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

Jawgap · 06-01-2015 4:38pm

CramCycle wrote: »

Gardai have the right to seize your bicycle if they do not believe the identity you provide and can hold it until such time as someone with the identity you provided proves it. Hardly worth the effort for a 50euro fine, although hopefully it will make it not worth breaking the law that gets you the fine.

All they have to do is do what they do with cars.......offer the contract to store the bikes out, retain a contractor then when the delinquent cyclists have to trail out to the Naas Road or the back of the airport they pay the storage fees to get the bike back - which, I would suggest, would be considerably more than 50 notes if you leave it there for more than a single night.

dante2015 · 06-01-2015 4:39pm

Beasty wrote: »

Source?
Seriously - don't come on here quoting random numbers to try and make a point - it only make you look like a troll

let me guess a cyclist that hates pedestrians and motorists

ok maybe 80% was the wrong thing to say, but i am getting sick of being run down everytime i cross the road and if i do stop or deliberately walk slower then i am the idiot or the bad guy

tunney · 06-01-2015 4:39pm

dante2015 wrote: »

can we fine them for wearing lycra that shows everything

that should be banned

I sense an over-sensitive fattie?

Jawgap · 06-01-2015 4:40pm

dante2015 wrote: »

let me guess a cyclist that hates pedestrians and motorists

ok maybe 80% was the wrong thing to say, but i am getting sick of being run down everytime i cross the road and if i do stop or deliberately walk slower then i am the idiot or the bad guy

you get run down *every* time you cross the road........?

Grandpa Hassan · 06-01-2015 4:41pm

dante2015 wrote: »

let me guess a cyclist that hates pedestrians and motorists

ok maybe 80% was the wrong thing to say, but i am getting sick of being run down everytime i cross the road and if i do stop or deliberately walk slower then i am the idiot or the bad guy

Every time?

Pinch Flat · 06-01-2015 4:43pm

I dunno I think of myself as a bit of a rogue anyway - just a law abiding one.

I quite like the idea of chipping cyclists anyway - would be dead handy if any one gets dropped or had a mechanical on a group spin - quick check of the GPS and hey presto. Woulld save a fortune on mobile phone calls - in addition to dispensing with the need for a broom wagon (do you have to pay "road tax" on them, btw)

tunney · 06-01-2015 4:45pm

dante2015 wrote: »

let me guess a cyclist that hates pedestrians and motorists

ok maybe 80% was the wrong thing to say, but i am getting sick of being run down everytime i cross the road and if i do stop or deliberately walk slower then i am the idiot or the bad guy

Do you look left, then right then left again? Or just step out munching a muffin while listening to music and playing with your phone?

bazermc · 06-01-2015 4:51pm

This thread is heading for locked status faster than I thought

MayoAreMagic · 06-01-2015 4:56pm

seamus wrote: »

Intellectual honesty would dictate that if high-vis were to be required for cyclists, then only white, yellow, or gold cars should be legally allowed on the roads.

If every cyclist had as many lights on them as a car does then I would have no problem with them wearing completely black attire. But, then intellectual honesty would dictate that they don't, and the fact that there is a requirement in the pipeline for them to wear high-visibility clothing, suggests that there is in fact an issue with visibility and cyclists that needs addressing.

As for people upset with being told what to wear, do they take the same approach when told to wear a seatbelt? That is basically what they are doing here. I don't think the excuse of 'I like to wear suitable clothes for where I am going' would cut it as an excuse for not wearing a seatbelt, so it shouldn't here either.

The real stat that jumps out at me is one that hasn't been broached - there was a big increase in road accidents and deaths in the last year. People need to drop this victim mentality and smarten up.

daragh_ · 06-01-2015 5:00pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

The real stat that jumps out at me is one that hasn't been broached - there was a big increase in road accidents and deaths in the last year. People need to drop this victim mentality and smarten up.

Maybe the sensible thing would be to look at the causes of those deaths? Cyclist behaviour? Driver Behaviour? Dodgy infrastructure?

