# Campaign to have a minimum 1.5m overtaking gap for cyclists



## Brendan Burgess (6 May 2015)

http://www.safecyclingireland.org/
_
 I set up Ireland’s campaign to have 1.5 metres of overtaking space written into Irish law in conjunction with a safety campaign. In line with some overseas campaigns, this comes with a cycling specific safety jersey to help promote the ‘1.5 metres please share the road’ message._

I think that this is a very good idea.  It's astonishing how often cars almost brush up against me as they try to squeeze by.   If a pothole knocks the bike from a straight line, the cyclist could be finished. 

Brendan


----------



## roker (1 Jun 2015)

Often motorist skim by cyclist because they do not want to overtake across a single white line and break the law, the alternative is to follow the cyclist until there a overtaking line causing a lot of frustration.


----------



## JohnJay (2 Jun 2015)

so will Dublin Bus shave 1.5m off their buses then? It will be a very tough law to enforce in Dublin's narrow streets.


----------



## Leo (2 Jun 2015)

roker said:


> Often motorist skim by cyclist because they do not want to overtake across a single white line and break the law, the alternative is to follow the cyclist until there a overtaking line causing a lot of frustration.



Putting a cyclist in danger by such a move is an offence, carrying 2 points and a fine. Clip the cyclist, even if the cyclist wobbles due to wind, potholes, etc., and you're in a lot more trouble.


----------



## Leo (2 Jun 2015)

JohnJay said:


> so will Dublin Bus shave 1.5m off their buses then? It will be a very tough law to enforce in Dublin's narrow streets.



The bus would obviously have to move out to the next lane to safely overtake in those circumstances. Under current legislation, they should do so. Not that there's much in the way of enforcement of any traffic regs these days.


----------



## mathepac (2 Jun 2015)

4.91 feet? Who's going to measure it? I'm afraid not, not on Dublin's old narrow streets. Besides, it'll never be enforced, just as so many of the current traffic / motoring / cycling laws & bye-laws are not enforced.

I would favour improvement of the cycle-lanes, financed by taxing bicycles and by fining cyclists who overtake  other cyclists by moving out of the cycle-lane into motorised traffic, who run red lights, cycle on foot-paths, cycle 2 and 3 abreast where it is inappropriate, etc..


----------



## Leo (2 Jun 2015)

mathepac said:


> financed by taxing bicycles and by fining cyclists who overtake  other cyclists by moving out of the cycle-lane into motorised traffic



You do know cyclists are entitled to do this? Cyclists are not restricted to using cycle lanes where they exit.


----------



## mathepac (2 Jun 2015)

My suggestions are to change some laws, enforce all of them with heavy fines, like for cycling on footpaths, cycling across pedestrian crossings, and thus have safer cycling financed by cyclists.


----------



## Purple (2 Jun 2015)

Here's some reasons why the notion of taxing cyclists is silly;

I'm a motorist and a cyclists (just like many cyclists). I use my car or my bike, never both at the same time .
Should I be charged less road tax as I cycle some of the time?

My 11 year old cycles to her friends house sometimes. What level of cycling tax should she pay.

My 5 year old sometimes cycles beside me on the path when I go for a walk. Which prison should she be sent to for cycling ion the path?

I see parents teaching their children to cycle using footpaths and in parks. Should the child or the parent be fined/arrested or should they both get done for it?


----------



## Buddyboy (2 Jun 2015)

Purple you fool, stop using logic and reason in a thread about cycling/cars  
You know there's no place for it here 

To be honest, when I read rokers post above, I despaired (as a motorist, cyclist, and motorcyclist).
How dare those pesky cyclists cause frustration to a motorist behind them.

I won't be replying to this thread again, If you want to read about "us and them" attitudes I'd suggest you take a trip to boards.ie where you will have plenty of reading material.


----------



## Leo (2 Jun 2015)

Buddyboy said:


> I won't be replying to this thread again, If you want to read about "us and them" attitudes I'd suggest you take a trip to boards.ie where you will have plenty of reading material.



Particularly the 'they don't even pay road tax Joe' thread


----------



## Leo (2 Jun 2015)

mathepac said:


> My suggestions are to change some laws, enforce all of them with heavy fines, like for cycling on footpaths, cycling across pedestrian crossings, and thus have safer cycling financed by cyclists.



Clearly not working for drivers...


----------



## mathepac (2 Jun 2015)

Purple said:


> I'm a motorist and a cyclists (just like many cyclists). I use my car or my bike, never both at the same time .
> Should I be charged less road tax as I cycle some of the time?


The current tax on motor-cars is a motor-tax, not a road-tax. I propose tax on bicycles  used on public roads / cycle-lanes. Take your pick - a once off cycle registration tax, an annual cycle tax or both. Ring-fence the tax(es) and  funds from cycling offences and safe-cycling becomes self-financing.

Some posts deserve commentary, others are so stupid they should just be ignored.


----------



## mathepac (2 Jun 2015)

Leo said:


> Clearly not working for drivers...


I have to admit I haven't seen motorists use footpaths or pedestrian crossings to complete their journeys, if you have you know what you need to do. I'm not sure what to make of your other comment. 

Apologies just spotted the contribution from @Buddyboy ...


----------



## roker (2 Jun 2015)

Leo said:


> Putting a cyclist in danger by such a move is an offence, carrying 2 points and a fine. Clip the cyclist, even if the cyclist wobbles due to wind, potholes, etc., and you're in a lot more trouble.


 I am only saying what happens, but obviously there is a problem, the alternative is, they can hold a line of cars up for several miles, or the car get penalty points for crossing the white line.


----------



## mathepac (2 Jun 2015)

Motorcyclists, moped drivers and other road users must obtain a driving licence by sitting  an exam about the rules of the road and by displaying proficiency in controlling their vehicles in normal usage. It has never made one whit of sense to me that the most vulnerable of all road users, the pedal cyclist, can take to the road with zero knowledge and no training. Put cyclists through the same training and testing as other road users and also test their bikes for legal compliance regularly. Use the fund to raise the standards of cycling and cycle safety.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 Jun 2015)

Yes mathepac

And impose a minimum age limit of 18 on cyclists.
And subject all bicycles to an annual NCT

The problem with this approach is that you will deter people from cycling. So you will end up with many more cars on the road. So it will be worse for motorists, rather than better. 

If you encourage cyclists, it will be good for both cyclists and motorists. 

Brendan


----------



## STEINER (3 Jun 2015)

Any initiative that tries to enhance safety for road users is good.  Maybe there is not enough being spent and communicated generally to all road users about road safety.  

I watched a BBC A & E  documentary last night.  One of the cases featured was a RTA in London involving a cyclist and a large truck.  It was pretty harrowing, including graphic footage of emergency roadside surgery to hand massage the heart.  She was a 27 year old married German student who had opted for a chance to study in England.  She never regained consciousness and passed away 3 days later.  It would change any road user's view of cycling safety.


----------



## terrysgirl33 (3 Jun 2015)

mathepac said:


> I have to admit I haven't seen motorists use footpaths or pedestrian crossings to complete their journeys, if you have you know what you need to do. I'm not sure what to make of your other comment.



I have, I've seen motorists drive up onto a footpath at speed and park half on/half off the footpath to drop kids off to school.


----------



## terrysgirl33 (3 Jun 2015)

roker said:


> Often motorist skim by cyclist because they do not want to overtake across a single white line and break the law, the alternative is to follow the cyclist until there a overtaking line causing a lot of frustration.



