Cycling Laws

Knifey_Spooney

I've a few questions about cycling law that I can't seem to find good answers for online.

Firstly can you be fined for cycling drunk/stoned/off your face? cause I've seen some cyclists that aren't just a hazard to themselves but to drivers, pedestrians, parked cars, trees, rivers and so on....... Whenever I'm drunk I usually won't cycle but if I have to I'll go quickly so I don't swerve and stay on the footpaths if its late enough.

Secondly, are cyclists allowed on the footpaths or can we theoretically get in trouble for using the path to dodge a T-junction red light...

Thirdly are mopeds/modified hoovers :P allowed in the bus/cycle lanes, cause the same hoover driver pisses off every day doing so and I want to make sure I'm justified in my anger.

seamus

Knifey_Spooney wrote: »

Firstly can you be fined for cycling drunk/stoned/off your face? cause I've seen some cyclists that aren't just a hazard to themselves but to drivers, pedestrians, parked cars, trees, rivers and so on....... Whenever I'm drunk I usually won't cycle but if I have to I'll go quickly so I don't swerve and stay on the footpaths if its late enough.

You can be fined, there was a thread about it here before.

Secondly, are cyclists allowed on the footpaths or can we theoretically get in trouble for using the path to dodge a T-junction red light...

No. If you want to use a footpath, you must dismount.

Thirdly are mopeds/modified hoovers :P allowed in the bus/cycle lanes, cause the same hoover driver pisses off every day doing so and I want to make sure I'm justified in my anger.

No they're not. I've no problem with them in bus lanes, but there's nothing worse than a skangerped blocking my way in a cycle lane.

Chips Lovell

Knifey_Spooney wrote: »

Firstly can you be fined for cycling drunk/stoned/off your face?

Yes. I believe the offence is "drunk in charge of a bicycle".

Knifey_Spooney wrote: »

are cyclists allowed on the footpaths

No

Knifey_Spooney wrote: »

Thirdly are mopeds/modified hoovers :P allowed in the bus/cycle lanes

No

Gavin

Knifey_Spooney wrote: »

I've a few questions about cycling law that I can't seem to find good answers for online.

Firstly can you be fined for cycling drunk/stoned/off your face? cause I've seen some cyclists that aren't just a hazard to themselves but to drivers, pedestrians, parked cars, trees, rivers and so on....... Whenever I'm drunk I usually won't cycle but if I have to I'll go quickly so I don't swerve and stay on the footpaths if its late enough.

You can't get done for drink driving, but you can get done for not being in control of a vehicle. Or something along those lines.

Secondly, are cyclists allowed on the footpaths or can we theoretically get in trouble for using the path to dodge a T-junction red light...

No, illegal to use footpaths. Also not a good idea, it's really annoying for pedestrians. There's no theoretical about it, a Garda will tell you to get off the path at the least.

A good chunk of cyclists on the forum don't break lights either... It's a good habit.

Thirdly are mopeds/modified hoovers :P allowed in the bus/cycle lanes, cause the same hoover driver pisses off every day doing so and I want to make sure I'm justified in my anger.

No they aren't allowed. Try for some empathy though unless the driver is a complete idiot. They tend not to be in the way for very long.

Knifey_Spooney

Answers I expected but does anyone know anybody who's actually been done for cycling drunk? Or on the foothpath for that matter.

I've been pulled for running lights before, usually a "yes officer, no officer" approach gets you out of any fines unless the guy is feeling mean or you cause an accident/near miss, which I've never done.

I've actually been forced onto the path and into pedestrians before by drivers not paying attention, the pedestrians really don't appreciate it, the guy I hit tried to beat me with a news paper, and the driver didn't even notice.

Knifey_Spooney

Verb wrote: »

A good chunk of cyclists on the forum don't break lights either... It's a good habit.

I generally don't but there are definitely lights on my route into work that simply don't apply as far as I'm concerned, mainly ped crossing lights with no one at them and some of the stupid junctions in blackrock which have been completely blocked by bad drivers moving into yellow boxes.

Gavin

If you're on the road and expect to be treated with the respect due to you as a road user, it's hypocritical to not adhere to the law. Sounds snotty, but that's my take on it.

You'd be disgusted if you saw a driver casually go through a pedestrian light if there were no pedestrians around. Stopping at lights turns my commute from around 30 minutes into around 40 minutes. I can live with a 10 minute difference if it means giving drivers less ammunition to give out about cyclists.

DBCyc

Knifey_Spooney wrote: »

I generally don't but there are definitely lights on my route into work that simply don't apply as far as I'm concerned, mainly ped crossing lights with no one at them and some of the stupid junctions in blackrock which have been completely blocked by bad drivers moving into yellow boxes.

I used to have the same opinion until I saw a cyclist strike a pedestrian who was crossing the road when the light was red for the cyclist. The cyclist couldn't see her due to a parked car but still carried on through red light and hit her. I was behind the cyclist and stopped to see if everything was okay and onlookers started abusing me along with the guy that hit her just because I was also a cyclist (I did not break the red light)

I now appreciate why people get a bad impression of cyclists due to the actions of a few although I don't agree with the sweeping statements that all cyclists are dangerous of course!

A red traffic light should always apply to a cyclist no matter what the situation is. If we all obey the rules of the road we should earn the respect of other road users and this may make life easier cycling on our streets.

Lumen

Verb wrote: »

You'd be disgusted if you saw a driver casually go through a pedestrian light if there were no pedestrians around.

Why?

Knifey_Spooney

I'm sure this is a long and tired topic, and I didn't mean to bring it up, it'll go nowhere. Personally I think drivers will always going to give out about cyclists, particularly in rush hour. Furthermore they will never pay enough attention to how much space you actually need or when they're opening doors.

Re: running lights, I do it, I always slow down and stand up to check Its safe, but I do consistently run lights.

Bunnyhopper

Why?

Because it's illegal and potentially dangerous (is there really no pedestrian, or might there be one the driver hasn't seen?), and it'd be a driver who has a sense that they're entitled to disregard the law in situations where it suits them - and that's one of the sorts of driver that worries me when I'm on a bike.

Gavin

Lumen wrote: »

Why?

I dunno, social indoctrination ? I know I would be though and I know most people would be.

Raam

If the bike lane has a dashed white line, then anyone is allowed in.

Gavin

Knifey_Spooney wrote: »

I'm sure this is a long and tired topic, and I didn't mean to bring it up, it'll go nowhere. Personally I think drivers will always going to give out about cyclists, particularly in rush hour. Furthermore they will never pay enough attention to how much space you actually need or when they're opening doors.

Re: running lights, I do it, I always slow down and stand up to check Its safe, but I do consistently run lights.

Things do change. People and attitudes do change. Look at drink driving for example. Drink driving has effectively become a taboo over the past decade.

Making an effort to encourage change by adhering to the law is one way for cyclists to get acknowledged by the average driver as valid road users.

Chris Peak

I knew a guy who had his details taken and was told he would be charged with 'operating a mechanically propelled vehicle(ve-he-kil) while intoxicated'. Unfortunately, he was so drunk he accidentally gave his Fathers address.;) When the police came around, the old Dad laid it on thick and gave the copper such an ear bashing about his old legs, tired muscles, and it's been 20 years since I've thrown my leg over anything, let alone a bycle. This drunk fella must clearly be a blagard who gave my details just to fool you. Could you not have checked this before knocking on my door and making me leave my soft seat beside the fire to struggle down the hallway and stand at a cold door.....
This went on and on untill the cop apollogised and left.

The drink driving laws are really intended for motor vehicles, but you can get done for being a danger to traffic. Or, they can take you in for being a danger to yourself and others.

I've just had a look at the Penalty Points thing and it says "Holding a mobile phone while driving a mechanically propelled vehicle" = 2 points and a fixed charge of €80.:eek:
Obviously, if you don't have a driving licence the court can't add the points. But from the wording, it suggests that the fine can still be imposed.
I know in the UK if you don't have a driving licence the courts can hold onto these penalty points untill you do get one.

Lumen

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Because it's illegal and potentially dangerous (is there really no pedestrian, or might there be one the driver hasn't seen?), and it'd be a driver who has a sense that they're entitled to disregard the law in situations where it suits them - and that's one of the sorts of driver that worries me when I'm on a bike.

In Verb's case he stated "there were no pedestrians around". So there were no pedestrians. No "might be".

Personally, I'm scared of drivers who drive carelessly, dangerously, and thoughtlessly. I could care less if a driver breaks the law, unless the action also falls into one of those categories.

Chris Peak

Raam wrote: »

If the bike lane has a dashed white line, then anyone is allowed in.

According to the Penalty Points thing "Driving on a cycle track" = 1 point & €60 fine. Though, you are allowed to park on a non-mandatory (dashed line) while loading or unloads goods from a vehicle. :rolleyes:

DirkVoodoo

We need traffic lights with brains in 'em, dontcha know!

I know one set of pedestrian lights in particular that nearly every person who pushes the button, has a look and sees no traffic, crosses the road. When the cars, motorbikes, mechanically propelled vehicles come along, there are no pedestrians crossing and the lights there take a good while to change since they are on the dual carriageway and span a good few lanes.

Still, I don't see anyone breaking the lights even though it is infuriating to be stopped when there are phantom pedestrians.

