Cyclists along College Green bus gate/lane thing

daenerysstormborn3

This morning I was coming around by Trinity heading towards Grafton Street and there was a Garda bike on the opposite side with four cyclists pulled in and cyclists on the other side of the road coming upon this were dismounting before they got to th Garda and then mounting again further up the road out of his sight. The only explanation I can think of for this is that are cyclists for some reason not allowed use the bus gate/lane thing the same as cars during the specified hours?

Of course I lost count of the amount of cars and motorbikes that managed to get by while he had the cyclists pulled in, what an absolute joke!

I had a look online earlier and all the information I can find says that the bus gate is for buses, taxis and cyclists during the specified hours.

Anyone know anything more on this? I use that route twice a day.

Cool Mo D

Cyclists are allowed to use it, I imagine he pulled the cyclists in for breaking traffic lights.

Propellerhead

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Cyclists are allowed to use it, I imagine he pulled the cyclists in for breaking traffic lights.

Oh, I thought cyclists were exempt from the Rules of the Road.

flyingsnail

Propellerhead wrote: »

Oh, I thought cyclists were exempt from the Rules of the Road.

umm no, what gave you that idea?

Cookie_Monster

Propellerhead wrote: »

Oh, I thought cyclists were exempt from the Rules of the Road.

they are

only when not on the road though

Jehuty42

flyingsnail wrote: »

umm no, what gave you that idea?

Sarcasm, learn to recognise it.

steamengine

A bicycle is a road 'veh-hickle' just like any other !!! The Rules of the Road apply, but at least we don't pay road tax yet !!!

Del2005

steamengine wrote: »

A bicycle is a road 'veh-hickle' just like any other !!! The Rules of the Road apply, but at least we don't pay road tax yet !!!

That's because there is no such thing, yet.

DDigital

Del2005 wrote: »

That's because there is no such thing, yet.

A cracking idea!

Road tax for bikes and insurance too! Compulsory safety and lighting requirements would make sense as well.

Seriously, how do cyclists feel about that, if at least some of the money was put back into cycling in initiatives?

xper

DDigital wrote: »

A cracking idea!
Road tax for bikes and insurance too! Compulsory safety and lighting requirements would make sense as well.

Seriously, how do cyclists feel about that, if at least some of the money was put back into cycling in initiatives?

I'd happily pay a nominal sum towards infrastructure IF the planners displayed any sort of real interest and competence in designing, constructing and maintaining cycle lanes and paths to the same level as the adjacent traffic and bus lanes. The existing mishmash of surfaces, markings, rights-of-way and disconnected routes is a joke and all too often brings cyclists, pedestrians and drivers into dangerous conflict.

Of course in the current climate, such a tax would simply be seen by the Dept of Finance as an additional means of paying off the banks. The cost of administration and enforcement (for which a system would have to be created) would probably be prohibitive anyway.

As to the OP's observation, I am one of the apparent minority of cyclists who actually stops at red lights (and have even been verbally abused by other cyclists for doing so!), I'm all for enforcement by the Traffic Corps.

monument

Propellerhead wrote: »

Oh, I thought cyclists were exempt from the Rules of the Road.

More than half of motorists admit to speeding regularly

Mobiles, roundabout use, speeding - Poll of 7,000 Irish motorists shows the sins we commit every day

20% of young drivers admit drug driving

Drivers admit to sleeping at wheel

74pc admit to driving when they are sleepy

Fifth of drivers admit using mobile phones behind wheel

DDigital wrote: »

A cracking idea!

Road tax for bikes and insurance too! Compulsory safety and lighting requirements would make sense as well.

Seriously, how do cyclists feel about that, if at least some of the money was put back into cycling in initiatives?

There's no such thing as "road tax."

It's motor tax and is based on emissions and engine size -- even if you were to twistedly try to apply these you'd get too little to be worth collecting. Base a tax on road use (ie tax based on more use = more road damage and emissions) and you get the same thing -- cyclists do a tiny amount of wear and tear to roads compared to even a small car and no .

There's also the small matter of tax breaks for cyclists -- the government wants more people cycling: It's good for them because people get healthier, there's less congestion, and goes a small bit of the way to helping with EU targets which we're to be fined for breaking. And it's a hell of a lot cheaper than providing public transport.

And if motor tax was road tax, most cyclists already pay it (ie most are drivers too). Oh, and there's the that tiny, tiny matter of "road" or motor taxes coming nowhere close to paying for road building in the last few years!

