Jump to content

1m space to pass cyclist now law in WC


carbon29er

Recommended Posts

But - overall, it is the law of the road. If you want to ride on the road, fit a reflector. Easy peasy.

 

Riding back to my car after Sunday's funride, I was stopped by metro PD and told to put my helmet back on. :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

This isn't a law that protects cyclists - it gives a cursory nod to the distance motorists must pass cyclists, and then goes on to limit the rights of cyclists as road users, rather than empowering them.

 

To obey these laws would make a ride on our roads less safe. The whole "own your lane" approach to cycling is now illegal. And what exactly does "as far left as is possible" mean? To me that means riding where I feel safe to avoid obstructions and poor road surfaces, to a motorist than means within 5mm of the edge of the tar.

 

Western Province government doesn't even have a cycling strategy when building new roads - where are the bike lane proposals on the R44 upgrade?

 

I will not be complying with those provisions of this law which I feel do nothing to improve my safety. Safety of Cyclists Regulations pffft

 

Edit: Seems I got quoted out of context by a blogger - yay! http://6000.co.za/cyclists-stay-alive-at-1/

Edited by Velouria
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Current research suggests that a physically separated cycle lane is best. Not sure we will be seeing too many of those. The next best thing is for us to act and respond as cars would. We should be riding in the lane the same way we would on a motorbike.

 

No we shouldn't. We don't have nearly the same capacity for speed on hills and flats, and that would endanger fellow road users as drivers would have to swing all the way into oncoming traffic in order to pass. You may as well say that cyclists should be allowed to ride 6 abreast (same principle as we would take up the whole lane, like a car)

 

Fact remains that we are slower road users. We need to take cognisance of that. Fact remains that riding int he middle of the road will do nothing to reduce fatalities as a result of drunken drivers or "i didn't see him" responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno what the issue is with lights on the bikes. I permanently have a front light (usb rechargeable) with bright, dim and flashing mode, on my handlebars, and a red light with flash / steady modes at the back. They only weigh a couple of grams, and add to me being visible in low light situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This theory is dependant on motorists being attentave, and curteous. Not homicidal self-righteos arseholes with a attention span of dory.

 

Think of right hand lane hoggers on the highway.

 

Riding a bicycle on the roads needs to be about self preservation, a cyclist is at a distinct disadvantage in terms of protection as well as visibility and speed, putting yourself in harm's way by taking up a whole lane is Darwinistic behaviour, and should not even be attempted in South Africa.

I agree that all laws only function if all parties are being attentive and courteous, and that the onus is on us to protect ourselves.

 

My problem is that someone has chosen to enact these regulations that have been shown to be ineffective, so why put them in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and you're surprised why?

 

Why did you have it off in the first place?

 

Cause I was thinking that no-one would enforce a reflector or helmet law, and they obviously do.

 

And cause I was hot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that all laws only function if all parties are being attentive and courteous, and that the onus is on us to protect ourselves.

 

My problem is that someone has chosen to enact these regulations that have been shown to be ineffective, so why put them in?

 

Because it's politics.

 

The illusion of being effective, and attentive to the resident's requests.

 

I agree fully that this law will make no difference whatsoever, and personally think it shows another way in which taxpayers money is being wasted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No we shouldn't. We don't have nearly the same capacity for speed on hills and flats, and that would endanger fellow road users as drivers would have to swing all the way into oncoming traffic in order to pass. You may as well say that cyclists should be allowed to ride 6 abreast (same principle as we would take up the whole lane, like a car)

 

Fact remains that we are slower road users. We need to take cognisance of that. Fact remains that riding int he middle of the road will do nothing to reduce fatalities as a result of drunken drivers or "i didn't see him" responses.

There is no regulation that could protect us from being hit by drunken drivers. As to the speed issue, we are slow moving vehicles, I would prefer that I be overtaken as such.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds good, but what is up with the listening device?

 

If they ban that then they should also have a max limit for music to be played in a car, as the person can not hear sirens ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I wrote in response to the draft of this bill to Malcolm Watters. The draft was promulgated unchanged.

 

Mr Watters,

 

I've read quite a lot about the draft legislation proposed under the rather oddly named Draft Safety of Cyclists Regulations.

 

As both a motorist and cyclist I don't feel this draft does anything to improve the safety of cyclists on our roads, and if anything creates more of a distinction between cyclists and other road users. An "us versus them" situation.

 

I've been cycling for 18 years here in the Cape, and in that time I've only been involved in one incident that resulted in me being knocked from my bike. This is certainly below the average, both for accidents involving cyclists, and vehicle on vehicle accidents. I've made a point of adopting best practices that will ensure my safety, practices that are shown to keep cyclists alive.

