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

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.

jman0

mackerski wrote:

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

Dermot

Nope, your analogy falls down.
There are far more shoplifters than murderers.
For your analogy to work there would have to be far fewer shoplifters than murderers.

ek1

Mucco wrote:

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

I know its the case in Germany and was told laws are similar in neighbouring countries:

http://www.thegermantruth.com/Driving%20in%20Germany/DrivinginGermany.html

(see half way down this page)

BrianD

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.

I am certainly not equating driving drunk and cycling at all. Never stated that and I don't know how you got that impression. It is ludricrous that you only consider the issue in terms of what damage a drunk person can do to others and not to themselves. A drunk cyclist is more likely to cause injury or death to himself than to others. Despite the voluntary nature of getting drunk surely our public policy should be try and discourage by penalising those who drive or cycle while under the influence?

markbp wrote:

Mr. Maher is part of lobby group who's principle aim (as I see it) is better & safer facilities for cyclists.

That would be laudable is Mr. Maher would actually do that. Instead, he continuosly goes about it in an anti-car instead of pro-bike way that gets everyones back up and goes nowhere. I've read his releases before and I'm sure I've heard him on Newstalk before. Always negative, always someone to attack (motorists, the council etc) and really does nothing to promote a positive image of cycling and cyclists and improving conditions that I agree fall below the norm in other cities.

cyclopath2001

BrianD wrote:

I don't even own a bike and I've a better idea then the real issues affecting cyclists today then Maher has.

You like to think so. but your, insults, saracastic remarks and bluster suggest that your confidence based on arrogance rather than any objective consideration of the status quo.

Buy a bicycle, go for some long spins, broaden your mind.

We need more people like Davd Maher to speak up for the vulnerable.

mackerski

Victor wrote:

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

The bulk of shoplifters have never killed anybody. So why pursue them?

jman0 wrote:

Nope, your analogy falls down.
There are far more shoplifters than murderers.
For your analogy to work there would have to be far fewer shoplifters than murderers.

Why? The leave-the-poor-drunk-cyclists-alone argument as presented here relies on the principle that it's only worth pursuing the perpetrators of the biggest ill. But have it your own way. I hereby resubmit my analogy with transvestite flashers in place of the shoplifters. There must be fairly low numbers of those, no? Unlike pissed cyclists, BTW, of whom there appear to be a great many.

Dermot

Victor

mackerski wrote:

The bulk of shoplifters have never killed anybody. So why pursue them?

Its a matter for prioritisation.

And, um, I was the first to point out thats cyclists should have been included.

BrianD

cyclopath2001 wrote:

You like to think so. but your, insults, saracastic remarks and bluster suggest that your confidence based on arrogance rather than any objective consideration of the status quo.

Buy a bicycle, go for some long spins, broaden your mind.

We need more people like Davd Maher to speak up for the vulnerable.

With all due respect, why would I NEED to do that? I am objective and can evaluate the situation and I think any rational and intelligent person can appreciate the merits and risks of cycling in Dublin. I may not experience the 'near misses' etc. and other tribulations of daily cycling first hand but that is not to say I don't comprehend them.

Why would my confidence be based on arrogance as you say? In fact, you seem to be implying that we have a full blown debate about cycling in the city when in fact we haven't even in the slightest. I have merely suggested that from the onset of this thread that RBT should apply to cyclists. I think that anyone who appreciates and promotes safe cycling would support this. You and others jumped to conclusions about prioritisation.

Can you explain this constinuing reference to the "status quo"?? This is the second time you have used it in this thread. Would you care to explain what 'status quo' I am supporting? You also suggest that I broaden my horizons...again, why are you stating this without good reason? What's the relevance of this remark?

We need more people like Davd Maher to speak up for the vulnerable

We certainly do to make up for Maher. When he's off on his anti-motorist rant, someone should speak on behalf of those interested in promoting better and safer cycling. His attitude is just wrong and certainly not condusive to challenging the status quo or breaking new ground for cycling. The press release quoted clearly underlines this. Tell him to give me a shout I'd be delighted to right his press releases.

Victor

Brian, its just possible that David is reading this thread.

Two things.

1. You speak as if you have personal knowledge of him or that you systematicly follow his press releases. Care to comment?

2. What would you have said in the press relaease.

cyclopath2001

BrianD wrote:

With all due respect, why would I NEED to do that? I am objective

Without first-hand knowledge, I think it's just arrogant to believe this.

BrianD wrote:

Can you explain this constinuing reference to the "status quo"??

The 'status quo' is one where the road safety agenda is controlled by motoring and road-building interests deciding where & when people can cycle and walk.

BrianD wrote:

I have merely suggested that from the onset of this thread that RBT should apply to cyclists.

You also said this:

BrianD wrote:

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

This is the point at issue. You've uttered a tired & well-worn riposte. We've heard it before.

Mr Maher may not be a slick or as eloquent as a spin doctor from the Automobile Association plc, but I do not think he deserves your criticism.

Linoge

markpb wrote:

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.
.

Firstly, as a pedestrian and a motorist I absolutely despise cyclists, but I totally agree with Mark. Cyclists whether drunk or not (there's not much difference in my opinion, they are just as wreckless either way) really only pose a danger to themselves (you will know this if you've ever cycled in front of me while I was crossing the road). Motorists have the potential to kill up to 10 people in one move. You cannot compare annoyance with endangerment.

ek1 wrote:

I know its the case in Germany and was told laws are similar in neighbouring countries:

http://www.thegermantruth.com/Driving%20in%20Germany/DrivinginGermany.html

(see half way down this page)

The website is wrong. Unless you need a drivers license to ride a bike, which you don't, it wouldn't be legal or justified for them to link the two. What would they do if you didn't have a license??

I'd also like to add that any motorists arguing that cyclists should be breathilised, please stop. The whole argument is weak. It just sounds like you are attacking cyclists because it is a cyclist lobbyist that proposed the idea. Are you really against the idea of increased RBT? Although David Maher is a cyclist lobbyist, he is proposing a plan that will make cyclists, pedestrians and motorists alike much safer on the roads.

If you would like to see cyclists breathilised, start your own lobby group. Don't use it as a rebuttal to a sound proposal.