Jawgap

DDigital wrote: »

A cracking idea!

Road tax for bikes and insurance too! Compulsory safety and lighting requirements would make sense as well.

Seriously, how do cyclists feel about that, if at least some of the money was put back into cycling in initiatives?

No problem at all with it - but I already pay motor tax, like a lot of cyclists.:)

you forgot to add in that registration numbers for bikes and helmets should also be compulsory:)

steamengine

DDigital wrote: »

A cracking idea!

Road tax for bikes and insurance too! Compulsory safety and lighting requirements would make sense as well.

Seriously, how do cyclists feel about that, if at least some of the money was put back into cycling in initiatives?

Cyclists are already doing their bit in reducing the imported fuel bill so tax is not necessary. Insurance may become essential eventually from a personal accident point of view and to safeguard against claims from third parties.

Safety - totally agree, helmets, hi-vis vests and wing or helmet mirrors should be mandatory. Front and tail lights have been a legal requirement for decades.

And if cyclists obey traffic lights, use hand signals and are mannerly on the road, motorists will generally reciprocate - that is my experience recently !!!

Jawgap

steamengine wrote: »

Cyclists are already doing their bit in reducing the imported fuel bill so tax is not necessary. Insurance may become essential eventually from a personal accident point of view and to safeguard against claims from third parties.

Safety - totally agree, helmets, hi-vis vests and wing or helmet mirrors should be mandatory. Front and tail lights have been a legal requirement for decades.

And if cyclists obey traffic lights, use hand signals and are mannerly on the road, motorists will generally reciprocate - that is my experience recently !!!

I'm not getting into the helmet debate, but my own experience as regular cyclist in Dublin is quite the opposite.

I always obey lights, always signal when I'm turning right (not so much when I'm going left or straight on) and use cycle paths where they are provided and are safe........I still get abuse and not just from drivers (more so taxi / van / bus drivers than private motorists) but also from pedestrians (how dare I go through a green light!!) and other "cyclists" (how dare I stop at a red light!!) - but it's still the best way to get around the city quickly, especially on a nice day like today......

Cookie_Monster

steamengine wrote: »

Safety - totally agree, helmets, hi-vis vests and wing or helmet mirrors should be mandatory. Front and tail lights have been a legal requirement for decades.

should motorists and pedestrians have to wear them also
:rolleyes:

I will never ever wear a high vis and don't wear a helmet. they are not needed and is just the usual nanny state nonsense even suggestion them be compulsory

DirkVoodoo

steamengine wrote: »

Safety - totally agree, helmets, hi-vis vests and wing or helmet mirrors should be mandatory. Front and tail lights have been a legal requirement for decades.

I am all for lights, but high viz is not and should not be made mandatory. It is one of the reasons I think many people don't use lights, because they think "ah, I have a high viz vest, I'm fine".

As for the wingmirrors, I can't understand this at all. Do you have a neck? A bike doesn't require the same kind of spatial awareness or have the same number of blind spots (see zero) as a car or truck. Can I get parking sensors for my bike two? Or maybe a reversing camera? What if I get dazzled by a motorist?

Jawgap

.......and ban headphones while we're at it:)

I wear a helmet, I don't wear hi-vis, although some of my kit has reflective trim, and while intuitively (meaning I've no conclusive evidence to back up the following statement) I think helmets are a good idea, compulsion is not......

.......and yes if motorists are made to wear them first, then I'll wear them - after all it seems only fair to me as a lot of drivers get quite narky if they find themselves behind cyclists!:)

Patser

monument wrote: »

More than half of motorists admit to speeding regularly

Mobiles, roundabout use, speeding - Poll of 7,000 Irish motorists shows the sins we commit every day

20% of young drivers admit drug driving

Drivers admit to sleeping at wheel

74pc admit to driving when they are sleepy

Fifth of drivers admit using mobile phones behind wheel

Crackdown on Speeding:
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.citizensinformation.ie%2Fcategories%2Ftravel-and-recreation%2Fmotoring-1%2Fdriving-offences%2Fpenalty-points-for-driving-offences&ei=VNS-TJu-LtGSjAfV-YTEAg&usg=AFQjCNGGtoJaAw0VLHVDUU8OzUuiTMowjg

Crackdown on Drunk and Mobile phone driving:
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnewspaper%2Fireland%2F2010%2F0604%2F1224271820461.html&ei=s9W-TKbCL4TwsgaLkbTbDQ&usg=AFQjCNFWzTwYzVMcfsyE-jN2tsaoGO9lcw

Crackdown on Drug Driving:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1012/1224280878515.html

Over 1,000,000 penalty points offences issued to motorists. Yet when some-one starts a thread that a few cyclists were stopped by Gardai for breaking the rules of the roads you attempt to push the thread towards motorists. Maybe if cyclists were targetted and stopped with as many crackdowns as Motorists, or surveyed as much, I could come up with as many alarmist links as you have,

monument wrote: »

Oh, and there's the that tiny, tiny matter of "road" or motor taxes coming nowhere close to paying for road building in the last few years!

