Penalty points for cyclists

corktina · 18-10-2011 1:15pm #1

as I'm now a cyclist of sorts, I just wondered, if I ran a red light on my bike or similar, would I get points if a gard caught me? Maybe points are only for when you transgress in a motor vehicle?

kate.m · 18-10-2011 1:18pm

cyclists don't get penalty points

I could be wrong about this but I think it's because they don't pay motor tax ect.

Corkbah · 18-10-2011 1:23pm

corktina wrote: »

as I'm now a cyclist of sorts, I just wondered, if I ran a red light on my bike or similar, would I get points if a gard caught me? Maybe points are only for when you transgress in a motor vehicle?

its illegal and if caught you face a court appearance/fine - and hearing some garda rant about safety...danger..blah blah blah.

but no penalty points

seamus · 18-10-2011 1:33pm

Strictly speaking, there is nothing to prevent penalty points from being applied to cyclists. Penalty points are incurred where a specific offence under the road traffic act has occured.

However, the vast bulk of offences which attract penalty points are offences which can only be committed by mechanically-propelled vehicles. For example, there is no speed limit for bicycles on any road, only an obligation to cycle at a speed where the cyclist can stop safely within the distance they can see to be clear.

So it would be exceptional for a cyclist to have penalty points applied.

However, because some offences carry disqualification orders, but are not explicitly linked to driving a vehicle it is possible to lose your licence for an offence committed while cycling.

So there's no reason why penalty points cannot be applied to a cyclist, if the offence committed is not vehicle-specific.

RobbieTheRobber · 18-10-2011 1:36pm

seamus wrote: »

Strictly speaking, there is nothing to prevent penalty points from being applied to cyclists. Penalty points are incurred where a specific offence under the road traffic act has occured.

However, the vast bulk of offences which attract penalty points are offences which can only be committed by mechanically-propelled vehicles. For example, there is no speed limit for bicycles on any road, only an obligation to cycle at a speed where the cyclist can stop safely within the distance they can see to be clear.

So it would be exceptional for a cyclist to have penalty points applied.

However, because some offences carry disqualification orders, but are not explicitly linked to driving a vehicle it is possible to lose your licence for an offence committed while cycling.

So there's no reason why penalty points cannot be applied to a cyclist, if the offence committed is not vehicle-specific.

Wouldnt this also need all cyclists to be licensed/registered?

Rawr · 18-10-2011 1:55pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Wouldnt this also need all cyclists to be licensed/registered?

Pretty much. Having points applied at all would probably depend on actually having a Driver's Licence (and ultimately, a licence to lose if too many points are earned).

Thus, I guess you'd have to have some kind of Cyclist's Licence to have points applied to for reckless or illegal cycling.

murphaph · 18-10-2011 2:07pm

A mate of mine in Cologne lost his licence for being drunk in charge of a bike. He had clocked up 11 points with his car and the bike points put him over.

seamus · 18-10-2011 2:15pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Wouldnt this also need all cyclists to be licensed/registered?

Rawr wrote: »

Pretty much. Having points applied at all would probably depend on actually having a Driver's Licence (and ultimately, a licence to lose if too many points are earned).

Thus, I guess you'd have to have some kind of Cyclist's Licence to have points applied to for reckless or illegal cycling.

Not necessarily. Points can be "held" against your record until you get a licence, in the same way that points are held against foreign-licenced drivers.

In any case, it's theoretically possible for a judge to impose penalty points in his discretion if the offence you committed carries penalty points. You don't legally have to have a licence to get points. It's recorded against the driver's PPSN IIRC. The points aren't actually recorded on your licence.

Cyclists cannot get penalty points on the side of the road, because in order to prosecute, a Garda has to bring a cyclist to court (no cycling offences have on-the-spot fines). So the only instance where penalty points can be applied is by a judge in court, and where the offence committed carries points.

If 12 points are accumulated, even in the absence of a licence, the disqualification would still apply as it's a disqualification from holding a licence, not a disqualification of your current licence.

I'm not saying that this is something which should be done. It would be utterly pointless, for obvious reasons, but it's a theoretical possibility. On-the-spot fines would be far more effective.

tenchi-fan · 18-10-2011 2:23pm

murphaph wrote: »

A mate of mine in Cologne lost his licence for being drunk in charge of a bike. He had clocked up 11 points with his car and the bike points put him over.

He should have got a solicitor. This sounds ridiculous and a judge threw out a similar "drink driving" case recently when he discovered the driver was actually a cyclist.

coylemj · 18-10-2011 4:55pm

tenchi-fan wrote: »

He should have got a solicitor. This sounds ridiculous and a judge threw out a similar "drink driving" case recently when he discovered the driver was actually a cyclist.

