New bike buffer zone law.

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 13

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1379535 4-Sep-2015 09:25

Gents, this is a complex topic, and many of the points raised in opposition to having cyclists be identifiable on the raod are valid (kids, cost etc) but just because there are valid concerns there, please don't think that means that my points are any less valid. There are benefits to having cyclists be uniquely identifiable and requiring a demonstration of continued proficiency and rule understanding for cyclists.

The two viewpoints are in tension, and neither is so completely right that it's an obvious choice.

However, and back to the original topic, this 1.5m rule will create either a law that motorists will need to disobey to avoid creating significant road rage incidents, or it will create situations where tempers will rise in motorists.

I am certain the cyclists don't want a bunch of people in 1.5 ton killing machines to be really angry at them.

Don't just say "Well they shouldn't get angry then" because that's not human nature. Drivers will get angry if forced into a traffic queue travelling at 15kph because they can't pass.

It would be wildly irresponsible for cyclists to call for, or support, a law that would create significant numbers of motorists angry at cyclists.

To be clear, I am prepared to stipulate that every single person on here would cycle responsibly and not be responsible for creating these jams. I'm sure you would all recognise it and pull over on narrow roads to let people pas in a timely fashion in the interests of cyclist/driver harmony. However I'm certain that this graceful and considerate behaviour wouldn't be adopted by all cyclists. (If you want to claim it would, then please in your answer explain why so many cyclists blow through red lights today and dart through traffic without indicating, pass on the left, etc)

I basically don't want any changes that would result in further systemic frustration between cyclists and drivers. Any successful changes to the rules are going to have to make sure that tensions between drivers and cyclists go down, not up. That means drivers need to be more considerate and watch out for cyclists and respect their rights to use the road, but cyclists need to realise that they are secondary road users (by number, by funding, by impact on roads, by kilometers travelled, by any metric you want) and do their best to fit in with the primary users.

Its my opinion that as personal peril rises, personal responsibility increases. I have the same issue in my lotus replica. It's TINY and when I got it wasn't particularly visible on the roads. I covered it in bright orange vinyl and I pay a LOT more attention to larger cars/trucks on the road when I am in it because I know it's still easy to miss.

Now of course I shouldn't have to, everyone else should definitely avoid hitting me... but I'm going to come off a lot worse so I shoulder a lot of the responsibility to be careful... more than I _should_.. but I do. And so should cyclists.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1379631 4-Sep-2015 11:55

Talkiet:
However, and back to the original topic, this 1.5m rule will create either a law that motorists will need to disobey to avoid creating significant road rage incidents, or it will create situations where tempers will rise in motorists.

No-one *needs* to disobey the law. They may choose to do so though. Are you suggesting that we should write traffic laws so that motorists don't get angry... ???? How about we get rid of speeding tickets... they make me angry.

Don't just say "Well they shouldn't get angry then" because that's not human nature. Drivers will get angry if forced into a traffic queue travelling at 15kph because they can't pass.

Maybe roads (and/or cycleways) should be built so that motorists don't have to choose between "getting angry" and overtaking a cycle in an unsafe manner?

To be clear, I am prepared to stipulate that every single person on here would cycle responsibly and not be responsible for creating these jams. I'm sure you would all recognise it and pull over on narrow roads to let people pas in a timely fashion in the interests of cyclist/driver harmony. However I'm certain that this graceful and considerate behaviour wouldn't be adopted by all cyclists. (If you want to claim it would, then please in your answer explain why so many cyclists blow through red lights today and dart through traffic without indicating, pass on the left, etc)

Equally, I am sure that all motorists on here are courteous and considerate to other road users, including cyclists. The fact that some drivers aren't, and that they are prepared to endanger cyclists' lives for the sake of satisfying their desire to be elsewhere sooner, seems to me to be an excellent reason for bringing in this law.

I basically don't want any changes that would result in further systemic frustration between cyclists and drivers.

No-one does. But it is unacceptable that the law should allow people to wilfully endanger the lives of others.

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1379660 4-Sep-2015 12:23

As a (retired right now) motorcyclist, I had to acknowledge that I was more vulnerable and take additional precautions accordingly. You have to acknowledge that even drivers with the utmost respect for you might not see you one day and that can be fatal. As a motorcyclist, it would have been irresponsible of me to expect that I shouldn't be any more at risk than a car driver - and I had to adjust my thinking and my behaviour accordingly rather than expect car drivers to.

I had a relatively low speed crash last year, at a speed that most cyclists would comfortably travel at times. I was wearing kevlar and leather and while I broke my hip due to the way to landed when I fell off - I walked away without a single scratch on my body. People fall off bikes (motor or other), it happens, but cyclists often want to be able to wear almost no protective clothing (Other than a legally mandated helmet). I can attest to the fact that hitting the tarmac at even a fairly low speed hurts! Proper protective gear would go a long way to reducing injuries many cyclists encounter (Cars involved or not) and needs to be considered as part of the wider solution to the issue of cyclist injuries.

Many cyclists are doing it for sport/fitness reasons. I can't got for a run down the middle of the road in peak hour traffic and expect the cars to just 'wait patiently' behind me, so I think there needs to be more practical rules around use of road space by cyclists in this context. Ie. slow down a bit, use footpaths as appropriate. If you can combine your daily commute with your daily workout, great! but it shouldn't be at the expense of the rest of the road users.

That all sounds like a bit of a beat up of cyclists, and it's not meant to be - I think cycling and other non-car forms of transport needs to be heavily encouraged, but we need to come up with more practical solutions to the problem. I'm far more in favour of making densely populated areas less car and more alternative transport friendly, physically separated cycle lanes etc. where possible.