 

As the PPA stated in their letter to you, the 1m rule is not based on best practices at all. A search of the literature will show that 1.5m to 2m is the distance at which cyclists stay alive. Is it inconvenient to motorists? Yes. But if countries like Holland, Germany, France, Ireland and Italy can implement and police it, so can we. The 1m passing distance proposed by the draft falls clearly into the "squeeze" zone where motorists will try to squeeze past a cyclist. The Golden Arrow bus that killed a cyclist on Main Road in Muizenburg last year and the more recent death of a cyclist by (yet another) Golden Arrow bus on Durban road could both have been prevented if a 1.5m gap was required to pass the cyclists. (I find it quite funny that the City of Cape Town advocates a 1.5m gap,
while the Provincial Legislature is targetting 1m.)

 

Under the current national legislation, bicycles are treated like another other road using vehicles, and as such, should be overtaken in the same manner (
). The saying "own your lane" is often used, and this gives cyclists the safety to avoid being caught in the squeeze zone by acting like any other vehicle in the road, and requiring other vehicles that wish to overtake to do so correctly.

 

Which brings me to the next point - keep as far left as possible. What does that mean? As safely possible? As physically possible? Yet again, this exposes cyclists to being caught in the squeeze zone, and given the state of many of our roads, this might even be more than 3 feet from the edge of the road. And what about dual lane roads where a cyclists wishes to turn right? Or congested roads with parked cars on the left? A car door is over a metre wide - and that's how far away from a parked car I will always ride.

 

Lastly, I have an issue with the headphone ban. Again, I can't see any empirical evidence that shows wearing headphones increases the accident rate for cyclists.

 

Cyclists ride facing forward, moving forward, looking forward. This means that in all but a few rare circumstances any danger that a cyclist is likely to be presented and to which he/she will be able to effectively respond, will be in front of him/her. Taking evasive or defensive action to a threat that is positioned behind the rider is practically impossible since the rider is facing forward, moving forward, looking forward. A cyclist needs to actually see the nature and position of the “danger” in order to react appropriately. When was the last time you heard a “danger” and made a conclusive decision on where to go to avoid it? Our eyes are far more effective when it comes to identifying and responding to “danger”. (
)

 

Why are cyclists singled out for wearing headphones while riding and getting knocked over from behind. A no go zone of 1.5m would be far more effective in keeping cyclists alive. Motorists talk on phones, listen to music, eat, text, apply make up, and control roudy kids etc while driving - if we're going to legislate things that distract road users, let's do it properly. Blaming cyclists is a complete misdirection. They belong in the road as much as cars do, and deserve to be as comfortable and have the same rights as anyone in a car.

 

And I'm not sure when you last stuck your head out of the car at 40km/h and tried to hear anything. I'm rather blessed with big ears, and the wind noise at anything over 20km/h not only make hearing almost impossible, but on longer rides tend to "numb" my other senses. Try a 4hr drive to Knysna with your car window partially open.

 

This draft proposal singles out cyclists, puts the blame on us, and takes away our rights as road users. I'm all for safer roads, but I don't feel the points highlighted above will make our roads safer for cyclists. Rather try and enforce the rules that currently exist, and design and build new roads that are bike friendly (How was Main Road redone with not a single thought given to cyclists??).

 

We've got to create a culture where all road users are afforded the same rights and protections, and that we learn to respect those rights. Targeting an individual group will just increase the animosity between road users, and do nothing to make our roads safer.

 

For some more info on bicycle-car accidents: "The City of Westminster has revealed that more than two thirds of collisions between motor vehicles and cyclists within its boundaries in the past year that resulted in injury to the rider were due to some factor associated with the driver, compared to one in five cases where the cause was attributed to the rider."

Much like London, the accidents in Cape Town are probably due to driver error, yet this draft places no burden or limitation on the actions of the people most likely at fault.

 

Regardless of whether this law is promulgated or not, I will still do what I feel constitutes the best practice in order to stay safe on our roads, even if that means breaking some of the proposed laws.

 

Thanks for reading this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No danger of that, I don't wear lycra!!!

 

But seriously. Sometimes reflectors are good during the day, and they DO refract light. So that's the reason they are required.

 

 

But - overall, it is the law of the road. If you want to ride on the road, fit a reflector. Easy peasy.

 

I am aware of your aversion to the stretchy stuff. I was ineptly referring to the generic cyclist.

 

I agree it is the law and needs to be complied with. I appreciate that an effort is being made to deal with cyclist safety and I hope that these new measures will give all road users cause to reflect on their road behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...............................

 

And I'm not sure when you last stuck your head out of the car at 40km/h and tried to hear anything. I'm rather blessed with big ears, and the wind noise at anything over 20km/h not only make hearing almost impossible, but on longer rides tend to "numb" my other senses. Try a 4hr drive to Knysna with your car window partially open

 

....................................

 

:D I like your way of writing :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout