New bike buffer zone law.

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › New bike buffer zone law.

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1386415 12-Sep-2015 23:19

JWR:
dimsim: Only this AM I encountered a group of three cyclists riding two abreast across a bridge on a corner approaching an intersection in a 100km/h area.

Until cyclists start riding in a manner like other road users are required to do, keep left, give way, stop, etc etc etc motorist will have little empathy.

I know when I road a bike in Wellington, staying away from vehicular traffic was my main concern, a lot of cyclists now seem more intent on exerting some form of ownership on the road rather than riding with safety and courtesy in mind.

This sort of thing always comes up with anything to do with cycle safety.

They don't obey stop signs, think they own the road, they don't pay registration, they don't have licenses... etc.. etc..

And it is all irrelevant!

The point is how close should you be able to drive to a cyclist.

At the moment, you can skim someone's elbow with a car.

I defy anyone who has experienced anything like this to say that is OK.

I have had this several times and it is not OK.

I am pretty much a car driver at the moment.

But, I don't forget having a car trying to repeatedly (and intentionally) run my motorcycle over a cliff, a 4x2 thrown at me as I was bicycling along and many other similar instances.

When New Zealanders get into cars, they often turn into crazy people.

The point is how close you should drive to ANYTHING else on the road. Be it car, bike, pedestrian, dog etc etc.

A simple rule where the person driving the biggest vehicle is automatically liable unless it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the other party did something negligently stupid might help concentrate minds.

Teeps

501 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1386416 12-Sep-2015 23:27

I'm amazed that anyone thinks it's safe to overtake a cyclist with less than 1 meter between them unless they are travelling at very low speeds. Would they overtake another car with less than that distance between them? This rule shouldn't even be debated, it's just common sense that more room should be given.
What also surprises me is that the same people who want a cyclist to be hugging the side of the road so they can pass them closely are very often the same people who complain about cyclists or motorcyclists lane splitting, without actually realising that this is exactly what they are proposing going themselves!

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1386478 13-Sep-2015 08:18

Teeps: I'm amazed that anyone thinks it's safe to overtake a cyclist with less than 1 meter between them unless they are travelling at very low speeds. Would they overtake another car with less than that distance between them? This rule shouldn't even be debated, it's just common sense that more room should be given.
What also surprises me is that the same people who want a cyclist to be hugging the side of the road so they can pass them closely are very often the same people who complain about cyclists or motorcyclists lane splitting, without actually realising that this is exactly what they are proposing going themselves!

I think the proposed 1m-1.5m is not unreasonable at all.

I would also look at this as the minimum.

There are plenty of situations when it would make sense to give a cyclist even more room - when it can be done safely.

old3eyes

9119 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1386482 13-Sep-2015 08:40

JWR:
Teeps: I'm amazed that anyone thinks it's safe to overtake a cyclist with less than 1 meter between them unless they are travelling at very low speeds. Would they overtake another car with less than that distance between them? This rule shouldn't even be debated, it's just common sense that more room should be given.
What also surprises me is that the same people who want a cyclist to be hugging the side of the road so they can pass them closely are very often the same people who complain about cyclists or motorcyclists lane splitting, without actually realising that this is exactly what they are proposing going themselves!

I think the proposed 1m-1.5m is not unreasonable at all.

I would also look at this as the minimum.

There are plenty of situations when it would make sense to give a cyclist even more room - when it can be done safely.

I quite often drive on street where a 1.5 meter barrier would make it impossble to pass a cyclist. Yesterday i say two cyclist two abreast riding down one of these streets and the car coming the other way had to pull over the right side of the road to pass them of be stuck behind the for a couple of hundred meters..

The cycle lobby seems great at wanting rules in favor of the cyclists but as soon as someone suggest registering them so that traffic infringents can be enforced it another story..

Regards,

Old3eyes

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1386487 13-Sep-2015 08:54

old3eyes: I quite often drive on street where a 1.5 meter barrier would make it impossible to pass a cyclist. Yesterday i say two cyclist two abreast riding down one of these streets and the car coming the other way had to pull over the right side of the road to pass them of be stuck behind the for a couple of hundred meters..

