# New minimum distance for cars passing cyclists to be introduced.



## Brendan Burgess (2 Mar 2018)

The government has announced new regulations as a result of the "Stayin' Alive at 1.5" campaign. 

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/l...ce-new-law-making-close-passes-illegal-371166

It will be 1.5 meters on roads with a speed limit of 50kmh

and 1 metre on roads with a speed limit of less than 50 kmh.

The penalty will be €80 and three penalty points.

I wonder would it be possible for cyclists to take private prosecutions with cycling cam evidence? If so,that would put a stop to the dangerous driving very quickly.

15 cyclists were killed on Irish roads in 2017.

The Road Safety Authority says that there is no evidence that a minimum cycling distance will help.

Brendan


----------



## Boyd (2 Mar 2018)

As a cyclist, I find it hard to see what this will achieve. I don't have any camera on my bike, nor do I want to record every single cycling journey I take. Even if I did, how would it even be measured on a moving camera? What if the driver is 1.7 metres away and the cyclist veers to the right, bringing the driver within the 1.5 metre limit? Who is responsible there? Many places where I cycle in Dublin are so narrow that 1.5 metres is the width of the entire driving lane! I think this is unworkable and unpolice-able.


----------



## odyssey06 (2 Mar 2018)

Seems like the government opting for the free option of putting a new law on the books instead of real resources for policing of all the laws we already have and if observed would make roads safer for all users.


----------



## cremeegg (2 Mar 2018)

I do not understand where the RSA is coming from. If motorists left enough room when overtaking cyclists there would be far less accidents. 

As a motorists it can be very difficult to judge how far is a metre out. Perhaps lines should be painted on the road.


----------



## odyssey06 (2 Mar 2018)

cremeegg said:


> I do not understand where the RSA is coming from. If motorists left enough room when overtaking cyclists there would be far less accidents.



Would there? When I read about the tragic incidents involving cyclists they don't typically involve overtaking situations, but maneuvering - turning - junctions - roundabouts. 
Maybe the RSA are looking at accident statistics - but sometimes no evidence means we just haven't established it yet. And I understand close call overtakings can be very stressful for cyclists.


----------



## Leo (2 Mar 2018)

username123 said:


> Even if I did, how would it even be measured on a moving camera?



There are some guides online on how to calculate distances on such video evidence. But practically, I can really only see this being used in cases where there is contact, if at all.

There was some suggestions that this and the poorly worded amendment on mandatory high viz for pedestrians on unlit roads was designed to filibuster the overall bill and the harsher drink-driving penalties.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (2 Mar 2018)

Drivers often drive too close to cyclists. It's easy enough to see on a recording.

If someone drives at 1.4m instead of 1.5m, presumably no action would be taken.

But if a driver speeds up and brushes by a cyclist, they should lose their license. A recording will show that easily.

Brendan


----------



## noproblem (2 Mar 2018)

If a motorist catches cyclists breaking traffic lights and cycling on footpaths, etc, will it suffice for prosecutions in court?


----------



## MrEarl (2 Mar 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Drivers often drive too close to cyclists. It's easy enough to see on a recording.
> 
> If someone drives at 1.4m instead of 1.5m, presumably no action would be taken.
> 
> ...



Hello Mr. Burgess,

I'd agree with much of that, but let us also consider what reason the motorist may have had for brushing up against a cyclist - if we take your example.  If the motorist did it as part of a move to try and save themselves from say a collision with another oncoming vehicle, then it's hardly a clear cut case is it ?

In principal, I think that cameras on bikes are a good idea to help record evidence, I just hope that they record the entire view and not just the limited vantage point of the cyclist, so everyone gets a fair result from video evidence that may be provided. 

Out of interest, do the cyclists here think that there is capacity on a lot of roads around Dublin city (for example), to facilitate 1.5mtr of space between cyclists and cars, or say even bigger vehicles like buses, trucks etc ?   ...If we take that question half a step further, what if there's a cyclist on both sides of the road, so there's then a potential 3mtr overall requirement, do you again think there's sufficient space ?  Personally, I don't think there is on quite a few of our roads.


----------



## MrEarl (2 Mar 2018)

noproblem said:


> If a motorist catches cyclists breaking traffic lights and cycling on footpaths, etc, will it suffice for prosecutions in court?



Absolutely not !

You are forgetting the first rule of cycling ... the cyclist is always in the right, so does not have to respect the law, rules of the road, good safe practice or consider others


----------



## Tebbit (2 Mar 2018)

It is reasonable to expect a car to pull out well when passing a cyclist  and in my view its what most drivers already do .   after all. Most normal people are not looking to knock anyone down !!    However I think this is a silly law -  who's going to police or measure it??   There are already problems on certain roads passing cyclists especially those two abreast or more-   I'm thinking here of narrow enough but busy roads.    Perhaps a law should be made that on roads of a certain width cyclists should be in single file????  I've come around a bend on a narrow road near me and come on cyclists cycling two abreast *on a bend*!!!!! After all its no bother pass cyclists on a wide road.  And I can't see how any car will pass with a meter or one and a half meter gap in the city when its busy??   Also it makes me think I'd better get a dash cam


----------



## Brendan Burgess (2 Mar 2018)

noproblem said:


> If a motorist catches cyclists breaking traffic lights and cycling on footpaths, etc, will it suffice for prosecutions in court?



If a cyclist engages in dangerous behaviour, they should be prosecuted, and the person affected should be able to take a case. 

The cyclist who crashed into the gates at Sydney Parade Dart Line should be identified and prosecuted. 

There is no comparison between a cyclist crashing a light and a car driving very close to a cyclist.  Cars frequently kill pedestrians, cyclists and other car drivers.

Cyclists rarely, if ever, even injure anyone.  Mr Earl had to go back almost 20 years to find a case of a cyclist killing a pedestrian.

Brendan


----------



## noproblem (2 Mar 2018)

Don't get me wrong Brendan and what you're saying is mostly correct. However, cyclists (some) don't do the fraternity any good at all with their bad habits and their sense of immunity from rules and regulations. I've no doubt this gets on motorists nerves and even though it's very wrong they tend to drive in an aggressive manner when cyclists come into view and are in their way. I cycle myself but not in a city and I try to avoid towns, etc and don't have a problem, but I see it quite often when in towns, that's where I also see the breaking of lights, bikers flying down footpaths and that type of stuff. Maybe if everyone started behaving properly and respecting the laws that are already there we might them see a change of attitude from motorists.  As it stands right now a car can be identified easily, a bike cannot be. Will we see a charge coming in for bikes, eg, licence and identity tag? I can see it coming.


----------



## johnwilliams (2 Mar 2018)

i was visiting relations in another town while back and was walking to a local shop 2 cyclists/wheelers coming towards me on the main road   2 abreast, one right in against footpath fine other one out on the white line ,car behind was trying to pass out, would break that 1.5 metre rule doing so,(no cars opposite direction straight stretch road)
problem is every time car tried to pass, the outside wheeler would move out over white line blocking them ,didnt have my phone with me or i would have stuck it up on you tube


----------



## PGF2016 (2 Mar 2018)

If nothing else this law will bring to the attention of drivers the need to ensure there's adequate space before attempting to overtake a cyclist.

For every anecdote of poor cyclist behaviour there are many anecdotes of poor behaviour of car / van drivers. People are the problem, not the mode of transport.


----------



## roker (2 Mar 2018)

The motorist can only pull out as far as a single or double white line, otherwise he breaks another rule, the road may not be wide enough to give the cyclist 1.5 m


----------



## PGF2016 (3 Mar 2018)

roker said:


> The motorist can only pull out as far as a single or double white line, otherwise he breaks another rule, the road may not be wide enough to give the cyclist 1.5 m


The motorist shouldn’t be overtaking on a road with a single or double white line. The lines are there for a reason.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 Mar 2018)

roker said:


> the road may not be wide enough to give the cyclist 1.5 m



That is the whole point of the new regulation - he waits until the road is wide enough.

I also suggest that cycling two abreast on roads in urban areas should be prohibited. Except for parents and kids. 

Brendan


----------



## newtothis (3 Mar 2018)

cremeegg said:


> As a motorists it can be very difficult to judge how far is a metre out. Perhaps lines should be painted on the road.



The evidence is that where there are such lines (cycle lanes) they are frequently ignored by both cyclists and motorists......


----------



## Leper (3 Mar 2018)

Once again, another great thread of the Cyclist -V- Motorist -V- Pedestrian. More laws, rules and regulations and only little Common Sense.

How will the new regulations be policed?  I suppose with a band of cyclists representatives patrolling narrow roads armed with helmet cameras.

How will the motorist react? Again with dash-cameras front and back.

And what about the pedestrian? Another opportunity to introduce cameras.

The likely upshot of all this:- (a) Insurance companies to make it compulsory for all motorists to use dash cams. (b) More stupid television programmes with cranky cyclists patrolling roads looking for problems.

Overall Solution:- Educate the motorists, cyclists, pedestrians that all of us must share our roads. We can use common sense. We can lead by example. We can stop waving fists, showing the finger, stop jay walking and generally improve our attitude.

PS:- Brendan mentioned earlier that cyclists cause little or no injuries because of accidents. Tell that to the eastern european girl mowed down in Cork by a troop of uncaring cyclists who thought (and still think) they own every road, greenway, footpath in the country. The girl's injuries although not life threatening were horrendous.