If the road layout does not allow overtaking, then you wait.  If this means a line of traffic, then it means a line of traffic.  If you are stuck behind a slow moving tractor or lorry the same applies.  I drive along the Strawberry beds frequently and often have to wait behind a cyclist, that's just the way the road is laid out.  My mother was very nearly involved in a head on collision once, with a car that overtook a tractor when the other driver couldn't see ahead.  It was not the tractor drivers fault.  If you drive, you need to be able to deal with the road conditions, including slow traffic.


----------



## mathepac (3 Jun 2015)

Brendan Burgess said:


> And impose a minimum age limit of 18 on cyclists.
> And subject all bicycles to an annual NCT


I think education & training and an awareness of the vulnerabilities of cyclists  has a much to do with improving cyclist safety as an arbitrary gap that can't be policed and won't be enforced. And yes, regular formal bike checks would be good as I said already.



Brendan Burgess said:


> The problem with this approach is that you will deter people from cycling. So you will end up with many more cars on the road. So it will be worse for motorists, rather than better.
> 
> If you encourage cyclists, it will be good for both cyclists and motorists.


With respect, we haven't got the faintest idea as to whether my proposals will encourage or discourage new cyclists or have any influence on the number of cars on the road. I believe that instilling a sense of ownership in their operating environment and in formal training will improve cyclist safety. Demanding more with zero material  contribution and no commitment to improving riding standards or cyclist education rings very hollow and just heightens the sense of entitlement cyclists seem to me to display.

Will we do better by having the "mind the gap" police transferred from the London Underground of my yoof to Dublin's streets, brandishing 4.91 foot long poles threateningly at motorists?


----------



## Purple (3 Jun 2015)

Mathepac, what about kids who cycle to school? We've enough fat kids as it is and we've certainly enough yummy-mummy's driving their one little darling to school in massive 4X4's without adding to the traffic and road danger.

Bikes are not the same as cars or other motorised vehicles. They just aren't.
As a cyclist I find motorists far better now than they were 20 years ago. cyclists are better as well, certainly they are more visible, but many of them still ignore the rules on a constant basis.


----------



## Leo (3 Jun 2015)

mathepac said:


> I have to admit I haven't seen motorists use footpaths or pedestrian crossings to complete their journeys, if you have you know what you need to do.



Two cars passed me to the left this morning as I was waiting to take a right turn, both at speed, both mounting a footpath to do so, one of them even got all 4 wheels on the path to do so. Garda traffic corps car behind me wasn't too concerned about it, not sure what reporting it will do. It's a daily occurrence at that and two other narrow right hand turns on my daily commute. 90% of the cars on the streets around me also park with 2 or 4 wheels on the paths.


----------



## Leo (3 Jun 2015)

mathepac said:


> With respect, we haven't got the faintest idea as to whether my proposals will encourage or discourage new cyclists or have any influence on the number of cars on the road. I believe that instilling a sense of ownership in their operating environment and in formal training will improve cyclist safety. Demanding more with zero material  contribution and no commitment to improving riding standards or cyclist education rings very hollow and just heightens the sense of entitlement cyclists seem to me to display.



This idea has been looked at and ruled out as unworkable in other countries, it's a topic that pops up here every couple of years. Calgary went as far as publishing a response. Any such scheme would cost far more to run than it would take in. 

How would licensing encourage children to take up cycling? What is the positive from their point of view that licensing would give them? 

You do realise that cyclists already do make a contribution? Many cyclists provide more in the way of funding than other classes of road users. Roads are a public service, the money collected from motor tax is not ring-fenced for the provision or upkeep of roads. If you want all those who benefit from the road infrastructure to contribute in some direct fashio, then you need to figure out how to charge pedestrians, public transport users, private car passengers etc.. Oh wait, general taxation does that already.

You'd imagine car drivers should have some sense of 'ownership in their operating environment', yet they are still responsible for the vast majority or road offences, injuries and deaths.


----------



## mathepac (3 Jun 2015)

Leo said:


> This idea has been looked at and ruled out as unworkable in other countries, it's a topic that pops up here every couple of years. Calgary went as far as publishing a response. Any such scheme would cost far more to run than it would take in..


Lots of ideas were deemed unworkable in other countries but they worked here e.g. the plastic bag scourge and smoking indoors in public were deemed intractable problems in the UK and other places until they were solved here. The plastic bag scourge in particular was sorted out by means of a simple and very effective €0.27 tax, akin to my cycle / cycling tax suggestions.



Leo said:


> How would licensing encourage children to take up cycling? What is the positive from their point of view that licensing would give them?


Training, licensing and a safe cycling infrastructure might (just might) encourage Mumsie to put chubby Cedric and rotund Rita on bicycles rather than into the back-seats of the massive SUV she uses to taxi them around. And safer cycling of course is the positive outcome, safety first and foremost. You can't blame Mumsie for using the SUV if she believes the public roads aren't safe for her little cyclists. 



Leo said:


> You do realise that cyclists already do make a contribution? Many cyclists provide more in the way of funding than other classes of road users. Roads are a public service, the money collected from motor tax is not ring-fenced for the provision or upkeep of roads. If you want all those who benefit from the road infrastructure to contribute in some direct fashio, then you need to figure out how to charge pedestrians, public transport users, private car passengers etc.. Oh wait, general taxation does that already.
> 
> You'd imagine car drivers should have some sense of 'ownership in their operating environment', yet they are still responsible for the vast majority or road offences, injuries and deaths.


I'm hoping you'll be able to produce stats and references to support your contention that _"Many cyclists provide more in the way of funding than other classes of road users."_ I'm suggesting ring-fencing the cycling money, I already said that. Cyclists  need a different environment to other road users to be safe and should pay for it. Pedestrians use footpaths and as such are not "road-users" which I thought was fairly obvious, but maybe not and public transport users pay fares to the bus / rail /tram /taxi owner. As motorists form the vast majority of road-users, it is no surprise that "they are still responsible for the vast majority or road offences, injuries and deaths."


----------



## mathepac (3 Jun 2015)

Purple said:


> Mathepac, what about kids who cycle to school? We've enough fat kids as it is and we've certainly enough yummy-mummy's driving their one little darling to school in massive 4X4's without adding to the traffic and road danger.
> 
> Bikes are not the same as cars or other motorised vehicles. They just aren't.
> As a cyclist I find motorists far better now than they were 20 years ago. cyclists are better as well, certainly they are more visible, but many of them still ignore the rules on a constant basis.


See my responses to @Leo's post above. I can't see the need to repeat myself.


----------



## mathepac (3 Jun 2015)

Leo said:


> Two cars passed me to the left this morning as I was waiting to take a right turn, both at speed, both mounting a footpath to do so, one of them even got all 4 wheels on the path to do so. Garda traffic corps car behind me wasn't too concerned about it, not sure what reporting it will do. It's a daily occurrence at that and two other narrow right hand turns on my daily commute. 90% of the cars on the streets around me also park with 2 or 4 wheels on the paths.


If traffic-wardens and the Garda Traffic Corps are not doing their jobs then all I can suggest is that you take it up with their bosses / public representative.


----------



## Páid (3 Jun 2015)

JohnJay said:


> so will Dublin Bus shave 1.5m off their buses then? It will be a very tough law to enforce in Dublin's narrow streets.





mathepac said:


> 4.91 feet? Who's going to measure it? I'm afraid not, not on Dublin's old narrow streets. Besides, it'll never be enforced, just as so many of the current traffic / motoring / cycling laws & bye-laws are not enforced.





mathepac said:


> Will we do better by having the "mind the gap" police transferred from the London Underground of my yoof to Dublin's streets, brandishing 4.91 foot long poles threateningly at motorists?



