Fixed Penalty Notices for Cycling by end of year

Darkglasses · 18-07-2013 7:47pm

teddyhead wrote: »

This isnt fair at all. Grand if you live in Dublin , where some provision is made for cyclists but here in Limerick city , there are hardly any credible cycle lanes. This piecemeal,populist approach is an insult to cyclists. If councils are negligent in their duties to cyclists , then they cant complain when cyclists are forced to improvise.

I don't understand, are you saying cyclists should be allowed to jump lights and ride on pavements in towns/cities where there are no cycle lanes?

elfy4eva · 18-07-2013 7:48pm

I don't know how I feel about this,
While I'm comfortable cycling on main roads
I wouldn't expect a 60 year old awl
one with her shopping basket bike to
take to a main road. I'd be of the opinion
that where there are no suitable cycle lanes
a cyclist should at least be able to ride
slowly on a pavement. I mean where do we
draw the line.

I can see this leading to more road deaths.

MajesticDonkey · 18-07-2013 7:49pm

I thought it was always illegal to cycle on footpaths, no?

Darkglasses · 18-07-2013 7:53pm

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

I thought it was always illegal to cycle on footpaths, no?

Yes, it was. This thread is going to have copious amounts of fail, I can tell...And it's not even Friday yet.

CramCycle · 18-07-2013 7:55pm

elfy4eva wrote: »

I wouldn't expect a 60 year old awl
one with her shopping basket bike to
take to a main road.

Why not?

I can see this leading to more road deaths.

I am not sure if you are sarcastic or serious here?

elfy4eva · 18-07-2013 8:10pm

CramCycle wrote: »

Why not?

Because even I at the best of times find road cycling intimidating. Even the most experienced cyclists are vulnerable on roads. Many drivers have absolutely no time or respect for cyclists (an opinion which has been voiced many times on this forum)

CramCycle wrote: »

I am not sure if you are sarcastic or serious here?

Why wouldn't this be serious, this legislation will undoubtedly lead to more bad cyclists on the roads and therefore more accidents leading to deaths.

EDIT: On reflection of what I said above I agree that the pavement is no place for a cyclist personally i would rather see those who cycle poorly not cycle at all. However I would rather see somebody who cycles poorly cycling on the pavement than the roads.

Hmmzis · 18-07-2013 8:19pm

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

I thought it was always illegal to cycle on footpaths, no?

Yup, and I'm still trying understand what the fuss about is.

Guards will have more time to enforce the already existing laws, courts will not be clogged with these minor offences and we might see a bit less chaos in the city centres.

The overtaking one is a bit baffling though. The more I think of it the less I understand it, it's just way too broad to be properly interpreted.

beauf · 18-07-2013 8:24pm

Usual token gesture that will be forgotten in a few weeks.

beauf · 18-07-2013 8:29pm

Why wouldn't this be serious, this legislation will undoubtedly lead to more bad cyclists on the roads and therefore more accidents leading to deaths.

Actually research indicates that it's safer the more cyclists there are. Safety in numbers.

There's very few cycling deaths in Ireland. So I don't think you've done any research into the subject at all.

bambergbike · 18-07-2013 8:33pm

Hmmzis wrote: »

The overtaking one is a bit baffling though. The more I think of it the less I understand it, it's just way too broad to be properly interpreted.

I'm baffled too, no idea what that one is supposed to be about.

Strangely enough, the plans sounded a bit more logical and better thought out in January than they do now. The report on sticky bottle mentioned plans for fixed penalty notices for not having lights and wrong-way cycling.

elfy4eva · 18-07-2013 8:34pm

beauf wrote: »

Actually research indicates that it's safer the more cyclists there are. Safety in numbers.

There's very few cycling deaths in Ireland. So I don't think you've done any research into the subject at all.

You are 100% correct I have not done any research into cycling statistics I am saying what comes to me as common sense. However I would relish the chance to read over the research you have done that concludes "forcing crap cyclists on the roads makes roads safer."

TheChizler · 18-07-2013 8:39pm

elfy4eva wrote: »

"forcing crap cyclists on the roads makes roads safer."