Add in VRT, Fuel duties, Tolls, Fines collected, Carbon tax and Govt levy on Motor insurance. Also take into account that the last few years have seen a massive investment in Motorway building to bring Ireland up to european standard with private (PPP) monies and European money, also being spent and that future road building looks to be tailing off.

Why shouldn't cyclists have to pay a 'road' tax. Yes most cyclist are motorists, but if I have 2 cars I still have to tax both, why not a small tax on both vehicles. At the least it'll be able to tie an owner's name to the bike, which would a) make theft less likely since Gardai would be able to check an owners name if suspicious b) make it possible to issue endorsements for repeatedly breaking rules of the road c) put money into local government to pay for further upgrades to cycling facilities.

steamengine

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

should motorists and pedestrians have to wear them also
:rolleyes:

I will never ever wear a high vis and don't wear a helmet. they are not needed and is just the usual nanny state nonsense even suggestion them be compulsory

Well its up to you, a helmet can be the difference between an intact skull and a fractured one. A high vis vest can prevent a possible collision in the first place !

Cookie_Monster

@ Patser

you weren't listening reading.

The gov want to encourage cycling as much as possible due to the dozens of benefits it brings the state and the individual. Taxing it would have the opposite effect.

DirkVoodoo

Patser wrote: »

Crackdown on Speeding:
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.citizensinformation.ie%2Fcategories%2Ftravel-and-recreation%2Fmotoring-1%2Fdriving-offences%2Fpenalty-points-for-driving-offences&ei=VNS-TJu-LtGSjAfV-YTEAg&usg=AFQjCNGGtoJaAw0VLHVDUU8OzUuiTMowjg

Crackdown on Drunk and Mobile phone driving:
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnewspaper%2Fireland%2F2010%2F0604%2F1224271820461.html&ei=s9W-TKbCL4TwsgaLkbTbDQ&usg=AFQjCNFWzTwYzVMcfsyE-jN2tsaoGO9lcw

Crackdown on Drug Driving:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1012/1224280878515.html

Over 1,000,000 penalty points offences issued to motorists. Yet when some-one starts a thread that a few cyclists were stopped by Gardai for breaking the rules of the roads you attempt to push the thread towards motorists. Maybe if cyclists were targetted and stopped with as many crackdowns as Motorists, or surveyed as much, I could come up with as many alarmist links as you have,




Add in VRT, Fuel duties, Tolls, Fines collected, Carbon tax and Govt levy on Motor insurance. Also take into account that the last few years have seen a massive investment in Motorway building to bring Ireland up to european standard with private (PPP) monies and European money, also being spent and that future road building looks to be tailing off.

Why shouldn't cyclists have to pay a 'road' tax. Yes most cyclist are motorists, but if I have 2 cars I still have to tax both, why not a small tax on both vehicles. At the least it'll be able to tie an owner's name to the bike, which would a) make theft less likely since Gardai would be able to check an owners name if suspicious b) make it possible to issue endorsements for repeatedly breaking rules of the road c) put money into local government to pay for further upgrades to cycling facilities.

What? I drove around Ireland last month (part of the race around Ireland) and can't remember much Garda presence. In fact the last Garda checkpoint I saw was about 3 weeks ago near templeogue on a sunday morning. If this is a nationwide crackdown on motorists then I would hate to see what an off-day is like. What is the distribution of those penalty points by the way?

Jawgap

I'm not sure the Guards take a huge interest in bike theft.

the tolls and texes etc are pretty hefty for car owners (of which I'm one) so it's nice not to be charged for something - you can cross the East Link toll free if you're on a bike.

As for the mirrors suggestion - not really required. not only do you have better visibility on a bike you're also better connected to the environment because you can hear more (unless you've an i-pod jammed in your ears).

monument

Jawgap wrote: »

...but also from pedestrians (how dare I go through a green light!!) ...

I've gotten that recently.

