Pulled over by a bike cop...

Highway_To_Hell

for cycling on a bus lane and not using the cycle lane provide. Was pull in just after Foxrock church heading towards Cabinteely. He asked why I wasnt on the cycle path and I said it's in bits and was basically a few lines painted on the path that crossed over driveways, I said I felt it was safer for me on the road then on the path, he told me it was no excuse and I was old enough to have more sense and that where provided I was obliged to use the cycle paths.

Was doing really well on my commute home as I got green lights most of the way on was on my way to doing a PB for the trip but ended up a few mins slower :mad:

CarrickMcJoe

Did he have the blue lights and siren going?

Cabaal

Whats the status of this bull**** "law" being removed?

Alanstrainor

Cabaal wrote: »

Whats the status of this bull**** "law" being removed?

Indeed, i can't wait. There's one in Rathfarnham, the stretch from the Rathfarnham Church to the crossroads at the Rathfarnham Wood estate and it is a disgrace of a cycle lane(it's an "on path lane"...the worst of them all!). In fact it no longer has enough markings to let you know it's a separate cycling lane! It has some dots of white paint on a path and that's it. I refuse to use it.

c0rk3r

I saw a female bike cop today. She looked awesome

thebouldwhacker

I thought it was? Thats some carp, so its illegal to cycle on our own national roads cos someone painted lines on a foot path. :rolleyes:

fishfoodie

Highway_To_Hell wrote: »

for cycling on a bus lane and not using the cycle lane provide. Was pull in just after Foxrock church heading towards Cabinteely. He asked why I wasnt on the cycle path and I said it's in bits and was basically a few lines painted on the path that crossed over driveways, I said I felt it was safer for me on the road then on the path, he told me it was no excuse and I was old enough to have more sense and that where provided I was obliged to use the cycle paths.

Was doing really well on my commute home as I got green lights most of the way on was on my way to doing a PB for the trip but ended up a few mins slower :mad:

You should have looked around, found the nearest pedestrian walking on the cycle path part of the path, there are usually about 5 in every 100m of path & asked the cop if he was going to give the same 'chat' to all of them :rolleyes:

Remember folks; there's a GE coming up soon & its the only chance you get to tell your politicians exactly what a bunch of halfwits they are, & exercise some power !

Highway_To_Hell

CarrickMcJoe wrote: »

Did he have the blue lights and siren going?

Just the blue flashing lights.

Bunnyhopper

Jaysus but it's depressing to hear that, Highway_To_Hell. I hope the guards don't all start doing that. The sooner we get rid of that stupid law the better.

Alanstrainor

I thought that law was on it's way out? I have no idea about dates, does anyone have any info on it?

rp

H2H: can you check the signage on that stretch next time, and see if it is truely a legally marked cycle track? (search for RUS009 in this forum). A great many are not. In which case the reply to the question "why are you not riding on the path?" would be "because it's a footpath, and you could nick me for riding on it"...

Cabaal

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

I thought it was? Thats some carp, so its illegal to cycle on our own national roads cos someone painted lines on a foot path. :rolleyes:

hehe this gives an idea for a gorilla warfair...go around painting "fake" cycle lanes

They'll be in really stupid places just the like the real one's so people won't know the difference :pac:

fishfoodie

Cabaal wrote: »

hehe this gives an idea for a gorilla warfair...go around painting "fake" cycle lanes

They'll be in really stupid places just the like the real one's so people won't know the difference :pac:

You could do a mobius loop around Eamon Ryans & John Gormleys house for a starter. We could take bets on how long the kept cycling before they worked it out

kumate_champ07

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Indeed, i can't wait. There's one in Rathfarnham, the stretch from the Rathfarnham Church to the crossroads at the Rathfarnham Wood estate and it is a disgrace of a cycle lane(it's an "on path lane"...the worst of them all!). In fact it no longer has enough markings to let you know it's a separate cycling lane! It has some dots of white paint on a path and that's it. I refuse to use it.

theyre ok for pedestrian speed but theres always walkers/joggers etc and the surface is rough. doubt this will be fixed soon as every budget is being cut!

part of me wants to obey the law and also avoid dirty looks and give motorists a reason to dislike cyclists because we arent using our own special road/lane, they dont realise that alot of them are rough as hell and people walk on them too

Lumen

This is why I always carry doughnuts.

