Article 7.2 then restricts Article 7.1 by prohibiting "cycling on the right of any two other bicycles proceeding abreast". There is absolutely no ambiguity about cycling abreast in this two article.
Unfortunately, those who have bias always ignore Article 7.1 by treating "vehicle" as equivalent to cars, lorries and buses. Furthermore, they read the word "two other bicycle proceeding abreast" as that the law allows two cycling abreast not withstanding that Article 7.1 already prohibits and that it is taken out of context.
It is quite confusing why the specific article mentions two bicycle. It is assumed that overtaking 2 bicycle is still allowed due to the fact that the space taken by two bicycles is small enough. Obviously, those who are biased towards cycling abreast take it as cycling two abreast is allowed.
Article 7.2 actually refers to the prohibiting of the third third bicycle with respect to the first two (while the second bicycle is overtaking). "Proceeding abreast" was interpreted as cycling abreast. However, "proceeding" could also means "begin a course of action" in addition to "move forward". Anyhow, Article 7.2 is not about allowing, it is about prohibiting and the subject is on third cyclist. Naturally, when you are biased you tends to read the words that conform to you bias instead of open interpretation.
With the biased understanding of "two cycling abreast" being allowed in the old law, they objects to the idea of "putting restrains" in the Active Mobility Bill". They event question why it is not stated in the bill. However, LTA already specifically indicated that it is "key regulation for on-road cycling in the Road Traffic Act".
LTA never specifically explain why cycling abreast is not allowed on certain roads. I have done a bit of measurement and come out with an explanation.
According to an article in asiaone (dated 2012-08-28), Mr. Francis Chu measured the width of roads around Toa Payoh, Ubi and Buona Vista. He concluded that "standard car lane width to be 2.8 Meters" but it can be as wide as "4 Meters".
A bicycle generally measures 0.5 to 0.75 Meter wide. Lets take the shortest width as standard. In order to be safe from swings and water grills on the road, it is generally advisable to cycle just to the right of the double yellow line. That is about 1 meter from the curb side. Now there is a campaign to promote 1.5 Meters safety gap between cyclists and other fast moving vehicles. Assuming, the safety measures are all in place, the total distance that other vehicles must move will be 1+0.5+1.5 = 3 Meters. Even with the widest of road lanes, other vehicles will have to end up partially on the second lane or opposite lane.
If cycling two abreast, then you have to add another 2 Meters (bicycle width plus safety distiance). The total gap (5 Meters) will be wider than any road lane width. Therefore, defining cycling two abreast on "at least two lanes in that direction" is appropriate safety measure rather than restriction.
On single road lanes and bus lanes (multi lanes are not excluded), the safety distance for one cyclist is already 3 Meters. It will be dangerous for other vehicles to overtake. They generally have to go on to the other lane to pass safely. Many cyclist feels the pressure when other vehicles overtook them too close. They do not realize that they have the rights to be on the road so is other vehicles. I do know that it is flesh against steel. Motorcycles also face the same issue. but because their speed is equal to cars, they feel less intimidated because less vehicles overtake them and they are not blocking others.
Cyclists cannot expect other vehicles to follow them because even the slowest speed limit (40 KPH in HDB areas) is also faster than the average 30 KPH that a cyclist can do (except some very good ones). While overtaking bicycles, the other vehicles are also restrained by other vehicles in the same direction or opposite direction. It is inevitable that they sometimes misjudge the safety gap and go uncomfortably close to cyclists. It is not bias on the driver part because they do it to other drivers too.
There are many drivers who question the reason for allowing cyclists on roads. They even say "cyclist do not pay road tax". We can understand their frustration because cyclists used to obstruct their ways. However, cycling on roads are explicitly allowed by law. Cyclists have the right to use roads. It is a matter of accommodating each other.
With the above reasoning, cyclist should be glad that it is now explicitly allowed two abreast on certain roads and not whine about cycling abreast on all roads.
One last thing. Roads are designed for commuting, it is not specifically designed for convoys. Many cyclist like to use the road for recreation/sports in a group. There is no law against travelling in convoys/groups. Remember that cyclists are not travelling faster than other road vehicles which could easily out run them. Out of courtesy, you should consider that they need to overtake you thus try to give way to them whenever possible as a cooperation between road users. There is no law against cycling in groups that does not means you sacrifice other's right to move faster.
I myself am cyclist. I advocate mutual acceptance rather than biased toward cyclists. I do full heartedly support the campaign of having cycling paths on roads. That will alleviate a lot of issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment