Rogue cyclists set to face on-the-spot fines MOD WARNING in first post

lgk · 27-07-2015 3:00pm

Qualitymark wrote: »

They're not just putting themselves at risk. (And their children - a 14-year-old was stretchered to shelter with hypothermia and a 3-year-old was treated for the same.) They're also putting the rescue services at risk; if they go up the icy, slippy mountain in winds so high that the rescue helicopter can't land, a team are going to have to climb to help them. Personal responsibility includes responsibility towards others.

Think you've missed my point, maybe I wasn't clear enough. It's the jumping to the conclusion that everyone who takes on something that another group considers dangerous are reckless is exactly the thought process that goes on among non-cyclists who think wrapping us in high-vis etc., is the only way to keep us safe.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of stupid people who do that walk who have no place on a mountain in any conditions, but let's not encourage more nanny state legislation by lumping everyone who does so as reckless.

But icy?? Long way from icy there yesterday, and all 8 people treated walked away. But yes, those bringing young children there over the weekend without proper technical wear was reckless of those individuals, and perhaps that's one for social services to deal with. But to anyone who's experienced, let alone those who have climbed in the alps or the likes, it was a walk in the park. It was the classing them all as reckless I disagreed with.

magicbastarder · 27-07-2015 3:38pm

in france (and other countries), if your recklessness in such a situation leads to a member of a rescue party dying in the process of trying to rescue you, you can be charged with their manslaughter.

tomasrojo · 28-07-2015 7:11pm

@samwab on Twitter. Assume it's his work.

horsebox7 · 29-07-2015 10:41am

Very good tomasrojo. I don't see gardas on the street handing out leaflets like this to drivers at traffic lights the same way as I see them handing out leaflets to bicycles. I was given a yellow information leaflet myself at Harolds Cross Bridge in Dublin by a gard and I saw 5 gards on duty yesterday at traffic lights handing out leaflets at the bottom of Christ Church Hill on the quays.

I also agree that the RSA do not represent cyclists fairly. When people are taking driving lessons there is very little emphasis on how to interact in a responsible and considerate way with cyclists. The RSA TV advertising campaign could also do with some clips in a city context. Not all of us life in suburban or rural areas.

tomasrojo · 29-07-2015 10:53am

I think the basic attitude is that "cyclists are a problem", but "some motorists are a problem".

Also big leaflet drops at rush hour would cause a lot of congestion if you were stopping cars. Not sure why I have to stop and listen to a Garda tell me about something I already know about, and possibly know more about than he does, but there you go.

tomasrojo · 29-07-2015 11:14am

I do suspect that the clandestine intended outcome of this leaflet campaign (to increase numbers of people wearing helmets and hi-viz) will come to pass, but the ostensible aim (to inform people about the actual fixed-charge notice system) will not be met. All money set aside for cycling issues seems to end up being spent on helmets and hi-viz, all airtime devoted to cycling issues seems to end up being spent on helmets and hi-viz.

rp · 29-07-2015 11:17am

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think the basic attitude is that "cyclists are a problem", but "some motorists are a problem".

This article has an interesting view on that:
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-18/survey-finds-bicyclists-and-motorists-ignore-traffic-laws-similar-rates.

buffalo · 29-07-2015 11:23am

tomasrojo wrote: »

All money set aside for cycling issues seems to end up being spent on helmets and hi-viz, all airtime devoted to cycling issues seems to end up being spent on helmets and hi-viz.

And all Internet threads and comment sections...

Rogue-Trooper · 29-07-2015 12:03pm

Rogue-Trooper wrote: »

I'm not usually one to pen strongly worded letters to anyone but I've just dispatched one to The RSA regarding that flyer.

I've just received a response from the RSA. I had sent quite a long-winded missive that covered the many things I thought was wrong with the leaflet, however they chose to completely ignore almost all of it and address just one of the points:

RSA PR Guru wrote:

Dear Rogue,
Many thanks for your email. You are quite correct regarding point No7. This has now been amended, redesigned and re-printed.

Thanks again for getting in touch. Comments, positive or negative are always greatly appreciated.

Regards
Brian

Ignoring all of the other points raised and commenting on just one (because that's the only one you fixed) is an art form.

Dealing with customer feedback is something I have to do in work - I wonder if I could get away with ignoring the stuff I didn't want to hear too........:rolleyes:

jon1981 · 29-07-2015 12:12pm

How again is this enforced?

I travel in and out of the city every day on a bike and I noticed that people on Dublin bikes are by far the biggest offenders of breaking red lights and alot of them appear to be tourists too. Do the guards ask for a name and address to send the fine? What if you're on holiday here or give a false address? They can't impound that bike... ?