CheGuedara

Alanstrainor wrote: »

I thought that law was on it's way out? I have no idea about dates, does anyone have any info on it?

Sent emails to darth dempsey and the DoT nearly three months ago asking for info on when the law was to be removed and the status of deliberations into the introduction a minimum safe overtake distance (both promised in January) - got a receipt email saying they'd reply to my queries but as is the way with politicians, talk is cheap and lies are free

thebullkf

Highway_To_Hell wrote: »

for cycling on a bus lane and not using the cycle lane provide. Was pull in just after Foxrock church heading towards Cabinteely. He asked why I wasnt on the cycle path and I said it's in bits and was basically a few lines painted on the path that crossed over driveways, I said I felt it was safer for me on the road then on the path, he told me it was no excuse and I was old enough to have more sense and that where provided I was obliged to use the cycle paths.

Was doing really well on my commute home as I got green lights most of the way on was on my way to doing a PB for the trip but ended up a few mins slower :mad:

so there was a cycle path there but you didn't use it..

instead you chose to break the law..i fail to see the issue.
im only commenting because as a cyclist myself i complained to my local tds about a lack of lanes for us.-here you have one,don't use it,and get annoyed:eek:

did the guard nick you/give you a fine

Lumen

thebullkf wrote: »

so there was a cycle path there but you didn't use it..

instead you chose to break the law..i fail to see the issue.

Without wishing to speak for HTH, the issues are:

(a) The cycle path was crap.
(b) The mandatory use law is supposed to be repealed by now.
(c) Cycle paths are for children.

chakattack

thebullkf wrote: »

so there was a cycle path there but you didn't use it..

instead you chose to break the law..i fail to see the issue.
im only commenting because as a cyclist myself i complained to my local tds about a lack of lanes for us.-here you have one,don't use it,and get annoyed:eek:

did the guard nick you/give you a fine

No offense but I imagine that you can't be a very well seasoned cyclist.

Anyone with any experience is more than well aware of the inadequacy of many many cycle lanes and how often the safest route is on the road. This has been very well documented in previous threads here and there is an archive of photographic evidence.

This thread does not bode well.

thebullkf

Lumen wrote: »

Without wishing to speak for HTH, the issues are:

(a) The cycle path was crap.
(b) The mandatory use law is supposed to be repealed by now.
(c) Cycle paths are for children.

fair enough but if the garda was within his rights there can be no arguement really.

i never knew cycle paths were just for children,i thought they were for all cyclists.

rua327

Did you not flash him to get him off your case?

thebullkf

chakattack wrote: »

No offense but I imagine that you can't be a very well seasoned cyclist.

Anyone with any experience is more than well aware of the inadequacy of many many cycle lanes and how often the safest route is on the road. This has been very well documented in previous threads here and there is an archive of photographic evidence.

This thread does not bode well.

none taken,

i had/have a short commute. i near
ly always use the cycle lane- bus lanes are for buses-its bad enough for bus drivers when motorists use em,
( ihaven't been on a bus since 2008 btw)
bus lanes tend to be nice and attractive to cycle in but the laws the law.
i wonder if the law is repealed how many cyclists would consider paying road tax to avail of this car and civillian free lane?

fenris

oooooh - he said road tax, time to grab a helmet, damn now Iv'e done it!

thebullkf

fenris wrote: »

oooooh - he said road tax, time to grab a helmet, damn now Iv'e done it!

uh oh...what have i done

niceonetom

thebullkf wrote: »

i wonder if the law is repealed how many cyclists would consider paying road tax to avail of this car and civillian free lane?

dr ro

the law may be the law, but my safety comes first. If the bus lane's empty and the bike lane's only capable of 10-15km/ph, I'm in the bus lane. Cycling outside people's driveways is more dangerous anyway. A bike copper should know better.

