Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
«134567…76

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    If they are talking about 'Rogue' cyclists, I bags "Rogue 2" :D

    Rogue cyclists set to face on-the-spot fines
    ON-the-spot fines for rogue cyclists are to be introduced this year.

    The plans will mean fines of around €50 being handed down to cyclists who break red lights, cycle the wrong way on roads or mount footpaths.

    The Department of Transport has confirmed that the heads of the Bill providing for such cycling offences will be published in the coming weeks, following a consultation period between department officials and An Garda Siochana.

    It is expected powers will be extended to gardai to hand down fines to cyclists who commit certain offences, with the number of offences expected to rise over time.

    The fine must be paid within 56 days, or the cyclist will be ordered to appear in court. Garda sources with knowledge of the process say the expectation is that further cycling offences will be legislated for in the future.

    These include the introduction of sanctions for driving without lights, :confused: or not wearing appropriate safety gear that identifies a cyclist in the dark.

    I doubt this will be introduced before March......


  • Options
    #3
    Mycroft H
    Registered Users Posts: 9,316 ✭✭✭Mycroft H


    "These include the introduction of sanctions for driving without lights, or not wearing appropriate safety gear that identifies a cyclist in the dark."



    Uuuugh. Mandatory gimp high vis?


  • Options
    #4
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,009 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Mycroft H wrote: »
    "These include the introduction of sanctions for driving without lights, or not wearing appropriate safety gear that identifies a cyclist in the dark."

    Uuuugh. Mandatory gimp high vis?
    Indo wrote:
    Mr McGrath said he welcomed the announcement of the new laws, which he said would be about "equality" on the road.

    I look forward to seeing cars wearing their mandatory hi-vis vests.


  • Options
    #5
    hardCopy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭hardCopy


    These include the introduction of sanctions for driving without lights, or not wearing appropriate safety gear that identifies a cyclist in the dark.

    Fines for no lights at night I get but I don't like the idea of being told what to wear.

    If I cycle to the shop, pub, cinema or restaurant I like to wear what I would normally wear to such an establishment, not a da-glo raincoat.


  • Options
    #6
    Skrynesaver
    Registered Users Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭Skrynesaver


    I'm almost in favour but I'd like a better definition of what constitutes "appropriate safety gear that identifies a cyclist in the dark".

    I reckon I saw about a grand's worth of fines this AM on my way in, the usual suspects, no lights, on the path and old enough to know better, red light breaking etc...

    I'd also like to know if the magnetic pad switched lights will be exempted from this rule or if they'll be scrapped.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,267 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Threads merged


  • Options
    #8
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    hardCopy wrote: »
    Fines for no lights at night I get but I don't like the idea of being told what to wear.

    If I cycle to the shop, pub, cinema or restaurant I like to wear what I would normally wear to such an establishment, not a da-glo raincoat.

    Maybe it means a light on the bike or a light on the person? That would be the sensible route... so.... they'll definitely go that way. Am I right?


  • Options
    #9
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Garda sources with knowledge of the process say the expectation is that further cycling offences will be legislated for in the future.

    These include the introduction of sanctions for driving without lights, or not wearing appropriate safety gear that identifies a cyclist in the dark.
    This sounds like off-the-cuff remarks translated into legalese by a journalist, e.g. "Yeah, so later on it'll be extended to things like cycling without lights or high-vis jackets on". Terrifying number of Gardai and journalists think that high-vis is required.


  • Options
    #10
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,267 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    There's no legal requirement to wear high-viz clothing. They'd need to legislate for this before fining people.


  • Options
    #11
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,446 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Its the "or" bit in that statement that annoys me. Typical RSA rubbish. If you have Hi Vis then there is no point fining the cyclist for the lack of lights even though they are breaking the law.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Jep Gambardella wrote: »
    There's no legal requirement to wear high-viz clothing. They'd need to legislate for this before fining people.
    It's also virtually impossible to legislate for. It would either need to specify a strict uniform for cycling, or be so broad that wearing a single cufflink with a light on it would satisfy the requirements.


