How We Help to Make Our Safe Passing Law Work

Firstly, I wish to say a huge thank you to Phil Skelton of the Stayin Alive at 1.5 campaign and to the following TD's - Ciaran Cannon and Government chief whip Regina Doherty - for working so hard to get a private members bill through and hopefully – a new law created and passed. A question that has been on my mind for the last number of weeks since the fantastic announcement that we should hopefully have a 1.5 meter passing law in effect soon, has been 'how do we enforce this and make it both workable, successful, efficient and policable'?

This law is to be welcomed by all and hopefully enforced competently. For too long, cyclists and drivers have had both the unfortunate legal ambiguities of our Road Safety Authority advising motorists to give cyclists 1.5 meters but with no legal clarity and media outlets advising motorists to provide "some space" (how generous) so as (I assume) not to get cyclist splatter all over your waxed bonnet and windscreen. 

My firm belief is that we're going to have to do a lot more than merely pass this law to truly make it a success. Luckily we have working examples in other countries that we can take and add to our new law to make this successful. 

To make this law workable, successful, efficient and policable, we need to overhaul the traditional method in how we report crimes and have a change in mindset from those supposed to be enforcing our laws. 

If you are using the roads and witness bad driving, we currently have the option of calling the Garda Traffic Corps and the steps are as follows:

“Members of the public can report traffic-related incidents using the Traffic Watch lo-call number 1890 205 805. These calls are answered and logged by civilian personnel at the Garda Information Services Centre, Castlebar, Mayo F23 D303. The incident is then forwarded to the relevant District Officer (Superintendent) for investigation.”

This is certainly a positive but in terms of a streamlined process, it doesn't provide ease of reporting for cyclists and for the purpose of this post, cyclists are my main concern. 

We all lead busy lives and not all of us have the time or the energy after a long day to head to our local Garda station (if one even still has a functioning local Garda station) to file a complaint regarding a dangerous overtake. The problem here is twofold: A dangerous overtake is not caught and registered and the driver not informed that their driving caused danger to the cyclist they overtook.

Imagine if there was a medium the public could use to quickly and efficiently and clearly report a dangerous overtake?

For example…. Twitter?

But in Ireland, we can’t:

It’s annoying because the Gardaí use social media to good effect for missing persons or for giving people instant ability to view recovered stolen property 

So it is very possible to change and use social media to enable better policing of this new law.

But across the water in the UK, police forces are not only embracing the readily available technology, they are changing attitudes:

“"Within a week cyclists were contacting us to tell us things had had not only improved, but improved considerably. There were still close passes, always will be, 'can’t get them all', but they have become a rarity rather than commonplace." says PC Chris Brock.” 

More and more cyclists are wearing cameras for this reason. After a cycle to the office, the shops, the school run, a person using the Cycliq Fly12 can access their videos via an app, find the dangerous overtake and use (on an iPhone) iMovie to edit a video. But in Ireland we have to bring this evidence to a Garda Station and present it. Why can’t we streamline this process and provide cyclists, or anybody who captures dangerous driving or cycling, a monitored email address or a Garda Twitter account where a simple provision of evidence can be documented and acted upon. Swiftly. The dangerous driving is nipped in the bud and the driver is immediately aware their behaviour needs to change.

Enforcement of road traffic laws seems to be a big issue here  and this process change I’m suggesting could mean renewed motivation for the law enforcers when they see their effort and work rewarded. Trust in the enforcers grows when people see their concerns and reports acted upon. The benefits are wide ranging.

Further opportunities for police on the streets is a side effect too. People have asked “how is this going to be enforceable?” Well, in urban areas, West Midlands Police are leading the way again with undercover policing.

In rural areas, ease of reporting for cyclists or people via social media or email would help to speed up and enable the new law to work to its intended way. And that is the minimum that we both want and expect from our laws: that they just work.

When word gets out that prosecutions are occurring, it enables changing of attitudes and behaviour. Check out this tweet  - that’s 250+ prosecutions via 3^rd party video.

To those that argue about time, cost or use of resources, I give you this: “Op Closepass has been a success, that’s all you can say really. It was cost neutral, just part of our everyday patrols. We have used officers own bikes, equipment and also Cycliq kindly gave us Fly cameras to test, so it cost nothing.” 