Keep_Her_Lit

thebullkf wrote: »

so there was a cycle path there but you didn't use it..

instead you chose to break the law..i fail to see the issue.
im only commenting because as a cyclist myself i complained to my local tds about a lack of lanes for us.-here you have one,don't use it,and get annoyed:eek:

did the guard nick you/give you a fine

No offence intended here either, but I feel under no obligation to use these "cycle lanes" because some other cyclists have previously campaigned for them. I have never campaigned for a slice of the footpath to be given over to me as a cyclist, since I prefer to cycle on the road and in most instances believe it is safer to do so. I will of course use cycle lanes which are part of the road wherever it is safe to do so.

Concerning the legality of the situation, I don't see it as a simple case of "the law is the law" [this isn't an argument that would hold up too well in a court, I admit!]. When is the last time you saw a Garda remonstrating with someone parking in a cycle lane, walking there, setting a skip down there, smashing bottles there...
Like lots of other Irish laws, this one is arbitrarily enforced, so I don't lose sleep over arbitrarily ignoring it.

thebullkf

dr ro wrote: »

the law may be the law, but my safety comes first. If the bus lane's empty and the bike lane's only capable of 10-15km/ph, I'm in the bus lane. Cycling outside people's driveways is more dangerous anyway. A bike copper should know better.

so speed...not safety comes first?? cycling past someones driveway is no more dangerous than walking past it.

every cyclist should know better.

thebullkf

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

No offence intended here either, but I feel under no obligation to use these "cycle lanes" because some other cyclists have previously campaigned for them. I have never campaigned for a slice of the footpath to be given over to me as a cyclist, since I prefer to cycle on the road and in most instances believe it is safer to do so. I will of course use cycle lanes which are part of the road wherever it is safe to do so.

Concerning the legality of the situation, I don't see it as a simple case of "the law is the law" [this isn't an argument that would hold up too well in a court, I admit!]. When is the last time you saw a Garda remonstrating with someone parking in a cycle lane, walking there, setting a skip down there, smashing bottles there...
Like lots of other Irish laws, this one is arbitrarily enforced, so I don't lose sleep over arbitrarily ignoring it.

excellent points,all of them;) .

Idleater

With the greatest of respect to both the op, to the letter of the current law, I think that in such circumstances until the law is repealed then the garda is correct.
Generally, the attitude test will make the rest of your journey quick or slow.

Nod, agree, move into it, apologise, cycle on. The garda obviously wanted to prove a point to someone, or the op did something else silly to bring attention unto themselves.

yogipear

it's a couple of years since i did my driving test but i seem to remember the fact that bus lanes could be used by taxis, buses & cyclists.
Has this law been changed?
If so why has the signage not been changed? (picture of a bike on the bus lane sign)
that being said if a bike cop stoped me it would be yes garda, no garda three bags full garda.
a friend got stoped on the quay (in his van) by the gardai at 06.00 am to be asked what he was doing in a bus lane only to reply that he wasn't aware that it was a bus lane before 07.00 am.
Didn't get an apology the cop just got back on his bike and drove off.

Keep_Her_Lit

thebullkf wrote: »

i never knew cycle paths were just for children,i thought they were for all cyclists.

There may have been a touch of condescension there from Lumen but the fact that he's correct kinda gets him off the hook.

If you have distance to cover and don't have all day to cover it at a leisurely jaunt, then the road is much, much better. I will happily tootle down to the local park with the kids using those painted sections of footpath. But for my daily commute ... forget it.

Keep_Her_Lit

thebullkf wrote: »

excellent points,all of them;) .