Have any info on how hi-viz (or lack of) was a significant factor in those fatalities?

Deedsie · 06-01-2015 5:02pm

ted1 wrote: »

The foot path is the cycle lane. Seriously where do cyclists cycle on the footpath on the N11. I use it twice s day and have never seen a cyclists on the path outside the cycle lane

You have never seen anyone cycle on the footpath along the N11? I cycle it daily and I don't remember a time I didn't see it. The footpath near the traffic lights along Leeson street upper near Appian way on the way in every morning. Skipping the traffic lights and between there and donnybrook on the footpath every evening on the way home. Rampant with people breaking lights, dangerous cycling all the way in. God bless the bad weather days when they get the bus.

Chips Lovell · 06-01-2015 5:02pm

Cyclists, like cars, are required to have lights.

High viz clothing is a poor alternative to adequate lights.

tomasrojo · 06-01-2015 5:02pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

the fact that there is a requirement in the pipeline for them to wear high-visibility clothing

There isn't.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

The real stat that jumps out at me is one that hasn't been broached - there was a big increase in road accidents and deaths in the last year. People need to drop this victim mentality and smarten up.

Did rates of hiviz wearing drop on the previous year?

tunney · 06-01-2015 5:06pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

If every cyclist had as many lights on them as a car does then I would have no problem with them wearing completely black attire. But, then intellectual honesty would dictate that they don't, and the fact that there is a requirement in the pipeline for them to wear high-visibility clothing, suggests that there is in fact an issue with visibility and cyclists that needs addressing.

As for people upset with being told what to wear, do they take the same approach when told to wear a seatbelt? That is basically what they are doing here. I don't think the excuse of 'I like to wear suitable clothes for where I am going' would cut it as an excuse for not wearing a seatbelt, so it shouldn't here either.

The real stat that jumps out at me is one that hasn't been broached - there was a big increase in road accidents and deaths in the last year. People need to drop this victim mentality and smarten up.

I tried an experiment for a month. I rode with
* Exposure max-daddy light (2000 lumen)
* Exposure strada (1000 lumen)
* Exposure joystick (250 lumen)
* Exposure whitelight add on(250 lumen)
* Three cateye flashing LEDS (normal commuter lights)
* Hi viz jacket

It had no impact on the frequency of incidents in darkness. Still the same number of apologies "didn't see you there". And the motorists weren't lying. They didn't see me. Because they didn't look.

Deedsie · 06-01-2015 5:07pm

Every single thread on cyclists taking responsibility for themselves is just destroyed by constant deflection and whataboutery from overly defensive posters.

Jawgap · 06-01-2015 5:07pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

If every cyclist had as many lights on them as a car does then I would have no problem with them wearing completely black attire. But, then intellectual honesty would dictate that they don't, and the fact that there is a requirement in the pipeline for them to wear high-visibility clothing, suggests that there is in fact an issue with visibility and cyclists that needs addressing.

No it suggests there is an issue with perception of the problem. Trinity have done some research on this and it seems less experienced cyclists are more likely to put their faith in safety aids. Whereas, experience teaches you that your behaviour on the road is the biggest determinant of whether you are going to get squished - now we can accept the evidence from studies like the one done by Trinity or we can continue to base policy on subjective judgments framed by people with limited experience of cycling, but extensive experience of seeing cyclists.....

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

As for people upset with being told what to wear, do they take the same approach when told to wear a seatbelt? That is basically what they are doing here. I don't think the excuse of 'I like to wear suitable clothes for where I am going' would cut it as an excuse for not wearing a seatbelt, so it shouldn't here either.

There's no comparison between a safety belt, which is an engineering solution to a safety problem and hi-viz which is, at best, PPE - are you actually suggesting that hi-viz is as effective in preventing injuries as a properly worn seatbelt! It might prevent a bit of road rash, but that's about it!

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

The real stat that jumps out at me is one that hasn't been broached - there was a big increase in road accidents and deaths in the last year. People need to drop this victim mentality and smarten up.