PPS:- Please Guys, Use Common Sense. You'll feel better. You will be an example to others.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 Mar 2018)

Leper said:


> Brendan mentioned earlier that cyclists cause little or no injuries because of accidents. Tell that to the eastern european girl mowed down in Cork by a troop of uncaring cyclists who thought (and still think) they own every road, greenway, footpath in the country.



So that is one example.  Is it recent? Mr Earl had to go back years.

I have googled that but could only find examples of cyclists killed and injured by cars. 

other than this one from 1998  https://www.irishtimes.com/news/gir...-critical-condition-in-cork-hospital-1.173293


Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 Mar 2018)

Ah, I have found a more recent one, although it's in England. 

Cyclist ploughed into ex-professional singer, 66, and killed her as she crossed road walking her dog during ...

Mind you, she was warned by a cycling marshal not to cross the road. But of course, pedestrians own the road. 

Brendan


----------



## odyssey06 (3 Mar 2018)

As a pedestrian I have used up my 9 lives already of close calls from cyclists barrelling along footpaths or through pedestrian lights.
But it happens...

_The number of pedestrians left dead or seriously injured after being hit by cyclists has doubled in the past decade according to a Telegraph analysis of official data. In 2016 three pedestrians died in such incidents across Great Britain while a further 108 sustained serious injury. _

As the number of cyclists increase, it's only a matter of time before the stats for such incidents start going up here also.
And I'd prefer pre-emptive action was taken to enforce the laws we have rather than the usual Irish approach of waiting for the tragic death before doing something.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 Mar 2018)

3 pedestrians killed in Great Britain in a whole year. 

That means very little apart from the fact the very few pedestrians were killed by cyclists. 

How many of them were the fault of the cyclist? I would say very few. 

You may have used up 9 lives, but I have saved at least 9 lives of stupid pedestrians just walking out in front of my bike, often on the phone. 

Brendan


----------



## MrEarl (3 Mar 2018)

Hi Everyone,


The RSA do not currently record statistics for accidents caused by cyclists.  As such, it's impossible to pull reliable recent data.

As cycling continues to grow in popularity, by default more cyclists making more journeys will lead to more accidents.

Also, I note with interest that the majority of the more vocal cyclists on AAM have failed to answer my questions in my previous post on this thread.  To save them the effort of having to go back one single page on this discussion, here's the relevant quote:



MrEarl said:


> ....Out of interest, do the cyclists here think that there is capacity on a lot of roads around Dublin city (for example), to facilitate 1.5mtr of space between cyclists and cars, or say even bigger vehicles like buses, trucks etc ?
> 
> ...If we take that question half a step further, what if there's a cyclist on both sides of the road, so there's then a potential 3mtr overall requirement, do you again think there's sufficient space ?  Personally, I don't think there is on quite a few of our roads.



.


----------



## odyssey06 (3 Mar 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> You may have used up 9 lives, but I have saved at least 9 lives of stupid pedestrians just walking out in front of my bike, often on the phone.Brendan



A position neither of us should be in though...


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 Mar 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> 1 metre on roads with a speed limit of less than 50 kmh.



Hi Mr Earl

That reduces the problem. 

The purpose of this law is not to add more points to Drivers' licenses. 

It's to make drivers think about bicycles. 

If someone passes me by at 1 metre going slowly, I don't mind.

It's the guys who cut into the inside lane at speed who don't mind brushing up against bicycles. 

Brendan


----------



## newtothis (3 Mar 2018)

I believe this has been suggested on the back of similar rules in Australia. See: http://www.amygillett.org.au/programs-resources/a-metre-matters

However, experience has been mixed, to say the least. For example, see: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-...ule-questioned-by-victoria-police-tac/7460358

My own opinion, as both a cyclist and a motorist, is that it's best not to bring in laws that will almost certainly won't be enforced, due in this case to the difficulty of doing so, although I can see the argument that even just by having it awareness may be raised.

My general opinion is that the behaviour of some cyclists makes it very difficult to have any sympathy for them: as well as ignoring most rules they are frequently infected with a particular blend of arrogance and self-righteousness. Equally, the behaviour of some motorists is equally as bad, with the added dimension of being potentially lethal.


----------



## AlbacoreA (4 Mar 2018)

MrEarl said:


> H...Out of interest, do the cyclists here think that there is capacity on a lot of roads around Dublin city (for example), to facilitate 1.5mtr of space between cyclists and cars, or say even bigger vehicles like buses, trucks etc ?   ...If we take that question half a step further, what if there's a cyclist on both sides of the road, so there's then a potential 3mtr overall requirement, do you again think there's sufficient space ?  Personally, I don't think there is on quite a few of our roads.



Yes...


----------



## Leper (4 Mar 2018)

OK Guys. I give up. Let's keep up the "Motorists are dreadful road users" - "Cyclists cause little or no accidents" - "Pedestrians are always in the right" - Let's all dig into our personal coffers and mount cameras on our handlebars, dashboards and on our chests. Let's keep putting up such viewing on Youtube (Ain't we great?). Let's keep together and defend our own six inches while the carnage continues unabated.

When everybody is wrong there is no point in being right. Every hour I see motorists driving through red traffic lights, cyclists making every effort to commit suicide, pedestrians with a death wish. Forums like this can lead the way to safer road use by all or they can keep shouting, keep showing the finger and waving fists. I prefer a safer outlook. And the safer option costs nothing - It's called Common Sense. The roadusers must start somewhere. So let it be us and lead by good example. Am I being naive?


----------



## mathepac (4 Mar 2018)

Has the AG approved these measure yet? I hope not.

Be smart.

Be like the AG.

Don't put stupid unpoliceable laws on the statute books. We have more than enough already.

Question: Is there an expectation that a brainless lycra-clad cyclist worming his/her way through two lanes of traffic must be allowed  1.5 mtrs on either side of the bike?   That's a total in excess of 9 ft, plus the width of the bike and rider. Where does this space come from?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (4 Mar 2018)

mathepac said:


> Where does this space come from?



Well, you could limit narrow roads to cyclists only.

Or make them one way with a counterflow for cyclists.

Or maybe drivers just treat cyclists as they do other cars which might damage them - they keep their distance.

There are loads of solutions.

Brendan


----------



## newtothis (4 Mar 2018)

Leper said:


> So let it be us and lead by good example. Am I being naive?



I'm afraid so: yes.....


----------



## Leper (4 Mar 2018)

Yes, unfortunately, I have to agree. I am naive regarding that it is too much to expect all road users to respect other road users. Each of us has a choice (a) We can remain part of the problem or (b) We can be part of the solution. There is no other choice.

We shed  tears for victims of gun violence in the USA. We all agree that there should be change in the US gun laws. A car driven badly is more dangerous  a weapon than any gun, a bicycle with an uncaring cyclist is just as bad. Stupid dangerous pedestrians are of no use too.

Twenty years ago it was chic to admit that you drove home after copious amounts of alcohol. It was hard-man stuff and got the admiration of many. It has become anti social to admit the same now. And don't expect any admiration, because it won't come. We can all influence the behaviour of others on our roads. In fact, it takes little effort to be more careful. Let's make it anti social to endure the rants of dangerous cyclists, uncaring motorists and stupid pedestrians. Let caring become the new sharing. The alternative is unthinkable.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (4 Mar 2018)

Leper said:


> A car driven badly is more dangerous a weapon than any gun, a bicycle with an uncaring cyclist is just as bad.



Sorry Leper - this is the bit which the anti-cyclist brigade don't get. 

A badly driven car is very dangerous which is why we have extensive laws, insurance and some enforcement of those laws. 

If I carelessly crash my bicycle into a car, I will suffer more than the car driver. 

If a car crashes into me on my bicycle, I will suffer more than the car driver. 

That is why enforcing good laws against bad driving is more important than enforcing bad laws against cyclists.

Brendan


----------



## seamless (4 Mar 2018)

mathepac said:


> Has the AG approved these measure yet? I hope not.
> Question: Is there an expectation that a brainless lycra-clad cyclist worming his/her way through two lanes of traffic must be allowed  1.5 mtrs on either side of the bike?   That's a total in excess of 9 ft, plus the width of the bike and rider. Where does this space come from?



I may be lycra clad but I'm not brainless. And no, I've no expectation of that because it makes no sense and its not necessary. What I do need though is some protection from the morons who drive the narrower parts of the Enniskerry Road @100kph+ and overtake me in a dangerous and life threatening manner as I commute daily.


----------



## roker (4 Mar 2018)

The single white line could go for miles, this is as bad as being stuck behind a tractor and not many follow the rules in those circumstances, in some countries they have to pull in if there are more than 8 cars behind.


----------



## roker (4 Mar 2018)

Wrong PGF2016, he can overtake but he must not cross the white line


----------



## Leper (5 Mar 2018)

I'ts great pointing the finger at others. We can all do it, but it is a waste of time laying blame on others for their use of the road. The only change of behaviour we can control is our own. Motorists can be more patient and use indicators and stop jumping red lights. Cyclists can keep in to the left more and pedestrians can stop jay walking. Anything else leads to chaos.

Good Example is the only way forward. We can lead by good example. The "I'm entitled to this, I'm entitled to that" mentality must end. It doesn't matter a whit if you arrive in work ten minutes late. The earth won't stop spinning on its axis as a result. We have seen some good example of mature road use over the freezing conditions of the past few days. When the temperatures rise so does our non tolerance of others. We all have a part to play . . . . and remember if you point the finger there are four of your fingers pointing back at you. I would advise motorists, cyclists, pedestrians to look in the bedroom mirror and see the person who is causing problems on our roads. Motorists and cyclists are in charge of a seriously dangerous weapon and you have no God given right to behave dangerously and cause any harm to others. Pedestrians must do the same. Let's man-up and resolve the problem for everybody.