These discussions often turn into one side vs. the other, and I certainly think there is a middle ground where car drivers are more cognizant of the other road users around them (including cyclists and motorcyclists) but cyclists being more realistic about the dangers of sharing the road with 2 tonne murder boxes and taking additional precautions as appropriate (including protective gear). I echo the earlier comment that these proposed changes are likely to cause more tension between cyclists and car drivers not less and think there are better ways for us to share the road in a safe way.

Twitter: ajobbins

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1379683 4-Sep-2015 12:27

I think it's just the INFRASTRUCTURE that's missing. the 1-1.5m is ideal. Not sure why at 50ks you legislate 1.5 for a Prius to pass and at 100ks you legislate 1.0m for a 36 wheeler to pass ... !!!

nakedmolerat

4629 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1379723 4-Sep-2015 12:35

Maybe the cyclist should be paying Road Tax and identification plate so that we can also report every time they break the rules such as cycling through the red light!

This happen more often than you think!

nakedmolerat

4629 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1379725 4-Sep-2015 12:38

The reason why I said that is because I can see cyclist reporting every car driver that deemed unsafe as most of them have camera attached to their bike/helmet.

Unfortunately I can't do the same about them as they don't have proper identification.

groynk

234 posts

Master Geek

#1379749 4-Sep-2015 13:10

So the argument that this law would create more tension seems to me to have an assumption underlying it...
Do you think that it is safe /sensible / reasonable to pass with less than 1/1.5m between you and a cyclist (or any road user)?

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.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1379751 4-Sep-2015 13:13

groynk: So the argument that this law would create more tension seems to me to have an assumption underlying it...
Do you think that it is safe /sensible / reasonable to pass with less than 1/1.5m between you and a cyclist (or any road user)?

Yes, in some cases, not in others.

Wildy depends on speed, also depends onother factors like how busy the road is... Whether the cyclist is riding handsfree on an uneven road. is the road straight? Is it smooth? Should a motorbike (with smaller dimensions and more control in inch perfect placing) be allowed to pass closer than a car, or a truck?

But this argument happens everywhere - a flat rule is always a compromise. 100kph as the open road speed limit is conservative in some cases, and wildly inappropriate in others.

If we create a law that mandates the 1.5m in all cases, there will be problems.

That's my opinion.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Jase2985

13457 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1379754 4-Sep-2015 13:28

groynk:
Do you think that it is safe /sensible / reasonable to pass with less than 1/1.5m between you and a cyclist (or any road user)?

Yes when they are riding 2 or more abrest when passing cars on narrow roads, and when they choose not to ride in parking bays between the curb and white line depicting the lane on the road, but not a dedicated cycle lane) on the side of the roads and are already 1.5m out from the curb at that point.

it really is a 2 way street, and those commuting to work are generally good about obeying the rules, those out for a ride with their buddies in large groups couldn't care less about the rules and think they dont apply to them.

i have nothing against cyclists and i am one myself at times, but when i ride with my wife we always ride single file and as close to the curb as possible, and always obey the road code because we want to minimise the risk of being hit by a 1 tonne lump of metal.

jfanning

438 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1379755 4-Sep-2015 13:31

nakedmolerat: The reason why I said that is because I can see cyclist reporting every car driver that deemed unsafe as most of them have camera attached to their bike/helmet.

Unfortunately I can't do the same about them as they don't have proper identification.

Do you report every car that you breaking the law?

jfanning

438 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1379756 4-Sep-2015 13:32

nakedmolerat: Maybe the cyclist should be paying Road Tax and identification plate so that we can also report every time they break the rules such as cycling through the red light!

This happen more often than you think!

I pay for the roading now through rates and taxes, why should I have to pay more to cycle?

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1379757 4-Sep-2015 13:33

jfanning:
nakedmolerat: Maybe the cyclist should be paying Road Tax and identification plate so that we can also report every time they break the rules such as cycling through the red light!

This happen more often than you think!

I pay for the roading now through rates and taxes, why should I have to pay more to cycle?

Well, you're not paying any ACC levy for road use for a start :-)

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

cr250bromo

222 posts

Master Geek

#1379784 4-Sep-2015 14:29

I've started walking to and from work (about 6.5km round trip each day). Walking into the Auckland CBD I have to cross a number of major intersections. In the last two months I haven't seen a single cyclist run a red light.

However I have lost count of the number of motorists that blatantly run red lights at the end of the phase, even infringing onto the pedestrian phase. They aren't driving through like a nana either, they have their foot to the floor to try and get through as quickly as possible.

I'm not saying cyclists don't ever run red lights, but in my experience motorists are worse and pose far more of a danger to themselves and other road users due to their speed. "Cyclists always run red lights" comes up in these arguments as if motorists never do it.

debo

307 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1379799 4-Sep-2015 14:49

I would like the government to implement a "narrow lane" law in which class 2 and higher vehicles are prohibited from using. You could then have duel carrageways with one narrow and one normal lane (as opposed to the current way of having two normal sized lanes). The difference would be used for a cycle lane (or wider lane if one already exists). It would be cheap to implement (just painting new lanes and signage), would have little impact on motorists, and would give cyclists more separation from vehicles.

jfanning

438 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1379803 4-Sep-2015 14:52

Talkiet:
Well, you're not paying any ACC levy for road use for a start :-)

Cheers - N

Yes I do, I own a car, I am employed, I purchase petrol for my car, therefore I pay ACC.

But, if as a cyclist I am hit by a car, surely the car ACC levy should cover that?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 13