Given the recent explosion in cycling, this just demonstrates that the media don't understand statistics, risk and probabilities.

I don't believe people advocating the uselessness of hi-viz in the context of cyclist safety are engaging in a victim mentality - quite the opposite, actually.

lennymc · 06-01-2015 5:09pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

there was a big increase in road accidents and deaths in the last year.

maybe the answer is to ban all road users EXCEPT for cyclists...

tomasrojo · 06-01-2015 5:09pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

As for people upset with being told what to wear, do they take the same approach when told to wear a seatbelt? That is basically what they are doing here. I don't think the excuse of 'I like to wear suitable clothes for where I am going' would cut it as an excuse for not wearing a seatbelt, so it shouldn't here either.

How would a seat belt hamper the wearing of any normal clothing, formal or otherwise?

(What is New Latin for seat belt? I need a reductio ad Hitlerum coinage here.)

tunney · 06-01-2015 5:11pm

lennymc wrote: »

maybe the answer is to ban all road users EXCEPT for cyclists...

Thats what they have done in Amsterdam.

Albeit on a separate, complete, comprehensive, usable road network.

Lumen · 06-01-2015 5:12pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

How would a seat belt hamper the wearing of any normal clothing, formal or otherwise?

(What is New Latin for seat belt? I need a reductio ad Hitlerum coinage here.)

I never wear a seatbelt because it scuffs my epaulettes.

Jawgap · 06-01-2015 5:12pm

lennymc wrote: »

maybe the answer is to ban all road users EXCEPT for cyclists...

Your optimism that cyclists won't crash into each other is to be commended

dante2015 · 06-01-2015 5:13pm

tunney wrote: »

Do you look left, then right then left again? Or just step out munching a muffin while listening to music and playing with your phone?

yes i do look left and right, no i dont listen to music on the way to or from work and i dont like muffins

MayoAreMagic · 06-01-2015 5:13pm

daragh_ wrote: »

Maybe the sensible thing would be to look at the causes of those deaths? Cyclist behaviour? Driver Behaviour? Dodgy infrastructure?

Have any info on how hi-viz (or lack of) was a significant factor in those fatalities?

Are you trying to suggest that the massive rise in cyclists and more specifically, dangerous cycling, hasn't led to an increase in accidents? Dangerous driving does, so why wouldn't dangerous cycling? Apparently intellectual honesty can only be applied one way...

I for one don't go for this 'them v us' mentality that is so apparent here. The bottom line is all road users need to follow rules designed for the welfare of both themselves and other road users. Anyone breaking them should be punished. This is simply trying to do that and how people can take such issue with that is beyond me.

Another thing to realise is this, some are saying that they wont be able to do A,B or C from now on if these rules come in. So walk, drive or take the bus. You are not joined at the hip to your bike and if it isn't suitable then use another mode of transport. The same goes with a guy taking his car on unsuitable journeys. In other words, wise up, there is no war to fight here.

tomasrojo · 06-01-2015 5:16pm

Again, we have no certainty that any new rules are coming in. Just new ways of enforcing existing ones.

Jawgap · 06-01-2015 5:18pm

dante2015 wrote: »

yes i do look left and right, no i dont listen to music on the way to or from work and i dont like muffins

.....and yet you still get hit EVERY time.......

Jawgap · 06-01-2015 5:20pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Are you trying to suggest that the massive rise in cyclists and more specifically, dangerous cycling, hasn't led to an increase in accidents? Dangerous driving does, so why wouldn't dangerous cycling? Apparently intellectual honesty can only be applied one way...

I for one don't go for this 'them v us' mentality that is so apparent here. The bottom line is all road users need to follow rules designed for the welfare of both themselves and other road users. Anyone breaking them should be punished. This is simply trying to do that and how people can take such issue with that is beyond me.