----------



## PGF2016 (5 Mar 2018)

roker said:


> Wrong PGF2016, he can overtake but he must not cross the white line



What you seem to miss is that a bike is like any other vehicle. What if a slow car was in front and there was a solid white line? You wait until it's safe and legal to pass. Same with a bike.


----------



## mathepac (5 Mar 2018)

seamless said:


> What I do need though is some protection from the morons who drive the narrower parts of the Enniskerry Road @100kph+ and overtake me in a dangerous and life threatening manner as I commute daily.


You have two choices 1) seek assistance from the Guards to police the route properly 2) stop using a section of road that sounds dangerous if they continue to refuse to police it properly.

Proper policing is the answer, not stupid laws that cannot and will not be policed. e.g. L-plates on motorways anyone, unaccompanied learners, drivers and cyclists passing through amber lights at pedestrian crossings, parking on footpaths, in unloading zones, disabled parking spots, tractors with no lights, trailers with no lights, cars with one headlight, commercial vehicles with no rear lights, buses and artics exceeding speed limits, the inability to turn right properly or use roundabouts correctly - breaches of existing laws, but where's the policing? Where are the prosecutions for breaches of the existing laws? Will we now witness a new force of cops armed with 1.5 mtr t-squares in the middle of the roads? "Licence and insurance, please. You breached the safe passing distance by 2mm there me bucko, if I catch you again you'll be for the high-jump."


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Mar 2018)

mathepac said:


> Will we now witness a new force of cops armed with 1.5 mtr t-squares in the middle of the roads? "Licence and insurance, please. You breached the safe passing distance by 2mm there me bucko, if I catch you again you'll be for the high-jump."



So you are arguing that because the Gardaí don't enforce some laws, we should not have them at all? 

This would not be that difficult to enforce.  Where there is a cycle space marked on the road, draw another line 1.5 m  parallel to it. 

Put up a camera and prosecute any driver who crosses over that line when passing a cyclist. 

3 points on the license would significantly improve drivers' respect for the safety of cyclists. 

Brendan


----------



## MrEarl (5 Mar 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Well, you could limit narrow roads to cyclists only.
> 
> Or make them one way with a counterflow for cyclists.
> 
> ...



All perfectly sensible as part of a big picture solution Mr. Burgess.

Even from a motorists point of view, I see benefits to changing a lot of Dublin City's streets into one way for traffic purposes.  I think it would massively improve the flow of traffic.  Then dividing the available road space between motor vehicle and bike looks a more realistic option to me (given there is no need for 2 bike lanes, just the one).




Brendan Burgess said:


> Sorry Leper - this is the bit which the anti-cyclist brigade don't get.
> 
> A badly driven car is very dangerous which is why we have extensive laws, insurance and some enforcement of those laws.
> 
> ...



I think you also need to consider if a cyclists crashes into a pedestrian.

I've seen it happen first hand, on more than one occasion, and while results were not fatal (thankfully), they were bad.

Badly laid out bicycle lanes, where the space is shared between cyclists and pedestrians, will increase the frequency of these accidents.  Part of the  S2S  route springs to mind, as I type this post.


----------



## mathepac (5 Mar 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> So you are arguing that because the Gardaí don't enforce some laws, we should not have them at all?


No, don't forget that the unenforced laws, samples of which I mention above, don't figure in the headline crime numbers the top cops and the Ministers like to brag about through Leo's SCU and other avenues. They use the sound bites and photo ops to highlight their supernatural abilities to be "proactive in solving crime".

Another Mickey Mouse law will not save lives, not cyclists', not pedestrians', or motorists' but enforcing the existing laws that are being ignored wholesale will. Cameras by all means, but at road junctions, pedestrian crossings, school crossings, accident black spots, etc. Oh and registration numbers on the reflective jackets cyclists should be forced to wear, as well as red lights at the rear and white lights to the front as well as reflective pedals as in the UK, especially on the "Sean Kelly Specials" that frequent the roads in packs.

It is regrettable that 14 cyclists died on our roads last year as far as I can establish. Does anyone know how many pedestrians were killed?  I can't see a new unpoliced and unenforceable law saving any lives; I guarantee that my proposals could. Simply enforce the existing laws on Road Safety, oh and get the RSA to wake up and produce a road safety and theory testing document to the standard of the UK's Highway Code.


----------



## Firefly (5 Mar 2018)

Leper said:


> OK Guys. I give up. Let's keep up the "Motorists are dreadful road users" - "Cyclists cause little or no accidents" - "Pedestrians are always in the right" -



Regarding collisions between cyclists & pedestrians, there should be almost zero scope for there ever being a collision between the two. Cyclists should not be on a footpath. Pedestrians should be on the footpath. Where no footpath exists, pedestrians should be walking against the traffic and so should be on the other side of the road to the cyclist. The only time the two should ever have the chance of meeting is when the pedestrian crosses the road......


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Mar 2018)

MrEarl said:


> I think you also need to consider if a cyclists crashes into a pedestrian.



Again, you are missing the point. 

Of course, it's not good if a cyclist crashes into a pedestrian, but the damage is not remotely as serious as when a car crashes into a pedestrian. 

Applying the same rules to bicycles and cars is not justified. The damage by a bike doing something illegal is so much less. 

I have nearly crashed into pedestrians on a few occasions - but only because they just stepped out onto the road or they crashed a pedestrian crossing. 



Brendan


----------



## mathepac (6 Mar 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Of course, it's not good if a cyclist crashes into a pedestrian, but the damage is not remotely as serious as when a car crashes into a pedestrian.
> 
> Applying the same rules to bicycles and cars is not justified. The damage by a bike doing something illegal is so much less.


If a modern car and a bike travelling at the same speed collide with a pedestrian, the bike will certainly do more damage. Modern cars are designed to inflict as little injury as possible on pedestrians up to certain speeds. They have exterior impact absorption panels designed in. Bikes, on the other hand, are just collections of sharp lumps of metal, brake levers, spokes, handlebars, sprockets, chain, pedals which are not designed to minimise injury to pedestrians.

Modern cars also have collision avoidance technology built in, with automatic brakes, road position monitoring and other technologies bikes may never have to protect pedestrians.  

Another potential pedestrian killer are the bull bars fitted illegally to work vehicles. They've been illegal for years, apparently removed to get through DOE/NCT tests and then replaced. They often have off-road lights fitted to them which are also illegal on public roads. Why no policing?


----------



## Leper (6 Mar 2018)

I reckon the only thing in which most of us agree is that the new laws will not be enforced. What is the point in having new laws that won't be enforced? Another Sacred Cow for Dear Ol' Ireland, Another Victory for the Clown in the martyrdom of the road users. The Gardai can't come to terms with the Drink Driving laws or even the use of breathalysers. And our cyclists think the new laws are a runner!

Until the motorists, cyclists, pedestrians change the way they use the roads the carnage will continue. We need zero tolerance of motorists speeding through red traffic lights, cyclists demanding more than their fair share of the road and pedestrians with more cop-on. Less of the Sacred Cows and more Common Sense please. 

I wish to reiterate, we have to start somewhere. Now is a good time.


----------



## noproblem (6 Mar 2018)

In fairness very few motorists break the red lights when compared to cyclists and most especially pedestrians, who come across as having a divine right to do so. I cannot understand what 50 and 100 guards in garda stations  do every day, they're not on the beat, you hardly ever see them, squad cars are in places where they shouldn't be????? Laws are on the books, why aren't they enforced? It beats Banagher, as Pat Rabbitte once said. I know people give out about speeding vans with cameras, but they're brilliant and i'd love if more were put out there. Same with guards or is being on the beat and enforcing simple laws beneath the force now?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (6 Mar 2018)

mathepac said:


> If a modern car and a bike travelling at the same speed collide with a pedestrian, the bike will certainly do more damage.



Hi mathepac

That is very interesting. 

I will confirm it the next time that I am cycling on the footpath at 80kph and crash into someone. 

Brendan


----------



## dereko1969 (6 Mar 2018)

mathepac said:


> If a modern car and a bike travelling at the same speed collide with a pedestrian, the bike will certainly do more damage.



I'm really going to have to go back to school and look again at stuff if the weight of a modern car has no effect on the impact on a pedestrian. But you obviously know better.


----------



## dereko1969 (6 Mar 2018)

noproblem said:


> *In fairness very few motorists break the red lights when compared to cyclists* and most especially pedestrians, who come across as having a divine right to do so. I cannot understand what 50 and 100 guards in garda stations  do every day, they're not on the beat, you hardly ever see them, squad cars are in places where they shouldn't be????? Laws are on the books, why aren't they enforced? It beats Banagher, as Pat Rabbitte once said. I know people give out about speeding vans with cameras, but they're brilliant and i'd love if more were put out there. Same with guards or is being on the beat and enforcing simple laws beneath the force now?



That's just rubbish. I work near Leeson Street, every single sequence will see cars going through the red light, these aren't amber gamblers the light is fully red. There are also some cyclists who go through but something to consider is that the sequence usually doesn't give a person on a bike enough time to cross the junction, so the light will be amber when the cyclist goes through but by the time they've crossed the pedestrian lights can often be green.
Even when Garda are in proximity they often don't do anything.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (6 Mar 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi mathepac then
> 
> That is very interesting.
> 
> ...


