[PR] Cyclists Call for Minimum Target of 1 Million Breath Tests

Victor

.

Press Release: Cyclists Call for Minimum Target of 1 Million Breath Tests
From: Dublin Cycling Campaign
Date: Tues 25 July 2006

For Immediate use
The Dublin Cycling Campaign (DCC) has called on the government to set targets for the number of random breath tests to be carried out annually. At least 1 million tests are needed annually if Ireland is to match up with best international practice.

David Maher, PRO of the DCC explained "While we welcome the introduction of random breath testing it is incredible that the government and gardai have not set targets for the level of enforcement that will be necessary to provide an effective deterrent. After delaying the introduction of random breath testing for 9 years, on apparently non-existent 'constitutional issues', the government have a real credibility problem on this issue in particular, and road safety in general."

Maher continued "one need only look at how the penalty points system was undermined by lack of enforcement. The number of speeding tickets fell by almost 80% from 350,000 pre-penalty points to 75,000 in the following year. Indeed more people have won the national lottery than have been banned under the penalty points system since its introduction 4 years ago."

FACTS
1. Currently the average motorist will only get breathalysed every 140 years
2. Most motorists who fail breath tests get off in court
3. By 3 January 2006, Police in Victoria, Aus., had carried out more breath tests than the gardai did in all of 2005

ENDS

BrianD

I trust that Mr. Maher will be calling for breath testing of cyclists (with the same penalties as for motorists) as well. He might also remind the 70% of cyclists who do not use lights during darkness that they might want to do so.

Alun

...agreed, as long as they include cyclists in that too

Although I have to say that in over 30 years of driving while living in the UK, Germany, Holland and Ireland plus various short stints on holiday in many more countries, I have never, ever been breathalyzed, not even once.

subway

pot...kettle...black
those words keep appearing in my head for some reason.

how many cyclists were stopped for road traffic act violations last year?
is it some sort of statistic that cyclists never get in cars and drive drunk?

Victor

BrianD wrote:

I trust that Mr. Maher will be calling for breath testing of cyclists (with the same penalties as for motorists) as well. He might also remind the 70% of cyclists who do not use lights during darkness that they might want to do so.

I'm a member of the campaign and we demand that cyclists should also be tested.

That said, I've not heard of drunken cycling being implicated with and deaths, not that it excuses it.

ek1

BrianD wrote:

I trust that Mr. Maher will be calling for breath testing of cyclists (with the same penalties as for motorists) as well. He might also remind the 70% of cyclists who do not use lights during darkness that they might want to do so.

if he could just get them to use the cycle lanes provided i'd be happy.

Idleater

ek1 wrote:

if he could just get them to use the cycle lanes provided i'd be happy.

...only when you stop parking in them...

L.

lukegriffen

1 million tests is ridiculous. How much would that cost to implement ?
How many car drivers on the road are there ? Can't be more than 500k, so everyone would have to be tested every 6 months.

They should publish the reason for car crashes, so we can determine what % are due to speed, to drink or to careless driving.

gjim

I trust that Mr. Maher will be calling for breath testing of cyclists (with the same penalties as for motorists) as well. He might also remind the 70% of cyclists who do not use lights during darkness that they might want to do so.

Why stop at cyclists? Why not have pedestrians breath tested too and given the same penalties as motorists for walking the streets while drunk. It's terribly unfair to pick on drunken motorists who cause the deaths of about 150 people a year when drunken cyclists who cause the deaths of about 0 people a year get off scot free.

The idea that there's some moral equivalancy between getting behind the controls of a mechanically propelled machine weighing tonnes and hurdling it through streets while drunk and that of someone using a bike or walking while drunk is simply ludicrous.

If it ever happens that drunken cyclists kill even a fiftieth of the number of people that drink drivers kill each year (which will never happen), then I'd entertain calls for testing and punishing drunken cyclists. Until then, such calls are simply a disgusting ploy to downplay the murderous effects of drink driving.