There is no automatic disqualification for drunk driving when riding a bike or in control of an animal drawn vehicle but it doesn't mean you can't be disqualified at the discretion of the judge as you can be for most offences under the RTA.

You can also be disqualified if convicted of certain non-traffic offences like theft and burglary if the Gardai show that a mechanically propelled vehicle was used in the commission of the crime.

You seem to be implying that there is no such thing as 'drunk driving' when riding a bike in which case may I refer to you S.51 of the RTA 1961...

51.—(1) A person shall not, in a public place—

(a) drive or attempt to drive, or be in charge of, an animal drawn vehicle, or
(b) drive or attempt to drive a pedal cycle,

while he is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle or cycle.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0051.html#sec51

SeanW · 19-10-2011 12:36pm

corktina wrote: »

as I'm now a cyclist of sorts, I just wondered, if I ran a red light on my bike or similar, would I get points if a gard caught me? Maybe points are only for when you transgress in a motor vehicle?

"Rules of the Road" don't apply to cyclists. :rolleyes:

Just ask any of the gob****es who:
Ride on the road when there's a perfectly good cycle lane beside them
Plow through pedestrian crossings (with pedestrians crossing) when the lights are against them
Turn onto junctions (with a "yield" sign against them) without looking for oncoming traffic
Cycle on the footpath
Cycle on the road, 2 or more side-by-side.

stovelid · 19-10-2011 12:39pm

They can't get points AFAIK.

Why do you think they do what they please on the roads?

seamus · 19-10-2011 12:41pm

stovelid wrote: »

Why do you think they do what they please on the roads?

Because the Gardai can't be arsed enforcing the law?

stovelid · 19-10-2011 12:49pm

seamus wrote: »

Because the Gardai can't be arsed enforcing the law?

True.

Garda enforcement is the only reason I don't run people off the road, drive on the path wearing earphones and break red lights in my car - nothing to do with my own voluntary expression of courtesy to other road users and pedestrians.

seamus · 19-10-2011 1:27pm

stovelid wrote: »

True.

Garda enforcement is the only reason I don't run people off the road, drive on the path wearing earphones and break red lights in my car - nothing to do with my own voluntary expression of courtesy to other road users and pedestrians.

Might be true of you, but not of the majority of other road users.

I can remember being queried by a young driver one day;

"Why are you stopped at the lights?"
"...cos they're red"
"Can you get points?"
"No"
"So why are you stopped at the lights?"

Confused, I asked him,
"Why are you stopped at the lights"
"Cos I can get points"

There are just as many idiots drivers out there as there are idiot cyclists. Just the idiot drivers are slightly better kept in line by the potential penalties.
We're also (for whatever reason) a little more tolerant of drivers doing dumb things than cyclists doing dumb things.

stovelid · 19-10-2011 1:45pm

seamus wrote: »

Might be true of you, but not of the majority of other road users.

I can remember being queried by a young driver one day;

"Why are you stopped at the lights?"
"...cos they're red"
"Can you get points?"
"No"
"So why are you stopped at the lights?"

Confused, I asked him,
"Why are you stopped at the lights"
"Cos I can get points"

There are just as many idiots drivers out there as there are idiot cyclists. Just the idiot drivers are slightly better kept in line by the potential penalties.
We're also (for whatever reason) a little more tolerant of drivers doing dumb things than cyclists doing dumb things.

Punish them all then.

seamus · 19-10-2011 1:46pm

Agreed.

ThisRegard · 19-10-2011 5:04pm

SeanW wrote: »

"Rules of the Road" don't apply to cyclists. :rolleyes:

Just ask any of the gob****es who:
Ride on the road when there's a perfectly good cycle lane beside them
Plow through pedestrian crossings (with pedestrians crossing) when the lights are against them
Turn onto junctions (with a "yield" sign against them) without looking for oncoming traffic
Cycle on the footpath
Cycle on the road, 2 or more side-by-side.

Maybe brush up on the rules of the road before you post
and make a fool of yourself again.

Cookie_Monster · 19-10-2011 10:28pm

SeanW wrote: »

"Rules of the Road" don't apply to cyclists. :rolleyes:

Just ask any of the gob****es who:
Ride on the road when there's a perfectly good cycle lane beside them
Plow through pedestrian crossings (with pedestrians crossing) when the lights are against them
Turn onto junctions (with a "yield" sign against them) without looking for oncoming traffic
Cycle on the footpath
Cycle on the road, 2 or more side-by-side.

rules of the road don't apply to anyone if you want to be smart about it, they are merely a simplified interpretation of the road traffic acts which are the actual law.

Nothing wrong with riding 2 abreast on the road or using the road instead of cycle lanes, it's much safer.

SeanW · 19-10-2011 11:12pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

Maybe brush up on the rules of the road before you post
and make a fool of yourself again.

They may apply in theory, but in practice it's another story. If you're not aware of that, you should think carefully about your glass house before you start throwing stones.

or using the road instead of cycle lanes, it's much safer.

Indeed.

BenShermin · 19-10-2011 11:38pm

SeanW wrote: »

Indeed.

Hmm, so putting up one example of a safe cycle lane proves that cyclists are safer to stick to them. I only had to turn the streetview camera around to prove just how ridiculously unsafe (downright dangerous in fact) the cycle lane actually is:

http://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.373229,-6.58905&spn=0.007335,0.021136&t=m&vpsrc=0&layer=c&cbll=53.373123,-6.589116&panoid=sefmeY3uOC3HmBq9DUF1sw&cbp=12,201.95,,0,19.97&z=16

A great example here of bus passengers, the bus itself and the cyclists being forced to use the same space. Meanwhile in a scenario like this I wait and wait and wait on my bike here for the bus to depart safely so I can get back onto the excellent bike lane:rolleyes:, but I'm being delayed by "courteous" car drivers who keep overtaking the bus even though the bus driver has the right indicator on for the last 30 seconds:mad:.

Cookie_Monster · 20-10-2011 2:45am

SeanW wrote: »

Indeed.

road will be cleaner, less chance of debris, glass etc, less chance of muppet pedestrians in the middle of the lane, less chance of getting squashed by people coming out of driveways on the left there, better (safer) right of way if you want to turn right or cross the road on the left further on etc etc etc

monument · 21-10-2011 12:12am

For the record: I can't wait till on-the-spot fines are applied to cyclists.

SeanW wrote: »

"Rules of the Road" don't apply to cyclists. :rolleyes:

There's really not that much different between motorists and cyclists...

SeanW wrote: »

Ride on the road when there's a perfectly good cycle lane beside them
Plow through pedestrian crossings (with pedestrians crossing) when the lights are against them
Turn onto junctions (with a "yield" sign against them) without looking for oncoming traffic
Cycle on the footpath

Motorists go on roads when there's a good parallel motorway, and they park on the footpath where there's a good road beside them.
Motorists break ped light all the time (hugely blind to filter lights mostly, but not only). Don't even take notice of the pram half the time.
When travelling last in a car, the driver was doing about 100km and a car pulled out of a side road even thought we were in plain sight -- sad thing is that motorist do this all the time.
And as already, just like motorists park on the footpath. And it's not hard to see why cyclists use the footpaths so much with "cycle track" designs like the one you linked to -- it's little more than a footpath with some more ramps and markings.

SeanW wrote: »

Cycle on the road, 2 or more side-by-side.

There's nothing wrong or illegal with two cyclists side by side and I've never seen more than two doing it except at events or where the third was passing the first two.

SeanW wrote: »

They may apply in theory, but in practice it's another story. If you're not aware of that, you should think carefully about your glass house before you start throwing stones.

How many times have you seen motorists breaking the law and not getting caught? Only a fraction of motorists get caught compared to the amout that break laws daily.

Better enforcement of the rules of the road for all users -- including cyclists -- is what is needed.

SeanW wrote: »

Indeed.

Those apparent cycle lanes are missing the correct signs, thus they are nothing more than footpaths. And even if they were legal cycle lanes they are hugely flawed and far less safe than taking to the road.

ThisRegard · 21-10-2011 10:39am

SeanW wrote: »

They may apply in theory, but in practice it's another story. If you're not aware of that, you should think carefully about your glass house before you start throwing stones.

I've no idea what you're talking about in relation to my post.

Victor · 22-10-2011 12:59am

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Wouldnt this also need all cyclists to be licensed/registered?

Many cyclsits do have driving licences. Where they don't have a licence and they receive penalty points, they receive those points on a shadow licence.

zenno · 22-10-2011 1:09am

corktina wrote: »

as I'm now a cyclist of sorts, I just wondered, if I ran a red light on my bike or similar, would I get points if a gard caught me? Maybe points are only for when you transgress in a motor vehicle?

o.p I would be more worried about getting crushed by a ton of metal after breaking the red lights than any penalty points. just don't break red lights.