I have being following this tread along with watching how people behave walking cycling and driving since a very good childhood friend got killed cycling ;

Back in my younger days in the late sixties I used to cycle to work along with this friend and others around my own age who used to  cycle to Secondary School before free travel came in .

We used to cycle in a group but we would always spread out into single file going around dangerous bends on the road you would do the same thing if a car or truck was travelling in the same direction if it was narrow you would pull in or slow down to a speed just above what was needed to stay on your Bicycle back then cars trucks also slowed down and carefully passed you bye. .Back then there  were not as many cars on the road but they were travelling a lot slower pace back then cyclists were also travelling at a lot slower speed back then ,

I would say back then most car /truck drivers we cyclist once who had to share the Road with people walking/cycling/driving they knew the car/truck would do the most damage and all needed to be aware and take note of each other when using the road back then all left plenty of time out to slow down when being passing or overtaking one another,

Whether you are cycling driving or walking and you are breaking red lights you are taking chances and putting your life in danger .I am Shocked at the posters who do not see a connection between people breaking the law at the most controlled part of our road network you can be sure they are taking bigger chances with there life every day on less controlled sections,

Since the early seventies I have owned a car full time  I still cycle the experience from using the road as a cyclist now is the speed and amount of cars on the road leaves it very dangerous for cyclist or walkers ,

I have a Daughter who is married and living in Germany since around 1998 they moved to Austria around 2008 she cycles to work most of the time when I visit my wife and I cycle quite a lot in both Country's Cyclist motorist have a lot more respect for each other you can see this respect starting once they Children start  to use the road along with there parents around two years old,


----------



## mathepac (6 Mar 2018)

Leper said:


> Until the motorists, cyclists, pedestrians change the way they use the roads the carnage will continue.


The only way to change behaviour is for it to have serious adverse consequences for the transgressor and right now as we agree there are no adverse consequences, thus the bad behaviour continues or escalates. Bring back Guards on the streets or use monitored cameras.


----------



## mathepac (6 Mar 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I will confirm it the next time that I am cycling on the footpath at 80kph and crash into someone.


If you feel your selective quote represents the thrust of my post then go for it!


----------



## mathepac (6 Mar 2018)

dereko1969 said:


> I'm really going to have to go back to school and look again at stuff if the weight of a modern car has no effect on the impact on a pedestrian.


You do that, then read my post again when you understand the notions of kinetic energy including elastic and inelastic collisions and energy transformation.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (6 Mar 2018)

mathepac said:


> If you feel your selective quote represents the thrust of my post then go for it!



How is it selective?

You said that modern cars do less damage than cyclists *going at the same speed.
*
I was trying to point out how ridiculous that is.  Bicycles and cars don't go at the same speed. 

Cars, even the most modern cars, are far deadlier than bicycles, even the oldest bicycles. 

Brendan


----------



## mathepac (6 Mar 2018)

But cars can do travel at the same speeds as bicycles and slower sometimes in lots of urban areas, 10/15/20/30 kph, especially with motorised traffic gridlocked and the introduction of lowered speed limits adjacent to schools and certain pedestrian-heavy thorough-fares. Bikes, and cyclists off their own little easy-listening cocoons at times, still lack the collision detection and collision avoidance mechanisms fitted to modern cars.

[EDIT] I was late finding this https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/dublin-traffic-ranked-slowest-moving-12769350

so 7.5 kph on average in Dublin metropolitan area, "peak hour speeds of 5.5km/h"


----------



## Leo (7 Mar 2018)

mathepac said:


> so 7.5 kph on average in Dublin metropolitan area, "peak hour speeds of 5.5km/h"



Those are average journey speeds, the number and close proximity of junctions/ lights in Dublin where cars are stationary greatly lowers those numbers. When Dublin and other LAs run covert speed monitoring (those parallel black pipes across the road), they record 80-90% of motorists breaking the speed limits. Parkmore in Galway won with 98% exceeding the limits in the 2016 survey.


----------



## Leo (7 Mar 2018)

mathepac said:


> If a modern car and a bike travelling at the same speed collide with a pedestrian, the bike will certainly do more damage. Modern cars are designed to inflict as little injury as possible on pedestrians up to certain speeds. They have exterior impact absorption panels designed in. Bikes, on the other hand, are just collections of sharp lumps of metal, brake levers, spokes, handlebars, sprockets, chain, pedals which are not designed to minimise injury to pedestrians.



In most real world cases, a 1500+kg car hitting a pedestrian will inflict more damage to a pedestrian than a <15kg bike. 

In the real world, in most pedestrian / cyclist collisions, it is the cyclist that comes off worst as the majority of such collisions are glancing blows that merely bump the pedestrian, but throw the cyclist to the ground. Ask anyone who works in A&E.

Even assuming a head on collision in both cases, the kinetic energy carried by a car will be 20+ times that of a bike and cyclist combined. 

The mass of the objects involved is a very significant factor in the rate of kinetic energy transfer. The relative weight of bike & rider versus pedestrian will be similar, so the forces experienced by both parties will be very similar. In the case of a car hitting a pedestrian, the acceleration forces experienced by the pedestrian are many times greater due to their low relative weight.


----------



## Firefly (7 Mar 2018)

Leper said:


> Until the motorists, cyclists, pedestrians change the way they use the roads the carnage will continue. We need zero tolerance of motorists speeding through red traffic lights, cyclists demanding more than their fair share of the road and pedestrians with more cop-on. Less of the Sacred Cows and more Common Sense please.



I think we need to reach a tipping point somehow (especially in our urban areas) where there are so many cyclists that cars/trucks/buses/pedestrians are more aware of cyclists simply due to their numbers. When I was in Amsterdam recently I was nearly knocked down by cyclists a few times within the first few hours. Obviously I was aware that cycling was common in Amsterdam, but I wasn't _that_ aware.


----------



## MrEarl (7 Mar 2018)

Hello Leo,

In addition to the obvious consideration regarding speed, there's also the consideration as to what part of the bike or car makes contact - cars generally have smooth surfaces, bikes don't. That may have been where mathepac was coming from


----------



## MrEarl (7 Mar 2018)

Hello,

Ultimately, if we designed better, safer, bike lanes then everyone would be happy and probably a lot safer too !

 This is an example of a well designed Dublin bike lane 

 Here is an example of a badly designed Dublin bike lane

Here is another example of bad design !

.. and here's another !!!

Neither cyclists or pedestrians are safe as a result of the layout in three of those four links - cyclists having to dodge bins, pedestrians having to avoid cyclists while waiting for their bus, cyclists having to ensure they don't hit pedestrians crossing over the cycle lane from shelter to bus lane, pedestrians otherwise forced to stand too close to the edge of a narrow road etc.

Perhaps it's time that we all stopped arguing between ourselves and united to deal with the real problems - bad planning and design ?

Special thanks to DCC btw, who not only designed those layouts in the images above, but also probably had large cost overruns in the process of completing them too !


.


----------



## dereko1969 (7 Mar 2018)

Whilst bad planning and design is a factor the overwhelming factor is inattentive motor vehicle drivers, most deaths of people cycling last year were people hit from behind by motor vehicle drivers in areas with a higher than 50km/h speed limit. Most of the roads where this happened will never have segregated cycle lanes as they are essentially rural roads, so driver education and awareness is key, which is where the new law will be vital in increasing awareness.
Essentially we have a huge cohort of people driving who have never cycled, that is people in their 20s to 40s, allied to an increasing number of people cycling now, we are nearly back at late 80s/early 90s number of cyclists, so many of those driving have never experienced close passes by cars, been cut-off by cars turning left etc so they don't know how frightening it is to experience that. Once you've experienced that as a cyclist you are much more aware of it when driving.
We also now have a massive amount of people looking at their phones whilst driving, who never indicate in advance of a turn etc. and who are generally rushing much more than they used to.
Everyone needs to be more aware of each other on the road and to keep an eye out, no motorist wants to kill a cyclist but that won't stop them doing so until they pay more attention - this law will encourage them to do so.


----------



## MrEarl (7 Mar 2018)

Hi,

Just wondering, does anyone know what changes have been made to the driving test, to take account of all the new cyclists on the roads ?


----------



## MrEarl (7 Mar 2018)

dereko1969 said:


> Whilst bad planning and design is a factor the overwhelming factor is inattentive motor vehicle drivers, most deaths of people cycling last year were people hit from behind by motor vehicle drivers in areas with a higher than 50km/h speed limit. Most of the roads where this happened will never have segregated cycle lanes as they are essentially rural roads, so driver education and awareness is key, which is where the new law will be vital in increasing awareness..



I really don't think that motorist behavior on rural roads will change in the slightest, as a result of this new rule.

Traditionally, there have been large numbers of motorists and motorcyclists also killed on rural roads, it's a long term problem.  I fully appreciate that it's not always economically viable to improve these roads, or introduce safe bike lanes, but there's a big and long standing issue with the way people drive on rural roads - both by day and night.


.


----------



## odyssey06 (7 Mar 2018)

dereko1969 said:


> Whilst bad planning and design is a factor the overwhelming factor is inattentive motor vehicle drivers, most deaths of people cycling last year were people hit from behind by motor vehicle drivers in areas with a higher than 50km/h speed limit. Most of the roads where this happened will never have segregated cycle lanes as they are essentially rural roads, so driver education and awareness is key, which is where the new law will be vital in increasing awareness.