I think you are all missing the point. The desired objective is that drivers would observe a safe distance when overtaking cyclists. There a lots of examples in the rules of the road where safe distances are to be observed by drivers but not enforced by the Gardaí e.g. stopping distances, two second rule, etc.



mathepac said:


> I'm suggesting ring-fencing the cycling money, I already said that. Cyclists need a different environment to other road users to be safe and should pay for it. Pedestrians use footpaths and as such are not "road-users" which I thought was fairly obvious, but maybe not and public transport users pay fares to the bus / rail /tram /taxi owner.


IMHO this is off topic - why wouldn't cycling infrastructure be paid for out of general taxation like everything else is? Public transport is subsidised by the taxpayer. Footpaths are paid for by the taxpayer. Roads are paid for by the taxpayer and the EU.


----------



## Purple (3 Jun 2015)

mathepac said:


> See my responses to @Leo's post above. I can't see the need to repeat myself.


In my defence I did post that before you replied to Leo!


----------



## Leo (3 Jun 2015)

mathepac said:


> Lots of ideas were deemed unworkable in other countries but they worked here e.g. the plastic bag scourge and smoking indoors in public were deemed intractable problems in the UK and other places until they were solved here. The plastic bag scourge in particular was sorted out by means of a simple and very effective €0.27 tax, akin to my cycle / cycling tax suggestions.



I'm not aware of a plastic bag levy being tried and failing anywhere else, but I provided links to lots of places where cycling licences were attempted and failed. A levy applied at source is a very different animal to a full licensing system. 



mathepac said:


> Training, licensing and a safe cycling infrastructure might (just might) encourage Mumsie to put chubby Cedric and rotund Rita on bicycles rather than into the back-seats of the massive SUV she uses to taxi them around.



Training / licensing will never encourage the take up of cycling, as stated in the link provided, it has failed to do so where trialled. Such schemes have also failed to have a positive effect on cycling behaviour. It also does nothing to address the most common factor in cyclist injuries and deaths, the driver. 



mathepac said:


> I'm hoping you'll be able to produce stats and references to support your contention that _"Many cyclists provide more in the way of funding than other classes of road users."_
> 
> Well, here's one article, there are lots more. The majority of regular cyclists also own cars, so they already contribute to road tax in the same way as non-cycling drivers. The recent explosion in leisure cycling has primarily taken place among the more affluent, who pay more in terms of general taxation.  There are also the health benefits, cycling doesn't produce the toxic fumes combustion engines do, so doesn't contribute towards the millions the state pays in treating respiratory illness. Regular cyclists are also tend to be healthier, and less of a drain on the health service, so that should be accounted for also, particularly with the increasing problem of childhood obesity.
> 
> ...


----------



## JohnJay (3 Jun 2015)

I can see why we need to bring in this regulation, but I just don't see how it can be done practically. Take the quays, for example. The bus lanes in the mornings have more cyclists in them than buses (and nothing wrong with that). But if DB drivers need to give cyclists at least 2 meters (the width of the bike + 1.5m) then it will effectively move the buses completely out of the bus lanes and in to regular traffic. 

And as someone mentioned above, how will it be policed? who's to say that a vehicle was 1.3m from the cyclist or 1.5?

Proper cycle lanes and cycle-only pathways are the only real answer.


----------



## Purple (3 Jun 2015)

JohnJay said:


> Proper cycle lanes and cycle-only pathways are the only real answer.


 That's just not an option in many parts of our towns and cities. Personally I will not use cycle paths that are shared with pedestrians as they are just too dangerous.


----------



## mathepac (4 Jun 2015)

Páid said:


> *There a lots of examples in the rules of the road where safe distances are to be observed by drivers but not enforced by the Gardaí e.g. stopping distances, two second rule, etc*....


Please quote the page and paragraph numbers in The Rules of the Road that specify these distances and time rules.  I have a sneaking suspicion it might be your first reading of the ROTR document.


Páid said:


> IMHO this is off topic - why wouldn't cycling infrastructure be paid for out of general taxation like everything else is? Public transport is subsidised by the taxpayer. Footpaths are paid for by the taxpayer. Roads are paid for by the taxpayer and the EU.


Because as I've already posted cyclists display a sense of entitlement - "We want a and b and c, let it be so!" No notion of costing or sources of funding for their demands, just "Go do it because if you don't our / your children will die." 

My thinking might be described as rational, maybe even radical, but there you go.


----------



## mathepac (4 Jun 2015)

Leo said:


> I'm not aware of a plastic bag levy being tried and failing anywhere else, but I provided links to lots of places where cycling licences were attempted and failed. A levy applied at source is a very different animal to a full licensing system..


Nor am I aware "*of a plastic bag levy being tried and failing anywhere else*" Leo, and never made any such claim.

What levy or tax is applied at source? Any that I am aware of are applied on consumption, supply to / purchase by a consumer. VAT, VRT, PAYE, Motor Tax, Excise Duty, Prescription Levy, etc. 



Leo said:


> Training / licensing will never encourage the take up of cycling, as stated in the link provided, it has failed to do so where trialled. Such schemes have also failed to have a positive effect on cycling behaviour. It also does nothing to address the most common factor in cyclist injuries and deaths, the driver.


 I'm not interested in *"the take up of cycling"*, and never claimed I was, my only interest is in the provision of  a safe infrastructure for cyclists young and old, funded by cyclists.


----------



## mathepac (4 Jun 2015)

"_Well, here's one article, there are lots more. The majority of regular cyclists also own cars, so they already contribute to road tax in the same way as non-cycling drivers. The recent explosion in leisure cycling has primarily taken place among the more affluent, who pay more in terms of general taxation. There are also the health benefits, cycling doesn't produce the toxic fumes combustion engines do, so doesn't contribute towards the millions the state pays in treating respiratory illness. Regular cyclists are also tend to be healthier, and less of a drain on the health service, so that should be accounted for also, particularly with the increasing problem of childhood obesity."_

I missed this part as it was all contained in quotes. Your one article provides no support for your original claim and makes no reference to studies here. Chubby & Rotund, Mumsie's mythical children, won't survive cycling in the current unsafe environment long enough to accrue any health benefits, on the contrary, the little darlings will probably just end up as more unfortunate unsafe cycling statistics, if the toxic fumes from buses and lorries don't kill them first.

_"But you're ring fencing a cost. Where stats are available, licensing schemes where they have been trialled only collect 40% or less of the costs to administer the schemes, let alone contribute any funds to improve facilities." 
_
I'm ring-fencing *revenue* from sales, licensing, testing of bikes and cyclists and fines associated with the activity of cycling. I made that perfectly clear. Why the need to distort posts that are in plain English?  There may be additional costs associated with revenue collection, but so what? He who would dine on omelettes must break eggs.

"_But cyclists shouldn't need a different environment. If they do, it's only down to the dangerous behaviour of either themselves or other road users._"

Shudda, cudda, wudda as an old lecturer of mine used to say. In the real world wishing won't change reality and the reality is that today, cycling is dangerous. (If it's safe, would we have a proposal to have a 4.91 foot ruler in use on the highways and byways?)

"_As a pedestrian, I regularly use the roads. Lots of places I walk or run don't have footpaths. Paying a taxi or bus fare is also a long way removed from an enforced licensing system. How about those on horses? Farmers moving animals? Tourists? Should they all be licensed?_"

Good for you and I hope you do it safely and legally, facing on-coming traffic, on well-lit roads wearing light-coloured reflective clothing with lights and arm-bands. But what the heck has your running and walking exercise got to do with allowing 4.91 feet between a cyclist and an overtaking motor vehicle? Paying taxi and bus-fares *is* a large part of an enforced licensing system, where the operators and drivers need PSV (Public Service Vehicle) licences and are subject to inspections, But again what has this got to do with funding safe cycling? I would say the same about tourists, horses, sheep, goats, antelopes, ostriches, emus or bison. It's all just noise attempting to distract from my point about safe cycling and the funding and provision of same. Can you see your posts are not connected in any way with my consistent responses to the OP's topic?