Also, most (not all) that do break the light tend to stop, look, proceed at a slow pace... hardly going to kill someone! I've yet to see a cyclist brake a light and endanger themselves or another person and for the record i don't break lights. And another damn thing, I was going along up Amien st and the red light for pedestrians seems to be invisible, as soon the road is clear of cars they just barrel across the road, despite seeing me coming along and quite visible!

Equal rights i tell ya, i want equal rights!!!!

check_six · 29-07-2015 12:24pm

jon1981 wrote: »

I travel in and out of the city every day on a bike and I noticed that people on Dublin bikes are by far the biggest offenders of breaking red lights and alot of them appear to be tourists too. Do the guards ask for a name and address to send the fine? What if you're on holiday here or give a false address? They can't impound that bike... ?

Impound? Sure, why not? Dublin Bikes know exactly who you are, or at least have some kind of connection to your credit card. No returned bike? The charges rack up, and now you've got a double fine headache.

In reality, the guard that isn't there to stop someone going through a red light today will be the same guard that isn't there tomorrow.

Qualitymark · 29-07-2015 12:40pm

There are quite a few lights that it's safe for cyclists to go through - mostly those on a T junction where you're on the crossbar of the T with traffic filtering through on the right of you. It would be sensible to put a bicycle traffic light here and filter the bikes through.

tomasrojo · 29-07-2015 12:51pm

@dublincycling tweeted:

Essentially, the AGS/RSA one with irrelevant lecturing removed.

EDIT:
They included this in tweet:
http://www.dublincycling.ie/cycling/key-issues-concern-cyclists-irish-road-traffic-law-rtl?utm_content=bufferec97f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

rubadub · 29-07-2015 1:09pm

Do note that if you choose to push your bike on a pavement during lighting-up time it must have lights lit on both front and back - most cyclists do not know this

:eek:

is there anything you could do to a bike so its legally not a bike? like remove the chain? Not that I am thinking of doing it as I doubt any garda would stop you for pushing a bike home if your light ran out of batteries. But just curious about it. Or are you legally obliged to carry it home if not just leaving it behind.

tomasrojo · 29-07-2015 1:19pm

rubadub wrote: »

:eek:

is there anything you could do to a bike so its legally not a bike? like remove the chain? Not that I am thinking of doing it as I doubt any garda would stop you for pushing a bike home if your light ran out of batteries. But just curious about it. Or are you legally obliged to carry it home if not just leaving it behind.

Dead letter law territory, I think. Nobody cares about unlit footway bike-pushing.

Skrynesaver · 29-07-2015 1:49pm

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/626350827679170560

galwaycyclist · 29-07-2015 1:55pm

Rogue-Trooper wrote: »

I've just received a response from the RSA. I had sent quite a long-winded missive that covered the many things I thought was wrong with the leaflet, however they chose to completely ignore almost all of it and address just one of the points:

Ignoring all of the other points raised and commenting on just one (because that's the only one you fixed) is an art form.

Dealing with customer feedback is something I have to do in work - I wonder if I could get away with ignoring the stuff I didn't want to hear too........:rolleyes:

With regret I think it was a mistake to write to the RSA alone. If people are sending letters of complaint they should go first and foremost to the Ministers office.

The Minister needs to be made aware that his primary advisers in these things have little credibility with their target audience.

jon1981 · 29-07-2015 1:57pm

Maybe it's in this thread ( it's quite large now and haven't read back). But are there statistics (# of accidents due to cycling on the path, breaking lights...etc.) to support the need to introduce these fines?

Lumen · 29-07-2015 2:13pm

jon1981 wrote: »

Maybe it's in this thread ( it's quite large now and haven't read back). But are there statistics (# of accidents due to cycling on the path, breaking lights...etc.) to support the need to introduce these fines?

The case for the fines is that they're more efficient to administer (and more convenient for the prosecuted/persecuted) than the current approach of summoning them to court. This makes enforcement more practical.

magicbastarder · 29-07-2015 2:16pm

Do note that if you choose to push your bike on a pavement during lighting-up time it must have lights lit on both front and back - most cyclists do not know this

so lets say you've to move a bike at night without the use of a car you can throw the bike into - this means you simply cannot move it?

Lumen · 29-07-2015 2:18pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

so lets say you've to move a bike at night without the use of a car you can throw the bike into - this means you simply cannot move it?

You could presumably carry it. There's presumably some sort of five-second rule about tyre contact with the ground.

jon1981 · 29-07-2015 2:19pm

Lumen wrote: »

The case for the fines is that they're more efficient to administer (and more convenient for the prosecuted/persecuted) than the current approach of summoning them to court. This makes enforcement more practical.