BrianD

gjim wrote:

Why stop at cyclists? Why not have pedestrians breath tested too and given the same penalties as motorists for walking the streets while drunk. It's terribly unfair to pick on drunken motorists who cause the deaths of about 150 people a year when drunken cyclists who cause the deaths of about 0 people a year get off scot free.

The idea that there's some moral equivalancy between getting behind the controls of a mechanically propelled machine weighing tonnes and hurdling it through streets while drunk and that of someone using a bike or walking while drunk is simply ludicrous.

If it ever happens that drunken cyclists kill even a fiftieth of the number of people that drink drivers kill each year (which will never happen), then I'd entertain calls for testing and punishing drunken cyclists. Until then, such calls are simply a disgusting ploy to downplay the murderous effects of drink driving.

There is a moral equivalency and that is fairly self evident. Just in case, here's what it is - we put these laws in place to protect the whole community. This includes when a drunken cyclist collides with either a pedestrian or other vehicle or causes self harm by falling off or ending up in a ditch. Either case cyclist comes off worst underlining the rationale behind my call. You've got to look at the self harm aspect that equally applies to the many single vehicle (or bike) incidents that cause death or injury as a result of alcohol and not just incidents involving, say a collision with a third party. The law is there to protect everyone - so my call is real and morally justified and most definitely not a ploy to downplay the issue. Many cyclists are also motorists - have a few pints while on the bike and before you know it its a few pints while using the car.

cyclopath2001

BrianD wrote:

I trust that Mr. Maher will be calling for breath testing of cyclists (with the same penalties as for motorists) as well. He might also remind the 70% of cyclists who do not use lights during darkness that they might want to do so.

This is typical of the way motorists are in constant denial that their behaviour, more than anyone else's is the most dangerous and hazardous towards others.

My only criticism of the Dublin Cycling campaign's statement is that they didn't point out the irony that at night, the city's cycle tracks are used to provide parking spaces for drinkers.

randomname2005

subway wrote:

pot...kettle...black
those words keep appearing in my head for some reason.

how many cyclists were stopped for road traffic act violations last year?
is it some sort of statistic that cyclists never get in cars and drive drunk?

When a cyclist gets into a car and drives they are a driver not a cyclist, so I would say cyclists never drink and drive.

It always amazes me that people fail to see their own faults. Car drivers are always complaining about cyclists doing this and that, breaking red lights, not stopping at stop signs etc, have they ever looked and seen how many cars break red lights and stop signs????
Equally, cyclists have to look at their own behaivour as there are some crazy cyclists out there too.
R

paulm17781

BrianD wrote:

Many cyclists are also motorists - have a few pints while on the bike and before you know it its a few pints while using the car.

You're spot on. It is also true that anyone who ever stole something will definitely become a murderer.

A few pints using the car and a few pints cycling are very different things. Of course if you don't like cyclists then they are the same, in fact cyclists are worse. :rolleyes:

tunney

ek1, A significant number of Dublins cycle lanes are downright dangerous to use. Its a pity that the DTO believe that a can of red paint can make a safe and usable cycle lane.

A concrete divide between cycle lane, foot path and car lane is needed to protect pedestrians from cyclists and cyclists from motorists.

subway

randomname2005 wrote:

When a cyclist gets into a car and drives they are a driver not a cyclist, so I would say cyclists never drink and drive.

It always amazes me that people fail to see their own faults. Car drivers are always complaining about cyclists doing this and that, breaking red lights, not stopping at stop signs etc, have they ever looked and seen how many cars break red lights and stop signs????
Equally, cyclists have to look at their own behaivour as there are some crazy cyclists out there too.
R

im not a cyclist or a car driver so i cant see how i fail to see my own faults.

randomname2005

subway wrote:

im not a cyclist or a car driver so i cant see how i fail to see my own faults.

Subway I wasnt picking on you, I apologise if it came across that way, it was a general statement about car drivers and cyclists who complain about the other group performing certain actions that their own members also perform.
R

Slice

Okay I'm stating the obvious here but judging from some of the comments on this thread perhaps it needs to be reminded that the Guards should concentrate on testing car drivers before cyclists because drivers kill more people on roads than cyclists....??