"_Glad you agree on that, so if this is really a safety issue, and not just a vendetta on rogue cyclists, shouldn't the limited funding, and miniscule policing bandwidth available be focused on where the most significant issue lies? Why spend money and resources we don't have on people who really (barring a few rare exceptions) only injure or kill themselves when they do something stupid?"
_
Once again Leo I'm afraid your posts are way wide of the mark. How could anyone interpret my positive suggestions about funding a safe cycling environment be interpreted as a vendetta? Clearly you're at odds with anything I might post. I'm not writing about existing policing or other resources, I've posted consistently  about a new source of funds to provide for a safe cycling infrastructure for cyclists, that source being cyclists. If that point isn't clear to you, then I can only conclude it never will be.


----------



## Páid (4 Jun 2015)

mathepac said:


> Please quote the page and paragraph numbers in The Rules of the Road that specify these distances and time rules.  I have a sneaking suspicion it might be your first reading of the ROTR document.



I have read the rules of the road many times.

So there is no ambiguity - Rules of the road available here - 

Two second rule is on page 109. I have never seen or heard of Gardaí stopping/prosecuting a motorist for breaking the two second rule. There is a penalty point offence for _Failure to leave appropriate distance between you and the vehicle in front_.

Stopping distances for cars starts on page 115. The stopping distances given on page 117 can only be indicative as they depend on factors such as reaction time, road surface, the weight of the car, tyres and lots of other factors. I have never heard of Gardaí prosecuting motorists for not obeying the stopping distances listed in the Rules of the Road though they could prosecute under the penalty point offence I quoted above.

There are lots of other examples where distance is given in the Rules of the Road but no-one gets out a measuring tape in order to enforce them. The distances are there to promote safe driving/cycling.

The overriding purpose of the Safe Cycling campaign is that there be a safe overtaking distance for cyclists enshrined in Irish law.

Your suggestion that cycling infrastructure should be paid for by cyclists has nothing to do with the original topic of this thread. On a lot of roads in Ireland there is no provision for cyclists or pedestrians whatsoever. Until that infrastructure is provided are all cyclists and pedestrians to stop using them or is a safe overtaking distance observed by motorists a better option? After all, it is something all motorists could put into practice straight away and it's a lot cheaper than the cycling infrastructure you are so keen to have cyclists pay for.


----------



## mathepac (4 Jun 2015)

Thanks for that but the crux of the matter is, given that we already have lots of un-policed separation measure in place, what point is there in having yet another unenforceable, un-policed distance enshrined in legislation? What does it change, apart from the cost associated with drafting and approval and printing? Will it make the roads one whit safer for cyclists? Will it prevent a single cyclist vs. car, truck, bus incident? Why bother?


----------



## Leo (4 Jun 2015)

mathepac said:


> Nor am I aware "*of a plastic bag levy being tried and failing anywhere else*" Leo, and never made any such claim.



But you did say:



mathepac said:


> The plastic bag scourge in particular was sorted out by means of a simple and very effective €0.27 tax, akin to my cycle / cycling tax suggestions.



So this is nothing like us taking on an idea that has failed the world over, everywhere it has been attempted and turning it around into a resounding success.

The bag levy, as you say is a tax at source, that's very different from issuing licenses to people to allow them to continue to use plastic bags in public. The levy contributes to general taxation from which the road infrastructure is paid for, much like the millions in import duty and VAT applied to bikes and related equipment today. Why not just let the government ring-fence that money? Thinking a licensing system in any way contributes is, as one of the articles I posted suggested, a folly.

Why should cyclists be singled out and expected to pay all the costs towards the a publicly provided infrastructure? That's not how our tax system works. Looks at the opposition out there to water charges and the 'I pay my taxes' argument. To extend the same ring-fencing logic you propose to motorists would see a large increase in the charges they face,  likewise public transport users as those systems run at a very significant loss. But that's the nature of public infrastructure, we may not all use it, but its there in the national interest and for the public good. 



mathepac said:


> Chubby & Rotund, Mumsie's mythical children, won't survive cycling in the current unsafe environment long enough to accrue any health benefits, on the contrary, the little darlings will probably just end up as more unfortunate unsafe cycling statistics, if the toxic fumes from buses and lorries don't kill them first.



Why won't they? Again, the only thing killing cyclists is drivers. If the cycling environment is unsafe, that's because other traffic is breaking the law, why not focus on that?. If you're so worried about Chubby & Rotund, then maybe banning all motorised traffic is the only workable solution. Other countries have demonstrated that licensing has no discernible impact on cyclist safety, in fact the single biggest factor in reduced injuries and fatalities is to increase the numbers cycling. 




mathepac said:


> I'm ring-fencing *revenue* from sales, licensing, testing of bikes and cyclists and fines associated with the activity of cycling. I made that perfectly clear. Why the need to distort posts that are in plain English?  There may be additional costs associated with revenue collection, but so what? He who would dine on omelettes must break eggs.



How much do you think that revenue is currently worth? How much would a licensing system cost to run (remember, it'll cost more to run that it takes in.) How much would a license cost? How much will the testing system cost to set up and run? What will policing of the system cost, and include in that the extra burden on the courts system for taking little Johhny to court for not having a lisence for his tricycle.





mathepac said:


> Good for you and I hope you do it safely and legally, facing on-coming traffic, on well-lit roads wearing light-coloured reflective clothing with lights and arm-bands. But what the heck has your running and walking exercise got to do with allowing 4.91 feet between a cyclist and an overtaking motor vehicle?



But you said earlier that it was 'fairly obvious' that pedestrians weren't road users, now you're saying they can use roads, but only legally allowed do so on well lit roads, and must wear high vis???? So not allowed on country roads? Where's the hig-vis law?

Like the notion of licensing bikes/cyclists, it has nothing to do with safe overtaking distances, it's about looking at what the issue really is and thinking we should address that rather than stay stuck in the never ending circle of one group of road users thinking all others are the source of all ills.




mathepac said:


> How could anyone interpret my positive suggestions about funding a safe cycling environment be interpreted as a vendetta?



Perhaps because there's nothing positive or practical about it. It would be impossible provide a segregated cycle infrastructure for the majority of the country, what could be done would cost billions, and that's just the infrastructure. Add in an unworkable and unenforceable licensing system and you're adding more millions to the running costs. To think that cyclists should, let alone could pay for that is so far off the mark, the only motivation I could conclude was that you wanted cyclists off the roads and out of your way.


----------



## mathepac (4 Jun 2015)

Leo said:


> So this is nothing like us taking on an idea that has failed the world over, everywhere it has been attempted and turning it around into a resounding success.


Both the smoking indoors and plastic bag problem were deemed intractable by other jurisdictions until we found creative, lasting solutions to the problems, which they adopted. I believe we can repeat past successes and make cycling safer.

EDIT: I don't believe that a 4.91 foot ruler is part of the solution.



Leo said:


> The bag levy, as you say is a tax at source


Once again Leo, you'll see by dint of reading my post that I wrote the complete polar opposite to the statement you attribute to me. I'll keep pointing this out to you for as long as you persist.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Jun 2015)

Was the plastic bag levy a success? The propagandists will tell you it was. Yet sales of otherwise useless bin liners have gone through the roof since its introduction.

As for the smoking ban. The pub trade has literally collapsed since its introduction.


----------



## mathepac (4 Jun 2015)

Leo said:


> Why should cyclists be singled out and expected to pay all the costs towards the a publicly provided infrastructure?


