Campaign to have a minimum 1.5m overtaking gap for cyclists

[mathepac]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Purple]

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

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

 

[Leo]

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

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

 

[Leo]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mathepac]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mathepac]

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

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

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

 

[mathepac]

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

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

 

[Páid]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Purple]

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

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

 

[Leo]

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

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

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

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

I'm hoping you'll be able to produce stats and references to support your contention that "Many cyclists provide more in the way of funding than other classes of road users."

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

I'm suggesting ring-fencing the cycling money, I already said that.

But you're ring fencing a cost. Where stats are available, licensing schemes where they have been trialled only collect 40% or less of the costs to administer the schemes, let alone contribute any funds to improve facilities.

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

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

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

As motorists form the vast majority of road-users, it is no surprise that "they are still responsible for the vast majority or road offences, injuries and deaths."

Glad you agree on that, so if this is really a safety issue, and not just a vendetta on rogue cyclists, shouldn't the limited funding, and miniscule policing bandwidth available be focused on where the most significant issue lies? Why spend money and resources we don't have on people who really (barring a few rare exceptions) only injure or kill themselves when they do something stupid?

 

[JohnJay]

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

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

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

 

[Purple]

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

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

 

[mathepac]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mathepac]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mathepac]

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

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

"But you're ring fencing a cost. Where stats are available, licensing schemes where they have been trialled only collect 40% or less of the costs to administer the schemes, let alone contribute any funds to improve facilities."

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

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

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

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

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

"Glad you agree on that, so if this is really a safety issue, and not just a vendetta on rogue cyclists, shouldn't the limited funding, and miniscule policing bandwidth available be focused on where the most significant issue lies? Why spend money and resources we don't have on people who really (barring a few rare exceptions) only injure or kill themselves when they do something stupid?"

Once again Leo I'm afraid your posts are way wide of the mark. How could anyone interpret my positive suggestions about funding a safe cycling environment be interpreted as a vendetta? Clearly you're at odds with anything I might post. I'm not writing about existing policing or other resources, I've posted consistently about a new source of funds to provide for a safe cycling infrastructure for cyclists, that source being cyclists. If that point isn't clear to you, then I can only conclude it never will be.

 

[Páid]

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

I have read the rules of the road many times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mathepac]

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

 

[Leo]

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

But you did say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mathepac]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[T McGibney]

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

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