Another thing to realise is this, some are saying that they wont be able to do A,B or C from now on if these rules come in. So walk, drive or take the bus. You are not joined at the hip to your bike and if it isn't suitable then use another mode of transport. The same goes with a guy taking his car on unsuitable journeys. In other words, wise up, there is no war to fight here.

I don't think anyone is suggesting there is......

.....plus I'm not sure anyone has suggested that this change in how the laws are enforced (it's not really a change in the laws that govern the use of the road by cyclists) will affect anyone's ability to use or not use their bikes?

tomasrojo · 06-01-2015 5:21pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Are you trying to suggest that the massive rise in cyclists and more specifically, dangerous cycling, hasn't led to an increase in accidents? Dangerous driving does, so why wouldn't dangerous cycling? Apparently intellectual honesty can only be applied one way...

2013 had extremely low rates of cycling fatalities, despite a very large proportional rise in people cycling. What's your explanation for that? Remember your oath to intellectual honesty before you start typing.

Pinch Flat · 06-01-2015 5:22pm

Deedsie wrote: »

Every single thread on cyclists taking responsibility for themselves is just destroyed by constant deflection and whataboutery from overly defensive posters.

Have you ever cycled regularly? Please share your experiences, positive or otherwise.

For me cycling is an overwhelmingly positive experience. The down sides of the odd negative interaction do not in anyway out weigh the positives.

MayoAreMagic · 06-01-2015 5:27pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

How would a seat belt hamper the wearing of any normal clothing, formal or otherwise?

(What is New Latin for seat belt? I need a reductio ad Hitlerum coinage here.)

Id ask the same about a high-viz vest actually. Surely it could be stored on the bike in the interim? Similarly, Id wonder how someone needing to wear specific attire could be cycling anywhere in the first place as regards rain, grease, dirt and sweat. I don't see many lads cycling down the road in a tux, do you? But apparently it hampers normal attire, so in the same fashion, maybe there is some fool out there that thinks they don't need to wear a seatbelt in case it creases their suitjacket like there is some fool who thinks a high viz vest it will have some untoward effect on their outfit that the sweat they are excreting wont have far surpassed...

Qualitymark · 06-01-2015 5:28pm

Unless on-the-spot fines are introduced for both cyclists and drivers for going through lights, failing to have proper lighting and other unsafe behaviour, this isn't going to work.
I'm all for hi-viz; nearly mowed down a child yesterday who was cycling quietly along in the dusk dressed all in black, coming the opposite way along a cycle lane. Luckily he saw me lit up and dressed as a Christmas tree and returned to his side. I just hadn't seen him - he merged into the shadows. If he'd had hi-viz he'd have been hi-ly viz-ible.

tunney · 06-01-2015 5:30pm

What about very very dirty hi-viz?

tomasrojo · 06-01-2015 5:33pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

I don't see many lads cycling down the road in a tux, do you?

You have never been to the Netherlands then. You can see women in ball gowns and high heels cycling.

You can't leave anything on the bike without it being nicked eventually.

How do you propose the bike share scheme would work once this mandatory hiviz business started? Hiviz vending machines? The dublinbike flatbed trucks dropping off loads of hiviz every few hours to replace free hiviz that's been stolen?

rushfan · 06-01-2015 5:33pm

ford2600 wrote:

In early days of free state and up to increased car numbers, Gardai, especially in country areas, spent a lot of time and effort enforcing the absence of bike lights(when they were expensive and useless).

Who was expensive? Gardai or bike lights? ??

Chips Lovell · 06-01-2015 5:34pm

The main issue with mandatory high-viz is not that it's impractical. It's that it's unnecessary.

morana · 06-01-2015 5:38pm

Qualitymark wrote: »

Unless on-the-spot fines are introduced for both cyclists and drivers for going through lights, failing to have proper lighting and other unsafe behaviour, this isn't going to work.
I'm all for hi-viz; nearly mowed down a child yesterday who was cycling quietly along in the dusk dressed all in black, coming the opposite way along a cycle lane. Luckily he saw me lit up and dressed as a Christmas tree and returned to his side. I just hadn't seen him - he merged into the shadows. If he'd had hi-viz he'd have been hi-ly viz-ible.