I understand the mechanism of fine vs summons... my question is the need in the first place. What evidence supports the need to introduce a punishment in the first place?

Lumen · 29-07-2015 2:24pm

jon1981 wrote: »

I understand the mechanism of fine vs summons... my question is the need in the first place. What evidence supports the need to introduce a punishment in the first place?

There's no point having laws that aren't enforced, so your question is essentially "why do we need laws governing the use of pedal cycles on the public road?", or more generally "why do we need laws?".

The answer is "because people are dicks".

Deedsie · 29-07-2015 2:49pm

jon1981 wrote: »

I understand the mechanism of fine vs summons... my question is the need in the first place. What evidence supports the need to introduce a punishment in the first place?

I have heard people say here that AGS won't enforce this as it is a waste of their time. However I think that issuing a fine on the spot is a far better use of a Garda's time than having to issue a summons, go to court etc.

Streamlines the process. Some cyclists being absolute tools for too long is the main reason these fines are being introduced though.

As daily cycling commuter I can't wait to see people getting caught and hopefully learning from the fine. Hopefully some of the Gardaí patrolling cyclists may also issue penalty points for motoring offences that impede cyclists. Like the guy parked on the cycle lane near John of Gods (N11) yesterday evening blocking the entire lane forcing cyclists to dismount.

rubadub · 29-07-2015 2:49pm

Skrynesaver wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/626350827679170560

is this quote below true

spindrift ‏@edspindrift 2h2 hours ago

The only official guidance is riders doing 18mph shd use road.

tomasrojo · 29-07-2015 2:55pm

Deedsie wrote: »

Hopefully some of the Gardaí patrolling cyclists may also issue penalty points for motoring offences that impede cyclists.

This is not going to happen. See the Garda Traffic tweets on #FreeTheCycleLanes

HivemindXX · 29-07-2015 3:04pm

jon1981 wrote: »

Maybe it's in this thread ( it's quite large now and haven't read back). But are there statistics (# of accidents due to cycling on the path, breaking lights...etc.) to support the need to introduce these fines?

There doesn't need to have been any accidents to justify this. There are fines for all sorts of things like littering and illegal parking that aren't primarily safety issues.

It wouldn't matter if no pedestrian had every been hit by a cyclist on the footpath or no crash had ever been caused by a cyclist going through a red light. Any time a car has had to slam on the brakes to avoid a cyclist breaking the lights or a pedestrian has had to step out of the way to avoid being hit by a cyclist bombing along the footpath is a justification for this. Of course these things have been illegal for a very long time, all this is doing is making it more feasible to punish offenders.

Of course it is a fact that accidents have been caused by cyclists committing these offences so the real question is how many does there have to be to justify this? At what point are there so few that you throw your hands in the air and say let's not even bother.

Zillah · 29-07-2015 3:50pm

HivemindXX wrote: »

It wouldn't matter if no pedestrian had every been hit by a cyclist on the footpath or no crash had ever been caused by a cyclist going through a red light. Any time a car has had to slam on the brakes to avoid a cyclist breaking the lights or a pedestrian has had to step out of the way to avoid being hit by a cyclist bombing along the footpath is a justification for this. Of course these things have been illegal for a very long time, all this is doing is making it more feasible to punish offenders.

People have disproportionate reactions to these things, however, because they've been convinced by the strident screaming of others that it is a safety issue. If everyone thought this was just a question of rudeness we wouldn't see anything like the level of bile we see from anti-cyclists.

magicbastarder · 29-07-2015 4:49pm

lgk wrote: »

Think you've missed my point, maybe I wasn't clear enough. It's the jumping to the conclusion that everyone who takes on something that another group considers dangerous are reckless is exactly the thought process that goes on among non-cyclists who think wrapping us in high-vis etc., is the only way to keep us safe.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of stupid people who do that walk who have no place on a mountain in any conditions, but let's not encourage more nanny state legislation by lumping everyone who does so as reckless.

there's a hell of a difference between undertaking a risky activity, such as base jumping from croagh patrick on a sunny day, and a risky activity, such as climbing croagh patrick in stormy weather.
the difference i'm thinking of obviously is the extra danger you are potentially placing any potential rescuers in, if you find yourself in trouble.

Mossy · 30-07-2015 10:34am

rubadub wrote: »

is this quote below true

spindrift ‏@edspindrift 2h2 hours ago

The only official guidance is riders doing 18mph shd use road.

This is a reference to the link in this tweet

That web page lists a suggested code of conduct for cyclists by the UK's Department of Transport, including the suggestion that you should use the road if you want to cycle quickly (e.g. over 18mph).

So not a legal requirement in the country in which it is suggested, and not (apparently) suggested by the Gardai, RSA or any such body in Ireland.