Agreed that cyclists aren't necessarily the most responsible road users but prvisions for cyclists or lack there of only contribute to this irresponsibility. Where cars may have two lanes to manouvre (like Dame St) cyclists have less than an inconsistent space littered by manholes that's less than half the width of a hard shoulder - and this is at best!

loyatemu

why would the guards want to waste their time chasing cyclists who may have had a few pints. What is a better use of garda time and resources - targetting drunk drivers or targetting drunk cyclists?

Gardai already have the power to arrest pedestrians, cyclists etc if they are so drunk that they are causing a nuisance or are a danger to themselves, but to suggest that they should be randomly stopping and breathylising pedestrians and cyclists is ludicrous. They might as well start going into peoples houses and breathylising them there in case they try to make chips whilst drunk...

BrianD

cyclopath2001 wrote:

This is typical of the way motorists are in constant denial that their behaviour, more than anyone else's is the most dangerous and hazardous towards others.

My only criticism of the Dublin Cycling campaign's statement is that they didn't point out the irony that at night, the city's cycle tracks are used to provide parking spaces for drinkers.

Absolute rubbish.

Firstly, let me state my position. I don't currently own a bike. I do own a car but my commute to work is on foot. I am very supportive of people cycling and welcome the introduction of all initiatives that create a better and more positive environment for cyclists and cycling.

Oddly, it seems not to be goal shared by the cycling lobby. Mr. Maher does no service to the cycling lobby when he comes out with press releases as per the op that are just plain stupid and serve no purpose but to provoke a row. Mr. Maher might also want to be mindful of that the fact that 'getting on yer bike' is not a commuting option for many people who are forced out into the hinterland due to house prices and have to use a car. It seems that this lobby spends more of its time being anti-car then pro-bike.

Mr. Maher would have been better off welcoming the intoduction of RBT and that it should apply to cyclist - encouraging responsible cycling - and announcing some sort of initiative to improve the lighting up of bikes during darkness thereby promoting the safety of all road users. I think we are agreed that RTB of motorists over cyclists is the priority of order.

You're spot on. It is also true that anyone who ever stole something will definitely become a murderer.

A few pints using the car and a few pints cycling are very different things. Of course if you don't like cyclists then they are the same, in fact cyclists are worse

I don't entirely agree with you. Different modes of transports and different levels of risk maybe but if the law is enforced at all levels then its better for all. If you don't prosecute the thieves then the murderers will also think they can get away with it.

paulm17781

BrianD wrote:

I don't entirely agree with you. Different modes of transports and different levels of risk maybe but if the law is enforced at all levels then its better for all. If you don't prosecute the thieves then the murderers will also think they can get away with it.

If I cycle as fast as I can into a car. I get hurt. If I drive onto a footpath lots of people get hurt. You can not honestly think that people cycling when drunk is even similar to people driving when drunk.

I agree with what you said that the PR is badly written but you can not honestly believe this crap that drunk cyclists are as bad as drunk motorists. If you do, you probably shouldn't own a car or bike.

wingnut

BrianD wrote:

Mr. Maher does no service to the cycling lobby when he comes out with press releases as per the op that are just plain stupid and serve no purpose but to provoke a row.. seems that this lobby spends more of its time being anti-car then pro-bike.

Can you quailify this statement? This pr highlights how inadequate the detection rate of drunk driving is in Ireland, do you dispute this? Drunk driving endangers the lives of cyclists, do you dispute this? How is this stupid? It is not anti-car it is anti-drunk/dangerous driving. You seem to take this personally as a motorist, but if you don't drink and drive why do you take issue with it?

I both drive and cycle and use both to commute and for pleasure. It is not a war on the the road of us vs them. It is about everyone using the roads and getting home in one piece, perfectly achieveable if everyone respects the roads and the law.

MrPudding

paulm17781 wrote:

I agree with what you said that the PR is badly written but you can not honestly believe this crap that drunk cyclists are as bad as drunk motorists. If you do, you probably shouldn't own a car or bike.