Also, the cycle "path/lane" is routed properly and avoids the lights altogether, darting behind a bus stop (then disappears for a bit before reappearing s short while ahead).

A shiny penny to whoever can guess the lights I am on about!

Chips Lovell

Knifey_Spooney wrote: »

Answers I expected but does anyone know anybody who's actually been done for cycling drunk? Or on the foothpath for that matter.

Obeying the law shouldn't be predicated on how likely you are to get caught disobeying it.

Knifey_Spooney wrote: »

I've actually been forced onto the path and into pedestrians before by drivers not paying attention, the pedestrians really don't appreciate it, the guy I hit tried to beat me with a news paper, and the driver didn't even notice.

I've been riding for years and have never been forced to cycle on the path. I don't want to sound condescending but may be you should take a look at your own cycling skills first.

Chris Peak wrote: »

According to the Penalty Points thing "Driving on a cycle track" = 1 point & €60 fine. Though, you are allowed to park on a non-mandatory (dashed line) while loading or unloads goods from a vehicle. :rolleyes:

You can't drive on ones with a solid white line. That'll what lands you points.

Knifey_Spooney wrote: »

Re: running lights, I do it, I always slow down and stand up to check Its safe, but I do consistently run lights.

Then you're no better than the motorists your giving out about.

Knifey_Spooney

el tonto wrote: »

Obeying the law shouldn't be predicated on how likely you are to get caught disobeying it.

Wasn't my point, I was simply curious because I've certainly never heard of anyone actually getting in trouble for drunken cycling. Although I did breath tested in Australia for it. I was curious as to our laws and their enforceability, i.e. do/can the cops breath test and/or fine drunk cyclists. Personally never cycle drunk except when its to the shop down the road which involves a park with no cars, as it strikes me as a dumb plan.

el tonto wrote: »

I've been riding for years and have never been forced to cycle on the path. I don't want to sound condescending but may be you should take a look at your own cycling skills first.

Really, you've never been pushed onto a path by a lane shifting driver who wasn't looking? Or a passenger not checking before opening his door? Or a silly pedestrian who decided to cross in stationary traffic? I see it happening all the time.

el tonto wrote: »

Then you're no better than the motorists your giving out about.

Maybe true, however its no all motorists I was giving out about, simply the ones that fail to pay attention to other road users, I always pay attention to the road around me and never take risks to others. The same can be said for most motorists, but you do get the odd one who seems quite oblivious to other motorists, let alone cyclists, and their the ones I'm giving out about.
TBH I couldn't give a fiddlers if a motorist breaks the law as long as they don't endanger others while their doing it.

Bunnyhopper

Lumen wrote: »

In Verb's case he stated "there were no pedestrians around". So there were no pedestrians. No "might be".

Personally, I'm scared of drivers who drive carelessly, dangerously, and thoughtlessly. I could care less if a driver breaks the law, unless the action also falls into one of those categories.

My contention is that it is careless/dangerous/thoughtless to decide that you can disregard the law simply because you think you can. As soon as you start to argue that it's okay to separate those two categories (illegal / dangerous) you have to accept that an individual's judgement takes priority over the law.

Of course I know that Verb did say "there were no pedestrians around", but my point is that that would be no more than his perception and his judgement. The driver who doesn't see you and then (nearly) runs you over while taking a left turn or pulling out of a side road or breaking a red light might equally say "there were no bikes around". (In fact, I've had near things where the car driver has merrily gone on their way without even noticing me and would probably have said just that, if asked.)

If you take the red light example, the car driver did exactly what you're saying is okay. You might object that their action falls into the category of careless/dangerous/thoughtless and is therefore objectionable in your terms, but my point is that they did what they did because they were following the I-know-better principle that you're supporting.

Of course, I disregard the mandatory-use law on cycle tracks, so I am talking out of my ahem

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

A shiny penny to whoever can guess the lights I am on about!

Stillorgan Road/Nutley Avenue/Greenfield Park, outside RTE?

If I'm right, you can hang on to the penny and put it toward the next bit of Euro-bling

DirkVoodoo

Nope, incorrect, no penny for you sir!

Bunnyhopper

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Nope, incorrect, no penny for you sir!

Dang.

Well, just goes to show there's more than one of those crossings.

TinyExplosions

Knifey_Spooney wrote: »

Really, you've never been pushed onto a path by a lane shifting driver who wasn't looking? Or a passenger not checking before opening his door? Or a silly pedestrian who decided to cross in stationary traffic? I see it happening all the time.

