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

HelterSkelter

Victor wrote:

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

I wonder how many cyclists have killed themselves by doing stupid things like cycling drunk, cutting on the inside of a truck that's turning left, not wearing high visibility clothing...

Are there any stats on the number of cyclists on the roads?

Linoge

HelterSkelter wrote:

I wonder how many cyclists have killed themselves by doing stupid things like cycling drunk, cutting on the inside of a truck that's turning left, not wearing high visibility clothing...

Are there any stats on the number of cyclists on the roads?

Don't mean to spam, but just thought I should highlight the 2 most important words in your post....

mackerski

Linoge wrote:

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??

The web site is correct. According to German law, a cyclist is a Verkehrsteilnehmer (traffic participant) just like a car driver or motorcyclist. One of the conditions for holding onto a licence for a motorised vehicle is that you are a responsible road user, and cycling under the influence demonstrates that you are not. According to your logic, drunk driving on a motorbike shouldn't disqualify you from driving a car.

It should be noted that the German blood-alcohol limits for push-bikers are a little more generous than for motorists.

Dermot

jman0

HelterSkelter wrote:

I wonder how many cyclists have killed themselves by doing stupid things like cycling drunk, cutting on the inside of a truck that's turning left, not wearing high visibility clothing...

Are there any stats on the number of cyclists on the roads?

Evidently far fewer than motorists whom kill themselves by traveling too fast for conditions, running stop signs, and lacking the basic ability to commandeer their metal box.

There sure are stats for the number of cyclists on the road, haven't you heard of the Census we were all encouraged to fill out fairly recently?

Mucco

ek1 wrote:

Mucco wrote:

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

I know its the case in Germany and was told laws are similar in neighbouring countries:
http://www.thegermantruth.com/Drivin...inGermany.html

The website may be right or wrong, but the question was about cycle lanes....

bk

In 2005 10 cyclists were killed on Irish roads.

Over seven years to 2002, of the 21 cyclists killed in the Dublin City Council area, 16 were involved in crashes with (HGVs).

From what I've seen HGV's seem the most frequent reason for cyclists getting killed.

Calina

A couple of things strike me about this thread.

1) Cyclists Call for Minimum Target....Does David Maher speak on behalf of *all* cyclists? I somehow doubt that all cyclists are members of a single lobby group. If they were, I would like to think more of them would pay more attention to basic traffic regulations particularly involving red lights and lights at night.

2) I'm failing to see a reason why cyclists shouldn't also be subject to random breath tests. The fact that they pose a danger only to themselves or maybe one or two pedestrians doesn't magically absolve them of the responsibility of being in full control of their bikes while cycling.

Currently, the sole reason being put forward is that "they're not as bad as drivers" or something along those lines. The problem is they are. You'd imagine with the heap of responsibility being shoveled onto drivers by cyclists in terms of not endangering them, cyclists will likewise feel a certain responsibility towards not endangering themselves. I'm strongly getting the impression from various debates here that frankly, cyclists are so morally superior than they don't have to. As a pedestrian who has nearly been run down by cyclists on a pedestrian walk way on so many occasions I can't count any more, I'd have to question that, but hey, I don't matter, do I?

As for the guy some way up who said that if he were drunk he'd avoid the national routes, frankly I think that's the most stupid thing I've seen on here. It's no different to drivers saying they'd avoid the N7 duel carriageway if they were drunk. I have to say that I wouldn't accept it from a driver, so why should I let a cyclist off with it? Oh yeah, because they only endanger themselves and possibly a pedestrian or two.

Breathalyse a million people by all means but don't automatically exclude cyclists just because they are cyclists.

Stark

Calina wrote:

I'm failing to see a reason why cyclists shouldn't also be subject to random breath tests. The fact that they pose a danger only to themselves or maybe one or two pedestrians doesn't magically absolve them of the responsibility of being in full control of their bikes while cycling.

What about being drunk and in control of a shopping trolley?

Calina wrote:

Currently, the sole reason being put forward is that "they're not as bad as drivers" or something along those lines. The problem is they are.

No they're not. There's good reason why you need to be an adult with a licence and insurance to drive a car but not to ride a bike. To say that someone on a bicycle is just as dangerous as someone in a car is retarded.

Victor

Linoge wrote:

Firstly, as a pedestrian and a motorist I absolutely despise cyclists,

Thank you for your clarity and honesty.

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??

In Ireland, motor vehicle passengers can get penalty points for not wearing seat belts, even if they don't have a licence. The points are added when they apply for a licence.

Calina wrote:

1) Does David Maher speak on behalf of *all* cyclists?

No, that was a matter of phrasing, typical of a press release.