SeanW · 22-10-2011 2:04pm

monument wrote: »

Those apparent cycle lanes are missing the correct signs, thus they are nothing more than footpaths. And even if they were legal cycle lanes they are hugely flawed and far less safe than taking to the road.

I was there not too long ago (public transport + walking) and from what I recall it was a very good cycle lane using part of a very large footpath, going all the way from the centre of Maynooth town for about 1 or 2km to the M4 junction.

That bus stop was an anomoly, which I had forgotten, besides from what I can see, there's always going to be a conflict between stopping buses/passengers and cyclists, where provisions for both are expected.

There was no excuse for a cyclist not to be using the cycle line in question, at least most of it, but when I was there I saw about 50% of the cyclists using the road.

In any case, with it being a marked track that was physically separated from motor traffic, I don't know what else you want, and why you complain about it being a "footpath." You would think that cyclists never cycled on ACTUAL footpaths to read some of the responses. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

ThisRegard wrote: »

I've no idea what you're talking about in relation to my post.

You accused me of "making a fool of myself" for saying, sarcastically, that the rules of the road don't apply to cyclists. I said that if you think that cyclists regard the rules of the road as applicable to them in the real world, you live in the (proverbial) glass house and shouldn't throw the (proverbial) stones. It was a polite way of saying that it is not me who'se making a fool of myself, but perhaps that was too subtle for you.

Motorists go on roads when there's a good parallel motorway, and they park on the footpath where there's a good road beside them.

False, and false. Only a sado masochistic motorist would travel on paralell roads when there's a perfectly good motorway beside them, if a motorist does this it's generally because

They are Learner drivers accompanied by a full licenseholder on a long trip.
They are avoiding a toll.

On the last point toll =/= good motorway. The problem here is that the government seems to think that the motorist is a perfect milking cow that never moos and never runs out of milk. Funny that after paying perhaps €600+ in road tax, perhaps thousands in VRT and VAT (including VAT on VRT I believe) or a percentage of that as the purchase price of a 2nd hand car, VAT+excise on fuel, insurance, NCT costs, sometimes people don't feel so generous when it comes to being asked to pay €2-€3 to cross a bridge ... Funny that?

Oh and BTW if cyclists were treated as milk cows like motorists are, and for example a lovely cycle track or cyclists bridge was built, but you had to pay a €3 toll to use it, ye would dodge it too. Don't even bother denying it.

There is nothing illegal or immoral about toll dodging. It is an inevitable function of motorway tolling.

And your point about motorists parking on footpaths when there's a "good road" beside them is also false. I almost never see a motorist parked on a footpath unless the road is too narrow to accomodate 2 directions of traffic plus roadside parking. Or, when the road is wider, but is marked with multiple traffic lanes and/or bus lanes and has no space allowed for parking.

Why would someone mount a kerb to park on a footpath when there's no need to?

I suggest you double check your definitions of "good motorway" and "good road"

Blowfish · 22-10-2011 2:12pm

SeanW wrote: »

I was there not too long ago (public transport + walking) and from what I recall it was a very good cycle lane using part of a very large footpath, going all the way from the centre of Maynooth town for about 1/2km to the M4 junction.

That bus stop was an anomoly, which I had forgotten, besides from what I can see, there's always going to be a conflict between stopping buses/passengers and cyclists, where provisions for both are expected.

There was no excuse for a cyclist not to be using the cycle line in question, at least most of it, but when I was there I saw about 50% of the cyclists using the road.

In any case, with it being a marked track that was physically separated from motor traffic, I don't know what else you want, and why you complain about it being a "footpath." You would think that cyclists never cycled on ACTUAL footpaths to read some of the responses. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Cruising speed for someone who cycles regularly would usually be 30-40 kmh. Do you genuinely think it's a good idea for something travelling at that speed to be on the footpath?

monument · 22-10-2011 7:17pm

SeanW wrote: »

I was there not too long ago (public transport + walking) and from what I recall it was a very good cycle lane using part of a very large footpath, going all the way from the centre of Maynooth town for about 1 or 2km to the M4 junction.

That bus stop was an anomoly, which I had forgotten, besides from what I can see, there's always going to be a conflict between stopping buses/passengers and cyclists, where provisions for both are expected.

There was no excuse for a cyclist not to be using the cycle line in question, at least most of it, but when I was there I saw about 50% of the cyclists using the road.

What are you comparing it to? A very good cycle lane?