Maybe 'crap' cyclists just shouldn't be cycling? Same as with cars, if you're intimidated on the roads (and you're not just learning or recovering from a shock or something) you probably should seek an alternate form of transport.

teddyhead · 18-07-2013 8:41pm

Darkglasses wrote: »

I don't understand, are you saying cyclists should be allowed to jump lights and ride on pavements in towns/cities where there are no cycle lanes?

Certainly should be allowed jump red lights when safe.
For instance when taking a left turn. Its more sensible that cyclists get ahead of the traffic ,instead of waiting for the truck beside you to go left at the exact same time as you do.

teddyhead · 18-07-2013 8:42pm

TheChizler wrote: »

Maybe 'crap' cyclists just shouldn't be cycling? Same as with cars, if you're intimidated on the roads (and you're not just learning or recovering from a shock or something) you probably should seek an alternate form of transport.

Maybe we should aim for a more inclusive transport system , not one soley designed for motorized transport.

Scuba_Scoper · 18-07-2013 8:45pm

Hmmzis wrote: »

The overtaking one is a bit baffling though. The more I think of it the less I understand it, it's just way too broad to be properly interpreted.

In a word (or two), 'inappropriate' filtering will be a fineable offence. Weaving in and out of traffic or passing between lanes of stationary traffic at too high a speed will give the 'member' appropriate leeway to give you at, the very least a dressing down. IMO

TheChizler · 18-07-2013 8:46pm

teddyhead wrote: »

Maybe we should aim for a more inclusive transport system , not one soley designed for motorized transport.

Absolutely. Meanwhile, saying it's ok for terrible cyclists to break the law because they're terrible cyclists isn't an effective argument.

Scuba_Scoper · 18-07-2013 8:47pm

TheChizler wrote: »

Maybe 'crap' cyclists just shouldn't be cycling?

Sure there would be no one left to race A4 then :pac:

bambergbike · 18-07-2013 9:01pm

The Irish Times has it now, too.

DirkVoodoo · 18-07-2013 9:29pm

Scuba_Scoper wrote: »

In a word (or two), 'inappropriate' filtering will be a fineable offence. Weaving in and out of traffic or passing between lanes of stationary traffic at too high a speed will give the 'member' appropriate leeway to give you at, the very least a dressing down. IMO

Again, subjective. A speed one person might feel comfortable moving through traffic at might appear fast to a Garda but might not be too fast a speed for the cyclist, depending on their skill.

If you get knocked off in stationary traffic, this more than likely is not down to speed, it's probably because a driver has decided they want to change lanes and what better way to do that other than pull the steering wheel all the way over and nudge your bumper into the other lane.

As I mentioned above, this "fine" in this instance seems to excuse dangerous driving. If I filter through traffic at 20 km/hr or 10 km/hr, it's not that much different if someone can't check mirrors and indicate. Anyone who says "well don't filter" doesn't understand why someone would choose to ride a bike and if it came down to that, I'd probably drive.

robertxxx · 18-07-2013 9:38pm

It must of being a slow news day for this sh1t to come out.

robertxxx · 18-07-2013 9:44pm

I for one will not obey any new future law.

I will cycle my way to keep ME safe and i will break lights when I think it's safer to do so, rather than wait to be engulfed be F1 wannabes.

worded · 18-07-2013 9:50pm

Proper order that these lawless cyclists ilegally flouting the law will be taken to task. Jail is too good for them, string them up likes sides of beef!

I've seen on countless occasions how they seem very happy and content as they cruise effortlessly around.

The amount of tomfoolery and riding that's going on this summer !

Look at these reckless feckers on this footage

http://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/ninan-doff-a-professional-display-of-no-handed-bike-moves

robertxxx · 18-07-2013 9:55pm

I say lets smash every car and bus window on the quays, that will teach them feckers.

Scuba_Scoper · 18-07-2013 9:59pm

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Again, subjective.

While I totally agree with the rest of your post the quoted text is the most relevant to the discussion.

But if in the eyes of the member you are overtaking dangerously (which will probably be loosely defined, if at all) the fine hammer will come out.

Oh and to the pro rider in last years Tour Of Meath jersey who nearly rear ended me at the Yellow House at 6:30pm this evening while I sat patiently at the red light - f*ck you very much

kenmc · 18-07-2013 10:04pm

Scuba_Scoper wrote: »

Oh and to the pro rider in last years Tour Of Meath jersey who nearly rear ended me at the Yellow House at 6:30pm this evening while I sat patiently at the red light - f*ck you very much

How do you know s/he was a pro?

