Campaign to have a minimum 1.5m overtaking gap for cyclists

[Purple]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).

Hey Complainer, welcome back!

 

[PMU]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

.........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.