I don't think he does, that is probably why he says:

BrianD wrote:

I think we are agreed that RTB of motorists over cyclists is the priority of order.

It is quite funny. There doesn't seem to be any topic on boards that brings out the whataboutery more that cars vs bikes.

We know cars and drunk drivers are dangerous that should not mean lesser dangers be ignored.

TBH the holier than thou whataboutery of *some* bikers is more than a little irritating.

MrP

Stark

BrianD wrote:

I don't entirely agree with you. Different modes of transports and different levels of risk maybe but if the law is enforced at all levels then its better for all.

In that case, we should probably raise the legal age for cycling to 18, and require people to pass a test before being allowed to cycle. Sorry kids, but that's a lethal weapon you're spinning around on.

BrianD wrote:

I don't entirely agree with you. Different modes of transports and different levels of risk maybe but if the law is enforced at all levels then its better for all. If you don't prosecute the thieves then the murderers will also think they can get away with it.

Life in prison for theft so? Perhaps even lethal injection in some countries.

Garibaldi

What about the drunk cyclist who gets mashed after merrily ambling into the path of a vehicle driven by a sober individual? Any stats on that?

Idleater

Garibaldi wrote:

What about the drunk cyclist who gets mashed after merrily ambling into the path of a vehicle driven by a sober individual? Any stats on that?

The exact same as if a drunk pedestrian stumbles out into the path of an oncoming car.

No matter what, the cyclist/pedestrian comes off worst.

In incident involving a drunk cyclist who is a danger to themselves first and foremost and a slight chance of injury to others (mainly pedestrians). An incident with a drunk driver on the other hand has a very good chance of injuring several others- pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists without necessarily the same effects being brought upon themselves.

In the "stupidest life choices" section, drink cycling does not nearly equate to drink driving.


<< doesn't make it right though >>

L.

HelterSkelter

BrianD wrote:

I trust that Mr. Maher will be calling for breath testing of cyclists (with the same penalties as for motorists) as well. He might also remind the 70% of cyclists who do not use lights during darkness that they might want to do so.

Does he call for cyclists that break red lights to be prosecuted as well? I am sick of dodging cyclists when I am trying to cross at a pedestrian crossing.

Sleipnir

HelterSkelter wrote:

Does he call for cyclists that break red lights to be prosecuted as well? I am sick of dodging cyclists when I am trying to cross at a pedestrian crossing.

Ha! I just had a cyclist cursing me because I crossed the road despite the little red man ten minutes ago!
Course, the fact that he also had a red light when he cycled over the pedestrian crossing seemed to escape his notice. I was also on the crossing before he got there so had priority also.

randomname2005

Sleipnir wrote:

Ha! I just had a cyclist cursing me because I crossed the road despite the little red man ten minutes ago!
Course, the fact that he also had a red light when he cycled over the pedestrian crossing seemed to escape his notice. I was also on the crossing before he got there so had priority also.

Warning, semi-rant ahead!!
But of course you were not in the wrong when you walked out without a green man, and neither are the hunderds of people who walk off kerbs without looking. To use Mr P's phrase, there is so much 'whataboutery' from every group it almost makes sensible discussion impossible. Im an avid cyclists and while cyclists are not responsible for causing the deaths of several hundred people every year I would prefer to see more enforcement of people obeying the rules of the road. Not just drivers, but cyclists and pedestrians too. I would also like to see a change of the mindset of the country (but that is too much to ask). Only when people consider it a bad thing will the majority of speeders slow down, or drink drivers stop drink driving, pedestrians stop walking off kerbs (especially without looking) and cyclists doing all the things that cyclists do wrong!!!!
</rant>

ek1

tunney wrote:

ek1, A significant number of Dublins cycle lanes are downright dangerous to use. Its a pity that the DTO believe that a can of red paint can make a safe and usable cycle lane.

A concrete divide between cycle lane, foot path and car lane is needed to protect pedestrians from cyclists and cyclists from motorists.