Until cycling starts to be funded properly, which means actual, proper cycling infrastructure being built and receiving more than the peanuts it currently receives here in Ireland, the onus is on all of us to share the roads and be respectful to each other. And if some believe they’re entitled to use the roads that they pay road tax for. . . *cough* . . . and others insist on being dangerous and ignorant drivers, this safe passing law is exactly what we need. It should be the catalyst for change on our roads, to our attitudes towards safety and enabling those who want to cycle, feel safe on our roads. We can do this. But it will take more than the mere passing of a law. It will take some forward thinking and reorganising of a policing force that currently seems difficult to modernise. But with the passing of this law, it can be the catalyst for change. 

Before I leave you, I give you a comparison in policing attitudes and the placing of responsibility:

Police Force Number 1: “The 1% have left with a piece of paper that is titled “Traffic Process Report”, no further explanation is needed, they failed to show not only the driving skills necessary but also the aptitude to guarantee belief they won’t endanger a vulnerable road user again.” 

Police Force Number 2: “If a new offence of failing to wear hi-vis clothing and helmets was introduced, the Garda could initially give a verbal warning to those cyclists in breach of the legislation. He hoped that would encourage most bike riders to comply with his proposed new measure.”

“If you are cycling around the city centre . . . you see people daily stepping out and trucks taking corners short and so on. So you need to protect yourself – and fluorescent jackets and helmets are the way to go.” . . . you read that correctly. You can protect yourself from being crushed by “trucks taking corners short” by wearing an auld “fluorescent jacket and helmets. 

I know which I would have confidence in knowing them to be on my side.

To conclude, the West Midlands Police explain it best in this article:

“Intended to educate, not prosecute.
Overall, the response from offenders was very positive. This campaign did not have the intent to prosecute as many drivers as possible, but rather educate them. Awareness is necessary to be able to assess the situation around cyclists and then decide on safe overtakes. Only 1% of the offenders were actually given 'Traffic Process Reports', and quite often this was due to other violations (i.e. on the phone while driving, driving without insurance)”

Education. Not prosecution. This is not about attacking motorists. This is about educating motorists as to the dangers cyclists face on roads we share.

What’s so bad about keeping cyclists safe and alive by allowing them 1.5?

The Bike Share Scheme got me Scheming

 

Isn’t it mad when we do something that proves successful and it’s acknowledged as such; and it’s flat lined.   “Almost 290,000 trips were recorded in the first twelve months of the Coke Zero bike-share scheme in Cork city centre” yet the newly styled shared cycling community is left deflated with the following: “A spokesperson for the NTA said that no changes are currently planned for the Cork bike share scheme.”

 

De bikes boi!

Apparently they wish to focus on Limerick and Galway where the scheme has unfortunately said to be less successful (depending on your definition of success of course). Now on the one hand I think it’s great they still plan on focusing on those cities to try establish why the scheme hasn’t proven as successful as the Cork scheme. But why do we in Cork have to remain static?

31 stops. Almost 290,000 journeys. Consider that since this initital article rolled out in July 2015, 200,000 journeys were made in Cork. Think about that. It’s a resounding thumbs up from the public to this scheme. The National Transport Authority (NTA) don’t seem to share the public's enthusiasm. In the July article “The NTA says the possibility of extending the scheme to other urban centres will be looked at later this year. The success or otherwise of the initiative in Galway, Cork and Limerick will inform that decision.”

Evidently it won’t since Cork has been incredibly successful and (as pointed out above) the “NTA [have] said that no changes are currently planned for the Cork bike share scheme.”

Expanding the scheme in my opinion is essential to increasing it’s success. “Bernie Connolly, development coordinator at CEF, said "extensions west to CUH, north to Blackpool and south to Blackrock are essential to fulfilling its potential” and I couldn’t agree more. I would even add to that with suggesting that any new office blocks that are being built should have a bike share station outside them or in close proximity should they not have a station within 50 or 100 meters. The new Albert Quay office block for example? I mean I can’t imagine how mad traffic is going to get there if even going by the last census figures where 69% of people commuted by car? Offer them the choice. What’s the worst that could happen?

An extra driver or two have to be hired to move bikes between the popular stations more frequently or at peak times?

Extra subscribers from Blackrock, Mahon, Wilton, Bishopstown, Blackpool?

Less cars on our roads?

Healthier citizens?

Some extra temporary construction jobs to increase the size of existing stations and build new ones?