Because they seem to be the ones agitating for change. It's a new model - if you want something find a way to pay for it.


Leo said:


> To extend the same ring-fencing logic you propose to motorists would see a large increase in the charges they face,


I haven't proposed extending the model outside the bounds of the topic under discussion. Maybe you ned to start a new thread.


----------



## mathepac (4 Jun 2015)

Leo said:


> Why won't they? Again, the only thing killing cyclists is drivers. If the cycling environment is unsafe, that's because other traffic is breaking the law, why not focus on that?. If you're so worried about Chubby & Rotund, then maybe banning all motorised traffic is the only workable solution. Other countries have demonstrated that licensing has no discernible impact on cyclist safety, in fact the single biggest factor in reduced injuries and fatalities is to increase the numbers cycling.


So in your opinion it is always the motorist who is at fault when a cyclist dies or is injured in a road traffic incident. Does poor cycling, lack of knowledge of the appropriate safety measures, traffic rules, badly maintained bikes, thrill-seeking behaviour, drunkenness, drug-taking by cyclists never, ever contribute to their own death or injury?

Countries which have banned motorised traffic to allow free rein in certain areas of cities to cyclists enjoy something our cities don't; they have a joined up public transport system. We don't, so there's a bill to pay. If cyclists want change, they pay by direct taxation on bikes / cycling. They have already been the beneficiaries of the governments' bike to work scheme; maybe it's time to reverse that benefit.


----------



## mathepac (4 Jun 2015)

T McGibney said:


> Was the plastic bag levy a success? The propagandists will tell you it was. Yet sales of otherwise useless bin liners have gone through the roof since its introduction.


Seeing supermarket bags hanging in trees and hedge-rows is now a rarity I would suggest. If the disappearance of the freebie plastic bags has stimulated sales of a paid-for alternative product, that has to be good. Plastic bag tax a success? I like to think so.

Has anyone any creative ideas on sorting out the scourge of silage / hay wrap on roads, fences, trees and hedges?


T McGibney said:


> As for the smoking ban. The pub trade has literally collapsed since its introduction.


The pub trade collapse has been blamed on multiple factors; enforcement of the drink-driving laws, high cost of alcohol, drinking at home and so on. I think that's the reality, multiple factors coming into play. To blame it exclusively on the ban on smoking  seems to imply pubs were for smoking in rather than drinking in.


----------



## Leo (4 Jun 2015)

mathepac said:


> So in your opinion it is always the motorist who is at fault when a cyclist dies or is injured in a road traffic incident.



Not my opinion, but the official stats. 



mathepac said:


> Does poor cycling, lack of knowledge of the appropriate safety measures, traffic rules, badly maintained bikes, thrill-seeking behaviour, drunkenness, drug-taking by cyclists never, ever contribute to their own death or injury?



Very rarely death, but commonly injury. I can't see how imposing a license would curtail that behaviour. Proper enforcement of the current legislation would have the most significant impact without spending billions we don't have on infrastructure that will likely not be used by the cyclists who currently behave recklessly. 



mathepac said:


> If cyclists want change, they pay by direct taxation on bikes / cycling. They have already been the beneficiaries of the governments' bike to work scheme; maybe it's time to reverse that benefit.



Again, that's not how the taxation system work here. Parents want better education facilities for their children, no one's suggesting the entire cost of that should be borne by parents. Same goes for health, the roads, pretty much everything that's publicly funded. 

The cycle to work scheme is actually regarded as a net gain to the state in terms of cost/ expenditure.


----------



## mathepac (4 Jun 2015)

Leo said:


> How much do you think that revenue is currently worth? How much would a licensing system cost to run (remember, it'll cost more to run that it takes in.) How much would a license cost? How much will the testing system cost to set up and run? What will policing of the system cost,


I don't know is the short and obvious answer. How many cyclists are there on our public roads? Thanks to Katie Melua & Mike Batt I know how many bicycles there are in Beijing, but that's the only cycle census I know of.


Leo said:


> and include in that the extra burden on the courts system for taking little Johhny to court for not having a lisence for his tricycle.


If Little Johhny is out in the public roadway on his tricycle, his parents should be in court.


Leo said:


> But you said earlier that it was 'fairly obvious' that pedestrians weren't road users, now you're saying they can use roads, but only legally allowed do so on well lit roads, and must wear high vis???? So not allowed on country roads? Where's the hig-vis law?


Read my post. I was writing about a single pedestrian and his safety not pedestrians generally.


----------



## Leo (4 Jun 2015)

mathepac said:


> If Little Johhny is out in the public roadway on his tricycle, his parents should be in court.



Not based on any current or proposed legislation they shouldn't be.



mathepac said:


> Read my post. I was writing about a single pedestrian and his safety not pedestrians generally.



What you said was:



mathepac said:


> Pedestrians use footpaths and as such are not "road-users" which I thought was fairly obvious, but maybe not...



Fairly obvious you used the plural there...


----------



## roker (4 Jun 2015)

Terrysgirlee: I would agree with that if the road markings were sensibly placed, but often it looks like a trainee has decided on where is overtaking or not.


----------



## Purple (4 Jun 2015)

I’d like to see cyclists stopped by the police for cycling without lights at night, for cycling through red lights, for changing lanes dangerously, for cycling on footpaths in order to get around traffic etc.

I know that the official statistics blame motorists for each RTA with a cyclist that results in a cyclist death but that is illogical and incredible; there is no way that in every incident the cyclist was blameless and the motorist was 100% at fault.

As a frequent cyclist I see other cyclists putting themselves in danger every time I am on the road. No amount of legislation will stop stupid people doing stupid things.

I agree with many of the posters above; enforce existing rules on both motorists and cyclists and see what happens. Let us not blow this out of proportion; this is a safe country to cycle in and Dublin, where I do my cycling, is a safe city to cycle in. Behaviour by both cyclists and motorists has improved greatly over the last few years.


----------



## Leo (4 Jun 2015)

Purple said:


> I’d like to see cyclists stopped by the police for cycling without lights at night, for cycling through red lights, for changing lanes dangerously, for cycling on footpaths in order to get around traffic etc.



Absolutely, I really don't understand some behaviour, particularly the lack of lights. There was a cyclist fatality at the start of last year where the cyclist had no lights after dark, yet the driver was convicted of careless driving. There were very few details in the report, so there may have been evidence presented that the driver was driving in a reckless manner preceding this incident, but reporting like that sends out the wrong message to cyclists. They need to take personal responsibility.


----------



## terrysgirl33 (4 Jun 2015)

roker said:


> Terrysgirlee: I would agree with that if the road markings were sensibly placed, but often it looks like a trainee has decided on where is overtaking or not.



I'm afraid I know what you mean, so I go on my own judgement as to whether it's safe or not.


----------



## trasneoir (27 Jan 2016)

JohnJay said:


> I can see why we need to bring in this regulation, but I just don't see how it can be done practically. Take the quays, for example. The bus lanes in the mornings have more cyclists in them than buses (and nothing wrong with that). But if DB drivers need to give cyclists at least 2 meters (the width of the bike + 1.5m) then it will effectively move the buses completely out of the bus lanes and in to regular traffic.


Inner city cars and buses aren't actually going faster than bikes, just playing leapfrog from one stop light to the next. Getting buses to respect bike riders's space (and remaining in lane behind them where appropriate) wouldn't hurt traffic flow much in the inner city.


----------



## trasneoir (27 Jan 2016)

Purple said:


> I’d like to see cyclists stopped by the police for cycling without lights at night, for cycling through red lights, for changing lanes dangerously, for cycling on footpaths in order to get around traffic etc.


I'd like to see a bunch of stationary cyclists behind the stop line at a red light. I'd then like to hear them roar at the cyclist who break that stop line / red light. 