  • Options
    #13
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,270 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    I'd also be concerned about what constitutes appropriate safety gear. Some guards are pig ignorant when it comes to legislation (e.g. trying to insist cyclists use cycle lanes), so I'd fear this being a hi-viz vest charter. Unless they mean reflectors (also covered by legislation).

    I welcome on the spot fines though. It's ridiculous that it's taken this long to get to this stage to be honest. I never got the logic that somebody who'd lie to a guard to avoid an on the spot/ fixed penalty, wouldn't lie to avoid a summons and a day in court.


  • Options
    #14
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,009 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    seamus wrote: »
    It's also virtually impossible to legislate for. It would either need to specify a strict uniform for cycling, or be so broad that wearing a single cufflink with a light on it would satisfy the requirements.
    In a few countries it's mandatory to carry a hi-vis vest in the car. How is this different?


  • Options
    #15
    Skrynesaver
    Registered Users Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭Skrynesaver


    Lumen wrote: »
    In a few countries it's mandatory to carry a hi-vis vest in the car. How is this different?

    Because in that instance you may have to get out of the lit vehicle and walk without lights on a motorway, if my bike is no longer viable I become a pedestrian on a standard road.


  • Options
    #16
    Gongoozler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,263 ✭✭✭Gongoozler


    People who cycle the wrong way down a one way street piss me off. I'd be delighted to see people getting fined for this kind of ****. And the other rule breaking stuff btw. All road users need to get it into their heads that the rules apply to them. Plus I have to say it annoys me more because I stick to every rule.


  • Options
    #17
    tunney
    Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    Skrynesaver wrote: »
    I'm almost in favour but I'd like a better definition of what constitutes "appropriate safety gear that identifies a cyclist in the dark".

    I reckon I saw about a grand's worth of fines this AM on my way in, the usual suspects, no lights, on the path and old enough to know better, red light breaking etc...

    I'd also like to know if the magnetic pad switched lights will be exempted from this rule or if they'll be scrapped.

    I saw three cars and two vans run red lights at speed. Four drivers on mobile phones. But hey - lets obsess about the 100kg of bike and rider moving at 20kph.


  • Options
    #18
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,293 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Would have thought they'd want to be legislating for lights in the twilight zones before worrying too much about trying to impose hi-viz - I would guess an update on minimum specs for lights is probably also overdue


  • Options
    #19
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users Posts: 8,447 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Ah "Good" oul Finian McGrath, the T.D for North Dublin Inconvenienced pedestrians and dog walkers, if he was Taoiseach he'd make cycling/the use of a bicycle illegal in Ireland!


  • Options
    #20
    pprendeville
    Registered Users Posts: 2,888 ✭✭✭pprendeville


    Beasty wrote: »
    Would have thought they'd want to be legislating for lights in the twilight zones before worrying too much about trying to impose hi-viz - I would guess an update on minimum specs for lights is probably also overdue

    Max specs as well maybe. Was a bit ignorant of this until this winter always thinking the brighter the better. Not the case though.


  • Options
    #21
    Viper_JB
    Registered Users Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭Viper_JB


    tunney wrote: »
    I saw three cars and two vans run red lights at speed. Four drivers on mobile phones. But hey - lets obsess about the 100kg of bike and rider moving at 20kph.

    I'm sooooo sick of this argument...are you suggesting that because someone in 1.5 tons of metal protection breaks a red light and potentially puts themselves at risk of being run into by another car that it's fine for a man on a bike with little to no protection does the same, would you follow them off a cliff also?

    In saying that the guards are not enforcing lots of basic rules of the road on anyone so I'd doubt they'd have to resources or motivation to police this either...but at least they have to option to fine someone if they're causing problems.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    animaal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 815 ✭✭✭animaal


    tunney wrote: »
    I saw three cars and two vans run red lights at speed. Four drivers on mobile phones. But hey - lets obsess about the 100kg of bike and rider moving at 20kph.

    It's not a question of obsessing over one or the other. Those 7 drivers are already subject to penalty points and fines - and it's right that they should receive them. As should a cyclist going the wrong way down a one-way street.