Thanks, that's very civil of you! Your points are perfectly rational also. I just disagree with them

mtbireland

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055567823

michael196

astonishingly alot of gardai dont know the law, I would check it out and be ready to quote them. I avoid cycle lanes (as part of footpaths) because of pedestrians, glass, poor surface , exiting non looking vehicles. but when they are part of a road they can be ok.

In-laws run commerical vehicles on the roads and thy have frequently informed the gaurds on the legal status of certain types of vehicles with trailers etc to be told by the gardai to write down the references as they ( the gaurds) were not aware of the road traffic lawas in relation to certain tyupes of vehicles !

michael196

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_cycling-safely.html

Keep_Her_Lit

thebullkf wrote: »

so speed...not safety comes first?? cycling past someones driveway is no more dangerous than walking past it.

every cyclist should know better.

When's the last time you walked past someone's driveway at 45kph? And no, you don't need to be a wannabe TDF contestant to achieve such speeds here and there on your daily commute. A slight tailwind, a slightly sympathetic gradient and a moderately enthusiastic riding style will get you there easily (indeed, I suspect there may be a few around here who can reach such speeds with both the wind and gradient against them!).

Regarding speed and safety, far from being mutually exclusive, I believe there are many (sub)urban cycling situations in which they are complementary. A swift and assertive (NOT aggressive) riding style has many advantages.

thebullkf

thebullkf wrote: »

so speed...not safety comes first?? cycling past someones driveway is no more dangerous than walking past it.

every cyclist should know better.

There have been a multitude of studies published in several different countries that show that a cycle lane of this type is several times more dangerous than the road, especially at junctions (and when you think about it, every driveway basically is a junction, albeit a lightly trafficked one). Here is a graphic that shows the most common type of collisions at junctions, and how much more likely they are to occur when using an off road cycle track as opposed to the road:






Here's another similar one from a U.S. study:

"Crossing on a set-back cycle path has been found to be up to 11.9 times more risky than straight crossing on a road with a bike lane. Note that off-set separate paths are often only provided on one side of the road, thus making the 'contraflow' movement with its high accident risk legal / and in some jurisdictions using the path may even be officially required for cyclists."

Overature

your the guy who holds up ever damn bus and vehicle in that lane, i know its in bits, but its for buses and taxies

fergalr

I cycle through the city.
It is my primary mode of transport.

I am a licensed driver.
I have owned a car.
I do not now own a car because I can cycle through the city with sufficient speed (by a fair bit) and safety (just barely).

If a lot of the cyclists stop cycling and buy cars, everyone loses.
The traffic on the N11 will go much slower for everyone.
Everyone will pay more road tax.

This will happen, unless cyclists are treated with some modicum of respect.
I do not see what is so hard to understand about this.



Cycling in cycle lanes is frequently extremely dangerous; more so than being on the road.

- It is more dangerous for the cyclist, as drivers frequently do not anticipate traffic moving faster than walking pace in cycle lanes.
In a more naive time in my cycling career, I have almost been involved in several serious accidents when drivers have pulled in or out on top of me as I cycled in the cycle lane. I now avoid cycle lanes.

- It is more dangerous for pedestrians.
Parents do not control their young children on footpath/cycle lane boundaries.
A bicycle moving at even a slow speed will do a four year old substantial damage.
We, of course, cycle slowly to try and make sure this doesn't happen, but it is fundamentally stupid design to put cyclists and children on the same footpath with only a generally-ignored line between them. Children do not notice this line.


The law compelling cyclists to use the cycle lanes is stupid.
A Garda that enforces this law is just doing their job and cannot be criticised for that; but I would argue in much the same way as a Garda that dispenses a speeding ticket to a motorist, who is rushing a bleeding-out passenger to hospital.
The circumstances are less dramatic, but both are against the law, and both increase the total safety and well being in the system. In both cases Gardai should use their judgement. And in fairness to the Gardai, they typically do. (I should say, I do respect the Gardai, they are doing a tough under-appreciated job).