Until the cycling lobby starts demanding better behavior from it's own members, I'm not sure how much respect or support we can expect from other road users.


----------



## Leo (27 Jan 2016)

trasneoir said:


> I'd like to see a bunch of stationary cyclists behind the stop line at a red light. I'd then like to hear them roar at the cyclist who break that stop line / red light.
> 
> Until the cycling lobby starts demanding better behavior from it's own members, I'm not sure how much respect or support we can expect from other road users.



There's no such reaction from other drivers for speeding or red light breaking, or pedestrians for those crossing at junctions against a red light. I'm not sure you can reasonably expect the same people to suddenly develop some form of social conscience once on a bike. Change will only come when there's proper enforcement, of all rules.


----------



## Purple (27 Jan 2016)

Leo said:


> There's no such reaction from other drivers for speeding or red light breaking, or pedestrians for those crossing at junctions against a red light. I'm not sure you can reasonably expect the same people to suddenly develop some form of social conscience once on a bike. Change will only come when there's proper enforcement, of all rules.


I've seen(heard) plenty of motorists blow horns/ flash lights at other drivers who break red lights. 
When I cycle I never see a negative reaction from other cyclists to their fellow cyclists who behave dangerously.


----------



## PGF2016 (27 Jan 2016)

Purple said:


> I've seen(heard) plenty of motorists blow horns/ flash lights at other drivers who break red lights.
> When I cycle I never see a negative reaction from other cyclists to their fellow cyclists who behave dangerously.



I've made my disgust known to other cyclists that break lights etc. Ruining it for the rest of us. 

If only the anti-cycling brigade realized that more bikes means less cars and less traffic.


----------



## Purple (27 Jan 2016)

PGF2016 said:


> I've made my disgust known to other cyclists that break lights etc. Ruining it for the rest of us.
> 
> If only the anti-cycling brigade realized that more bikes means less cars and less traffic.


Most of us who cycle also drive. I dislike the zealots on both sides.


----------



## PGF2016 (28 Jan 2016)

Purple said:


> Most of us who cycle also drive. I dislike the zealots on both sides.



I dislike inconsiderate people whether on a bike or in a car.


----------



## Purple (28 Jan 2016)

PGF2016 said:


> I dislike inconsiderate people whether on a bike or in a car.


I agree. I also dislike intolerant people.


----------



## Leo (28 Jan 2016)

Agree completely with both of you guys, and think both intolerance and inconsideration are contagious!


----------



## RainyDay (8 Feb 2016)

mathepac said:


> Motorcyclists, moped drivers and other road users must obtain a driving licence by sitting  an exam about the rules of the road and by displaying proficiency in controlling their vehicles in normal usage. It has never made one whit of sense to me that the most vulnerable of all road users, the pedal cyclist, can take to the road with zero knowledge and no training. Put cyclists through the same training and testing as other road users and also test their bikes for legal compliance regularly. Use the fund to raise the standards of cycling and cycle safety.



How's that exam/licence/proficiency working out in terms of keeping our roads safe from motorists, given the hundreds of people killed and maimed on the road by motorists each year? Just wondering if perhaps we should look for a successful model to copy, instead of a failed model?



mathepac said:


> Training, licensing and a safe cycling infrastructure might (just might) encourage Mumsie to put chubby Cedric and rotund Rita on bicycles rather than into the back-seats of the massive SUV she uses to taxi them around. And safer cycling of course is the positive outcome, safety first and foremost. You can't blame Mumsie for using the SUV if she believes the public roads aren't safe for her little cyclists.


You seem to think that the danger to cyclists is from other cyclists. It's not - it's from motorists. You can put as many hoops as you like in front of cyclists - that won't stop them getting killed by motorists. You're looking in the wrong place if you want to improve safety.



mathepac said:


> Thanks for that but the crux of the matter is, given that we already have lots of un-policed separation measure in place, what point is there in having yet another unenforceable, un-policed distance enshrined in legislation? What does it change, apart from the cost associated with drafting and approval and printing? Will it make the roads one whit safer for cyclists? Will it prevent a single cyclist vs. car, truck, bus incident? Why bother?


Actually, I agree with you here. Little point in adding unenforceable laws when just about every motorist on the road breaks the speed limit every time they drive.



trasneoir said:


> I'd like to see a bunch of stationary cyclists behind the stop line at a red light. I'd then like to hear them roar at the cyclist who break that stop line / red light.
> 
> Until the cycling lobby starts demanding better behavior from it's own members, I'm not sure how much respect or support we can expect from other road users.



And does this 'collective responsibility' apply to drivers too? Should every driver who sees another driver breaking red lights (as routeinly happens at just about every junction, like this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Pe8otqTl7E ) be shouting or beeping at the drivers concerned? Or how about speeding - should every driver who sees another driver breaking the speed limit be shouting or beeping at them? Or maybe just the drivers who kill and maim people - do ALL other drivers bear collective responsibility for the killing and maiming, in the way you expect cyclists to bear collective responsibility?


----------



## Purple (8 Feb 2016)

RainyDay said:


> You seem to think that the danger to cyclists is from other cyclists. It's not - it's from motorists. You can put as many hoops as you like in front of cyclists - that won't stop them getting killed by motorists. You're looking in the wrong place if you want to improve safety.


 That's a bit disingenuous Ranyday. While it is correct to say that cyclists get killed by motorists that does not mean that it is the fault of the motorists. We should not legislate against motorists in order to mitigate the impact of dangerous behavior by cyclists. We should instead legislate or, more appropriately educate, to stop that dangerous behavior by cyclists. 
That doesn't mean we should not legislate and educate motorists to behave appropriately around cyclists but there are two sides to the problem.


----------



## dereko1969 (8 Feb 2016)

Purple said:


> That's a bit disingenuous Ranyday. While it is correct to say that cyclists get killed by motorists that does not mean that it is the fault of the motorists. We should not legislate against motorists in order to mitigate the impact of dangerous behavior by cyclists. We should instead legislate or, more appropriately educate, to stop that dangerous behavior by cyclists.
> That doesn't mean we should not legislate and educate motorists to behave appropriately around cyclists but there are two sides to the problem.



Sorry but cyclists aren't chucking themselves under cars, generally it *is* the fault of the motorist through a lack of awareness and consideration that cyclists may well need more room that they are currently being given by motorists. When you're cycling along and suddenly come upon a pothole that will likely send you over the handlebars you are going to swerve to avoid it, this is where the motorist needs to realise this and give more space to the cyclist. I don't agree with legislating for the 1.5m gap but motorists need to be aware that cyclists might not always have the option to stay in a straight line.
I've had numerous drivers pull out in front of me from side streets knowing full well that i'm there but seemingly not giving a toss. It happens when I'm driving too, everyone needs to show a bit more consideration but with cyclists it can actually kill whereas motorists will just get a ding. The problem now is that we have a couple of generations who have never cycled at all so have no idea what it's like to cycle. The census figures for cycling are shocking - 3 schoolgirls in the whole of Waterford City cycled to school in 2011! - when I was in school (many years ago) most kids walked or cycled to school, that just isn't happening now though things are improving very slowly.