Just curious where you are getting the stats on 'from behind'? This very detailed breakdown from 2017 mentions road speed limits but not that:
http://irishcycle.com/2018/01/03/cycling-deaths-2017/

It uses* 60 kmh/h* as its boundary, rather than 50 km/h:
"A large majority of collisions (nearly 67%) are in speed zones over 60km/h — the speed at which national and international guidance recommends segregation between bicycles and cars."

Does this not also suggest that if rural roads are that narrow and cannot be segregated that their speed limits are unsafe - for pedestrians, for cyclists, for other vehicles?
And maybe it would be more effective all round to focus on that rather than this measure?


----------



## Leo (7 Mar 2018)

MrEarl said:


> In addition to the obvious consideration regarding speed, there's also the consideration as to what part of the bike or car makes contact - cars generally have smooth surfaces, bikes don't. That may have been where mathepac was coming from



That's true, but most of the forward parts of a bike, the wheel or bars don't have a large mass themselves and are more mobile (assuming the cyclist doesn't maintain a vice like grip.) The most dangerous part of a bike / cyclist combo will always be the cyclist as they carry most energy into the collision. The chain-ring (on bikes with multiple rings where the chain isn't in the largest ring) will be the sharpest part, but even in crashes in race peletons, injuries caused by chain-rings are rare. There are concerns about the introduction of disc brakes into road racing may result in more serious injuries, but studies so far have failed to back that up, and discs will be a more common sight this year.


----------



## DeclanDublin (7 Mar 2018)

For my tuppence worth, as a cyclist and a motorist, most drivers do give cyclists a wide berth unless they simply can't do to the road space, and in my experience they generally give way.  When drivers don't give space and crowd' the cyclist, it can be quiet scary as there is literally nowhere for the cyclist to go.  I was cycling thru a small housing estate yesterday with cars parked either side, and a wee Micra approached forcing me to duck into a space between cars. The driver?   A little old lady in her 70's or 80's on the mobile and *holding *it to her ear. There are some dopes out there and that's a fact.  On the general issue of *Lord Ross's law,* I think he's simply getting airtime, and that there'll be few if any prosecutions.


----------



## Ceist Beag (7 Mar 2018)

dereko1969 said:


> Whilst bad planning and design is a factor the overwhelming factor is inattentive motor vehicle drivers, most deaths of people cycling last year were people hit from behind by motor vehicle drivers in areas with a higher than 50km/h speed limit. Most of the roads where this happened will never have segregated cycle lanes as they are essentially rural roads, so driver education and awareness is key, which is where the new law will be vital in increasing awareness.
> Essentially we have a huge cohort of people driving who have never cycled, that is people in their 20s to 40s, allied to an increasing number of people cycling now, we are nearly back at late 80s/early 90s number of cyclists, so many of those driving have never experienced close passes by cars, been cut-off by cars turning left etc so they don't know how frightening it is to experience that. Once you've experienced that as a cyclist you are much more aware of it when driving.
> We also now have a massive amount of people looking at their phones whilst driving, who never indicate in advance of a turn etc. and who are generally rushing much more than they used to.
> Everyone needs to be more aware of each other on the road and to keep an eye out, no motorist wants to kill a cyclist but that won't stop them doing so until they pay more attention - *this law will encourage them to do so*.


I agreed with everything you said Derek up until the bit in bold. I really don't think this law will change these behaviours at all. As you already said, there are a massive amount of people looking at their phones while driving despite the fact this is against the law. Also, as you say most of the roads where cyclists are at most at risk are rural roads where Garda presence is very low. A large number of people have already decided that the chances of being caught on their phone is so low they ignore this law so the chances they will pay attention to this new law when the chances of being caught breaching it are much much lower are negligible imho.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Mar 2018)

I cycled from Sandymount into town this morning. Then out to Dalkey from town and then back to Sandymount.

It occurred to me that if the Gardai fitted out about 20 to 30 responsible citizen cyclists with the appropriate cameras and linked them up to the penalty point system, it would be very easy and efficient to issue penalty points for dangerous cycling. 

I could take my camera off now and input the details and the relevant clip for at least four drivers who should be issued with a lot of points.  A car with a rotten exhaust driving in the bus lane at speed, indicating to turn left, but going straight on.  A taxi brushing up against me in the bus lane.   And many cars breaking red lights.  It would be very easy for citizen cyclists to record this.  I think it would quickly improve most drivers' behaviour and probably see quite a few off the road. 



Brendan


----------



## Leo (7 Mar 2018)

Ceist Beag said:


> I really don't think this law will change these behaviours at all.



Completely agree, only increased enforcement will change behaviours, and that enforcement needs to be applied to all categories of road users.


----------



## Ceist Beag (7 Mar 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I cycled from Sandymount into town this morning. Then out to Dalkey from town and then back to Sandymount.
> 
> It occurred to me that if the Gardai fitted out about 20 to 30 responsible citizen cyclists with the appropriate cameras and linked them up to the penalty point system, it would be very easy and efficient to issue penalty points for dangerous cycling.
> 
> ...


Before they start that they could already do this using the traffic cameras. I regularly see cars in the bus lane on the Long Mile Road during restricted hours. Maybe they do this already ... I doubt it though!


----------



## mathepac (7 Mar 2018)

Leo said:


> When Dublin and other LAs run covert speed monitoring (those parallel black pipes across the road), they record 80-90% of motorists breaking the speed limits.


But only at those points where sampling takes place. So how many samples in a cross city journey vs. the total distance travelled? I believe they grossly distort the numbers in the study I quoted, thus producing  Daily Star / Indo type headline numbers that hide the truth. Using the samples I can see the LAs planning to slow traffic even further!

Parkmore is a problem because of the massive junction leading to it with two massively busy dual carriageways pouring traffic onto three single-lane roads. Parkmore has become a rat-run/speed-track out towards the Tuam Rd because of lousy planning (again). I'm not excusing speeding but I understand the feelings of frustration that might bring it about.


----------



## Leo (7 Mar 2018)

mathepac said:


> But only at those points where sampling takes place. So how many samples in a cross city journey vs. the total distance travelled? I believe they grossly distort the numbers in the study I quoted, thus producing Daily Star / Indo type headline numbers that hide the truth.



How many points do they need to demonstrate systemic speeding where the opportunity arises? The total distance traveled has no relevance.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (7 Mar 2018)

Firefly said:


> I think we need to reach a tipping point somehow (especially in our urban areas) where there are so many cyclists that cars/trucks/buses/pedestrians are more aware of cyclists simply due to their numbers. When I was in Amsterdam recently I was nearly knocked down by cyclists a few times within the first few hours. Obviously I was aware that cycling was common in Amsterdam, but I wasn't _that_ aware.


Were you walking out in front of cyclists nearly knocking them down, Did you notice most were using Dutch bikes or city bikes which are a lot safer in city traffic,You will find most are fitted with a bell and used  quite a lot to warn Pedestrians when they are approaching them,

Good cyclist make good drivers bad cyclist make bad drivers  most well be cyclist before they become drivers we need to have a campaign aimed at respecting the laws of the road aimed at young cyclist which long term will also make them better drivers,


----------



## Leper (8 Mar 2018)

All we're doing is setting up notional firing squads of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians to shoot the other groups. Three new minorities have been created caring motorists, responsible cyclists and intelligent pedestrians. All the other road users are the enemy and guess what? These other road users don't care, never cared and probably never will care. It doesn't matter what new laws are enacted because we don't have the numbers or even the will to police them. Whether we like it or not we have got to make it an anti social issue to work.

The insurance companies will dictate that all cars should be equipped with dash cameras. The cranky, fist waving, finger pointing cyclists will be the new patrols going out of their way to abuse, insult and be a general danger to others as well as themselves. Our uncaring motorists will retaliate pretty fast too. The uncaring pedestrians will continue to own the roads. And gues what guys:- All of us have a ringside ticket for the lot.

If ever I saw a recipe for disaster, it is this issue. Unless we all get our act together, we will be laughing stock off the rest of the world. During the recent icy weather nearly all road users were gentlemanly towards each other. Suddenly, the ice abates and it's back to "We can all do what we want" on the roads. It really is a pity and good road use conduct costs nothing.


----------



## Leo (8 Mar 2018)

Leper said:


> The insurance companies will dictate that all cars should be equipped with dash cameras.



In the UK some insurers offer a 10-20% discount if you have a dash-cam fitted. The downside of course is you're only covered if the camera is operational and you must submit the recorded footage with any claim. So camera breaks, you'll face problems claiming.


----------



## Firefly (8 Mar 2018)

RETIRED2017 said:


> Were you walking out in front of cyclists nearly knocking them down, Did you notice most were using Dutch bikes or city bikes which are a lot safer in city traffic,You will find most are fitted with a bell and use  quite a lot to warn Pedestrians when they are approaching them,



Our fault entirely. We were tourists admiring the city and in particular the lovely, quaint streets & buildings where we were staying. The streets are narrow and resemble pedestrian streets here so we weren't as aware as we should have been. Yes we got a few bells ringing alright! Such a fab place..


----------



## Firefly (8 Mar 2018)

Ceist Beag said:


> I regularly see cars in the bus lane



So I'm dropping my small fella to school this morning. There's a bus lane that's very tempting to use and every few mornings you'll find someone does. Well this morning, a car flew down the bus lane eager to save herself a minute when out pops a copper! Pulls her over and has a word. As I pull through the lights he's still talking to her. Bliss


----------



## odyssey06 (8 Mar 2018)

Ceist Beag said:


> Before they start that they could already do this using the traffic cameras. I regularly see cars in the bus lane on the Long Mile Road during restricted hours. Maybe they do this already ... I doubt it though!