Scuba_Scoper · 18-07-2013 10:07pm

kenmc wrote: »

How do you know s/he was a pro?

the socks - can always tell by the socks;)

worded · 18-07-2013 10:10pm

Well this is where the guberment gets their money back for the tax relief on bike to work scheme. Get people to buy 1000s of bikes and then hit them with fines years later when there are enough numbers.

Welcome to the "safety cameras" money spinner version for bikes. Motorists along with cyclists can take be screwed and shot like fish in a barrel.

I still think cyclist have too much fun and we can't be having that.

You've drink taken ! Step out of the vehicle

cdaly_ · 18-07-2013 10:12pm

teddyhead wrote: »

Certainly should be allowed jump red lights when safe.
For instance when taking a left turn. Its more sensible that cyclists get ahead of the traffic ,instead of waiting for the truck beside you to go left at the exact same time as you do.

Or you could, like, wait behind the left turning truck and go when the light changes to green...

cdaly_ · 18-07-2013 10:14pm

robertxxx wrote: »

I for one will not obey any new future law.

Well, how about you obey existing laws? You know, like the one that says you must stop at a red light or the one that says you may not cycle on a footpath?

Spook_ie · 18-07-2013 10:27pm

creativedrinker wrote: »

What i ment was theres no reason to overtake a cyclist and then slow down and pull in infront of said cyclist, just a retarded idea, and when overtaking, if its a bus or truck and they have the space which they always do they can afford to move out more, if their travelling at 80km/hr theres a fair amount of displacement of air if their right beside you. I did my test for the D1 licence for busses and coaches and my instructor clearly stated when overtaking to keep a good distance out because the air displacement off such a large veicle can knock a cyclist off course.

And if a cyclist is travelling at 10 m/s 36 Kph and is overtaken by a vehicle 15 m/s 54 Kph that slows to turn then it will take approx. 100/(15-10) or ~20 seconds for them to meet again, more than sufficent time and distance to complete the manouvre, even if for some reason the vehicle fails to complete the turn due to some unforseen obstacle such as a pedestrian crossing you still have ample time to take independant action

Spook_ie · 18-07-2013 10:29pm

monument wrote: »

Nobody is looking for 100ms on front of them to be kept clear. But overtaking cyclists just to pull in a short distance in front of them is daftness.

For some cyclists, 100ms is a very short distance. For example: Sometimes many cyclists can easily hit 30-40km/h.

Even at 35km/h, 100ms is traveled in ~10 seconds. A car -- even traveling at above 35km/h -- which is overtaking a cyclists just to pull in 100ms ahead will have to slow down when turning.

You do the math on that one.

I did

kenmc · 18-07-2013 10:37pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

And if a cyclist is travelling at 10 m/s 36 Kph and is overtaken by a vehicle 15 m/s 54 Kph that slows to turn then it will take approx. 100/(15-10) or ~20 seconds for them to meet again, more than sufficent time and distance to complete the manouvre, even if for some reason the vehicle fails to complete the turn due to some unforseen obstacle such as a pedestrian crossing you still have ample time to take independant action

Wrong, the cyclist will cover the 100m in 10 seconds if they are travelling at 10m/s. As soon as the vehicles speed drops below that of the cyclist, the begin to converge. The earlier the vehicle brakes, the earlier they will converge, so it will be less than 10 seconds.

Scuba_Scoper · 18-07-2013 10:38pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

I did

poorly....
go back and recalculate with the vehicle slowing down at a constant rate of deceleration to take a left handed turn at 15km/h. within 75 meters of travel.
you can keep your initial speeds and the turn is coming up in 100m

Interested in hearing your findings.;)

ps In the majority of urban areas, you do realise, your vehicle is breaking the speed limit m'kay

Hmmzis · 18-07-2013 11:08pm

Scuba_Scoper wrote: »

In a word (or two), 'inappropriate' filtering will be a fineable offence. Weaving in and out of traffic or passing between lanes of stationary traffic at too high a speed will give the 'member' appropriate leeway to give you at, the very least a dressing down. IMO

It's still too broad to call anything on it.