I agree fully and do not even consider these red lanes cycles lanes. That said i regularly see cyclists not using proper cycle lanes. On my ruote to work I would say only about 50% of cyclists use the cycle lanes. By the way I cycle a fair bit myself and would love to see more people cycling and more proper lanes.

In several european countries you will get penaly points on your driving licence if caught cycling drunk. You will also be punished for not using provided cycle lanes, and not having a light and bell on your bike.

Also, idiots who park or leave their bins in cycle lanes are a nuisance, but thats no excuse for not using them.

dermo88

I should hope, and expect that any Garda thick enough to waste time prosecuting a cyclist after having a couple of pints would have the case thrown out.

That depends on how thick the cyclist being prosecuted was.

Simply put, its a matter of appropriate behaviour. I have cycled many times whilst under the influence, and when I was under then influence I would avoid main roads, where I regarded myself as likely to put myself and other road users at risk. As far as I was concerned, I was saving 10 Pounds on a taxi fare, at a time when I could ill afford it as a student.

If I engaged in such behaviour cycling along the Naas Road (N7), or breaking red lights, then I deserve to have the full force of the law thrown at me.

If I was all over the road, and not in control, arrest me until I sober up and confiscate the bike.

In saying all this, it seems new laws are being added day by day to deal with the thick, where common sense should prevail.

Mucco

ek1 wrote:

In several european countries ..... you will be punished for not using provided cycle lanes,

Which countries? Cycle lanes are proven to be more dangerous than the road, which is the main reason I don't use them.
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

BrianD

wingnut wrote:

Can you quailify this statement? This pr highlights how inadequate the detection rate of drunk driving is in Ireland, do you dispute this? Drunk driving endangers the lives of cyclists, do you dispute this? How is this stupid? It is not anti-car it is anti-drunk/dangerous driving. You seem to take this personally as a motorist, but if you don't drink and drive why do you take issue with it?

I both drive and cycle and use both to commute and for pleasure. It is not a war on the the road of us vs them. It is about everyone using the roads and getting home in one piece, perfectly achieveable if everyone respects the roads and the law.

Yes I can. Mr Maher, in my opinion, continuously does the cycling lobby that he represents diservice. There are many people who support the objectives of the cycling lobby, myself included, and there are many who need to be educated or need further persuasion. The objective should be that the road can be shared between all road users. Mr Maher and his colleagues through their press releases create a "them and us" situation each and every time and this simply turns people off and gets their backs up. Very similar to post 9/11 American patriotism. You are with us or against us and questioning us means you are against us! Holier than thou methinks.

This press release is a classic example of the above. We all welcome RBT and that goes without saying and we all know about the lack lustre enforcement in this country of all aspect of the road traffic acts. However, this release goes beyond this in its underlying suggestion that motorists are some sort of social and criminal deviants that need to be constantly kept in check. Agreed that this applies to a section of the motoring community. Equally we want the same rules to apply to all road users and there's no reason why it shouldn't apply to cyclists. Mr. Maher would be better off spending his time dealing with the serious problems of unlit cyclists after dark. But as soon as you mention the faults of cylists you get a tirade of complaints about why motorists are so bad yada yada. There is no mention of the harm that cyclists can do to themselves whilst under the influence whether they fall off or are in collision with a vehicle. It would been a perfect opportunity for Mr. Maher to get this point home. Drunk cyclists, just like drunk drivers, have no place on our highways.

You can see this "them or us - we accept no criticism" attitude on this thread i.e wingnut and cyclopath. If I'm in denial where does it leave you guys?

cyclopath2001

BrianD wrote:

Mr. Maher would be better off spending his time dealing with the serious problems of unlit cyclists after dark.

In other words, let motorists alone to regulate themselves (and everyone else)

We've seen the results.

BrianD

Thank you for illustrating my point so well.

Once again you can't grasp the point and point to the problems or failings of other road users. Motorists regulating themselves, eh?