I don't mind seeing cars in the bus lane from a safety issue, unless they cut in and out... that causes accidents, hate that.
If a driver sees a clear bus lane and goes for it and turns left before next junction, no skin off my nose. It has no safety impact.
They can have no complaints if they are pulled up though...


----------



## Firefly (8 Mar 2018)

Cars staying out of bus lanes, not parking on yellow boxes and obeying speed limits....
Bikes off footpaths....

Pedestrians looking where they are going....

All road users obeying traffic lights....
All of the above (_very_ basic stuff) and we would all be much better off.....


----------



## RETIRED2017 (8 Mar 2018)

Firefly said:


> Cars staying out of bus lanes, not parking on yellow boxes and obeying speed limits....
> Bikes off footpaths....
> 
> Pedestrians looking where they are going....
> ...


I would add any cyclist who uses a bicycle without a bell to warn pedestrians they are approaching them  is also basic stuff  respect for all road users is what we want to get across and if you don't have respect  when you are cycling for other road users why do we expect them to change when the get behind a steering wheel,

I see cyclist brushing up close to pedestrians some don't have a bell others who do never seam to use them and if you check some of the old style bells don't work because they are seize up from lack of use ,


----------



## Leo (8 Mar 2018)

RETIRED2017 said:


> I would add any cyclist who uses a bicycle without a bell to warn pedestrians they are approaching them  is also basic stuff  respect for all road users is what we want to get across and if you don't have respect  when you are cycling for other road users why do we expect them to change when the get behind a steering wheel,



Generally, cyclists and pedestrians shouldn't be sharing the same piece of infrastructure bar the few shared paths, crossing at junctions or on roads without footpaths. 

On shared paths, cyclists need to travel at slow speeds so as to be able to react in time to avoid pedestrians wandering into their path. Some pedestrians here tend to take exception to cyclists ringing a bell, interpreting it as aggressive, but perhaps if it was more common it would become less of an issue.

On roads with no adjacent footpath on either side, pedestrians must travel on the right facing on-coming traffic, so there should be no need for a bell to warn of an oncoming cyclist if they are paying due care and attention.

In other cases, cyclists shouldn't be on footpaths, pedestrians shouldn't be on cycle lanes, pedestrians should look before they cross a cycle path or road, and cyclists should be prepared to stop when approaching pedestrian crossings. A cyclist, or any other category of road user shouldn't need to audibly alert others as they approach. Expecting them to do so absolves the pedestrians of their duty of care to behave in a responsible manner and not walk out in front of traffic without first checking it is safe to do so.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (8 Mar 2018)

Leo said:


> Generally, cyclists and pedestrians shouldn't be sharing the same piece of infrastructure bar the few shared paths, crossing at junctions or on roads without footpaths.
> 
> On shared paths, cyclists need to travel at slow speeds so as to be able to react in time to avoid pedestrians wandering into their path. Some pedestrians here tend to take exception to cyclists ringing a bell, interpreting it as aggressive, but perhaps if it was more common it would become less of an issue.
> 
> ...



Leo I am sure firefly was happy that the cyclist who sounded the bell when he was in Amsterdam ,I think Ireland is in deep trouble in lots of ways if we have reached the stage where we no longer went to avoid an accident by taking very simple precautions ,

Accidents can only go in one direction if we are not prepared to remind people who may be putting them self in danger. I would say bell on bikes and horn on cars /trucks saved lots of lives every year including cyclist


----------



## dereko1969 (8 Mar 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> I don't mind seeing cars in the bus lane from a safety issue, unless they cut in and out... that causes accidents, hate that.
> If a driver sees a clear bus lane and goes for it and turns left before next junction, no skin off my nose. It has no safety impact.
> They can have no complaints if they are pulled up though...


No No No, cars driving in bus lanes, in my experience, are always driving faster than the lane outside them, whilst not speeding they are generally trying to skip ahead and not get caught so they driver at a speed in excess of what is generally safe, they also tend to drive closer to the cyclist. They also tend to flick into the bus lane without indicating and at short notice only looking for garda cars or buses not people cycling.


----------



## Firefly (8 Mar 2018)

RETIRED2017 said:


> I would add any cyclist who uses a bicycle without a bell to warn pedestrians they are approaching them  is also basic stuff



Bicycles should never have to use a bell when approaching pedestrians if (1) bikes are not on footpaths or (2) if pedestrians are on a road they are walking towards oncoming traffic


----------



## Firefly (8 Mar 2018)

RETIRED2017 said:


> Leo I am sure firefly was happy that the cyclist who sounded the bell when he was in Amsterdam



Not really....it was a case of a bell being sounded as the bike was swerving by me. If I was looking where I was going it wouldn't have been required.


----------



## Firefly (8 Mar 2018)

dereko1969 said:


> No No No, cars driving in bus lanes, in my experience, are always driving faster than the lane outside them, whilst not speeding they are generally trying to skip ahead and not get caught so they driver at a speed in excess of what is generally safe, they also tend to drive closer to the cyclist. They also tend to flick into the bus lane without indicating and at short notice only looking for garda cars or buses not people cycling.



Yeah, I'd go along with that, undertaking is very dangerous.


----------



## odyssey06 (8 Mar 2018)

Firefly said:


> Yeah, I'd go along with that, undertaking is very dangerous.



It's perfectly legal and safe to drive in a bus lane when it's not an 'active' bus lane though... so how can it be dangerous unless the driver is also speeding?


----------



## RETIRED2017 (8 Mar 2018)

Firefly said:


> Not really....it was a case of a bell being sounded as the bike was swerving by me. If I was looking where I was going it wouldn't have been required.


If he/she was the type who did not think the needed a bell on there bike who knows how it could have finished up,

The only point I am making is if you were taught to use a bell and watch out for people from an early age we would have less accidents on our roads whether walking cycling or driving,

If I am out cycling and Something goes wrong i just hope  my life  is not in  the hands of the no bell type ,


----------



## Firefly (8 Mar 2018)

RETIRED2017 said:


> If he/she was the type who did not think the needed a bell on there bike who knows how it could have finished up,



True, but the onus was on me to look where I was going..


----------



## Firefly (8 Mar 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> It's perfectly legal and safe to drive in a bus lane when it's not an 'active' bus lane though... so how can it be dangerous unless the driver is also speeding?



I actually don't think it's safe to drive in a bus lane when it's not an active bus lane to be honest.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (8 Mar 2018)

Firefly said:


> True, but the onus was on me to look where I was going..


I know where you are going If you are unlucky enough to come in contact with the no bell type,


----------



## odyssey06 (8 Mar 2018)

Firefly said:


> I actually don't think it's safe to drive in a bus lane when it's not an active bus lane to be honest.



Maybe it depends on the bus lane... I'm thinking of the Malahide Road QBC which is a real second lane. 
If it's one of those jammed in bus lanes where there's really only one lane that ends sharply and if you have that in mind I'd agree with you.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (8 Mar 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> That is the whole point of the new regulation - he waits until the road is wide enough.
> 
> I also suggest that cycling two abreast on roads in urban areas should be prohibited. Except for parents and kids.
> 
> Brendan


I would agree with your suggestion cycling two abreast should be prohibited where cars and cyclist share the same road urban and country. which brings me to the question what is the correct way for adults and kids cycling together,

 When I look back to when my own kids were small we would have taken them out when they were around two years old  walking we the adults would be walking kids would travel in front of us using no pedals bike when they were around three years old the would start using a bike with pedals but no chain around four or five the would start using a bike with chain and pedals like an adults bike,

Back then when a car approached  travelling in the same direction  you would tell the kids to pull in and gesture to the car driver to slow down I don't remember ever having an issue where a car did not slow down while passing ,my kids were only allowed to travel a short distance ahead of us at all times no cycling off was allowed when they were small,

 When they got bigger they were allowed to travel on to the next junction and wait for us so we would cross together I don't ever remember having a problem cars always slowed or stopped and allowed the whole family to cross the road,

when we started cycling as a family the kids always  travelling in front of us in single file  I never remember an issue with cars not slowing down you would gesture there was danger ahead they would slow down we never had any issues back then,

You would see some familys doing the direct opposite or travelling in a group I don't know which way is correct out of interest I would love to get posters views,


----------



## Leo (9 Mar 2018)

RETIRED2017 said:


> You would see some familys doing the direct opposite or travelling in a group I don't know which way is correct out of interest I would love to get posters views,



Cycling as a group as opposed to strung out in a line will mean a shorter length of road required to overtake, so should make it safer for cyclists and motorists alike provided there is sufficient space. Some cycling groups will advise riding two abreast to discourage drivers from trying to squeeze past when there is on-coming traffic, but on narrower country roads two abreast probably make any overtaking unsafe, so shouldn't be done so as to avoid causing an obstruction.


----------



## johnwilliams (16 Mar 2018)

correct me if i am wrong, but mr earls image/link dublin good cylist lane, third cyclist from back on mobile phone?


----------



## Leo (17 Mar 2018)

johnwilliams said:


> correct me if i am wrong, but mr earls image/link dublin good cylist lane, third cyclist from back on mobile phone?



No sign of a phone zooming in, so likely just a face scratch. Of course nothing illegal about using a phone while cycling for some reason...