Dublin Cycling Campaign, together with sister campaigns in Cork and Galway together form the Irish Cycling Campaign and represent mostly commuting cyclists and increasingly pedestrians. There is a newly formed cycling and pedestrian group in Waterford. They are recognised by their respective locala authorities and the government as representing cyclists in transport matters.

Cycling Ireland better represents the sports & leisure cycling end of things.

I somehow doubt that all cyclists are members of a single lobby group. If they were, I would like to think more of them would pay more attention to basic traffic regulations particularly involving red lights and lights at night.

A bit apirational. If the Law Society (with statutory powers) can't control solicitors, how can a voluntary organisation control the public?

2) I'm failing to see a reason why cyclists shouldn't also be subject to random breath tests.

So are cyclists. I can only suppose either the parliamentary draftsman thinks there are no more cyclists or alternatively it isn't perceived as a sufficient problem requiring rectifcation.

I'm strongly getting the impression from various debates here that frankly, cyclists are so morally superior than they don't have to.

But cyclists want regulation and are suprised at their exclusion.

As a pedestrian who has nearly been run down by cyclists on a pedestrian walk way on so many occasions I can't count any more, I'd have to question that, but hey, I don't matter, do I?

Infractions are not acceptable from anyone.

Mucco

Calina wrote:

As a pedestrian who has nearly been run down by cyclists on a pedestrian walk way on so many occasions I can't count any more, I'd have to question that, but hey, I don't matter, do I?

I understand your frustration at being harassed by cyclists on the footpath, but you have to question the actual danger they pose.
In the UK, between 2000 and 2004, 13 pedestrians were killed by cyclists. All of them were on the road at the time (source: Hansard). In the same period, 200 pedestrians on the footpath were killed by motorists. Therefore, although a nuisance, cyclists do not pose much danger to pedestrians on the footpath. (Apologies for using UK stats, can't find similar Irish ones).

Of course, you have to question why cyclists feel the need to use the footpath, especially as it's more dangerous than the road (John Franklin). Is it because they are intimidated by motor traffic?

Hotblack Desiato

Victor wrote:

In Ireland, motor vehicle passengers can get penalty points for not wearing seat belts, even if they don't have a licence. The points are added when they apply for a licence.

No, they can't, it's just a fine whether the passenger has a licence or not.

You must be thinking of foreign licence holders caught for speeding etc., they can get 'frozen' penalty points, i.e. if they ever swap their licence for an Irish one then the points will come into play.

Victor

ninja900 wrote:

No, they can't, it's just a fine whether the passenger has a licence or not.

Sorry, must have confused these two and misinterpreted the balance of passengers.

* Failure by Driver to comply with front seat belt requirements

* Driver permitting passenger to occupy rear seat without wearing a seatbelt (under 17) or appropriate child restraint (introduced 25 August 2003)

http://www.penaltypoints.ie/the_full_list_of_offences.php

gjim

As a pedestrian who has nearly been run down by cyclists on a pedestrian walk way on so many occasions I can't count any more

As a cyclist who's had to avoid drunk people, I presume you also would support breathalising pedestrians? None of the "breathalise cyclist" advocates have responded to this and similar questions. The only reason could be hypocracy given that every argument advanced for the breathising cyclists applies equally to pedestrians.

daymobrew

bk wrote:

From what I've seen HGV's seem the most frequent reason for cyclists getting killed.

The figures never tell you the whole story. In my recent meeting with Garda Inspector Connell in Store Street (he covers the north city area), he described a cyclist fatality (from earlier this year) outside the Point Depot. The cyclist made a dash across the road believing that he'd beat the HGV. He didn't.
The reason here was the poor judgement of the cyclist.

Inspector Connell described a (relatively recent) pedestrian fatality at Annesley Road Bridge (at East Wall Road). Pedestrian was crossing the road, standing in the centre of the road but drifted backwards into a car. The driver was breathalised and checked and had not been drinking. He couldn't see the pedestrian because of the lights of oncoming cars.
Again, the driver of the vehicle was not at fault.

BTW, I am a cyclist.

mackerski

gjim wrote:

As a cyclist who's had to avoid drunk people, I presume you also would support breathalising pedestrians? None of the "breathalise cyclist" advocates have responded to this and similar questions. The only reason could be hypocracy given that every argument advanced for the breathising cyclists applies equally to pedestrians.

Another reason might be that it's not an offence for a pedestrian to have consumed alcohol.

Dermot

BrianD

Calling for pedestrians to be breathylised is ridiculous and again is a prime example of the cycling lobby avoiding a key safety issue that they should be embracing. Breathylising only needs to apply to road users. Let's not be stupid and childish about it. Road users. Why would I as a breathylise cyclists advocate need to what is a non-issue?

Pedestrians while drunk are a danger to all road users but they are covered by other laws. At the same time we - two wheeled or more wheeled - are aware that pedestrians at any time may behave in an unpredictable manner so when you spot them you allow for it as much as humanly possible.