Sleipnir

randomname2005 wrote:

Warning, semi-rant ahead!!
But of course you were not in the wrong when you walked out without a green man

Quote me where I said I was not in the wrong.

I crossed the road despite the little red man

Thanks but I know I need to look before I cross the road so I did and there was no cyclist. Cyclist came around a corner and headed towards the junction WHICH I WAS ALREADY CROSSING. It's a 3 lane road so he there was no reason he couldn't go around me but he chose to "meet" me.

I went when the light was red, and so did he. What was his justification for cursing at me if he too was breaking a red light???!!!
The point is he was the one cursing me even though we both did exactly the same thing.

Victor

lukegriffen wrote:

1 million tests is ridiculous. How much would that cost to implement ?

Not a lot and it would save more than it would cost.

The only cost is garda time + a little disposable plastic tube that you blow into.

gjim

There is a moral equivalency and that is fairly self evident. Just in case, here's what it is - we put these laws in place to protect the whole community. This includes when a drunken cyclist collides with either a pedestrian or other vehicle or causes self harm by falling off or ending up in a ditch. Either case cyclist comes off worst underlining the rationale behind my call.

If you've managed to somehow convince yourself that there is some moral equivalency between an action which may cause self harm (e.g. not brushing your teeth) and one which regularly causes the death of other innocent people then I don't know where to begin except to say that I doubt any western legal system agrees with your view of ethics or morality.

You've got to look at the self harm aspect that equally applies to the many single vehicle (or bike) incidents that cause death or injury as a result of alcohol and not just incidents involving, say a collision with a third party. The law is there to protect everyone - so my call is real and morally justified and most definitely not a ploy to downplay the issue.

You didn't answer my question. Why (if you honestly believe this nonsense) stop at cyclists? Pedestrians, golfers and DIY enthusiasts are obviously a danger to themselves while under the influence and so acording to your "obvious moral equivalence" should all be subject to the same sanction as drink drivers?

Many cyclists are also motorists - have a few pints while on the bike and before you know it its a few pints while using the car.

Even if you had statistics to back this claimed correlation up (and I know you haven't), it would still be ridiculous. 95% of murderers probably drank tea at some stage in their lives before killing a victim so we should give anyone found guilty of drinking tea a life sentence and the guards should spend as much effort tracking down tea drinkers as they do solving murders. :rolleyes:

cyclopath2001

BrianD wrote:

Thank you for illustrating my point so well.

Once again you can't grasp the point and point to the problems or failings of other road users. Motorists regulating themselves, eh?

I am well aware of the failings of myself and fellow cylists in observing laws imposed on us by motorists. People are rarely killed or seriously injured by this behaviour.

You're being blinded by the 'status quo'. A way of life, defined by car-use, whose cathecism is the 'Rules of the Road'. You need to 'think outside of the box'. Otherwise we'll continue to have carnage.

Our current 'rules of the road' are a strong example of 'self-regulation' by motorists. Why else would we have laws that compel cyclists to use cycle lanes but grant motorists the discretion to use them at any time they please?

Similarly, the traffic light laws exist primarily to faciliatate motorists, not cyclists and pedestrians. Quite simply, if motorists were to behave in a civilised manner, we would have no need for traffic lights.

Do you have any sense of risk management?

Scarce enforcement resources need to be focused on behaviours that pose the most greatest risk to the public.

The motorist-lobby agenda is to dissipate these resources through tactics of blame-transfer and an irrational insistence that resources be wasted on enforcement against low-risk behaviours.

randomname2005

Sleipnir wrote:

Quote me where I said I was not in the wrong.

Thanks but I know I need to look before I cross the road so I did and there was no cyclist. Cyclist came around a corner and headed towards the junction WHICH I WAS ALREADY CROSSING. It's a 3 lane road so he there was no reason he couldn't go around me but he chose to "meet" me.

I went when the light was red, and so did he. What was his justification for cursing at me if he too was breaking a red light???!!!
The point is he was the one cursing me even though we both did exactly the same thing.