'Inappropriate filtering' - what's the definition of that in the regulations, is there a definition for that? If not, who is going to decide if a particular filtering attempt was appropriate or not and what basis could that possibly be decided? It would need a judge and a court to establish a good set of precedence cases at the very least. Also, that would have most likely a consequence to motorbikers, since a 250-350kg impactor with some protection is far more damaging to a car than a 90-100kg impactor with no protection.

'too high a speed' - again, what's that for a pushbike. The current speed limits aren't even applicable to pushbikes.

If a fine is to be introduced, then it has to be for a fairly clear cut offence, like the red light jumping and footpath cycling. Very little to argue there, it's either you're on the path or not and it's either you went through the red or not.

Darkglasses · 19-07-2013 12:13am

http://www.dttas.ie/pressRelease.aspx?Id=815

Note - No mention of unsafe overtaking in this press release. Rather, the third offense is listed as "Failure to yield right of way at a ‘Yield’ sign."

teddyhead · 19-07-2013 12:16am

cdaly_ wrote: »

Or you could, like, wait behind the left turning truck and go when the light changes to green...

Not if,like, the truck/van comes along beside you.

CramCycle · 19-07-2013 12:20am

elfy4eva wrote: »

Because even I at the best of times find road cycling intimidating. Even the most experienced cyclists are vulnerable on roads. Many drivers have absolutely no time or respect for cyclists (an opinion which has been voiced many times on this forum)

But thats not really something a cyclists should be punished for. Its like someone beeping me for doing the speed limit, its asshat behaviour, its not my fault, if they don't have time (ill prepared) or respect (lack of decency IMO) then they should be forced of the roads by the AGS, not me.

Why wouldn't this be serious, this legislation will undoubtedly lead to more bad cyclists on the roads and therefore more accidents leading to deaths.

Nope, i'd rather a bad cyclists on the road where they won't hurt a pedestrian. They won't learn skill or manners by staying on the footpath.

monument · 19-07-2013 12:49am

Spook_ie wrote: »

And if a cyclist is travelling at 10 m/s 36 Kph and is overtaken by a vehicle 15 m/s 54 Kph that slows to turn then it will take approx. 100/(15-10) or ~20 seconds for them to meet again, more than sufficent time and distance to complete the manouvre, even if for some reason the vehicle fails to complete the turn due to some unforseen obstacle such as a pedestrian crossing you still have ample time to take independant action

Doing a consistent 54km/h before the last second and slamming on the breaks and turning in? Is it a taxi being flagged down or what?

Even at that, there about three seconds for the cyclist to react before the turn, and even less time again if anything blocks the turn - that's a dangerous over take!

If you're trying to make out the cyclist needs to jam on the breaks directly after the overtake, that again is a dangerous over.

steamengine · 19-07-2013 9:25am

Potatoeman wrote: »

I would agree in busy areas but without cyclelanes or proper facilities its what people will do. A few uninterupted cycle lanes would help too. People will go out of their way for a decent one the problem for many are the disappearing ones. Even those that are good have spots where they disappear.
The lane from Fairview to Clontarf on the path disappears and if you go on the cyclelane on the road you are heading directly into traffic on the wrong side of the road. Its a short distance but forces the cyclist onto the footpath.

Further along in the Howth direction, the cycle lane is intermittently obstructed with parked cars from the Bull Bridge to the end of Mount Prospect Avenue. Because of this I often cycle on the opposite footpath, either slowing up or stopping when passing pedestrians. What is the story here ? - I take it it's as illegal for cars to be parked on cycle lanes as it is to be cycling on footpaths.

kenmc · 19-07-2013 9:29am

steamengine wrote: »

Further along in the Howth direction, the cycle lane is intermittently obstructed with parked cars from the Bull Bridge to the end of Mount Prospect Avenue. Because of this I often cycle on the opposite footpath, either slowing up or stopping when passing pedestrians. What is the story here ? - I take it it's as illegal for cars to be parked on cycle lanes as it is to be cycling on footpaths.

Depends on the cycle lane. you always have the option of the road. you never have the option of the path. it's really very very simple.

bren2001 · 19-07-2013 9:36am

steamengine wrote: »

Further along in the Howth direction, the cycle lane is intermittently obstructed with parked cars from the Bull Bridge to the end of Mount Prospect Avenue. Because of this I often cycle on the opposite footpath, either slowing up or stopping when passing pedestrians. What is the story here ? - I take it it's as illegal for cars to be parked on cycle lanes as it is to be cycling on footpaths.