It's flawed in many ways:

Very poor junction design with the side roads and estate entrances stop line blocking the path of cyclist
The turn radius of the side roads is unsuitable for footpaths crossing in their position never mind where there is a cycle lane crossing
Both of these increase conflict with motorists -- ie increase the chances of being hit or killed
Level with the small "footpath" causing a greater chance of conflict with pedestrians
Too small of a footpath section beside it also causing a greater chance of conflict with pedestrians
There's at least two traffic light polls which are partly blocking the cycle path when they could be out of the way -- more important given the design's greater conflict with peds because of other flaws
The lane ends and starts poorly -- worst than the junction design
It goes up and down at driveways where it should be level
Useless for cyclists who want to fully stay off the road in both directions --dumps people onto the road before the town so anybody using it will have to use the road or walk and does not go near the motorway where cars are likely to be going faster and thus a greater need for segregation -- then again its so flawed already it could add to danger, not safety
Bins from houses each week are likely to push peds into cyclists and cyclists on to the footpath section
No provision to allow cyclists to turn right at a few junctions -- other than bunny hoping out on to the road where motorists expect them to stay on the cycle path

SeanW wrote: »

In any case, with it being a marked track that was physically separated from motor traffic, I don't know what else you want, and why you complain about it being a "footpath." You would think that cyclists never cycled on ACTUAL footpaths to read some of the responses. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

The point is, without the legal signs at every junction there is no legal requirement for cyclist to use the footpath. Thus cyclists are not breaking the law and you claiming such and using this footpath as an example is flawed.

It's little more than a footpath, about the width of an average footpath but with with some ramps added in.

SeanW wrote: »

False, and false. Only a sado masochistic motorist would travel on paralell roads when there's a perfectly good motorway beside them, if a motorist does this it's generally because...

The motorway and footpath parking point was one of many points.

SeanW wrote: »

Oh and BTW if cyclists were treated as milk cows like motorists are, and for example a lovely cycle track or cyclists bridge was built, but you had to pay a €3 toll to use it, ye would dodge it too. Don't even bother denying it.

Huge amount of flaws in your thinking here.

Where done right, both the building and the upkeep of cycling infrastructure should cost a tiny fraction of normal road building (never mind motorways), it returns a greater value, lasts longer, something like a bridge will likely double as a walking bridge, and there's multiple use for cyclists -- commuting, other utility, tourism, and exercise.

The bulk of cyclists own cars and pay motor tax etc. Among those, arguably those who commute to work pay a disproportional amount of motor tax given they leave their cars at home.

Besides the promotion of cycling is policy at local and national level, tolling a bridge isn't really in line with that. And what next are we to toll footpaths?

Dutch and Dain planners describe how they were "cheap" was the main reason they invested in cycling because -- they would have had to spend more on public transport otherwise -- cycling has a modal share of all trips of any distance in the Netherlands is 24% and 34% of trips all trips under 7.5km -- that's compared to about 5% and 2% for all public transport.

SeanW wrote: »

And your point about motorists parking on footpaths when there's a "good road" beside them is also false. I almost never see a motorist parked on a footpath unless the road is too narrow to accomodate 2 directions of traffic plus roadside parking. Or, when the road is wider, but is marked with multiple traffic lanes and/or bus lanes and has no space allowed for parking.

Why would someone mount a kerb to park on a footpath when there's no need to?

Why? Very good question, it happens all the time.

Motorists seem to have no problem fully or mostly blocking footpaths rather than just block a lane or part of a lane on a road. Little to no respect for footpath users or the law seems to be the only reason. With both footpath motorists and cyclists, saving a few seconds or a min is more important that the safety of others or the law.

I'm not sure if how you think it's ok to block a footpath rather than a road. And I even see a large amount of motorists parked on footpaths when there's a near by empty parking space or where the bus or normal lane has legally reverted to car parking at the time of parking.

Then there's a huge amount of parent / guardians who collect children from schools in urban areas who park all over the place and seem to have no problem endangering children and parents who are trying to walk or cycle to or from the school.

SeanW · 23-10-2011 1:40am

The motorway and footpath parking point was one of many points.

The poster I was responding to prefaced both the origional points, "good" paralell motorway and "good" road.

This clearly suggested that motorists broke parking rules for the craic and as for the motorway ... I have no idea what his/her point was since toll dodging isn't illegal and isn't unethical either.

Cookie_Monster · 23-10-2011 3:00am

SeanW wrote: »

This clearly suggested that motorists broke parking rules for the craic and as for the motorway ... I have no idea what his/her point was since toll dodging isn't illegal and isn't unethical either.

it's not but it's mostly pointless. for the sake of a couple of euro you're burning more fuel and taking more time and inevitably putting yourself outa pocket.

Penalty points for cyclists

Comments