Exactly, you both did the same thing!! Im not saying the cyclist was right for cursing you or for breaking the light, but you must take equal responsibility for crossing at a red man. I think it is a classic case of 'whataboutery'. I broke the red light but what about the cyclist who also broke the red light?
Neither of you should have broken the law but you both did.
Your post was in reply to someone asking about prosecuting cyclists for breaking red lights, would you like to see gardai prosecuting pedestrians for crossing at red men or in the middle of the street?

It appears to me that you are taking the moral high ground here when neither of you can claim it!

R

HelterSkelter

I'd like to know how many cyclists are killed by drunk drivers each year. Does anyone have any figures on this?

GallicProphet

both are stupid ( criminal and/or suicidal ) and would be reduced by

more control and enforcement / breathalising.

markpb

BrianD wrote:

Mr Maher and his colleagues through their press releases create a "them and us" situation each and every time and this simply turns people off and gets their backs up ... However, this release goes beyond this in its underlying suggestion that motorists are some sort of social and criminal deviants that need to be constantly kept in check. Agreed that this applies to a section of the motoring community.

For most cyclists, there is a very good reason for them 'them and us' mentality - drivers have a huge capacity to injure or kill cyclists but the reverse just isn't true.

No matter how stupid or reckless I might be on a bike (and I'm not), the worst I can do is scratch your paintwork and cause you some inconvenience. If you, as a driver, stray slightly into the cycle lane, fail to indicate, cut across in front of me, fail to give me enough space at the side of the road, drive in the wrong lane at a roundabout, park in the cycle lane or a list of other "minor" faults, you're putting my life in danger.

For the record, I don't ever break red lights, I use cycle lanes where its safe to do so and I do try to respect drivers. I also hink the press release was badly worded but DCC do have a point - drunk drivers are even more dangerous to cyclists than sober ones are and sober drivers are the bane of my life. The second I stop worrying about what some silly driver is going to do is the second I put my life at risk, it's _that_ simple.

Sleipnir

randomname2005 wrote:

Exactly, you both did the same thing!! Im not saying the cyclist was right for cursing you or for breaking the light, but you must take equal responsibility for crossing at a red man. I think it is a classic case of 'whataboutery'. I broke the red light but what about the cyclist who also broke the red light?
Neither of you should have broken the law but you both did.
Your post was in reply to someone asking about prosecuting cyclists for breaking red lights, would you like to see gardai prosecuting pedestrians for crossing at red men or in the middle of the street?

It appears to me that you are taking the moral high ground here when neither of you can claim it!

R

Christ, take it easy. Moral high ground?
Gardai have the authority to fine people for jay-walking. It isn't my fault that they don't.
All I was saying was we both broke the law in exactly the same way but the way he was cursing me you would think that it was my fault alone.

Oh, and I was halfway across a 3 lane road when he arrived yet he cycled at me when he could have gone around me 10 feet in front or 10 feet behind. Why didn't he? Because he wanted to take the "moral high ground" even though he broke the law in exactly the same way I did.

BrianD

cyclopath2001 wrote:

I am well aware of the failings of myself and fellow cylists in observing laws imposed on us by motorists. People are rarely killed or seriously injured by this behaviour.

You're being blinded by the 'status quo'. A way of life, defined by car-use, whose cathecism is the 'Rules of the Road'. You need to 'think outside of the box'. Otherwise we'll continue to have carnage.

Our current 'rules of the road' are a strong example of 'self-regulation' by motorists. Why else would we have laws that compel cyclists to use cycle lanes but grant motorists the discretion to use them at any time they please?

Similarly, the traffic light laws exist primarily to faciliatate motorists, not cyclists and pedestrians. Quite simply, if motorists were to behave in a civilised manner, we would have no need for traffic lights.

Do you have any sense of risk management?

Scarce enforcement resources need to be focused on behaviours that pose the most greatest risk to the public.

The motorist-lobby agenda is to dissipate these resources through tactics of blame-transfer and an irrational insistence that resources be wasted on enforcement against low-risk behaviours.