Those are just the immediate benefits that come to mind. Oh and of course, additional visibility for our generous bike share sponsor! But more needs to be done on the figures from the last census where it showed only 6.8% of people commuted using public transport and while there was a jump in the number of people cycling, the main cause of this is the increase of cyclists in Dublin. Cork saw a 20% jump but as pointed out here it’s from a low base. But if you put in some stations that are even part way to suburbs, you could persuade people to ditch the car on fine days. Even with the good weather, this can be the city centre roads:

 

It will be interesting to see the figures from this years census when they're released later this year. I think an expanded, well run bike share scheme in a city like Cork could start dramatically pushing up the numbers cycling which in turn hopefully will lead to more people demanding safer and better cycling facilities in our city. An example I use for this is Bucharest. A place that probably wouldn't jump to the front of your mind if I asked for a city with some superb cycling facilities. But, in a city where bike share is starting to take off, you have some fantastic protected and separated cycle lanes:

 

Having visited some cities where bike share schemes do run to the immediate suburbs, Lyon is one for example, there can be an issue of station overload on weekend evenings in the city centre as people come in from the suburbs and vice versa when people leave the city centre for the suburbs later in the evenings. But (and this is obviously a big but) surely if a city is willing to expand a service it should back it up with an additional resource or two at busy times to cover demand and remove extra bikes? I know, I know. . .wishful thinking. I suppose all we can do for now is try keep up the pressure on the NTA and keep pushing for an expansion in our city. 

Don't forget to check out the Coke Bike Scheme here if you're not yet registered!

Reviving Cork City Center

So as I’m currently in between finishing off a few longer blog posts on some of the cycling infrastructure around the city and suburbs and working insane hours (amazingly the two aren’t the most compatible!) I just thought I’d throw up something really quickly this evening. I found the following on the Evening Echo site via Facebook regarding a two year action plan to revive Cork City Center.

Now, a quick challenge to anyone reading this:

Go to that link, here it is again:

Hit CTRL+F

Individually, type all the following:

Cycle

Cycling

Cyclists

Bikes

Bike

Bicycles

Bicycle

Seriously. Where the f*ck are all the above?

Type that last one for giggles. It provides one less result than the most popular result above.

 

Seriously. What numbers, individually or combined (you get to choose!) do you see?

Are you as surprised as I was?

Now. How about a snazzy graph showing an actual revival:

https://twitter.com/grescoe/status/624205455456403456

You'll notice a word there that doesn't show up in our council's plan. However it correlates with "retail sales sky-rocketed". Did you guess rockets? I did at first. But second time around I got it.

 

Oh oh…. If you’re still there - Try this for size… an actual report. With words. And stats. And research based evidence of what is working:

http://archinect.com/news/article/91832887/protected-bike-lanes-strengthen-city-economy-report-finds

There's one recurring theme in that report regarding improving a cities economics. 

And if you’re not a reader of longish articles, just read this point:

“Cyclists are great for retailers.

People who use bikes to run errands tend to stop by retailers more often, spending at least as much (if not more) money than any other customer, plus they require less parking space. Overall, proximity to protected bike lanes can increase business traffic and potential spending.”

Emphasis is mine. But wasn’t business what the Gardaí said they were concerned about when speaking to cyclist.ie?

 

“Cyclist.ie added: “We tried to impress on them the real safety issue of dangerous overtaking of cyclists and how drivers were skimming past riders in bus lanes and general vehicle lanes but the response was that it’s the given space we all have to operate in and drivers have to go about their business even if it meant squeezing dangerously past us. They maintained that this problem is the responsibility of the design engineers in road authorities.”

Oh no… just the usual shifting blame to someone else for dangerous driving behaviour. And also emphasising the importance of the 'driver business'. My bad. The ones with the money and spending power to keep our cities alive. Although I think I saw a report somewhere saying otherwise . . .no. . . it's just the tiredness kicking in and dreams starting . . .

*dream links zzzzz

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics/category/protected-bike-lane-statistics

 zzzzz San Francisco using the same report as above to argue for protected lanes zzzzz https://www.sfbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Protected_Bike_Lanes_Mean_Business.pdf

  zzzzz end dream links*

A Start!

Wow. It seems like only an eternity ago I said I'd start to write about cycling in Cork and my Twitter bio doesn't lie when I say I'm a *cough cough* 'slight' procrastinator. 