----------



## Purple (21 Mar 2018)

Firefly said:


> Not really....it was a case of a bell being sounded as the bike was swerving by me. If I was looking where I was going it wouldn't have been required.


When cycling I don't use cycle paths where I have to share space with pedestrians. It is just too dangerous. I find using the road safer. 
People walking on cycle paths, letting their kids walk on them or, worst of all, letting their dog walk on them, is grossly irresponsible. 
I'd be in favour of a law allowing cyclists to slap pedestrians walking on cycle paths in the back of the head as they pass them.


----------



## odyssey06 (21 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> I'd be in favour of a law allowing cyclists to slap pedestrians walking on cycle paths in the back of the head as they pass them.



Can't see that working, they'd have to allow pedestrians to clothes line any cyclists using the footpath...


----------



## MrEarl (21 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> ....I'd be in favour of a law allowing cyclists to slap pedestrians walking on cycle paths in the back of the head as they pass them.



I'd also be in favour of an annual purge, to help keep the growing number of troublesome cyclists under control, but I suspect that neither of us are going to get our way anytime soon 



odyssey06 said:


> Can't see that working, they'd have to allow pedestrians to clothes line any cyclists using the footpath...



I hear that an umbrella, or a walking stick, can easily get caught in the wheel of a bike and cause the cyclist to have an accident.  Cyclists might like to keep in mind that the recommended safe distance from a pedestrian carrying an umbrella or walking stick is 1.5 mtrs.


----------



## Purple (21 Mar 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> Can't see that working, they'd have to allow pedestrians to clothes line any cyclists using the footpath...


It would sort it out though, wouldn't it?
Next we can make it legal to vandalize illegally parked cars.


----------



## MrEarl (21 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> When cycling I don't use cycle paths where I have to share space with pedestrians. It is just too dangerous. I find using the road safer.  People walking on cycle paths, letting their kids walk on them or, worst of all, letting their dog walk on them, is grossly irresponsible. ....



Hello,

Are you referring to designated cycle lanes here, or cycle lanes that eh "merge" with footpaths ?  

If you are talking about completely independent cycle lanes, then I'd agree with you that it's wrong and needs to be stopped, but if it's where a cycle lane is badly designed and merges with footpaths (similar to some of those images I liked to earlier in this thread), then it's down to pi$$ poor design and the council need to get the brunt of your anger, not the pedestrians.


----------



## Purple (21 Mar 2018)

MrEarl said:


> Hello,
> 
> Are you referring to designated cycle lanes here, or cycle lanes that eh "merge" with footpaths ?
> 
> If you are talking about completely independent cycle lanes, then I'd agree with you that it's wrong and needs to be stopped, but if it's where a cycle lane is badly designed and merges with footpaths (similar to some of those images I liked to earlier in this thread), then it's down to pi$$ poor design and the council need to get the brunt of your anger, not the pedestrians.


I'm thinking of the Phoenix Park and the road outside Marley Park where a wide footpath has a cycle path clearly painted on it. Despite it being clearly designated as a cycle path people still walk in it. This is very unsafe for a cyclist. Obviously the pedestrian could also get hurt but that's their own fault for being stupid.


----------



## MrEarl (21 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> I'm thinking of the Phoenix Park and the road outside Marley Park where a wide footpath has a cycle path clearly painted on it. Despite it being clearly designated as a cycle path people still walk in it. This is very unsafe for a cyclist. Obviously the pedestrian could also get hurt but that's their own fault for being stupid.



Sorry, I'm not particularly familiar with those locations, any images you can link from please ?

On the later point about pedestrians getting hurt down to their own stupidity, I agree ... but would also respectfully remind you that _stupid is, as stupid does_, to quote the great Forrest Gump


----------



## Firefly (21 Mar 2018)

MrEarl said:


> I hear that an umbrella, or a walking stick, can easily get caught in the wheel of a bike and cause the cyclist to have an accident.  Cyclists might like to keep in mind that the recommended safe distance from a pedestrian carrying an umbrella or walking stick is 1.5 mtrs.



A fan of the ole Shepherd's hook meself


----------



## Leo (21 Mar 2018)

MrEarl said:


> Sorry, I'm not particularly familiar with those locations, any images you can link from please ?



See the section here as an example in the Phoenix Park, Chesterfield Ave, looking East. On the raised path beyond the kerb there are two lanes, one a marked cycle path, the rest, footpath. Here is an example section by Marley Park.

The Phoenix park is a model in badly laid out infrastructure. Further along Chesterfield Ave., there is a dedicated cycle track that runs alongside the road side parking (example). The pedestrian footpath is further in beyond the railings. Very few people getting out of cars parking along there actually move in to the footpath, for those with buggies or prams it would be a challenge. So it's just designed to create conflict. It was on that path a cyclists was killed in 2016 when a pedestrian stepped into his path.


----------



## MrEarl (21 Mar 2018)

Hello Leo,

Thank you for the links. 

Again, we see examples of badly designed (and / or badly laid out) bicycle lanes.  There is definitely a reoccurring theme here.

Rather than cyclists, pedestrians and motorists fighting between themselves, we should all be uniting to take on the real problem - Dublin City Council !


----------



## Purple (22 Mar 2018)

MrEarl said:


> Rather than cyclists, pedestrians and motorists fighting between themselves, we should all be uniting to take on the real problem - Dublin City Council !


Sure, but in the meantime it would be great if pedestrians respected cycle lanes. Very few pedestrians walk on lane designated for cars. They should treat cycle lanes the same. 
I remember coming across a man in his 70's shouting at a kid of about 16 because the man had been trailing his dogs lead across that cycle path at Marley Park and the kid has cycled into it, wrapping the lead around his front wheel and partially strangling the small dog.
I asked the man to stop shouting and apologise to the kid on the bike as he was in the wrong, not the kid, and his stupidity had caused the accident.


----------



## Leo (22 Mar 2018)

MrEarl said:


> Again, we see examples of badly designed (and / or badly laid out) bicycle lanes. There is definitely a reoccurring theme here.



Agreed, those kinds of shared lanes create conflict by design, and are really only suitable for use by young children or those moving slowly. Cyclists are wary of pedestrians moving into the paths, pedestrians don't like cyclists moving at speed on them, yet many motorists on the adjoining roads expect all cyclists to get out of their way and use the unsuitable paths.


----------



## MrEarl (22 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> Sure, but in the meantime it would be great if pedestrians respected cycle lanes. .....



There are endless examples of difficulties between all parties (cyclists, pedestrians and motorists), with all guilty of having done wrong on a regular basis.

Set up the correct infrastructure, then enforce the rules properly is the way to go, but once again Ireland is making a pigs ear of it - this time with badly designed cycle lanes, unenforceable and sometimes unrealistic rules etc.

As I said above, the first thing we all need to do is unite to deal with the real problem - DCC. If we can get proper cycle lanes designed and built, it would be the first in a serious of important steps, but if we can't get the cycle lanes correctly designed then by default, you are going to have cars parking in them, people standing in them waiting for busses at  bus stops etc.


----------



## Leper (23 Mar 2018)

Nice sentiments there from MrEarl. All road users need to practice Common Sense (any other practice is not wanted by anybody). The annual Fort to Fort cycle is due to happen between Cork and Crosshaven shortly. A greenway runs quite much of the route, but again we have to endure cyclists clogging the narrow road which runs parallel. To the participants:- Thanks in advance for all the delays that will occur. Perhaps this year the marshals will do what they are supposed to do? But, I reckon this is probably too much to ask (based on their non performance last year).

On a more positive note, last weekend we went to Co Kerry and encountered cyclist groups using narrow roads. I must say their road behaviour was excellent and they were an example to others. Perhaps it is just in County Cork we have the cycling lunatics?

. . . . and before anybody asks, yes, I cycle quite a lot and feel embarrassed by the minority finger pointing, fist waving "we own the road" cyclists who are hell bent on enforcing their take on normal people.


----------



## Leo (23 Mar 2018)

Leper said:


> The annual Fort to Fort cycle is due to happen between Cork and Crosshaven shortly. A greenway runs quite much of the route, but again we have to endure cyclists clogging the narrow road which runs parallel.



Been through this one before, but shared greenways are not suitable for such events or cyclists travelling at the speeds those groups will be doing to cover up to 120km. Far better use the roads as they are entitled to and not put them in conflict with groups of pedestrians that may include young children, dog walkers, etc.. Of course, it'd be nice if the cyclists acted in a responsible and considerate manner on the roads, but that's a different matter. 

Marshalls on such events have no powers to direct any traffic on public roads, including the cyclists participating.


----------



## odyssey06 (23 Mar 2018)

There were earlier discussions on this thread on the rarity of such incidents... unfortunately, one has occurred:
http://www.thejournal.ie/woman-critical-collision-cyclist-3920019-Mar2018/


----------



## MrEarl (23 Mar 2018)

Very sorry to read about that, hopefully the woman survives.


----------



## Leper (1 Apr 2018)

We're nearly through six long pages of Cyclist -V- Motorist -V-Pedestrian (truck and bus drivers, motor cyclists and scooterists not exempted). Still the penny hasn't dropped.

We have just spent 10 days in Amsterdam doing all the tourist things, visiting museums, canal boat trips, bus trips to the country, tram commuting from where we stayed. We did lots of walks, rented bikes and generally travelled around the city.