Do you have any sense of reality? I have never read so much moronic rubbish is my life. Talk about being ultra-defensive. The Neocon of road users.

Go back up to the start. Read the press release, read my postings and then go outside and get some sort of reality check. Blinded by the status quo? Self-regulation by motorists? "Quite simply, if motorists were to behave in a civilised manner, we would have no need for traffic lights".Are you for real? Another conspiracy theories? ANybody else out to get you?

We all know and understand the relative risks between driving a car drunk and cycling drunk. Goes without saying. You don't need to explain it. I know it, you know, we all know it. There is no reason why cyclists should not be included in RBT'ing. Mr. Maher should be calling for it and even if there are no resources available to do it then at least cyclists would have got a message that drunk cycling is unacceptable and that if caught there are penalties. Promotes better and responsible cycling. This is a concept that Mr. Maher won't or can't grasp as he would prefer to create a them and us situation that ultimately serves nobody and gets nothing done. I don't even own a bike and I've a better idea then the real issues affecting cyclists today then Maher has. How can I apply for the job??

markpb

BrianD wrote:

There is no reason why cyclists should not be included in RBT'ing. Mr. Maher should be calling for it and even if there are no resources available to do it then at least cyclists would have got a message that drunk cycling is unacceptable and that if caught there are penalties. Promotes better and responsible cycling.

Mr. Maher is part of lobby group who's principle aim (as I see it) is better & safer facilities for cyclists. As a cyclist, I'd rather see my lobby group push for more driver tests, not more cyclist tests. I'm not worried when I cycle home that a drunk cyclists will crash into me - I am worried about a drunk driver crashing into me. If you can't understand why, you don't understand lobby groups.

If their aim is to promote cycling and get more people cycling, they'll also achieve it by making Dublin a safer place to cycle. I could never reccomend cycling to work to any friend of mine.

HelterSkelter

markpb wrote:

... I could never reccomend cycling to work to any friend of mine.

And is that because it is dangerous to cycle to work with all the drunk drivers around Dublin in peak hour traffic? Thought not. So why are the cycle campaign putting out press releases about this topic then?

markpb

HelterSkelter wrote:

And is that because it is dangerous to cycle to work with all the drunk drivers around Dublin in peak hour traffic? Thought not. So why are the cycle campaign putting out press releases about this topic then?

Because it's one in a series of issues that, if resolved, will make cycling in Dublin safer. That's what lobby groups do.

mackerski

dermo88 wrote:

Simply put, its a matter of appropriate behaviour. I have cycled many times whilst under the influence, and when I was under then influence I would avoid main roads, where I regarded myself as likely to put myself and other road users at risk. As far as I was concerned, I was saving 10 Pounds on a taxi fare, at a time when I could ill afford it as a student.

If I engaged in such behaviour cycling along the Naas Road (N7), or breaking red lights, then I deserve to have the full force of the law thrown at me.

You realise that this is pretty much an exact paraphrase of the rural-dweller's excuse for moderate drink driving?

Dermot

jman0

BrianD wrote:

There is no reason why cyclists should not be included in RBT'ing.

The reason it's ludicrous to equate driving drunk and cycling drunk is that cyclists aren't the ones killing people.
Compare the numerical imbalance between the numbers of cars on the roads vs the number of bicycles. If the government are not able to RBT drivers (enough to provide a deterrant), then it's quite ridiculous to call for RBT'ing cyclists.

mackerski

jman0 wrote:

The reason it's ludicrous to equate driving drunk and cycling drunk is that cyclists aren't the ones killing people.
Compare the numerical imbalance between the numbers of cars on the roads vs the number of bicycles. If the government are not able to RBT drivers (enough to provide a deterrant), then it's quite ridiculous to call for RBT'ing cyclists.

So by your reasoning, it's pointless arresting shoplifters when there are still murderers out there?

Dermot

Victor

mackerski wrote:

So by your reasoning, it's pointless arresting shoplifters when there are still murderers out there?

In the last five years or so motorists have killed approximately 2,000 people. Cyclists have killed, as I understand it, 2.