But none of this matters. A significant subset people are basically not rational and are assholes about these things; and just care about shaving 3 seconds off their journey time to the next red light, and so long as they cannot injure themselves, many of them don't much care.
I've never been treated, when driving a car, the way I sometimes am on a bicycle.
Car drivers never cut a right turn in front of you, when both parties are in cars, the way they do when you are on a bike. It is sad that this is the case.


Anyway, this is just so much ranting on the Internet, and does absolutely no good.
Lobbying is what matters in our society.
What is Dempsey's e-mail address? We were promised this directive some time ago.

Highway_To_Hell

I was amused by being pulled in (with flashing lights and all) and only annoyed because: 1. didn't get a PB for my trip home and 2. he made a comment that I should be old enough to have sense. I know it is illegal so I was expectiong worse from the cop, he asked why I was not using the bike lane and I told him why I was not on the cycle lane. Where the cycle lanes are safe and easily accessible I used them.

Not trying to justify myself but if anyone knows the section of the N11 from whitescross to Jonstown road (the section I use coming home from work) it is a downhill section of road and I would normaly get up to speeds in excess of 40kmh, From whitescross to the Church the cycle path goes through/around a few bus stops and a number of driveways, the section just after the lights at the church is a dissgrace and again runs infront of a bus stop. so I stay on the road. I always use the cycle lane from after the bus stop till I turn off at cabinteely as the cyclelane is uninterupted and easy to access.

It might annoy some of you but I will continue to use the road where the cycle lane is a joke and use the cycle lanes where they are appropriatly designed.

@Overature, I am probably the same person who also delays/blocks traffic on the many shared bus/cycle lanes around the city.

tomasrojo

thebullkf wrote: »

so speed...not safety comes first?? cycling past someones driveway is no more dangerous than walking past it.

every cyclist should know better.

Not at all. Cycling in this context is considerably more dangerous, because the greater speed of the cyclist leaves both the cyclist and the motorist less time to respond, as pointed out above. In statistical analyses of collisions, these cycle facilities passing in front of blind exits from driveways show elevated incidence of serious collisions.

Apart from this, how do you feel about cycle tracks that leave you to the left of left-turning traffic. The law compels you to proceed straight on through a stream of left-turning traffic. Do you do it? Do you really think the authorities did this for your safety?

If this law is not repealed (and, to be honest, I think it's now unlikely given that the government is on life support, and there is no chance of FG repealing it and little chance of Labour), we may just have to hope that a Garda does bring someone to court for not using a cycle track where provided, so the law can finally be tested in court. As it seems to have been in Germany (though I would like a more definitive source than a comment in a blog):


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/audio/2010/oct/05/bike-podcast?showallcomments=true#start-of-comments

Micheline

6 October 2010 8:40AM

In our town, the "bike lane use mandatory" signs have just been removed from bike lanes on pavements in most streets. A cyclist somewhere else in Germany had been fined for using the road instead of a mandatory bike lane that was dangerous to use. He went through the courts and finally the regulation has been removed. The regulation that you must use a signposted bikelane, no matter how badly maintained or downright dangerous it is (pavement bike lanes of 75 cm width which are right next to parking cars in the swing area of car doors** being *my* pet peeve and reason for using the road). He won and cities have started to remove signs. There still remain a few mandatory bike lanes on main throughfares but *yay* for someone breaking the law and finally getting this dangerous regulation removed.

thebullkf

some excellent points. some not so much..

fergalr wrote: »

I cycle through the city.
It is my primary mode of transport.

I am a licensed driver.
I have owned a car.
I do not now own a car because I can cycle through the city with sufficient speed (by a fair bit) and safety (just barely).

If a lot of the cyclists stop cycling and buy cars, everyone loses.
The traffic on the N11 will go much slower for everyone.
Everyone will pay more road tax.

This will happen, unless cyclists are treated with some modicum of respect.
I do not see what is so hard to understand about this.

whats so hard is thefact that your implying cyclists are keeping road tax down as well being disrespected.
you're not the only ones. but cyclists are the most common law breakers on the roads. (esp couriers.)

i rarely see cyclists stopped @ lights. seriously.

