John Gormley on bike thieves

monument

Bike thieves get easy ride despite the political spin (subs reqd)

.....Green Party frontbencher John Gormley, probably the best-known cycling politician in the country, believes in being a realist when it comes to bicycle theft. He suffered his most recent loss earlier this month while he was canvassing in Portobello.

"You don't bother reporting that you've had a bicycle stolen. I've had bicycles taken and I didn't bother reporting them. You feel that the guards are out there running after serious criminals and they won't give it that sort of priority. I can sort of agree with that. It is extremely difficult to ask the gardaí to go searching places for a bicycle.

"The emphasis has to be on prevention. Once the bicycle is stolen, it is probably too late. We wouldn't have to be reporting it to the gardaí if we had proper lock-up facilities. This is a new era where the bicycle, I'm quite sure, will be making a comeback because of traffic and climate change. It's a priority for the Green Party."

This kind of crap from Gormley deters me from buying a new bicycle or at least put other things above it in the list of things I need/want. It also deters me from voting green.

And of course it's not just bikes, the police here are underfunded and undermanned. However, putting things in boxes labeled “the small stuff” etc and forgetting about it is highly counterproductive and leads to the notion that it’s not really crime, or it’s not really that bad. It’s a large part of a mindset we share with most of the UK and US.

I normally subscribe to a realist line thinking, but this kind of thinking that shown above is harmful in the long term.

Hobbes

One of my friends husbands in the US is a cop. He mentioned one time that it is the small stuff you need to watch out for. For example a broken window in an empty building can lead to the building being vandalised more, occupied and then crime taking place around/in it.

Maybe Gormley should be trying to implement a system like Holland where you can just pick up a free bike and drop off somewhere when finished.

Bikes are not small stuff.

mike65

Broken window is a burning building by the time Mr Gormley picks up the phone!

Mike.

InFront

OP I'm not sure what your problem is with this? Are you saying that it isn't an issue at all, or that prevention is not better than cure?

Bike theft is a serious problem, certainly in Dublin. McDowell said he would set up a Garda unit to deal with it (but he hasn't) and Gardai, as the article said, have engaged in a leaflet campaign on the issue. People care about it.
Hundreds of bikes are stolen annually in Dublin city. Do they all get replaced? Does it makes the city bicycle friendly? Of course not. Do they get reported? No, it's usually too late. To his credit, Gormley is just pointing out the obvious: if you don't want your bike stolen, don't let it happen.

As an aside, I wish there were more effective campaigning on this issue. Despite all the bus corridoors and metro plans and Luas lines, it would be great to see Dublin become more bike-friendly. Think of the health benefits. I'm really tired of environmental issues being shrugged off as being way down the list of the unimportant. It would nearly make me vote Green.

cyclopath2001

InFront wrote:

it would be great to see Dublin become more bike-friendly.

Almost the first thing the PDs did when they came into office in 1998 was to sneak in an amendment to the rules of the road allowing cars to drive in cycle lanes.

monument

InFront wrote:

OP I'm not sure what your problem is with this? Are you saying that it isn't an issue at all, or that prevention is not better than cure?

I'm saying that - from the quotes - he has a flippant attitude to it.

Prevention is of course then best cure, but what he is saying is over the top. If one of the top greens has an attitude of "the guards are out there running after serious criminals" what hope is there?

Whether it’s a bicycle worth 300 euro or 1000 euro it’s still probably going to mean lot to the owner. And if one of the greens have such a flippant attitude on bikes getting stolen, are their other policies on other areas really to be trusted?

MontgomeryClift

What kind of knacker steals a bike? See, for every bike stolen there's a scumbag who stole it. So if bike theft is high then the number of scumbags is high. It's not a small crime. There is no small crime.

Imposter

InFront wrote:

if you don't want your bike stolen, don't get a bike

fyp.

Chakar

What did he expect? He didn't lock his bike to the railings.

Bottle_of_Smoke

monument wrote:

I'm saying that - from the quotes - he has a flippant attitude to it.

Prevention is of course then best cure, but what he is saying is over the top. If one of the top greens has an attitude of "the guards are out there running after serious criminals" what hope is there?

Whether it’s a bicycle worth 300 euro or 1000 euro it’s still probably going to mean lot to the owner. And if one of the greens have such a flippant attitude on bikes getting stolen, are their other policies on other areas really to be trusted?