Light was green for me but because there were no cars all the peds at the busy crossing walked across on red -- 20 or so people at the Green. I slowed to walking speed and filtered by the crossing peds. Got abuse about 'the light' from a well dressed man. Told him my 'the light' was green for me and he gave more abuse.

There's always a presumption that cyclists are in the wrong even when they are not.

seamus

I've been cycling through the bus gate since it started, and before then. It's great, very easy to get through. The most dangerous thing about it is the idiots trying to speed through it to avoid getting caught, they cut everyone up.

Cyclists only really need two things to be safe in the evenings - lights and some cop on. High-vis is of limited use in street lighting conditions, a helmet does not prevent accidents from occuring (in fact it may contribute to them), wing mirrors on a bicycle encourage dangerous manouvers because the cyclist will fail to check over their shoulder.

30% of deaths in car accidents are through brain injury. This means that we could save up to 100 people's lives per year if we made it compulsory to wear a bicycle helmet while driving a car. That's about the same amount of cyclists who have been killed in the last ten years in Ireland. By comparison, although the vast majority of cyclists killed are killed due to head injuries, cycle helmets are only designed to protect you if you fall off your bike travelling at a slow speed and strike an object with your head. They are incapable of resisting the impact caused by a vehicle and are certainly not capable of preventing your head from being smushed by a truck's wheels.

So if we assume that 80% of cyclist fatalities are due to an impact with a vehicle, then we would save 2 cyclists per year. Versus anything up to 100 drivers if we made helmets compulsory while driving. So until that happens, it seems retarded to make it compulsory to wear helmets on bikes.

monument

Patser wrote: »

...Yet when some-one starts a thread that a few cyclists were stopped by Gardai for breaking the rules of the roads you attempt to push the thread towards motorists.

Err... what are you talking about?

I welcome the crack down on cyclists -- my main problems is that it should be done all the time -- more traffic Gardai stopping all road users from breaking the law all the time is better. I hate waiting at lights while other cyclists fly or edge by.

I did not respond to the OP or the idea of targeting cyclists, but to Propellerhead's nonsense post.

Patser wrote: »

Add in VRT, Fuel duties, Tolls, Fines collected, Carbon tax and Govt levy on Motor insurance. Also take into account that the last few years have seen a massive investment in Motorway building to bring Ireland up to european standard with private (PPP) monies and European money, also being spent and that future road building looks to be tailing off.

Err... are you serious? Cyclists don't use fuel (or if you see cyclists fuel as food, then we pay VAT on that), cyclists can't use most roads which toll are on, fines are for breaking the law and cyclists are fined in the court, and carbon tax is for carbon -- car use and cycling is not comparable there.

Patser wrote: »

Why shouldn't cyclists have to pay a 'road' tax. Yes most cyclist are motorists, but if I have 2 cars I still have to tax both, why not a small tax on both vehicles. At the least it'll be able to tie an owner's name to the bike, which would a) make theft less likely since Gardai would be able to check an owners name if suspicious b) make it possible to issue endorsements for repeatedly breaking rules of the road c) put money into local government to pay for further upgrades to cycling facilities.

As I outlined in my last post -- it's good for the country if more people cycle, it's not good if more people drive.

A vehicle tax on cyclists would be so small it would not be worth collecting and trying to enforce.

It would have no impact on theft, bicycles already have a number etched into them. Nor would it make any difference to breaking the rule of the road -- that's an enforcement issue, there's a lack of enforcement.

steamengine

Motorcyclists depend very much on their wing mirrors and IMO a bicycle is in many respects no different than a motorcycle. A helmet mounted mirror would possibly be a better proposition for a bike. A cyclist would then be able to scan long lines of overtaking traffic and take avoiding action if necessary without taking his eyes off the road ahead.
IMO a horn would also be a useful to alert other motorists and jay walkers !!!
Like we are talking about a road vehicle are we not ???

steamengine

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

you weren't listening reading.

The gov want to encourage cycling as much as possible due to the dozens of benefits it brings the state and the individual. Taxing it would have the opposite effect.

I am reading ok - I think. I'm not in favour of taxing cyclists, as I stated they already are making their contribution by reducing the country's imported fuel bill. But my original comment is tongue in cheek to the extent, that I would not be surprised if it was attempted at some future date under the guise of registration or whatever.