If a motorist can't wait for 10 seconds, instead choosing to pass in an unsafe place, then they shouldn't have a drivers licence. This is exactly the problem with this debate, no one is willing to 'share' each party think they have a god given right to that square inch of roadway at that moment in time.

The cycle lobby seems great at wanting rules in favor of the cyclists but as soon as someone suggest registering them so that traffic infringements can be enforced it another story..

That's what the cycle lobby is for. Registering/licencing bikes is quite frankly a ludicrous expectation that would be impossible to implement.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

Jase2985

13457 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1386497 13-Sep-2015 09:21

my problem is there is no recourse if cyclists do something stupid/illegal, as there is no way to identify them, very easy if the vehicle does something stupid

Teeps

501 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1386508 13-Sep-2015 10:06

old3eyes:
I quite often drive on street where a 1.5 meter barrier would make it impossble to pass a cyclist. Yesterday i say two cyclist two abreast riding down one of these streets and the car coming the other way had to pull over the right side of the road to pass them of be stuck behind the for a couple of hundred meters..

The cycle lobby seems great at wanting rules in favor of the cyclists but as soon as someone suggest registering them so that traffic infringents can be enforced it another story..

You seem to think it's wrong that the car should move over to the other side of the road to leave safe room to overtake the cyclists? If the road really is as narrow as you suggest the car should be moving over to the right hand side to overtake anyway!
Whilst I do not agree with cyclists riding two abreast if it would mean that they are hampering the progress of faster moving traffic, I do not agree that a motorised vehicle has the automatic right to pass a cyclist whatever the conditions. As with anyone driving any vehicle on the road (bicycles included), they need to be certain that they can complete their manoeuvre safely, and this means that you shouldn't pass unless there is enough space to overtake and enough distance ahead so that you can clearly see you can complete the manoeuvre without hampering the forward motion of either the people you're overtaking or people coming in the other direction. Just thinking you should be able to pass a cyclist on a blind corner because you want to travel faster, then see a car coming in the other direction and have to make an evasive manoeuvre does not make this the cyclists fault or mean that the cyclist should not be travelling on the road, this means you should be looking very carefully at your driving decisions and maybe go for a refresher course on how to drive safely.
I bet there are plenty of slower moving motorised vehicles on these roads too (especially if they are as narrow as you suggest) and you would need to wait behind them for a short while before you can overtake, so please give this courtesy to cyclists too.
I agree that some cyclists disobey the law, just like some motorised vehicle drivers disobey the law, but this is not all cyclists or all motorised vehicle drivers.
Please do not treat someone else's life with contempt as you aren't as likely to get injured just because of a decision to overtake in a place that isn't safe to do so, and then blame your bad driving and impatience on the cyclist for just being there!

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1386523 13-Sep-2015 10:12

Jase2985: my problem is there is no recourse if cyclists do something stupid/illegal, as there is no way to identify them, very easy if the vehicle does something stupid

The cyclist is the easiest to identify, they are the one lying on the pavement bleeding while the car driver inspects the scratch on their bumper in disgust.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

dimsim

848 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1386524 13-Sep-2015 10:13

1.5 metres?? hell, lets go 3 metres at 100km/h with a truck and trailer passing - this IMO is still not enough.

the best way forward would be to ban cyclists from open roads just like they are banned from motorways - the same reasons apply.

Teeps

501 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1386530 13-Sep-2015 10:37

dimsim: 1.5 metres?? hell, lets go 3 metres at 100km/h with a truck and trailer passing - this IMO is still not enough.

the best way forward would be to ban cyclists from open roads just like they are banned from motorways - the same reasons apply.

There are very different reasons to why cyclists are not allowed to ride on a motorway, and to try and use the same logic to a cyclist not riding on any road just shows a very blinkered and self centred view!