I know what you mean - it is irritating but he's probably right. I'd still report it in case I got lucky - but I honestly wouldn't expect to get my bike back. Maybe the bikes he was speaking about were worth less than those figures you quoted & he was just trying to push the issue of facilities for prevention.

I'm gonna vote green myself this time - I like their attitudes toward public transport & especially their stamp duty policy

DadaKopf

Hobbes wrote:

Maybe Gormley should be trying to implement a system like Holland where you can just pick up a free bike and drop off somewhere when finished.

I heard there are plans for that. It simply won't work in a city where cycling is lethal.

I'm a bit disappointed to hear Gormley come out with this, as coldly realistic as it really is. Prevention is the key, but it shouldn't be entirely up to cyclists to do this.

I'd agree with your cop friend. A cousin of mine in the NYPD said the same thing.

And as someone whose bike got stolen from a secure lock-up in my apartment block, and was fortunate enough to get it back the day I reported it, I now know the value of community policing.

Simply: bicycles need to be granted the same legitimacy on the roads as cars. Pedestrians are seen as above cyclists. People see cyclists as scum. Road lice.

What kind of knacker steals a bike?

Straight from the horse's mouth, a 'knacker' might say, "Well if yer man left his bike locked up with that lock, he deserves to get it stolen!"

See. It's our fault, not theirs.

As an aside, I wish there were more effective campaigning on this issue. Despite all the bus corridoors and metro plans and Luas lines, it would be great to see Dublin become more bike-friendly. Think of the health benefits. I'm really tired of environmental issues being shrugged off as being way down the list of the unimportant. It would nearly make me vote Green.

Join the Dublin Cycling Campaign then (http://home.connect.ie/dcc)! It's one channel for structured lobbying on the issue. I'm going to join. A colleague of mine was mown down by a HGV last Thursday. I'm really angry now.

nesf

DadaKopf wrote:

Simply: bicycles need to be granted the same legitimacy on the roads as cars. Pedestrians are seen as above cyclists. People see cyclists as scum. Road lice.

Conversely bicycles need to be restricted as cars are. The amount of people who think it's fine to cycle against traffic/cycle on footpaths through crowds/break lights when on a bike etc is unreal. If cyclists are given rights they should also be forced to accept some responsibility imho, a pedestrian getting hit by a guy on a bike doing any kind of speed can get fairly badly injured.

John_C

nesf wrote:

a pedestrian getting hit by a guy on a bike doing any kind of speed can get fairly badly injured.

That's true but a cyclist on a footpath will generally be aware of that and moving quite slowly.

On the more general point, it's good to see some common sence advice from a politician. I think he knows a lot more about what he's talking than some of the other parties' cycling spokespeople.

DadaKopf

nesf wrote:

Conversely bicycles need to be restricted as cars are. The amount of people who think it's fine to cycle against traffic/cycle on footpaths through crowds/break lights when on a bike etc is unreal. If cyclists are given rights they should also be forced to accept some responsibility imho, a pedestrian getting hit by a guy on a bike doing any kind of speed can get fairly badly injured.

Of course, nesf, that goes without saying.

The amount of apalling cyclists is depressing.

nesf

John_C wrote:

That's true but a cyclist on a footpath will generally be aware of that and moving quite slowly.

The cyclist shouldn't be on the footpath in the first place tbh.

John_C

nesf wrote:

The cyclist shouldn't be on the footpath in the first place tbh.

That's a debatable point but certainly any cyclist on the footpath going fast enough to do anyone any harm is in the wrong.

Chakar

John_C wrote:

That's a debatable point but certainly any cyclist on the footpath going fast enough to do anyone any harm is in the wrong.

It doesn't matter what speed the bike is going. Its against the law to cycle on the footpath. This would most definitely apply to teenagers and adults.

John_C

Chakar wrote:

It doesn't matter what speed the bike is going. Its against the law to cycle on the footpath. This would most definitely apply to teenagers and adults.

And I'm happy to obey that law where the cycle lanes and other facilities have been designed to some recognisable standard but there are plenty of examples of roads in this country where cyclists cannot obey the law. To give one example, there are cycle lanes without any ramps into or out of them so a cyclist must pick which law to break. You can ignore the cycle path completly and break the mandetory cycle lane law or enter/leave it at a convenient driveway which could involve cycling along the foothpath for a bit, breaking the don't cycle on the foothpath law.