It's great to see the upsurge in cycling - may it long continue to be free, but I do feel there is loads of room for improvement in cycling safety !!!:)

Cookie_Monster

steamengine wrote: »

I am reading ok - I think. I'm not in favour of taxing cyclists, as I stated they already are making their contribution by reducing the country's imported fuel bill. But my original comment is tongue in cheek to the extent, that I would not be surprised if it was attempted at some future date under the guise of registration or whatever.

It's great to see the upsurge in cycling - may it long continue to be free, but I do feel there is loads of room for improvement in cycling safety !!!:)

apologies, that wasn't aimed at you, you just got a post inbetween me and the target

monument

steamengine wrote: »

Motorcyclists depend very much on their wing mirrors and IMO a bicycle is in many respects no different than a motorcycle. A helmet mounted mirror would possibly be a better proposition for a bike. A cyclist would then be able to scan long lines of overtaking traffic and take avoiding action if necessary without taking his eyes off the road ahead.
IMO a horn would also be a useful to alert other motorists and jay walkers !!!
Like we are talking about a road vehicle are we not ???

Bicycle or helmet mirrors are not replacements for looking behind you.

Bicycles bells are a legal requirement, you can get very loud ones.

seamus

steamengine wrote: »

Motorcyclists depend very much on their wing mirrors and IMO a bicycle is in many respects no different than a motorcycle.

And in many other respects, it's very, very different.

In any case, you'll find that motorcyclists don't rely on wing mirrors nearly as much as you think. Any motorcyclist who doesn't look over his shoulder (known as a lifesaver) before performing a manouver is asking for trouble. No serious motorcyclist would ever say that it's OK to not look over your shoulder once you have wing mirrors.
In fact, I believe that any motorist who fails to look over their shoulder before changing road position is asking for trouble and part of the driving test should involve driving with your wing mirrors retracted/turned in, just to prove that you have this technique down and you understand how to use it.

I primarily use my wing mirrors for monitoring how close I am to the kerb and other vehicles when reversing. The rest of the time I'll look over my shoulder. It's a useful supplement, but it's not critical - you can drive perfectly well without them.

Cyclists are slow-moving vehicles, so they have plenty of time to see hazards and check their blind spots before acting. Adding wing mirrors will simply add blind spots which cyclists will fail to check.

steamengine

monument wrote: »

Bicycle or helmet mirrors are not replacements for looking behind you.

Bicycles bells are a legal requirement, you can get very loud ones.

How can you look around and see ahead at the same time ?
Why do motorcyclists use them and deem them very necessary ?
Motorcycles don't use bells, why should a bike ?

monument

monument wrote: »

Bicycle or helmet mirrors are not replacements for looking behind you.

Bicycles bells are a legal requirement, you can get very loud ones.

Like AirZounds? I was pretty sure they weren't allowed. And I seem to remember bells are exempt from racing bikes or something similar.

Jawgap

steamengine wrote: »

How can you look around and see ahead at the same time ?
Why do motorcyclists use them and deem them very necessary ?
Motorcycles don't use bells, why should a bike ?

using your peripheral vision.....


.....I also "reach out and let my feelings go" so I can use The Force.......

CramCycle

steamengine wrote: »

A cyclist would then be able to scan long lines of overtaking traffic and take avoiding action if necessary without taking his eyes off the road ahead.

So you can split your gaze between your rear view mirror and the road ahead? AFAIK most people lose their view on one when they look at the other, that is why you do not constantly look in your rear view mirror, you just consistently glance at it every few seconds? The reason cyclists are not forced to have rear view mirrors is more than likely due to the simple fact that unlike a motorist it is quite quick and easy to spin your head around on a bicycle, whereas, this is not the case with other road vehicles, even motorcycles, due to their heavy helmets and differences in which they can distribute their weight in most situations

steamengine

seamus wrote: »

And in many other respects, it's very, very different.

In any case, you'll find that motorcyclists don't rely on wing mirrors nearly as much as you think. Any motorcyclist who doesn't look over his shoulder (known as a lifesaver) before performing a manouver is asking for trouble. No serious motorcyclist would ever say that it's OK to not look over your shoulder once you have wing mirrors.
In fact, I believe that any motorist who fails to look over their shoulder before changing road position is asking for trouble and part of the driving test should involve driving with your wing mirrors retracted/turned in, just to prove that you have this technique down and you understand how to use it.

I primarily use my wing mirrors for monitoring how close I am to the kerb and other vehicles when reversing. The rest of the time I'll look over my shoulder. It's a useful supplement, but it's not critical - you can drive perfectly well without them.