So you suggest for EVERY road there should be a second cycle road created? Yet many of these same car roads apparently aren't wide enough to pass a bike safely in the first place?

Maybe we should flip it around and only let motorised vehicles travel on the roads that are wide enough for two vehicles to pass and keep all the narrow roads for two wheeled vehicles only? Then the cyclists could be registered and taxed to pay for the maintenance of these narrow roads, which of course would be minimal because bicycles do not wear or cause damage to the road surface.

The problem isn't people cycling on the road, the problem is anyone thinking they have a natural right to occupy a given space without consideration to anyone else, whether they're a cyclist, pedestrian, car driver, bus driver or truck driver. Just because one pays more to use the road than another does not give them a reason to say other vehicles should not be allowed to travel on a road. If that was true no cars would be on the road as trucks pay a lot more to use them!

jfanning

438 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1386547 13-Sep-2015 11:08

old3eyes: The cycle lobby seems great at wanting rules in favor of the cyclists but as soon as someone suggest registering them so that traffic infringents can be enforced it another story..

The story is, where do you stop, what about all the other transport methods on the road? Why don't we just microchip all humans on birth?

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1386554 13-Sep-2015 11:16

Teeps:
dimsim: 1.5 metres?? hell, lets go 3 metres at 100km/h with a truck and trailer passing - this IMO is still not enough.

the best way forward would be to ban cyclists from open roads just like they are banned from motorways - the same reasons apply.

There are very different reasons to why cyclists are not allowed to ride on a motorway, and to try and use the same logic to a cyclist not riding on any road just shows a very blinkered and self centred view!

So you suggest for EVERY road there should be a second cycle road created? Yet many of these same car roads apparently aren't wide enough to pass a bike safely in the first place?

Maybe we should flip it around and only let motorised vehicles travel on the roads that are wide enough for two vehicles to pass and keep all the narrow roads for two wheeled vehicles only? Then the cyclists could be registered and taxed to pay for the maintenance of these narrow roads, which of course would be minimal because bicycles do not wear or cause damage to the road surface.

The problem isn't people cycling on the road, the problem is anyone thinking they have a natural right to occupy a given space without consideration to anyone else, whether they're a cyclist, pedestrian, car driver, bus driver or truck driver. Just because one pays more to use the road than another does not give them a reason to say other vehicles should not be allowed to travel on a road. If that was true no cars would be on the road as trucks pay a lot more to use them!

He said "open road" so I read that as being highways etc rather than "every" road.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1386598 13-Sep-2015 11:36

jfanning:
old3eyes: The cycle lobby seems great at wanting rules in favor of the cyclists but as soon as someone suggest registering them so that traffic infringents can be enforced it another story..

The story is, where do you stop, what about all the other transport methods on the road? Why don't we just microchip all humans on birth?

Good question, but probably OT.

Always wondered why we do not at least DNA sample everyone at birth for crime solving.

Teeps

501 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1386713 13-Sep-2015 17:26

Dratsab:
He said "open road" so I read that as being highways etc rather than "every" road.

That term is very open to interpretation so would need to be defined better if that's actually what is intended. But it would not help what most people gripes are that the roads are so narrow that they could not possibly pass a cyclist safely and have to pass closer than 1 meter away!

Jase2985

13457 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1386801 13-Sep-2015 18:49

scuwp:
Jase2985: my problem is there is no recourse if cyclists do something stupid/illegal, as there is no way to identify them, very easy if the vehicle does something stupid

The cyclist is the easiest to identify, they are the one lying on the pavement bleeding while the car driver inspects the scratch on their bumper in disgust.

so what happens when there is a near miss? or a cyclist running a red light? or a group of cyclists riding 3-4 abreast hogging 1 whole side of the road?

its not all about accidents, its about adjusting behaviors on both side to be within the law.

if i run too close to someone they can identify me and report me, because i have a great big identification tag on my car, if cyclists ride 4 abreast how do you report them? you cant can you.

just realise its not always the car thats at fault

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13