    Enforcement has always been somewhat lacking in this country, and I assume it will continue to be equally so for drivers and cyclists in the future. But that's no reason to avoid putting reasonable laws in place.


  • Options
    #23
    PaddyFagan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭PaddyFagan


    tunney wrote: »
    lets obsess about the 100kg of bike and rider moving at 20kph.

    For me - it is all about that 100kg @ 20kph and the risk they pose to a pedestrian/child.

    Depending on the time, I'm a motorist, a cyclist and a pedestrian all in the same day. For me road safety is all about me acting safely (for myself and others) in each role. Each role has a different risk profile for me, and I pose different risks to other road users - but at no point can I put my desire to make progress ahead of the safety of other (more vulnerable) road users.

    Paddy


  • Options
    #24
    John_C
    Registered Users Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭John_C


    Jep Gambardella wrote: »
    There's no legal requirement to wear high-viz clothing. They'd need to legislate for this before fining people.
    They seem to be thinking that way:
    The Indo wrote:
    The department will look at all safety issues in conjunction with An Garda Siochana, concentrating firstly on those offences that already exist in current legislation


  • Options
    #25
    Skrynesaver
    Registered Users Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭Skrynesaver


    tunney wrote: »
    I saw three cars and two vans run red lights at speed. Four drivers on mobile phones. But hey - lets obsess about the 100kg of bike and rider moving at 20kph.

    I regularly see drivers of cars, vans and trucks behave in ways contrary to the law and I think they're muppets too if that's any consolation to you.


  • Options
    #26
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    hardCopy wrote: »
    Fines for no lights at night I get but I don't like the idea of being told what to wear.

    ........

    obviously not married :D


  • Options
    #27
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,270 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Speaking to the Irish Independent last night, Independent TD for Dublin Bay North Finian McGrath said he had been "inundated" with complaints about cyclists' behaviour.

    The Technical Group deputy said he witnessed an incident in his constituency where a young child was knocked over by a cyclist late last year.

    "This is a huge public safety issue," Mr McGrath said.

    "Senior citizens, parents and other members of the public have been on to me regularly about incidents they have experienced," he added.

    Mr McGrath said he welcomed the announcement of the new laws, which he said would be about "equality" on the road.
    For the sake of that gobshíte McGrath (and others), there won't be changes to the laws affecting cyclists* just how they are prosecuted. Talk of equality is right - the law was disproportionate at the moment, but against cyclists not in favour of them!

    If the cyclist McGrath mentions was in the wrong, they could be prosecuted under existing laws, (same as the salmon on one way streets, red light jumpers). Seriously, the standard of our politicians is rock bottom.

    *I don't think there will be, with again raising the caveat of the appropriate clothing.


  • Options
    #28
    Idleater
    Registered Users Posts: 6,236 ✭✭✭Idleater


    Jawgap wrote: »
    obviously not married :D

    But might be a teenager


  • Options
    #29
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,213 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    I wear this Jacket: http://store.bicycle-line.com/eng/catalog-long_sleeve_jersey_impeto_blue-c1638.html

    It has reflective strips which IMO is more than adequate, as long as you have descent (working) lights on your bike.

    Definitely no need for This: http://www.hivis.net/20/High-Visibility/Hi-Vis-Vest/

    Although a lot of people seem to think that wearing a hi viz vest is a suitable alternative to lights! I think those people should be fined.


  • Options
    #30
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,267 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Although a lot of people seem to think that wearing a hi viz vest is a suitable alternative to lights! I think those people should be fined.

    Correct. And I think the RSA has to take a big share of the blame for this. High viz is a very poor alternative to adequate lights.

    It's like saying if you don't have a child seat the next best thing is to strap the kid in with bailing twine. Sure, a child seat is the best thing, but if you don't have one, bailing twine is better than nothing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,213 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    if Hi-viz jackets and Lights are made mandatory for cyclists, does that mean that dark coloured cars will have to be painted Hi-viz yellow? :D


Advertisement