Cyclists are slow-moving vehicles, so they have plenty of time to see hazards and check their blind spots before acting. Adding wing mirrors will simply add blind spots which cyclists will fail to check.

From years of motorcyling I found the slower the machine, the more you needed them. They are an add-on to looking over your shoulder, not a substitute. On a bike you are constantly being overtaken by traffic and IMO it's useful to know what's happening to the rear, without taking your eyes off the road ahead.

monument

steamengine wrote: »

How can you look around and see ahead at the same time ?
Why do motorcyclists use them and deem them very necessary ?
Motorcycles don't use bells, why should a bike ?

1. As the last poster says - using your peripheral vision. But also by looking behind quickly and looking back in front and then behind again quickly -- as shown in this video. Looking behind you is one of the most basic skills of cycling, nobody should be on the road without being able to do it.
   
2. As seamus outlines, motorcyclists are quite different than bicycles.
   
3. Because motorcycles go a lot faster and are powered by an engine that would often drown out the sound of a bell near to the engine.

seamus

steamengine wrote: »

From years of motorcyling I found the slower the machine, the more you needed them.

I found the opposite - the faster you move, the more you need your wing mirrors because you cannot spare the same amount of time to look over your shoulder when you're doing 70mph down the M50 in a gusty wind.

Cookie_Monster

steamengine wrote: »

From years of motorcyling I found the slower the machine, the more you needed them.

so they should be a must have on prams then?
:pac::pac::pac:

CramCycle

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so they should be a must have on prams then?
:pac::pac::pac:

It's a legal requirement for your passengers to wear a helmet in a pram as well AFAIK :pac::P:pac: or is that only two wheeled prams because you've got more protection in the 4 wheeled versions or is it just that I didn't read previous posts for clear explanations for the differences between different vehicles :rolleyes: (at no one in particular)

Vélo

seamus wrote: »

Cyclists are slow-moving vehicles.

Speak for yourself!

Patser

monument wrote: »

Err... what are you talking about?

I welcome the crack down on cyclists -- my main problems is that it should be done all the time -- more traffic Gardai stopping all road users from breaking the law all the time is better. I hate waiting at lights while other cyclists fly or edge by.

I did not respond to the OP or the idea of targeting cyclists, but to Propellerhead's nonsense post.

Your 1st post in this thread started with 6 links, all showing alarmist titles about motorists putting road users at risk. To me that smacked of diverting the attention away from the OP, trying to pass emphasis to motorists with no mention anywhere of cyclists. None of those links referred to cyclists, so it's good to see you clearly stating above your position on enforcement of the RotR for cyclists.

My response simply highlighted the continual pressure, crackdowns and issuing of endorsements to motorists with over 500,000 motorists having been issued with points. (Would that be more than 1 in 4 roughly?) So enforcement is happening out there.

monument wrote: »

Err... are you serious? Cyclists don't use fuel (or if you see cyclists fuel as food, then we pay VAT on that), cyclists can't use most roads which toll are on, fines are for breaking the law and cyclists are fined in the court, and carbon tax is for carbon -- car use and cycling is not comparable there.

Sorry I think there's wires crossed here. No wasn;t suggesting Cyclists should have to pay VRT, Carbon tax etc. It was in reference to your last little aside about how motor tax falls short of paying for all the road building of the previous years. I was just pointing out the other taxes and levies motorists also chip in.

Sorry, I was a little unclear on that. Anyway this is all way off OP.


@ Cookie Monster too.

monument wrote: »

As I outlined in my last post -- it's good for the country if more people cycle, it's not good if more people drive.

A vehicle tax on cyclists would be so small it would not be worth collecting and trying to enforce.

It would have no impact on theft, bicycles already have a number etched into them. Nor would it make any difference to breaking the rule of the road -- that's an enforcement issue, there's a lack of enforcement.

Whatever about the monetary worth of the tax it surely would make it easier to enforce the RotR regards cyclists. With absolutely no licencing system in place for bikes, how can it be enforced. Is it a legal requirement to carry ID in case a garda stops you? In a car you have to have your licence, a GATSO van can automatically issue fines using your licence plate and the ANPR system is the same. So without Gardai physically having to stop you and ask for ID, motorists can be checked.

But there's no such system for cyclists, which means enforcement would have to be entirely based on Gardai physically being present and requesting ID that I'm not sure a cyclists/pedestrian would have to have. A small plate/card inside the bike frame would tie ownership and identity of the cyclist to their bike.