----------



## Purple (8 Feb 2016)

dereko1969 said:


> Sorry but cyclists aren't chucking themselves under cars, generally it *is* the fault of the motorist through a lack of awareness and consideration that cyclists may well need more room that they are currently being given by motorists. When you're cycling along and suddenly come upon a pothole that will likely send you over the handlebars you are going to swerve to avoid it, this is where the motorist needs to realise this and give more space to the cyclist. I don't agree with legislating for the 1.5m gap but motorists need to be aware that cyclists might not always have the option to stay in a straight line.
> I've had numerous drivers pull out in front of me from side streets knowing full well that i'm there but seemingly not giving a toss. It happens when I'm driving too, everyone needs to show a bit more consideration but with cyclists it can actually kill whereas motorists will just get a ding. The problem now is that we have a couple of generations who have never cycled at all so have no idea what it's like to cycle. The census figures for cycling are shocking - 3 schoolgirls in the whole of Waterford City cycled to school in 2011! - when I was in school (many years ago) most kids walked or cycled to school, that just isn't happening now though things are improving very slowly.


I cycle through Dublin regularly and many of the times I see near misses with cyclists it is due to the actions of the cyclist. It's maybe a 60/40 split with the cyclists accounting for the 40%. I still see cyclists with no lights, no high-vis and no helmets. I see them break red lights, pass on the inside of trucks and buses, weave between slow moving traffic and cycle down the wrong side of the road. I agree that "cyclists aren't chucking themselves under cars" but many are doing the next best thing. Ignoring that doesn't make cycling safer.


----------



## RainyDay (8 Feb 2016)

dereko1969 said:


> Sorry but cyclists aren't chucking themselves under cars, generally it *is* the fault of the motorist through a lack of awareness and consideration that cyclists may well need more room that they are currently being given by motorists. When you're cycling along and suddenly come upon a pothole that will likely send you over the handlebars you are going to swerve to avoid it, this is where the motorist needs to realise this and give more space to the cyclist. I don't agree with legislating for the 1.5m gap but motorists need to be aware that cyclists might not always have the option to stay in a straight line.
> I've had numerous drivers pull out in front of me from side streets knowing full well that i'm there but seemingly not giving a toss. It happens when I'm driving too, everyone needs to show a bit more consideration but with cyclists it can actually kill whereas motorists will just get a ding. The problem now is that we have a couple of generations who have never cycled at all so have no idea what it's like to cycle. The census figures for cycling are shocking - 3 schoolgirls in the whole of Waterford City cycled to school in 2011! - when I was in school (many years ago) most kids walked or cycled to school, that just isn't happening now though things are improving very slowly.



Formal research carried out in London in the not too distant past confirms this;

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

We all see cyclists breaking red lights of course. In some enlightened places like Paris, this has been legalised for right turns - better to let cyclists flow than to bunch them up.

But isn't it funny how blind we are to motorists who break the speed limit (just about all of them) or break red lights (1 or 2 or 3 at just about every city junction at every change of lights) or drive with their hands/eyes on their phone (maybe 1 in 10 motorists).


----------



## Firefly (9 Feb 2016)

RainyDay said:


> Formal research carried out in London in the not too distant past confirms this;
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
> 
> ...



Hey Complainer, welcome back!


----------



## PMU (9 Feb 2016)

dereko1969 said:


> When you're cycling along and suddenly come upon a pothole that will likely send you over the handlebars you are going to swerve to avoid it, this is where the motorist needs to realise this and give more space to the cyclist. I don't agree with legislating for the 1.5m gap but motorists need to be aware that cyclists might not always have the option to stay in a straight line.


  This is the nub of the problem.  As a motorist if there is an obstruction in front of me I just can't swerve to avoid it. I must slow down or stop, see if the road is clear and then negotiate the obstacle.  Likewise if I'm a pedestrian and there is an obstacle on the footpath I just can't barge into other pedestrians or expect them to give me more space to walk around it. The rules of the road obligate cyclists to cycle in such a manner they do not have to swerve suddenly in front of another vehicle.  So if you are cycling with due care and attention, at a reasonable speed, and behave like other road users you shouldn't swerve.  Legislating for a 1.5 metre gap is just legislating to accommodate bad road behaviour.


----------



## Leo (9 Feb 2016)

PMU said:


> This is the nub of the problem.  As a motorist if there is an obstruction in front of me I just can't swerve to avoid it. I must slow down or stop, see if the road is clear and then negotiate the obstacle.  Likewise if I'm a pedestrian and there is an obstacle on the footpath I just can't barge into other pedestrians or expect them to give me more space to walk around it. The rules of the road obligate cyclists to cycle in such a manner they do not have to swerve suddenly in front of another vehicle.  So if you are cycling with due care and attention, at a reasonable speed, and behave like other road users you shouldn't swerve.  Legislating for a 1.5 metre gap is just legislating to accommodate bad road behaviour.



Very few cyclists swerve at the last minute to avoid an obstacle. Given their lower speed, they usually have ample time to see it, and start to move out to avoid it, in the same way vehicular traffic moves out to get by parked cars partially obstructing the lane.

I'm not fully convinced by the need for 1.5m in all circumstances, but the 1.5m gap proposal would serve to allow cyclists safe room to do move out gradually while taking into account the often big difference in speeds of cyclist and other vehicles. 

Remember, a cyclist travelling in a lane has right-of-way in that lane. Traffic approaching from behind has a duty of care to overtake with caution and only when there is sufficient space to allow them do so without putting the cyclist at risk, and that includes potential hazards that the driver might not be aware of. Also, while overtaking, you are not allowed inconvenience the vehicle (includes cyclists)  you are overtaking. Inconvenience would cover not giving enough space and forcing them to slow down so as to pass an obstacle. To do so is dangerous overtaking as covered in Section 10 of SI 182, 1997.


----------



## seamless (9 Feb 2016)

PMU said:


> This is the nub of the problem.  As a motorist if there is an obstruction in front of me I just can't swerve to avoid it. I must slow down or stop, see if the road is clear and then negotiate the obstacle.  Likewise if I'm a pedestrian and there is an obstacle on the footpath I just can't barge into other pedestrians or expect them to give me more space to walk around it. The rules of the road obligate cyclists to cycle in such a manner they do not have to swerve suddenly in front of another vehicle.  So if you are cycling with due care and attention, at a reasonable speed, and behave like other road users you shouldn't swerve.  Legislating for a 1.5 metre gap is just legislating to accommodate bad road behaviour.



You'd need to be a visionary to avoid some of the things I've encountered - like runaway dogs, rampant toddlers, toppling wheelie bins, overhanging branches blowing in the wind, random movements from pedestrians and so on... - they're the accidental ones. Add in the knackers firing eggs and drink cans and leaning out of car windows screaming in your ear.

Bear in mind, the environment for a cyclist is much more dangerous and dynamic that than of a motorist. If you hit a dog you might be a little sad whereas I'll be in A&E.


----------



## odyssey06 (9 Feb 2016)

Leo said:


> Remember, a cyclist travelling in a lane has right-of-way in that lane. Traffic approaching from behind has a duty of care to overtake with caution and only when there is sufficient space to allow them do so without putting the cyclist at risk, and that includes potential hazards that the driver might not be aware of. Also, while overtaking, you are not allowed inconvenience the vehicle (includes cyclists)  you are overtaking. Inconvenience would cover not giving enough space and forcing them to slow down so as to pass an obstacle. To do so is dangerous overtaking as covered in Section 10 of SI 182, 1997.



Curious as to how this applies if a cyclist leaves a marked cycle lane into the main lane for that side of the road?
Would a cyclist exiting a cycle lane have the right-of-way noted above? I would have thought not.


----------



## Leo (9 Feb 2016)

The majority of on-road cycle lanes in Ireland are considered shared lanes. You know the ones, put along the sides of roads everywhere leaving a narrow section of roadway that won't accommodate more vehicles. So in law, the cycle lane and the adjoining roadway are a single traffic lane. So traffic approaching from behind must overtake safely allowing for hazards, etc..