Nor I I'm afraid. Never had to use the path due to a driver or other road user doing something

NeilMcEoigheann

i don't think you could call it cycling, rolling maybe just, but i was told i would be arrested by a garda if i didn't get off the bike, unfortunately i couldn't see the gardai in their car about 3 metres away.
also before the its stupid to cycle drunk speel is read to me, i only rode drunk because i was inebriated and it was a while ago.

Chips Lovell

Knifey_Spooney wrote: »

you've never been pushed onto a path by a lane shifting driver who wasn't looking?

Nope

Knifey_Spooney wrote: »

Or a passenger not checking before opening his door?

Nope

Knifey_Spooney wrote: »

Or a silly pedestrian who decided to cross in stationary traffic?

Nope

And I live in the city centre too, which means I have to deal with heavy traffic every time I go out on the bike. To me, it sounds like you haven't learnt to modulate your speed enough to avoid unanticipated obstacles. So rather than braking in time, you find yourself swerving up on to the footpath.

Knifey_Spooney wrote: »

Maybe true, however its no all motorists I was giving out about, simply the ones that fail to pay attention to other road users, I always pay attention to the road around me and never take risks to others. The same can be said for most motorists, but you do get the odd one who seems quite oblivious to other motorists, let alone cyclists, and their the ones I'm giving out about. TBH I couldn't give a fiddlers if a motorist breaks the law as long as they don't endanger others while their doing it.

You are relying on your own judgement to ensure the way is clear when breaking a light, while everyone else is expecting you to stop. Sure, you may see every oncoming vehicle or pedestrian most of the time, but what happens if you fail to spot something. Aside from the legalities of it, are you sure you can trust your judgement when you've just admitted to swerving up on the footpath when encountering a whole host of obstacles?

Chips Lovell

NeilMcEoigheann wrote: »

i don't think you could call it cycling, rolling maybe just, but i was told i would be arrested by a garda if i didn't get off the bike, unfortunately i couldn't see the gardai in their car about 3 metres away.
also before the its stupid to cycle drunk speel is read to me, i only rode drunk because i was inebriated and it was a while ago.

I love it. Your excuse for drunk cycling is that you were drunk.

Knifey_Spooney

el tonto wrote: »

Nope
Nope
Nope

And I live in the city centre too, which means I have to deal with heavy traffic every time I go out on the bike. To me, it sounds like you haven't learnt to modulate your speed enough to avoid unanticipated obstacles. So rather than braking in time, you find yourself swerving up on to the footpath.

Avoiding obstacles is all well and good if you have space to do so, however on the blackrock - town road there are several points where you simply have no where to go except onto the path. And I can actually pick the 2 points where it usually happens. The major problem is that these cars are usually stationary. And no offence, but no matter how experienced a cyclist you are if your cycling at a reasonable pace and someone opens a door randomly less than a meter in front of you you'll do one of two things; brake hard and crash or swerve and ramp/hop onto the path.
Admittedly its gotten better now that they put that cycle lane in.

el tonto wrote: »

You are relying on your own judgement to ensure the way is clear when breaking a light, while everyone else is expecting you to stop. Sure, you may see every oncoming vehicle or pedestrian most of the time, but what happens if you fail to spot something. Aside from the legalities of it, are you sure you can trust your judgement when you've just admitted to swerving up on the footpath when encountering a whole host of obstacles?

I do trust my own judgement with junctions and ped crossings, I always slow down, stand and look around, then make it quite clear what I'm about to do, before doing anything illegal.

kenmc

Chris Peak wrote: »

I've just had a look at the Penalty Points thing and it says "Holding a mobile phone while driving a mechanically propelled vehicle" = 2 points and a fixed charge of €80.:eek:

But what's that got to do with cycling? A bike is not a mechanically propelled vehicle.

kenmc

Knifey_Spooney wrote: »

Really, you've never been pushed onto a path by a lane shifting driver who wasn't looking? Or a passenger not checking before opening his door? Or a silly pedestrian who decided to cross in stationary traffic? I see it happening all the time.

Me neither. I've had to slow down, I've had to stop and I've had to stop FAST, but I've never had to get onto the path. And I've never seen anyone else have to do it either.

Chips Lovell

Knifey_Spooney wrote: »

Avoiding obstacles is all well and good if you have space to do so, however on the blackrock - town road there are several points where you simply have no where to go except onto the path. And I can actually pick the 2 points where it usually happens. The major problem is that these cars are usually stationary. And no offence, but no matter how experienced a cyclist you are if your cycling at a reasonable pace and someone opens a door randomly less than a meter in front of you you'll do one of two things; brake hard and crash or swerve and ramp/hop onto the path. Admittedly its gotten better now that they put that cycle lane in.

If you can't brake in time to avoid being doored going up the inside of stationary traffic you're either going too fast or you're trying to squeeze through too narrow a gap. If you can't go down the inside safely, you don't go.