Whatever about the magnificent museums etc the overriding feature of Amsterdam is its Cyclists. Hordes of cyclists using bikes like our postmen used in the 1970's and complete with front tray which usually had an empty beer box lashed to it. There were many cyclists with a kind of wheelbarrow in front with up to two children being transported within. Even the ice-cream salesman had a bike with a wheeled ice box attached to the front. Amsterdam is flat and lends itself beautifully to bicycle users.

The Difference between Cyclists in Dublin and Amsterdam:- The Dutch cyclists don't wear "safety" helmets (I didn't see even one), they don't wear cycling gear, they don't use expensive bikes, their bikes are a modern edition of our old high-nelly. They are seated upright when they cycle. Even the handlebars are functional and I think I saw one bike with dropped racer handlebars only. All use mudguards. There are bicycle parking areas which are three storeys. Bikes are parked everywhere, chained to bars on bridges, chained together etc etc. Cycling Lanes are everywhere and like it or not the humble bike is a main and efficient form of transport.

While you look at the cyclists, women cycling in high heels, men in suits, etc you wonder how does the Amsterdam System work. Why are they not waving fists, finger pointing, showing the finger sign? I didn't hear one motorist sounding the car's horn. The answer is not difficult to work out, it's obvious the cyclists, motorists, tram drivers, scooterists, motorcyclists, truck drivers, bus drivers, pedestrians show respect to other road users. That's all we need in Ireland amongst our road users RESPECT. I'll shout it again RESPECT.

The alternative to RESPECT is unthinkable and we better learn sooner than later.


----------



## MrEarl (1 Apr 2018)

Hello Leper,

No need to "shout"... it's actually considered rude to type in caps.

I'd agree on the point about the lack of mutual respect, but it's only one part of the problem that needs to be fixed here in Ireland.  I've previously posted about the lack of proper planning an infrastructure here being the main problem and I stand by that, because if we had proper infrastructure, correctly laid out safe bike lanes etc., then people wouldn't be getting frustrated by traffic jams, dangerous driving / cycling etc. and mutual respect would come about a lot more easily.  As things stand, the absence of proper facilities for all, results in people getting frustrated and being more likely to do stupid things, simply in an attempt to make progress on their own individual journeys.

I'd appreciate it if you would answer the following for me please:


did many cyclists that you observed obey the rules of the road, or did they act like some of the Irish cyclists ?
what was the infrastructure like for the cyclists and other commuters, compared to Ireland ?
does Amsterdam strike you as a place where most people need their cars to commute in and out of the city to get to work etc. ?

I have been in Amsterdam myself, so I know what my answers to the above questions would be (and will happily share them in due course), but I'd welcome your responses as part of your report on your recent trip.


----------



## Leper (1 Apr 2018)

MrEarl said:


> Hello Leper,
> 
> 
> I'd appreciate it if you would answer the following for me please:
> ...



1. Yes. Cyclists, tram drivers, motorists, motorcyclists, bus drivers obeyed the rules of the road. Some pedestrians didn't.
2. Light Years Ahead.
3. No. Amsterdam is flat and lends itself to cycling.


----------



## MrEarl (3 Apr 2018)

Leper said:


> 1. Yes. Cyclists, tram drivers, motorists, motorcyclists, bus drivers obeyed the rules of the road. Some pedestrians didn't.
> 2. Light Years Ahead.
> 3. No. Amsterdam is flat and lends itself to cycling.



Agree 100% with those observations.  When I asked about whether you thought that people needed their cars to commute to work etc., I was getting at the overall layout in Amsterdam (be it public transport, more people living in the city through taller apartment buildings than we have, so don't have to commute 90-120 mins each way from "Applegreen" country etc.), but the flat land helps alright.

For me, we again find ourselves looking back to how Dublin (and other parts of Ireland) continue to be badly planned and constructed.  No matter how much we could all improve in terms of mutual respect for our fellow commuters, I think the general frustration (and by extension risk taking) across all commuters, goes back to the lack of proper facilities and infrastructure.


----------



## Leper (3 Apr 2018)

Our accommodation was in an Amsterdam suburb (25 mins tram journey to the centre of the city). A little further out from us there were huge square layouts for new blocks of apartments to be built in the future. But, the tram lines were being installed and the bicycle lanes and the traffic lights were being installed even before a block was laid. 

But, the overriding feature of road users in Amsterdam was respect for each other's use of the roads. That is probably the kernal of sharing the roads successfully.


----------



## MrEarl (4 Apr 2018)

Leper said:


> Our accommodation was in an Amsterdam suburb (25 mins tram journey to the centre of the city). A little further out from us there were huge square layouts for new blocks of apartments to be built in the future. But, the tram lines were being installed and the bicycle lanes and the traffic lights were being installed even before a block was laid.
> 
> But, the overriding feature of road users in Amsterdam was respect for each other's use of the roads. That is probably the kernal of sharing the roads successfully.



We agree on much of what you've said in recent posts, but I think there needs to be proper organisation and infrastructure to permit mutual respect to exist... if there's a stampede for limited road space, disputes over what rules of the road should be obeyed etc. then there will never be mutual respect - just lots of road rage and so on.

What you saw with regards to the preparation for new developments was simple, effective, and required little more than common sense.  However, while Ireland is back to building again, you'll not see the implementation of anything like that here.  

Why ?  

....For me the answer is simple, because we don't impose it.  Our legislators, our planning officers, could all change that tomorrow, but they don't and that's a failure on them, which impacts negatively on us all.


----------



## Leper (4 Apr 2018)

Hi Mr Earl, I hear you. We're beating about the bush here and we're looking for excuses to justify one's own ownership of the square inch. We would all be glad of more proper organisation and infrastructure. They cost big money and we are a small nation. The bottom line for all road users is tolerance and respect for others and these cost nothing.


----------



## Leper (29 Apr 2018)

I returned from the south of Spain during the week where I did some light cycling on coast roads. The Dutch national cycling team (and many other cycle teams) use the area for training and speed along with little or no danger to any of the 20 or so riders and don't hold up motor traffic. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about the Lycra Limeys there, where two manage to cycle two-a-breast and cause a "funeral" type of build up of traffic behind them for miles. The metre and a half distance rule applies there (forget about the common sense). Are we heading for this in Ireland where two cyclists can hold up nearly every motorist at a whim?


----------



## MrEarl (29 Apr 2018)

Leper said:


> ....Are we heading for this in Ireland where two cyclists can hold up nearly every motorist at a whim?



No, because other road users won't tolerate it.  Instead, it will fuel more road rage and I fear, more accidents.


----------



## MrEarl (29 Apr 2018)

Oh,

Credit where it's due btw,  I thought the recent protest by cyclists outside the Dail was very good - sent a clear message  both visibly and vocally.



			
				Irish Times said:
			
		

> Vice president of the European Cyclists Federation Dr Damian Ó Tuama said cyclists needed dedicated cycle lanes of about two-and- a half metres wide and “thoughtfully constructed” junctions (sourced: here).



Shane Ross was mentioned on TV (I think it was on an interview during RTE News the day of the protest) as someone with the power to do more in terms of allocating more of the annual budget towards developing safe cycle lanes etc.  ....but to be fair to Minister Ross, he's too busy sticking his nose into things that are outside of his remit, so I doubt he'll take any notice !

Clearly more pressure needs to be applied to Minister Ross to change his ways


----------



## Leper (29 Apr 2018)

MrEarl said:


> No, because other road users won't tolerate it.  Instead, it will fuel more road rage and I fear, more accidents.



What do you think other road users will do in not tolerating stupid behaviour?


----------



## MrEarl (30 Apr 2018)

Leper said:


> What do you think other road users will do in not tolerating stupid behaviour?



I won't speculate, but provoking people is never a good idea.


----------



## seamless (30 Apr 2018)

MrEarl said:


> I won't speculate, but provoking people is never a good idea.



Neither is breaking the law. Its bad for your pocket, your driving license, your renewal premium, your personal liberty and your ability to travel internationally.


----------



## Firefly (30 Apr 2018)

I was driving from Cork to Dripsey (a bad, bendy road) on Saturday afternoon and came across a group of cyclists on the road. I noticed the car in front of me was right behind the cyclists, edging out all the time to try to over-take. Eventually he overtook them and I could feel the angst from the cyclists. Next up, I stayed about 30 yards back. The last cyclist looked back a few times (probably thinking I might zoom past or something). When it became safe to overtake he put out his arm signaling me to go ahead. He waved as I went passed and I popped the hazards in reply and got a few waves from the others. The whole thing probably "cost" me about 3 seconds but we all got to enjoy the road.

I think it's all about give & take. Don't be a muppet whether you're in car, on a bike or walking and we'll all be fine.


----------



## MrEarl (30 Apr 2018)

seamless said:


> Neither is breaking the law. Its bad for your pocket, your driving license, your renewal premium, your personal liberty and your ability to travel internationally.



Who mentioned breaking the law ?


----------



## MrEarl (30 Apr 2018)

Firefly said:


> .... Don't be a Muppet whether you're in car, on a bike or walking and we'll all be fine.



The RSA should adopt that slogan for their next advertising campaign


----------



## Purple (30 Apr 2018)

MrEarl said:


> ....but to be fair to Minister Ross, he's too busy sticking his nose into things that are outside of his remit, so I doubt he'll take any notice !


Now if some cycle lanes had been closed in his constituency...


----------



## MrEarl (30 Apr 2018)

Purple said:


> Now if some cycle lanes had been closed in his constituency...



... or failing that, in North Korea where himself and his small band of merry men could skip off on a ten day junket


----------