For the ones that aren't shared lanes, they are considered separate traffic lanes, and so right-of-way must be yielded to traffic approaching from behind in the outer lane before pulling out. Much like cars on a dual carriageway though, you are expected to allow traffic move out to avoid a hazard or inconvenience. It is illegal to overtake in any circumstance if doing so causes danger or inconvenience to another road user, and remember driving in a different lane is still overtaking. In essence, cyclists must be allowed move out to avoid hazards, but they should not move out in front of other traffic to overtake a slower cyclist as they then fall foul of the inconveniencing others piece themselves.

As vulnerable users though, cyclists need to look well ahead and check for approaching traffic before gradually moving out in advance of the obstacle.


----------



## Purple (11 Feb 2016)

From Rainday's link;
_With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time._

Sounds about right.


----------



## Seagull (11 Feb 2016)

Who would be found responsible in a case of a cyclist wearing dark clothes with no reflectors or lights being hit on an unlit country lane at night? I used to watch Darwin candidates climbing on their bikes and heading off while I was attaching my lights and doing Christmas tree impressions.


----------



## Leo (11 Feb 2016)

Seagull said:


> Who would be found responsible in a case of a cyclist wearing dark clothes with no reflectors or lights being hit on an unlit country lane at night? I used to watch Darwin candidates climbing on their bikes and heading off while I was attaching my lights and doing Christmas tree impressions.



Not finding much in the way of relevant history bar hit and runs, the vast majority of of incidents involving cyclists happen during daylight hours. Cases involving pedestrians would suggest the driver would be guilty of an offence with contributory negligence on the part of the cyclist. What percentage will come down to the facts of the individual case along with the skills of the legal teams involved. It may sound crazy, but pedestrians aren't obliged to wear high-vis or carry lights, so as a driver you have a responsibility to drive at a speed that allows you to stop within the distance you can see is clear of any obstacle, be that a pedestrian, cyclist, fallen tree, unlit accident, etc..  An unlit cyclist at night is an idiot, but that doesn't absolve the driver of that responsibility.


----------



## trasneoir (11 Feb 2016)

RainyDay said:


> And does this 'collective responsibility' apply to drivers too?


 Yes, but it's _especially_ important for minority classes (like cyclists) where bad individuals can harm the whole class's perception.


----------



## Leo (12 Feb 2016)

trasneoir said:


> Yes, but it's _especially_ important for minority classes (like cyclists) where bad individuals can harm the whole class's perception.



Each class can point to illegal and dangerous behaviour of the other. We shouldn't expect higher standards of one class of road user simply because they are a minority. If we were to look for one class of user to be more compliant, surely the best place to look would be the class causing the most harm?


----------



## RainyDay (20 Feb 2016)

PMU said:


> This is the nub of the problem.  As a motorist if there is an obstruction in front of me I just can't swerve to avoid it. I must slow down or stop, see if the road is clear and then negotiate the obstacle.  Likewise if I'm a pedestrian and there is an obstacle on the footpath I just can't barge into other pedestrians or expect them to give me more space to walk around it. The rules of the road obligate cyclists to cycle in such a manner they do not have to swerve suddenly in front of another vehicle.  So if you are cycling with due care and attention, at a reasonable speed, and behave like other road users you shouldn't swerve.  Legislating for a 1.5 metre gap is just legislating to accommodate bad road behaviour.



This is untrue. If a child runs out in front of you, are you going to check your mirrors to see who's coming behind or are you going to slam on the brakes. There are similar situations for cyclists. If you find yourself coming up on a pothole on a dark road, you may need to swerve. If you find yourself coming up to a branch or even large twig, you may have to swerve. It's not bad road behaviour - it is sensible driving/cycling.



Seagull said:


> Who would be found responsible in a case of a cyclist wearing dark clothes with no reflectors or lights being hit on an unlit country lane at night? I used to watch Darwin candidates climbing on their bikes and heading off while I was attaching my lights and doing Christmas tree impressions.


There seems to be a fewer of these Ninja cyclists around these days, in my experience. There are some, including the ones who think hi-vis without lights is good enough, but not as many as there used to be. Maybe because you can get cheap lights just about anywhere, and decent lights for good prices in Aldi or Lidl from time to time.



trasneoir said:


> Yes, but it's _especially_ important for minority classes (like cyclists) where bad individuals can harm the whole class's perception.



Interesting - so it is especially important for cyclists (who don't kill anyone) to worry about the whole class's behavior, but not so important at all for motorists (who kiill a couple of hundred people each year, maim hundreds more and injure thousands). You wouldn't happen to be a motorist who doesn't cycle, would you?


----------



## Gordanus (12 Jun 2016)

I'm a commuting cyclist and motorist.  Not simultaneously, of course.

I've had 2 recent accidents on the bicycle.

1. Cycling through Ranelagh, around 4.30pm.  This is a narrow 2 lane street with some parking allowed.  No bike lane.  I was cycling alongside parked cars when an overtaking car struck the end of my handlebar with her wing mirror. I was thrown onto the bonnet of a parked car.  No harm done. BUT the overtaking car never even stopped.  I know she knew she'd hit me, because there would have been quite a loud bang.  (I knew the driver was a middle-aged woman because the traffic was quite slow and I could see her from my position on the bonnet.)  Waiting the 2 minutes for a wider part of the road wouldn't have killed her. 

2. Cycling along the bike lane along the canal, about 8.30am - height of the rush hour, lots of bikes out.  (There would be usually 10-20 bikes stopped at each red traffic light along the canal at this time.)  A cyclist overtook me with no warning and pulled in against me - not sue what happened, but one of us/both of us deviated from an absolute straight line, as cyclists need to do to stay upright.  The consequence was that our bikes got caught on each other handlebars and pedals, and neither of us had control.  A truck was passing in the car lane which was very slow at the time. I was terrified, I really thought we'd end up under the truck. 

There isn't really enough width on a bike lane to overtake another bike.  If you want to do so, tinkle your bell!!! (It's a legal requirement for a bike to have a bell, but my informal surveys at traffic lights tell me that only about a third of bikes have them - and these are mostly ridden by female cyclists.)


----------



## AlbacoreA (15 Jun 2016)

These cyclists thread seem to drift all over the place with few sticking to the topic at hand. 

 "minimum 1.5m overtaking gap for cyclists"

It won't be inforced, so its a bit pointless. But it will raise awareness of the issue of giving cyclists enough room. 
But yes a lot of routes/roads don't have enough room to accommodate that distance, so its a bit pointless for that reason too. 

It would be more useful perhaps to raise to issue of leaving room. And police to enforce existing rules where they see dangerous driving.


----------



## AlbacoreA (15 Jun 2016)

mathepac said:


> .........Countries which have banned motorised traffic to allow free rein in certain areas of cities to cyclists enjoy something our cities don't; they have a joined up public transport system. We don't, so there's a bill to pay. If cyclists want change, they pay by direct taxation on bikes / cycling. They have already been the beneficiaries of the governments' bike to work scheme; maybe it's time to reverse that benefit.



In my opinion, I think you're largely missing the bigger picture. 

Road infrastructure is a finite resource. More cars is unsustainable in the long term. More cycling is sustainable. 
More people cycling increases removes them from cars, public transport, increasing capacity for those.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/record-number-of-cyclists-commute-into-dublin-1.2656933

So in principle you want to encourage more cycling, for a variety of reasons. Not least is that its much cheaper than the alternatives. 

So it makes little sense to discourage cyclists. 

But if you want to tax cyclists, ok then I want to pay less tax on other things that I'm not using as much. Like my cars, my train tickets. 

So if I don't drive 5 working days of the week I want that money back, and I want to pay less tax if I use more efficient means of transport. If that means those that do drive those 5 days a week pay more, then they should, they use that expensive fossil fuel, road, infrastructure more.


----------