Mucco

BrianD wrote:

Breathylising only needs to apply to road users. Let's not be stupid and childish about it. Road users.

Is a pedestrian walking on the road not a road user?

I agree, breathalising pedestrians is silly. They're generally only a danger to themselves.....the same as cyclists.

Stark

What about motorised wheelchairs on the road, should people in those be breathalysed too?

Linoge

If it wasn't a cyclist lobbyist asking for the breath testing would there be one person in here suggesting that it be extended to cyclists???It wouldn't even cross your mind.

As far as I am aware there is no official blood alcohol content limit for cycling, so what use is it to breathalise a cyclist anyway? You could be over the limit but not breaking the law. So what is the point?

What the apparently anti-breathaliser group should be shouting for is an official alcohol limit to be put on cyclists, for cyclists to be issued with licenses and an age restriction applied. After these few simple laws are implemented there will be no problem breathalising people! I'd say ca10 years max is all it will take. Until then, out of fairness we should not breathilise motorists.

daymobrew

Linoge wrote:

As far as I am aware there is no official blood alcohol content limit for cycling, so what use is it to breathalise a cyclist anyway? You could be over the limit but not breaking the law. So what is the point?

The Road Traffic Act 1961 does not mention a specific limit (while it does for cars) but it does prohibit cycling while intoxicated.

Road Traffic Act 1961 wrote:

51.—(1) A person shall not, in a public place—
( a ) drive or attempt to drive, or be in charge of, 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.

This portion of the act might be superceded by more recent acts but I doubt such a section was removed.

So, you can break the law.

gjim

Calling for pedestrians to be breathylised is ridiculous and again is a prime example of the cycling lobby avoiding a key safety issue that they should be embracing.

Of course it's ridiculous. That's my point. I'll tell you what would be even more ridiculous - the Farther-Tedesque spectacle of swat teams of guards setting up random cycle lane "blocks" and subjecting all passing cyclists to breath tests. I can hear the Miami-Vice music in my head just thinking about it. Why not have speed limits for bikes while we're at it and have a division of guards trained to hide behind bushes beside bicycle lanes with speed guns for bikes. Of course we'd need new signage on our roads too.

We'd be the laughing stock of the world which might be seem like an amusing joke but would be a sick travesty given the lack of a particular type of enforcement on the roads which results in hundreds of people dying due to car accidents every year.

Breathylising only needs to apply to road users. Let's not be stupid and childish about it. Road users. Why would I as a breathylise cyclists advocate need to what is a non-issue?

I presume you meant to claim that drunken pedestrians are a non-issue? I agree but not because they don't use the road because they obviously do. They're a non-issue because they (like cyclists) don't cause death and carnage particularly to other road users.

Pedestrians while drunk are a danger to all road users but they are covered by other laws.

Maybe you're not aware of it but so are cyclists. I've seen Guards pull over drunken cyclists who were clearly a danger to themselves. I've no problem with that and it's covered by existing laws. It's quite a jump to go from this reasonable status quo to start calling for random breath tests for cyclists.

At the same time we - two wheeled or more wheeled - are aware that pedestrians at any time may behave in an unpredictable manner so when you spot them you allow for it as much as humanly possible.

I'm a car owner and a cyclist and a pedestrian for that matter. You should try cycling once or twice - it might give you a bit of perspective.

Victor

BrianD wrote:

Calling for pedestrians to be breathylised is ridiculous and again is a prime example of the cycling lobby avoiding a key safety issue that they should be embracing.

Where did this happen?

blorg

gjim wrote:

Why not have speed limits for bikes while we're at it

I am pretty sure that bikes are subject to the same speed limits as other road users. Thing is, even if you are _doing_ the speed limit and are out _a bit_ from the side of the road, (as you would want to be at those speeds on a bike) motorists will get pissed off and still overtake. Any speed limit under 80 seems to be taken as advisory in my experience.

I've seen Guards pull over drunken cyclists who were clearly a danger to themselves. I've no problem with that and it's covered by existing laws. It's quite a jump to go from this reasonable status quo to start calling for random breath tests for cyclists.

Agreed completely.

blorg

Sleipnir wrote:

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.

That's just obnoxious. I _always_ yield to pedestrians, even if I have a clear green and they have a red (this is quite common, as many pedestrians don't seem to treat an oncoming bike the same way as they might treat an oncoming car.) I thought the rule was bikes and cars, equal right of way (besides the whole keep left and don't impede traffic thing, which applies to cars also), both always yield to pedestrians. Of course with the bike lanes we have in Dublin that would be bikes yield to everybody (pedestrians and cars.)

Stark

There are exceptions to the pedestrians have right of way rule when you're near a pedestrian crossing. Of course that doesn't mean you actually have the right to knock them down.