This is why I like John Gormley. He knows what he's talking about and has some common sence which is better than a lot of politicians you hear talking about cycling.

Chakar

John_C wrote:

And I'm happy to obey that law where the cycle lanes and other facilities have been designed to some recognisable standard but there are plenty of examples of roads in this country where cyclists cannot obey the law. To give one example, there are cycle lanes without any ramps into or out of them so a cyclist must pick which law to break. You can ignore the cycle path completly and break the mandetory cycle lane law or enter/leave it at a convenient driveway which could involve cycling along the foothpath for a bit, breaking the don't cycle on the foothpath law.

This is why I like John Gormley. He knows what he's talking about and has some common sence which is better than a lot of politicians you hear talking about cycling.

Why don't you cycle on the road? Is the area you cycle through particularly dangerous?

Dirk Gently

Chakar wrote:

Why don't you cycle on the road? Is the area you cycle through particularly dangerous?

with regard to Dublin city, every road is particularly dangerous for a cyclist. I cycle every day and everyday I break the law. The problem is there is no facility for an urban cyclist to stay within the law. What little cycle lanes there are, they soon dissappear after a few 100 metres if your even lucky enough to get that far. they snake their way from the road, back onto a shared footpath with pedestrians (who are blissfully unaware they are walking on a cycle lane) and most are in a bad state of repair and are actually very dangerous to cycle on. add to this the fact that cars rarely pay any attention to a cyclist, often park and even drive right up to the kerb, leaving no room for a bike to get through.

Each day in order to safe guard my life (literally) I will on my journey do one or all of the following......... cycle on a footpath where cars have left me no access to pass...... cycle through parks where cycling is not allowed...... cut across a field...... and so on. As for road cycling I always obey traffic lights, cycle safely and signal (not that motorists pay attention anyway) but sometimes it is neccessary to mount a pavement and crawl along the edge of it. (imagine you driving your car on streets not wide enough for your car to fit on).

anyway, long story short, where neccessary I regularly break the law and will continue to do so until such a time that roads are up to a suitable standard to allow a me to use them safely. Any party which understands these problems and is willing to do something about it automatically gets my attention. As for gormley, his statement is a harsh reality and it doesn't make me think any less of him. After cycling in Holland on propper purpose built cycle lanes, Irish roads and attitudes are nothing short of medievil.

John_C

Chakar wrote:

Why don't you cycle on the road? Is the area you cycle through particularly dangerous?

No I'm happy to cycle on the road (and I'm of the opinion that it's generally safer than cycling on the footpath) but there are exceptions. When I collect by bike from the stand at my local Luas stop, there is no ramp down onto the road so I have to cycle along the footpath for about 40 yards 'til I get to the first driveway. Similarly, when I go to my local shops I head down a little laneway which also doesn't have any ramp down onto the road at the end so I go along the path until I get to the first driveway.

There are probably hundreds of little examples like that of road designs which require cyclists to head along the path which is why I think you're oversimplifying the situation when you say, "It doesn't matter what speed the bike is going. Its against the law to cycle on the footpath.".

I made the mistake today of reading the Labour Party's cycling policy which was riddled with these misperceptions about cycling and was clearly written by a non-cyclist. It cited a lack of bike racks as the second biggest deterrent to cycling. Whoever wrote it seems unaware that you can lock a bicycle to almost anything. Sorry if I'm a little blunt Chakar but reading this has gotten me annoyed with people who don't cycle themselves but presume that they know whats best for those of us that do.

John_C

clown bag wrote:

with regard to Dublin city, every road is particularly dangerous for a cyclist.

I don't actually agree with this. There are about 10 cyclists killed every year which is roughly in proportion to the number of people cycling and the bulk of those are killed under the wheels of lorries. If you're aware to that particular danger I find cycling quite safe. Certainly I feel put in danger much more often in my car than on my bike.

Dirk Gently

John_C wrote:

I don't actually agree with this. .

How many times while cycling around the city do you have to make the choice of..... Swerving out into traffic to avoid damaged road / slow down and ride the bump hoping you won’t fall off / mounting the path to avoid the bump. How many times have cars left turned and completely cut across you at an intersection, how many times do you have to mount footpaths or enter the vehicle traffic to avoid parked cars / building site access and so on.

The point I was making is to cycle safely and also stay within the law is damn near impossible. I don't get dead because I break the law.
I don't understand the problem people have with Gormleys statement, he's just speaking from experience and stating fact.