Just because they broke the law doesn't give you the right too. Two wrongs don't make a right, an eye for an eye..... etc.

No Pants · 19-07-2013 10:38am

steamengine wrote: »

Further along in the Howth direction, the cycle lane is intermittently obstructed with parked cars from the Bull Bridge to the end of Mount Prospect Avenue. Because of this I often cycle on the opposite footpath, either slowing up or stopping when passing pedestrians. What is the story here ? - I take it it's as illegal for cars to be parked on cycle lanes as it is to be cycling on footpaths.

Check over shoulder, signal and overtake. Most drivers will see the obstruction coming and will leave room for you to manoeuvre.

steamengine · 19-07-2013 10:39am

bren2001 wrote: »

Just because they broke the law doesn't give you the right too. Two wrongs don't make a right, an eye for an eye..... etc.

I am aware of that, but let's see the two wrongs sorted simultaneously. A cycle lane continuously blocked by cars is pretty useless, especially on the Clontarf Road with its consistent stream of 60 kph traffic.

kenmc wrote: »

Depends on the cycle lane. you always have the option of the road. you never have the option of the path. it's really very very simple.

Fair enough but let's see the motorists option of parking on cycle lanes removed also, as part of the enforcement against cyclists. Simples too, one would think.

BrianHenryIE · 19-07-2013 10:45am

teddyhead wrote: »

Certainly should be allowed jump red lights when safe.
For instance when taking a left turn. Its more sensible that cyclists get ahead of the traffic ,instead of waiting for the truck beside you to go left at the exact same time as you do.

Couldn't agree more. When I'm cycling in town and am stopped at a red light with loads of traffic around me, I'll always skip the red light when it's possible so I can pick up some speed safely and be visible to all the traffic going my way. I particularly notice this going from Tara Street to Amiens Street where the road markings are sparse and traffic is fast.

Red lights are there for cars not bicycles. I treat them as yield signs.

RobertFoster · 19-07-2013 10:46am

steamengine wrote: »

I am aware of that, but let's see the two wrongs sorted simultaneously. A cycle lane continuously blocked by cars is pretty useless, especially on the Clontarf Road with its consistent stream of 60 kph traffic.

Fair enough but let's see the motorists option of parking on cycle lanes removed also, as part of the enforcement against cyclists. Simples too, one would think.

Aren't the people who park there living there?

steamengine · 19-07-2013 10:50am

No Pants wrote: »

Check over shoulder, signal and overtake. Most drivers will see the obstruction coming and will leave room for you to manoeuvre.

On that particular stretch, because of the frequency of the car parking, it is actually best to stay out on the road leaving an 'open car doors distance' to ensure an adequate safety margin. A safe cycle lane is only a few metres away and can't be used.

kenmc · 19-07-2013 10:58am

steamengine wrote: »

On that particular stretch, because of the frequency of the car parking, it is actually best to stay out on the road leaving an 'open car doors distance' to ensure an adequate safety margin. A safe cycle lane is only a few metres away and can't be used.

Well you certainly seem to know exactly how you should cycle that stretch, so all's well that ends well.

steamengine · 19-07-2013 11:20am

RobertFoster wrote: »

Aren't the people who park there living there?

Possibly so, and I see it from their point of view too, but that begs the question should the pretence of a cycle lane be allowed to continue on, if it can't be used other than in an intermittent fashion. Either have a relatively clear cycle lane at that point or none at all. That would clear up the confusion.

steamengine · 19-07-2013 11:33am

kenmc wrote: »

Well you certainly seem to know exactly how you should cycle that stretch, so all's well that ends well.

I've done it a few times and learned the meaning of a 'close shave' hence the footpath option. Illegal it might be but in the light of dodgy cycle lanes masquerading as proper cycle lanes then that's a reasonable choice to make in my book.

Chips Lovell · 19-07-2013 11:37am

I'm always amazed at these people who claim they need to break lights and cycle on the footpath in order to cycle safely.

Fixed Penalty Notices for Cycling by end of year

Comments