree but that's how I see it.

Kaisr Sose · 07-12-2014 2:28pm

K.Flyer wrote: »

Believe me, if I was a Garda on a bike I would have a field day stopping every gobsh!te car driver that I would come across with defective or inappropriate lighting and bad driving with disregard to cyclists.

Me too. Enforcement of existing legislation would certainly help across the board.

wrote:

But in my book a better proposal would be mandatory minimum lighting on bikes with set standards for minimum allowable lux levels and locations of the lamps.

And max lux/lumen limits. Why a cyclist needs 1000lumen plus in a built up area or busy road beats me!

07-12-2014 2:33pm

How far from edge of road is this cyclist?

K.Flyer · 07-12-2014 3:05pm

Alias G wrote: »

And what about the costs of administering such licensing and insurance schemes which would run far higher than the negligible amount of damage that cyclists are currently committing? Poorly behaved cyclists may be conspicuous and a pest but there are no stats to back up that they are causing any serious amounts of damage or injury. Your idea is utter utter rubbish.

First off, it was not my idea, I said there was a good case for it based in what I have seen on Dublin streets and roads.
There may not be stats readily to hand but that does not mean its not happening.
I personally have seen cyclists knock people over and put large dents and scrathes in cars by their own fault which in turn results in loss or personal injury to a third party.
You see we all have to use and share the road, so therefore why shouldn't we all be regulated in the way.
You admit it happens, although you think in small numbers, so why should someone have to cover their own injury costs or damage repairs arising from the negligence of a cyclist. Wait until it happens to you and come back to your post and read your last line.

Alias G · 07-12-2014 3:47pm

K.Flyer wrote: »

First off, it was not my idea, I said there was a good case for it based in what I have seen on Dublin streets and roads.
There may not be stats readily to hand but that does not mean its not happening.
I personally have seen cyclists knock people over and put large dents and scrathes in cars by their own fault which in turn results in loss or personal injury to a third party.
You see we all have to use and share the road, so therefore why shouldn't we all be regulated in the way.
You admit it happens, although you think in small numbers, so why should someone have to cover their own injury costs or damage repairs arising from the negligence of a cyclist. Wait until it happens to you and come back to your post and read your last line.

Of course accidents happen but your personnel anecdotes are meaningless with all due respect. Nobody should have to pay for the negligence of others but that doesn't make the scheme you are proposing workable or justified. The administration involved would be prohibitive when factored against the number and cost of incidents that cyclists are responsible for. More cyclist/pedestrian collisions seem to occur as a result of jaywalking rather than cyclists running lights. Following your argument, surely pedestrians should carry registrations and insurance too.

07-12-2014 5:28pm

kandoola wrote: »

That makes no sense. There is not just one situation ever on the road.
You, drivers and the road can be in many different states and positions on your daily commute.

Are you always turning left when you are cycling in the middle of the road, with another car in front of you turning left and a car behind you too?

I think not.

So at any time you go into the middle of the road in front of a car how can you be sure that the driver doesnt get distracted by something else or is even drunk?

My point is that anything could happen and if something goes wrong with the driver behind yous concentration you are the one that is going to die, if you have put yourself right in the middle of his path.

It might never happen, but i certainly wouldnt want to be in front of the out of control car behind me when i could have been beside the kerb.

When you are driving have you never had to take action to avoid a cyclist getting himself killed. It happens to me at least once a week in Dublin. Lucky for the cyclists that im watching them closely. And off they go and never know how close they came to injury or death. Im sure ive had near misses that i never even noticed too.

One guy i was working with got knocked down (he only ended up with a broken wrist) by a driver who slightly jumped the green light one morning. The workmate went past me at the lights and through the junction while they were just turning red for us. I could see the other car moving even before my light turned red. I knew exactly what was going to happen. It all happened in split second. Hes lucky he didnt get killed. Strictly it was the drivers fault but the workmate was not being careful. Even though he still thinks he didnt do anything wrong try telling that to his mother at his funeral if he had been killed.

He still tells the story about how this driver broke the red light and nearly killed him. but neglects to add that he could have easily avoided it by being more careful too.

So both were crashing the lights, both in the wrong. It is very hard on my motor cycle in Dublin. Roads always slippy, no person obeying laws on lights or lanes. Worse than Italy, which has very bad reputation.

John_Rambo · 07-12-2014 5:29pm

kandoola wrote: »

When you are driving have you never had to take action to avoid a cyclist getting himself killed. It happens to me at least once a week in Dublin.

kandoola wrote: »

I drive and cycle every day.
I have nearly killed several cyclists while driving.

kandoola wrote: »

As both a cyclist and a driver i am continually flabbergasted at the amount of times i have come close to killing a cyclist as they swing out to overtake another cyclist, or i just dont see them fast enough

Right, there's something wrong here. You need to.

A - Get your eyes tested.
B - Do a driving course.
C - Stop drinking/taking drugs.
D - Slow down.
E - Work on your awareness.
F - Get more sleep.
Or
G - Stop exaggerating.

ROK ON · 07-12-2014 7:32pm

jack presley wrote: »

If a road is narrow and twisty with no visibility wouldn't the continuous white line already make it illegal to overtake? If a road is so narrow that it doesn't have road marking, then driving with due care and attention should apply anyway.

If you did want to bring in some no overtaking law, there would have to be some onus on the cyclist(s) to pull over when a convoy of traffic has built up behind them, kind of like what tractors and the farm machinery do and that would drive the cyclist mad as I'd imagine getting your rhythm interrupted every 5 minutes would be a nightmare.

On many of these types of road that I travel on there is no continuous white line.
To be clear my position is that a legal minimum passing distance should exist for all vehicles, not simply for overtaking cyclists.
Finally I think all road users need to accept that no one owns or is entitled to the road. We will always encounter slower traffic. That's life, while I would like a vehicle in front of me to travel a bit faster some time, there is nothing safe that I can do about that. Suck it up regardless of how frustrating it is. Are some road users rude or inconsiderate - yes they are. But iirc the law already prevents unnecessarily holding up traffic. Many cycling groups pull to the side where they can - but some don't unfortunately.

Petition for a minimum overtaking distance when drivers overtake bicycle riders

Comments