It is more dangerous for pedestrians.
Parents do not control their young children on footpath/cycle lane boundaries.
A bicycle moving at even a slow speed will do a four year old substantial damage.
We, of course, cycle slowly to try and make sure this doesn't happen, but it is fundamentally stupid design to put cyclists and children on the same footpath with only a generally-ignored line between them. Children do not notice this line.

well then-practise what you preach,cycle slower??

But none of this matters. A significant subset people are basically not rational and are assholes about these things; and just care about shaving 3 seconds off their journey time to the next red light, and so long as they cannot injure themselves, many of them don't much care.
I've never been treated, when driving a car, the way I sometimes am on a bicycle.
Car drivers never cut a right turn in front of you, when both parties are in cars, the way they do when you are on a bike. It is sad that this is the case.

agree +1000.

thebullkf

tomasrojo wrote: »

Not at all. Cycling in this context is considerably more dangerous, because the greater speed of the cyclist leaves both the cyclist and the motorist less time to respond, as pointed out above. In statistical analyses of collisions, these cycle facilities passing in front of blind exits from driveways show elevated incidence of serious collisions.

but c'mon...cycle slower.

Apart from this, how do you feel about cycle tracks that leave you to the left of left-turning traffic. The law compels you to proceed straight on through a stream of left-turning traffic. Do you do it? Do you really think the authorities did this for your safety?

use common sense. i never pass on the inside of any vehicle turning left...

I would like a more definitive source than a comment in a blog):

+1

dr ro

thebullkf wrote: »

so speed...not safety comes first?? cycling past someones driveway is no more dangerous than walking past it.

every cyclist should know better.

No, common sense comes first. The n11 has the best bus lane in the country and dempsey and co are very pleased with themselves. However the n11 has possibly the worst cycle lanes in dublin and that's why you see so many cyclist not using them. Cycling past someone's drive at 15 to 50km in a cycle lane is more dangerous than walking past. For a pedestrian walking out, or the cyclist, if a car pulls out. Surely that's obvious?

thebullkf

dr ro wrote: »

No, common sense comes first. The n11 has the best bus lane in the country and dempsey and co are very pleased with themselves. However the n11 has possibly the worst cycle lanes in dublin and that's why you see so many cyclist not using them. Cycling past someone's drive at 15 to 50km in a cycle lane is more dangerous than walking past. For a pedestrian walking out, or the cyclist, if a car pulls out. Surely that's obvious?

you are correct, common sense comes first.


slow down.:)

dr ro

yeah, or get out of stupid cycle lane.

DirkVoodoo

That one along the N11 is also one of the worst and most dangerous for left turning traffic. If he was setting a PB then the Garda should have been giving him a fecking lead out!

Sorry to hear this OP, I've stopped using the N11 home now, I go via Clonskeagh-Sandyford: Nearly all "on road" cycle facilities, so much easier!

tomasrojo

thebullkf wrote: »

but c'mon...cycle slower.

Or perhaps I should just walk to work, eh? I mean, me wanting to travel faster than 10km/h is an absurd idea, obviously.

thebullkf wrote: »

use common sense. i never pass on the inside of any vehicle turning left...

The law compels you to use cycle tracks where provided. The ones provided frequently pass on the inside of left-turning traffic. You cannot legally leave the cycle track to go to the right of the left-turning traffic. You must pass on the inside, if you wish to keep within the law.

So you admit you break this law. Shame on you. I had such high hopes for you.

tomasrojo

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

That one along the N11 is also one of the worst and most dangerous for left turning traffic. If he was setting a PB then the Garda should have been giving him a fecking lead out!

Sorry to hear this OP, I've stopped using the N11 home now, I go via Clonskeagh-Sandyford: Nearly all "on road" cycle facilities, so much easier!