I doubt it mate! you werent paying attention! http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/jan/10/cycling-high-visibility-safe-fluorescent

MayoAreMagic · 06-01-2015 5:38pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

2013 had extremely low rates of cycling fatalities, despite a very large proportional rise in people cycling. What's your explanation for that? Remember your oath to intellectual honesty before you start typing.

Could you supply the numbers around cycling related injuries also? Intellectual honesty would suggest you don't have to die to have involvement in a genuine accident, right?

Also, who no mention of the figures in 2014? Again, picking and choosing what to argue with. It isn't something I subscribe to, as it only goes round in circles. We would be much better off if we all stopped looking to win petty battles and looked at the bigger picture - we need to make the roads safer for everyone.

ted1 · 06-01-2015 5:41pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Could you supply the numbers around cycling related injuries also? Intellectual honesty would suggest you don't have to die to have involvement in a genuine accident, right?

Also, who no mention of the figures in 2014? Again, picking and choosing what to argue with. It isn't something I subscribe to, as it only goes round in circles. We would be much better off if we all stopped looking to win petty battles and looked at the bigger picture - we need to make the roads safer for everyone.

I'd say that the 2014 figures aren't officallt available yet. It's only day 6.

tomasrojo · 06-01-2015 5:44pm

The point I was getting at is that there is such thing as regression to the mean. You can have a freak year (which is almost certainly what the very good 2013 was), followed by a normal-ish year, which is what has probably happened. There may be a general rising underlying accident rate as well, but that can't be attributed entirely and directly to cycling participation or hiviz-wearing, as they haven't doubled or halved in one year. The strongest association internationally is between cycling road deaths and economic activity, which is something that has changed between 2013 and 2014.

MayoAreMagic · 06-01-2015 5:49pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

You have never been to the Netherlands then. You can see women in ball gowns and high heels cycling.

You can't leave anything on the bike without it being nicked eventually.

How do you propose the bike share scheme would work once this mandatory hiviz business started? Hiviz vending machines? The dublinbike flatbed trucks dropping off loads of hiviz every few hours to replace free hiviz that's been stolen?

I have, and I never seen that happening actually. But the reality is we aren't in the Netherlands, we are in Ireland, with a different system in place. May I ask where they leave their helmets by the way?

The issue with your argument is this; you are trying to avoid the safety requirements for cycling simply because they don't suit your particular journey. In that case just don't cycle on that particular journey, because not adhering to the required safety protocol is simply not an option.

Also, to solve your bike share issue - just do exactly what they do with helmets...

tomasrojo · 06-01-2015 5:50pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

We would be much better off if we all stopped looking to win petty battles and looked at the bigger picture - we need to make the roads safer for everyone.

And that burden in a just world would fall mostly (proprtionately in fact) on the transport modes that are actually killing people, not all of whom are scofflaws or fools.

Tenzor07 · 06-01-2015 5:51pm

Spot the High-Vis and helmets?

MayoAreMagic · 06-01-2015 5:51pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

The point I was getting at is that there is such thing as regression to the mean. You can have a freak year (which is almost certainly what the very good 2013 was), followed by a normal-ish year, which is what has probably happened. There may be a general rising underlying accident rate as well, but that can't be attributed entirely and directly to cycling participation or hiviz-wearing, as they haven't doubled or halved in one year. The strongest association internationally is between cycling road deaths and economic activity, which is something that has changed between 2013 and 2014.

But I never suggested it was entirely to blame, Im saying it is very likely a sizeable factor, which let's be honest, it is.

tomasrojo · 06-01-2015 5:54pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Also, to solve your bike share issue - just do exactly what they do with helmets...

Not wear them then.

We can now close the thread.

tomasrojo · 06-01-2015 5:58pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

But I never suggested it was entirely to blame, Im saying it is very likely a sizeable factor, which let's be honest, it is.