Even if it is government policy to promote cycling, is it to be suggested that cyclists should be given free reign to ignore the RotR or the ability to avoid detection fro breaches.

seamus

Patser wrote: »

But there's no such system for cyclists, which means enforcement would have to be entirely based on Gardai physically being present and requesting ID that I'm not sure a cyclists/pedestrian would have to have. A small plate/card inside the bike frame would tie ownership and identity of the cyclist to their bike.

But the garda would still have to be physically present to observe the bike and the cyclist. Which would require a concerted effort by the Gardai to monitor cyclists, which eh...is exactly the problem at present.

All it would really do is add another law for cyclists to habitually break and Gardai to not bother enforcing.

We have discussed this before on the cycling forum. ID isn't all that relevant when it comes to enforcing the RotR against bikes. You simply pass legislation specific to bikes and other non-motorised vehicles (horses and such) which allows Gardai to levy on-the-spot fines. If you cannot pay on-the-spot, your vehicle is seized (yes, including your horse) until you present yourself at a Garda station to pay it. No ID required, actual deterrent against rule-breaking.

steamengine

Does anybody see how useful mirrors either wing or helmet mounted could be on a bicycle, to constantly monitor traffic to the rear ?

CramCycle

steamengine wrote: »

Does anybody see how useful mirrors either wing or helmet mounted could be on a bicycle, to constantly monitor traffic to the rear ?

not constantly, that would be dangerous, as it is on any other road vehicle

Patser

seamus wrote: »

We have discussed this before on the cycling forum. ID isn't all that relevant when it comes to enforcing the RotR against bikes. You simply pass legislation specific to bikes and other non-motorised vehicles (horses and such) which allows Gardai to levy on-the-spot fines. If you cannot pay on-the-spot, your vehicle is seized (yes, including your horse) until you present yourself at a Garda station to pay it. No ID required, actual deterrent against rule-breaking.

Can anyone else picture a Templemore recruit standing in the rain in Smithfield with 2 ponies and not a clue what to do next?:D

seamus

steamengine wrote: »

Does anybody see how useful mirrors either wing or helmet mounted could be on a bicycle, to constantly monitor traffic to the rear ?

Useful, absolutely, but so important as to be legally required? Definitely not.

monument

Patser wrote: »

Your 1st post in this thread started with 6 links, all showing alarmist titles about motorists putting road users at risk. To me that smacked of diverting the attention away from the OP, trying to pass emphasis to motorists with no mention anywhere of cyclists. None of those links referred to cyclists, so it's good to see you clearly stating above your position on enforcement of the RotR for cyclists.

The titles were factual. Why do you think they were "alarmist"?

I was replying to a post which implied that cyclists think they are beyond the rules, and my reply was showing that cyclists are not the only ones who think that.

I already said I wasn't replying to the OP. And, again, I've already said I want enforcement for cyclists. I'm fed up waiting at lights when many others don't.

Patser wrote: »

Whatever about the monetary worth of the tax it surely would make it easier to enforce the RotR regards cyclists. With absolutely no licencing system in place for bikes, how can it be enforced. Is it a legal requirement to carry ID in case a garda stops you? In a car you have to have your licence, a GATSO van can automatically issue fines using your licence plate and the ANPR system is the same. So without Gardai physically having to stop you and ask for ID, motorists can be checked.

But there's no such system for cyclists, which means enforcement would have to be entirely based on Gardai physically being present and requesting ID that I'm not sure a cyclists/pedestrian would have to have. A small plate/card inside the bike frame would tie ownership and identity of the cyclist to their bike.

So are we going to get everybody in the State to walk around with numbers attached to them too?

Automatic fining only relates to speeding and tolls -- these aren't really issues for cyclists. Gardai physically being present is needed for the detection of most other offences.

Patser wrote: »

Even if it is government policy to promote cycling, is it to be suggested that cyclists should be given free reign to ignore the RotR or the ability to avoid detection fro breaches.

I don't see anybody suggesting such, but your ideas are unrealistic.

daenerysstormborn3

To the posters who mentioned bikers looking over their shoulders, I think you'll find that more often than not this is done and is also an integral part of the driving test. They're called lifesavers and can be the difference between you passing your test and failing.

Helmets are not a requirement for cyclists and imo are pretty useless. A relative of mine was taken off her bike by a taxi driver, she is now deaf in her right ear and clinically blind in her right eye. She also has a significant brain injury and lost good portions of her memory. All while wearing a helmet. They are a uselss piece of plastic imo.