Me too. I never use the N11.

fergalr

thebullkf wrote: »

whats so hard is thefact that your implying cyclists are keeping road tax down as well being disrespected.

What do you mean by this?

Would you not agree that if many of the cyclists start travelling by a different mode of transport, it will cost more to maintain the road network?
Surely this is almost self-evident?

A bicycle is responsible for hardly any congestion, and hardly any wear and tear on the roads.
Tens of thousands commute to work by bike in Dublin every day. If even a minority of them start taking the car, it'll cost more.

And many cyclists do also own cars, or are licensed drivers.

Furthermore, perception of safety is oft cited as a primary reason for not cycling.
If safety decreases, due to being forced to use unsuitable cycling facilities, then people will drive more.

If you disagree with this point, then I'd like to know why.

thebullkf wrote: »

you're not the only ones. but cyclists are the most common law breakers on the roads. (esp couriers.)

Well, ideally you'd need a citation to back this up.
But, for the sake of discussion, if you want to get anal about this, think of all the drivers, the length and breath of the country, that break the speed limit by a few kmph, now and again. There are a lot of those, probably more than cyclists, would you not agree?


But anyway, surely what matters is not how commonly a law is broken, nearly so much as the seriousness of the law that is broken, and the consequences of it?

100 people downloading a song is surely less bad than 5 murders, even though the law has been broken 20 times as commonly with the downloading? Surely you would agree?

How commonly the law is broken isn't nearly as important as what happens when the law is broken.


The simple fact is that cyclists, even cyclists breaking the law, rarely cause serious injury or death, because the ways in which they break the law are much less dangerous than when car drivers do.

I say this as a driver and a cyclist.

I feel far more responsibility driving a car to make sure to obey all the laws, and to avoid any accident, than when I cycle a bicycle. The reason is that because if I make a mistake in traffic driving a car, I could kill a large number of people. If I make a mistake in traffic cycling a bicycle, I am only likely to kill myself.

It is right and proper to have more concern for situations in which we can kill or injure numbers of others, than in which we can only injure ourselves.

This should be obvious.
If someone wants to go rock climbing, and risk their own life, then let them. If someone wants to go boy-racing their new souped up car through the city, then it is much more serious, because they could run someone over.

I really think that anyone that cannot see this difference must be pretty crazy.

Thankfully, the Gardai and the justice system rationally recognises this difference. Penalties and enforcement for minor infractions on a bicycle are properly much less than on a car.

thebullkf wrote: »

i rarely see cyclists stopped @ lights. seriously.

Perhaps you do not; but for the reasons I just mentioned, how common a crime is is not nearly as big a deal as the consequences of the crime.

One car driver running a rush hour red light, and narrowing missing taking out a couple of other cars, is obviously more serious than a cyclist making a left through a red into an empty road. The same number of offences have been committed, but surely the former is more serious than the latter?

thebullkf wrote: »

It is more dangerous for pedestrians.
Parents do not control their young children on footpath/cycle lane boundaries.
A bicycle moving at even a slow speed will do a four year old substantial damage.
We, of course, cycle slowly to try and make sure this doesn't happen, but it is fundamentally stupid design to put cyclists and children on the same footpath with only a generally-ignored line between them. Children do not notice this line.

well then-practise what you preach,cycle slower??

As I said, we do, of course, cycle slowly to try and make sure this doesn't happen.
But, fundamentally, I don't want to hit a four year old child, even cycling slowly.
This is not an abstract concern. It is a very real concern every day, every time children come out of school at around 15:00, in many areas.

It is simply far safer, for the children, in such situations, for the cyclist to self sacrificingly cycle on the road, and risk irrate drivers and traffic police both.

And, in fairness, most drivers are sensible enough that they do of course understand this.
It is very rare that a driver blows their horn at a cyclist avoiding a pavement of children - although I have seen it happen - and I would be shocked if a Garda enforced the law to the letter in such a circumstance.

thebullkf wrote: »

agree +1000.

Cheers.