This is a start anyway! So on Wednesday I ventured out for my first cycle in quite a while on the old Railway Line to Passage West from the city. It's a cycle I absolutely love and with scenery like this you can see why!

I was delighted to see a few changes along the path mainly regarding parts repaved and a few signs up to remind everyone using the path to watch out for everyone else. 

However thanks to Twitter/ the Internet and some of the people I've found, follow and try learn from, I've found myself being more aware of the ‘where’ I cycle and ‘what’ I'm cycling on. 

These are just some of my observations from that cycle. Please feel free to comment or tweet me! I'd obviously really like to know what others think. 

Observation one - "Roads"

Firstly if you look at the following sign you'd be forgiven for thinking you were approaching a main road and that traffic will be speeding along the roads as they unfortunately tend to do:

However the cars are approaching via a 'road' that is coming via a car park and entering residential apartments. Now normally a reduced speed limit sign is evident in car parks but not here. Why?  

This is a small clip of the crossing:

 Surely in a car park used mainly by people walking the old railway line, there should be signs for the drivers entering or exiting the apartment complex to be aware of children, dogs, cyclists and pedestrians? In my opinion the onus should be on drivers to be aware since their vehicles can kill but also should this not be a priority pedestrian zone? In my opinion this crossing should be giving right of way to the pedestrianised users but all the signs are warning pedestrians and cyclists. The onus is totally on pedestrians. Why?

The same again as you enter Passage West:

This is a car park but again - not one sign for drivers (who in a matter of minutes will be pedestrians/cyclists after parking) to ask they watch out for dogs, children, walkers, cyclists - nothing. Why? I find this mentality of putting the onus on the most vulnerable to be quite perverse. I mean when you look at the request made to the pedestrianised on this sign....

  

Add to the above the following:

I failed to notice the part where I'm supposed to share paths with this:

But again - no signs up requesting the car owners to keep the path clear for those it is solely intended for. A similar example when you cycle from Ballincollig to the city or vice versa, (I don't have a picture right now) pedestrians and cyclists are clearly warned to beware the residents exiting their driveways. Again the implication here (feel free to disagree) is that even on the paths we've been designated, the onus is still on us to beware of cars and their drivers. How do you encourage the casual cyclist to enjoy a commute to work if it's all *warning warning warning* signs and markings?  There’s no sign telling the drivers travelling down that part of the road at 100km/h that cars are exiting driveways and to exercise caution.

I mean this is the attitude and philosophy of the Dutch:

"Cyclists are not dangerous; cars and car drivers are: so car drivers should take the responsibility for avoiding collisions with cyclists. This implies that car drivers are almost always liable when a collision with a bicycle occurs and should adapt their speed when bicycles share the roads with cyclists."

Long way to go here before we share that philosophy.

Observation Two: the terrible lack of observations!

To build a cycling mentality and nation, you need to put the infrastructure in. 'Build it and they will come' (could be paraphrasing) is what a group of people said in the 1970's in a now cycling pariah. The liars. I mean, who were they to think they should plan for their country decades down the line rather than the next election cycle? I mean the statistics prove they built 'it' but the statistics also show.... hang on.... wait - 'they' did come? 

via here

Wow. It's like once there's safe infrastructure in place, people will use bikes?

Anyway - I digress. The opportunity for an amazing segregated cycling corridor from Monkstown via Rochestown/Douglas or the Railway Line is huge. Put in something like the Green Wave from Copenhagen and you've got a relaxed 20-30 minute commute. Go via the Railway Line and when you come out in either Mahon or Centre Park Road - there's space for a two-way cycling route. You could make Centre Park Road one way to cars and Monaghan Road a one way for the opposite direction so you still have access to the businesses there. 

 Lots of space for a one way system for cars and two way cycling facilities

But you're prioritising cycling. Grand ideas? Sure. I am not a fan of the small piecemeal bits that are currently happening. It's good to see but to engage more people you need to offer cycling as an actual safe commuting tool. Not something that once you get to the city center, you have a few lanes around the place. Lots of people want to cycle - but what safe facilities do you have even from Douglas? None. There's a lane but it's one cars and buses cut through on the narrower parts of the road. And with infrastructure like this:

how do first timers get the confidence to commute? 

Anyway, these are just some initial thoughts on this, the slightly delayed project of mine!