I am one of the few cyclists who obey the rules of the road at all times but this means nothing when 99% of motorists pay no attention to you. And don't get me started on pedestrians shouting abuse.

rubadub

Propellerhead wrote: »

Oh, I thought cyclists were exempt from the Rules of the Road.

No, that would be pedestrians. I have only heard of one guy been done for "jaywalking", many people do not even know we have laws for it here, I expect many gardai are ignorant too, many are ignorant about laws for cyclists (e.g. telling them they have to have hi-viz or helmets by law.

DDigital wrote: »

Road tax for bikes and insurance too! Compulsory safety and lighting requirements would make sense as well.

There are compulsory lighting requirements for bikes. I hope you all take the advice of the rules of the road and bring a torch out when walking at night.

http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/pedestrians/pedestrians_walking-along-the-road.html

monument wrote: »

Bicycles bells are a legal requirement, you can get very loud ones.

I never heard this, I thought they might be a requirement in NI or throughout the UK.

Why I hate pedestrians

You know what I hate? Pedestrians. That self-satisfied, striding, boot-bedecked bunch of scum. Is it just me, or does the country suddenly seem to be full of them? I've never tried walking anywhere myself -- why would I? I'm a successful adult -- but it seems I can hardly travel down the street these days without one of them stepping off the pavement in front of me without looking, their face set in a holier-than-thou expression as they jump out of the way of my car in a burst of expletives. Something clearly needs to be done, and it's good that the government are starting to realise this.

The thing is, it's not just that pedestrians are all smug and annoying when they bang on about "health" and "pollution". That's sickening enough, but if their smugness was the only problem I could just ignore them - after all, they and their silly 'shoes' flash past quick enough when I get going, and their smugness can't penetrate my car's tinted windows. But the thing is there's more to it than that, because have you noticed that even though pedestrians walk millions of miles on our road system every single day, they contribute nothing at all to the cost of that road system? They have thousands and thousands of miles of dedicated pedestrian-only travel routes -- pavements, they're called, or sidewalks if you're that way inclined -- which they don't pay a penny for! Whilst honest motorists are taxed left, right and centre, they don't pay anything at all for all these facilities they enjoy. It beggars belief.

And recently, of course, it's got worse. As I'm driving up the street I constantly come across pedestrians walking across my part of the road to get from one of these pavements to another. I mean, what the hell...? Do they want the shirt off my back as well? They've been given vast tracts of pedestrian-only routes, where I'm certainly not allowed to drive, but apparently this isn't enough for them. Oh no, they want to keep encroaching into my space as well. Sure, we've all heard these walking zealots who say that it's because the 'pavements' don't form a joined-up network, meaning they can't walk to where they want to go without having to step onto the road from time to time. Aw, bless their little hearts. To pedestrians I say this: get off my part of the road. If you walk there when I'm coming along then I'll happily run you down, that's all.

In the long term there's clearly only one solution to all this. If pedestrians want to walk on our streets, which we pay for with all our driving taxes, then they need to pay their share and take their part of the responsibility. Anybody who walks anywhere should undergo training, should have to pay an annual tax towards the facilities they enjoy, should display a license plate so they can be identified, and should each be made to carry insurance in case they are ever involved in any accidents. Until then, they can sod off back to Shoeville or wherever it is they go when they aren't freeloading off the rest of us.

Jawgap

steamengine wrote: »

Does anybody see how useful mirrors either wing or helmet mounted could be on a bicycle, to constantly monitor traffic to the rear ?

I don't think so, especially helmet mounted ones - wouldn't they increase the risk of eye enjury in the event you took a tumble?

I'd say eyes and ears open is the best way to look after yourself on the bike.

BrianD

We can continue this Cyclist V Motorist arguement ad nauseum. However, the fact of the matter is that the number of cyclists going around the city with out proper lighting is stunning. It always have been. The irony is that it is cyclist who has most to lose and you can't post links to naughty motorists when you're dead.

As a motorist and occasional cyclist, I try and give cyclists as much room as possible and keep an extra eye out. I'm sure there are times I could have done better like all of us on 2 or 4 wheels. However, this week I have had two incidences where only I was extra cautious I could have left 2 cyclists on the tarmac - both with no lights front or back and one making a pretty daft manouever across a street.

Having said that daftest move of the night has to go to the motorcyclist who undertook me while he was driving in the cycle lane and I was clearly turning left. He seemed put out that he got a beep.