Labour's 10 point plan

randomname2005

http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/11771498271708981.html

In reference to the 10 point plan proposed by Labour in another thread, I decided to start this. A lot of it looks good, penalty points for encroaching on the advance stop lines for cyclists, enforcement of the no parking in cycle lanes etc. The only thing Im worried about is the type of cycle lanes they will put in, that they will be the same useless strip of red paint on the side of the road!

R

Membrane

They have lots of good plans.

Plans that I have my doubts on are:

Compulsary wearing of high viz clothing (fortunately no mention of compulsary helmets).
Mandatory major employer shower facilities (would showers at work actually be used? I probably wouldn't)
Gardai powers to seize bicycles for road traffic offences (Draconian IMO, and I don't think Gardai would be keen to go through the hassle of doing so)

There are some false conclusions being drawn ("cyclists have a life expectancy several years ahead of non-cyclists") and some dodgy statistics ("a downward trend in cycling numbers in Ireland for many years" and "a 23% increase in the number of cyclists in the Capital between 2004 and 2006" are unlikely both to be true). My impression is that any increase in cycling in Dublin is the result of the influx of more low paid workers for whom cycling is primarily a choice based on economy.

Evil Phil

I think the compulsory wearing of high vis gear is a great idea, as a cyclist and a driver I can see immediate advantages to this.

Shower facilities: Yeah, I'm a bit dubious. The offices I currently work in don't have room to retro fit shower facilities as do the other 12 companies in this business park with identical buildings. Where I would love them to provide showers I can't see this getting people out on their bicycles.

I don't think the guards will seize bicycles unless provoked. They seem quite lax on enforcing the rules of the road as it is (and not just for cyclists) - I do think that putting points on somebodies driving licence if they hold one is a good idea.

tunney

High Viz at night only is it?

I don't fancy wearing extra clothes on a training session

Pherekydes

Evil Phil wrote:

... I do think that putting points on somebodies driving licence if they hold one is a good idea.

So some people would get penalty points and others (without driving licences) wouldn't for the same offences?

Bizarre.

Evil Phil

I'm not suggesting that people without driving licences should get away with it. You can loose your licence for cycling while under the influence of alcohol, why not other offenses? If you accept a driving licence then you're accepting responsibility for your actions as a road user, if you don't like it then surrender your licence.

Membrane

tunney wrote:

High Viz at night only is it?

No mention of it only applying when dark.

tunney wrote:

I don't fancy wearing extra clothes on a training session

Its just not going to work is it. Even if its only a Sam Brown belt I'd refuse to wear it on my training runs. I wouldn't like being ordered to wear high viz gear for popping out to the shops either.

If I used the bike to commute I might consider a Sam Brown, no way would I wear a vest as it would interfere with ventilation.

Pherekydes

In my opinion, offences should carry the same penalties for everyone. Otherwise they could be challenged legally. Such a case wouldn't stand up in court.

Where does it state you can lose your licence for cycling under the influence? I can't find it anywhere.

Raam

I wonder what constitutes high viz. Some of my jerseys and jackets have scotch-lite piping on them, I would consider them high vis, although in terms of aesthetics they are nothing like those awful yellow vests or Sam-Browne belts.

Hungrycol

Evil Phil wrote:

I'm not suggesting that people without driving licences should get away with it. You can loose your licence for cycling while under the influence of alcohol, why not other offenses? If you accept a driving licence then you're accepting responsibility for your actions as a road user, if you don't like it then surrender your licence.

Seriously? Your driving licence is for a mechanically propelled vehicle in your licence category. If the law wants to provide charges based on offences while cycling then give cyclists a cycling licence and appropriate fines etc. Personally I think the police have enough to do with car driver’s actions and the many deaths cased by such "mechanically propelled vehicles".

Victor

King Raam wrote:

I wonder what constitutes high viz. Some of my jerseys and jackets have scotch-lite piping on them, I would consider them high vis, although in terms of aesthetics they are nothing like those awful yellow vests or Sam-Browne belts.

There are two points (a) high visibility, i.e. a day glow colour and (b) relective, i.e. the (usually) silvery, shiney bits.

All safety vests should be high visibility and relective.

Capt'n Midnight

Gotta agree with Victor on that. I've a bright red jacket.
In the day time it's high visibility. At night under yellow street lights it's black.

On railway workers the jackets have vertical lines to the front and an X at the back. So train drivers etc. can tell if the person is facing them or not, or more importantly what's the likelyhood they can see the train.

As for confiscating bikes - I've had hack bikes that cost £30 and touring bikes that cost a good bit more. Would they also confiscate the equipment on the bike or would you also be allowed to unclip the cyclemeters / lights / panniers etc.

Very against penalty points for cycling offenses on the basis it discriminates and provides a disincentive for motorists to cycle.

As for a cycling license - can't see that being enforced - example 400,000 provisional licenses, so maybe 1 in 10 cars on the road are being driven by people who aren't supposed to drive unaccompained.

Trojan

Tell you what, if a Garda decided to confiscate my baby I'd seriously consider doing a legger

Money Shot

Showers in work - I wouldn't use them. I wouldn't get up half an hour earlier to have a shower when a quick rub of a wipe and some deo works just fine. Besides that would be two showers a day, every day - don't think so. Compelling businesses to this expense is nonsense too - why should they ?

Confiscating bikes is a stupid idea for so many reasons. It's bad enought thieving gits nicking your bike, but the Garda taking them off us too.

Hi Vis gear - in the winter maybe, but it seems a silly to compell it when lights are compulsory. It's just common sense for people to wear them in the dark winter when its cold and your not so worried about ventilation.

They should increase penalties for drivers who completely ignore cyclists on the road and don't seem to care less if they kill them or not. Bike lanes obviously need to be improved and maintained. Maybe cycling to work should get some sort of eco tax credit to encourage cycling.

Mucco

Money Shot wrote:

Showers in work - I wouldn't use them. I wouldn't get up half an hour earlier to have a shower when a quick rub of a wipe and some deo works just fine. Besides that would be two showers a day, every day - don't think so. Compelling businesses to this expense is nonsense too - why should they ?

I don't get up half an hour earlier to have a shower at work, I don't have a shower at home in the morning, just at work, so get up at the same time. The showers here are always busy too. I also have a quick shower when I come home, so yes, two showers a day.

In London, all new buildings are required to have bike facilities, and I imagine this is what Labour are planning. Installing a shower and secure bike storage is probably cheaper in the long run than providing car-parking

Raam

Money Shot wrote:

Compelling businesses to this expense is nonsense too - why should they ?

I suppose it's because many people would like to have the use of a shower after cycling in. Sure, it costs money for a business, but it can have plenty of unmeasurable benefits to the business. For example, employee happiness at having the option to cycle in and be able to have a shower afterwards. In my place, some people go for a run at lunchtime. If the facilities are there, more people will be inclined to make use of them. A happy workforce is a good workforce

randomname2005

Looking at the transport policy I would read it that high vis clothing is only required at night time, the same with lights. BUT I have no involvement with Labour so they may well wish to have them compulsory 24/7.

I think the showers in work places are very useful. It may be talk, but a lot of people I know would cycle to work if there was a place to change and shower.

A lot of the other ideas seem to be steps in the right direction.

R