But why is it likely a sizeable factor in the increase in road deaths between 2013 and 2014? Again, did hiviz wearing rates suddenly change?

MayoAreMagic · 06-01-2015 6:01pm

I don't see many ball gowns there, or high heels, and most importantly, no cars and bikes sharing the road... Obviously a very different system to the one in Ireland and therefore not very comparable...

tomasrojo
And that burden in a just world would fall mostly (proprtionately in fact) on the transport modes that are actually killing people, not all of whom are scofflaws or fools.

But they do get punished. They get penalty points and removal from the road for a wide range of offences. There isn't even a way of tracking cyclists as there is no licence or registration system in place. Im not looking for cyclists only to be punished, Im looking for anyone breaking the law to be caught and punished, regardless of their vehicle. I don't see what is so wrong with that.

CramCycle · 06-01-2015 6:02pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Are you trying to suggest that the massive rise in cyclists and more specifically, dangerous cycling, hasn't led to an increase in accidents? Dangerous driving does, so why wouldn't dangerous cycling? Apparently intellectual honesty can only be applied one way..

I would say that on average, the large increase in cyclist volumes has decreased accidents involving cyclists overall, either as a straight number or % of cyclists injured.

I for one don't go for this 'them v us' mentality that is so apparent here.

After ahile on the forum you will often find its an us and everyone metality for the majority of posters. The us vs them mentality has never been prevalent here in my memory, though there are the odd rants about me versus one specific road user posts.

The bottom line is all road users need to follow rules designed for the welfare of both themselves and other road users. Anyone breaking them should be punished. This is simply trying to do that and how people can take such issue with that is beyond me.

Again, if you are familiar with the forum, you will find this is what the majority of posters subscribe too.

Another thing to realise is this, some are saying that they wont be able to do A,B or C from now on if these rules come in. So walk, drive or take the bus. You are not joined at the hip to your bike and if it isn't suitable then use another mode of transport. The same goes with a guy taking his car on unsuitable journeys. In other words, wise up, there is no war to fight here.

I am confused, I don't know of any journey that cannot be completed by a combination of foot and bike in this country. For safety they may be longer than a car so as to avoid motorways but thats about it.

ted1 wrote: »

I'd say that the 2014 figures aren't officallt available yet. It's only day 6.

Someone had a good 2014, welcome to the future.

The issue with your argument is this; you are trying to avoid the safety requirements for cycling simply because they don't suit your particular journey. In that case just don't cycle on that particular journey, because not adhering to the required safety protocol is simply not an option.

But its not a safety requirement, in fact in cities and suburbs, the effect of hi vis is questionable at best. The safety requirements of cycling involve cycling to suit the conditions present, for the potential conditions as much as possible, defensively and within the confines of the law for predictability by other road users

Chips Lovell · 06-01-2015 6:02pm

AFAIK, there's been no inquests yet on 2014 cyclist deaths.

I'm also unaware of any academic studies of injuries and causes of injuries among Irish cyclists in 2014.

NeedMoreGears · 06-01-2015 6:03pm

Pinch Flat wrote: »

......... The road is so narrow that there's no space to pass on a bike. It's the lesser of two evils cycling along the path which some do.

Don't agree.

Wait - same as the other vehicles have to.

MayoAreMagic · 06-01-2015 6:04pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

But why is it likely a sizeable factor in the increase in road deaths between 2013 and 2014? Again, did hiviz wearing rates suddenly change?

High-viz is only one aspect of safety. My argument does not hinge on that specific criteria alone, just as yours doesn't about specifically not wearing a seat belt alone. it is about road safety in general.

Tenzor07 · 06-01-2015 6:07pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

I don't see many ball gowns there, or high heels, and most importantly, no cars and bikes sharing the road... Obviously a very different system to the one in Ireland and therefore not very comparable...

I don't see any registration plates stickered onto there butt's either, so must be a fantastic system they have in Europe eh?

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

Comments