Crackdown on Dangerous Cyclists

Lapin

At Last !

The authorities are going to tackle dangerous cyclists with on the spot fines for breaking red lights, cycling on the pavement, having no lights and all sorts other irresponsible behaviour.

About time too.

No doubt all law abiding cyclists will welcome this move.

Snickers Man

Link?


I want to believe you but is this wishful thinking for the season that's in it, or an early anticipation of April 1st?

Lapin

I Just heard it on Newstalk. It was the opening item on their Lunchtime news.

Cookie_Monster

Lapin wrote: »

The authorities are going to tackle dangerous cyclists with on the spot fines for breaking red lights, cycling on the pavement, having no lights and all sorts other irresponsible behaviour.

like they have done for the past 20 years too?

This is in response to the increased number of bikers, particularly in Dublin with the bike scheme. While I welcome it, people should not be breaking lights or using the footpath, I doubt anything will happen. Its a waste of Garda time waiting and watching for such trivial activities.

gurramok

http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2010/1219/ireland/dublin-city-council-suggests-penalties-for-law-breaking-cyclists-486275.html

As ever, its down to enforcement. At least they could enforce it in the city centre where such miscreants are a danger to pedestrians.

Victor

There is no suggestion of a crackdown in the breakingnews.ie piece.

Legislation exists. The problem is a lack of enforcement.

kmick

LOL "Bicycles neatly parked"

Problem is you have to take the person to court no? On the spot fines would be brilliant.

Run_to_da_hills

They will have fun implimenting this one.

Unless they force cyclists to carry ID on them at all times.

youcancallmeal

It seems to me like they already have been doing a lot more 'enforcing' over the last few months. Many mornings on my cycle into Dublin City center there are guards standing at traffic lights stopping red light runners. There is a thread over on the cycling forum as well about a cyclist who is up in court soon for running a red light.

I've been cycling in and out of town for going on 10 years now and I've never seen this kind of thing before. There is a LOT more cyclists on the roads in the last few years though so it makes sense.

Cookie_Monster

What about all the Gards doing Operation Go Slow, can they not assist in this, stopping red light jumpers. Its not like their directing of traffic does anything except slow it down anyway.

Cuddlesworth

Give pedestrians the right to clothesline any bike that breaks the light. Should stop that fairly sharp.

Cuddlesworth

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

What about all the Gards doing Operation Go Slow, can they not assist in this, stopping red light jumpers. Its not like their directing of traffic does anything except slow it down anyway.

In fairness, their yearly campaign in Dublin does ease traffic. Only because it stops the morons blocking the junctions.

dcr22B

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Give pedestrians the right to clothesline any bike that breaks the light. Should stop that fairly sharp.

The temptation to do that is massively appealing. Any minor injury that I'd suffer would be worth it!

paulm17781

It's very frustrating too as it gives cyclists a bad name. As I cyclist, I would welcome enforcement of these rules.

I've seen quite a few cyclists getting pulled over for breaking lights in the last few months. It does seem to be a new, rather welcome, development.

monument

As posted over in the cycling board... From yesterday's Sunday Tribune:

Cyclists who break law to get on-the-spot fines under new plans
John Downes, News Investigations Correspondent

Dublin cyclists who break traffic lights or who cycle on paths could soon be subject to 'on-the spot' fines, under new plans from Dublin City Council to crack down on offenders.

http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2010/dec/19/cyclists-who-break-law-to-get-on-the-spot-fines-un/

"On yer bike: cyclists may soon be fined for misdemeanours" says a photo caption also implying that cyclists are currently not fined, but the headline and article is clearer about it.

steve-o

While I welcome a bit of law enforcement, why pick on cyclists? I see cars running red lights every day.

rubadub

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Give pedestrians the right to clothesline any bike that breaks the light. Should stop that fairly sharp.

And give motorists the right to mow down pedestrians illegally crossing the road too I suppose.

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.

paulm17781 wrote: »

It's very frustrating too as it gives cyclists a bad name.

Its a shame people still think like that, it should be that it gives people a bad name. Its no longer publicly tolerated for prejudiced bigots to moan about skin colour, religion, sex etc, so cyclists still seem to be the last bit of fair game for these arseholes.

bmaxi

Why does anyone think the Gardaí will enforce this? They don't enforce most traffic laws and break most of them themselves.

stop

bmaxi wrote: »

Why does anyone think the Gardaí will enforce this? They don't enforce most traffic laws and break most of them themselves.

Actually afaik they are exempt so they're not breaking them.

paulm17781

steve-o wrote: »

While I welcome a bit of law enforcement, why pick on cyclists? I see cars running red lights every day.

Should anything that makes our roads safer not be welcomed?

Run_to_da_hills

stop wrote: »

Actually afaik they are exempt so they're not breaking them.

They are only "exempt" when on course of duty in an emergency, any thing other than this they can be made accountable for. Such cases would be speeding, breaking traffic lights and driving on hard shoulders etc.

-Chris-

Can we not make this a Garda-bashing thread? It's about cyclists and a crackdown on them for breaking the law.

bmaxi

-Chris- wrote: »

Can we not make this a Garda-bashing thread? It's about cyclists and a crackdown on them for breaking the law.

Surely the question of who is going to enforce the law is relevant to a "crackdown", as is the observation of the perceived unwillingness or inability to "crackdown" elsewhere, particularly among their own members.
What other "authority" is likely to be used to crackdown on breaking the law and why is it taboo to speculate on their ability or otherwise, to do so?

EricPraline

A welcome idea. But as others have pointed out it's pretty meaningless without enforcement.

-Chris-

bmaxi wrote: »

Surely the question of who is going to enforce the law is relevant to a "crackdown", as is the observation of the perceived unwillingness or inability to "crackdown" elsewhere, particularly among their own members.
What other "authority" is likely to be used to crackdown on breaking the law and why is it taboo to speculate on their ability or otherwise, to do so?

My €0.02?

The Emergency Services forum is the best place to discuss the ability of the Gardai and what changes need to be made to their accountability.

The fact is that these aren't new laws being implemented, they're existing laws being enforced, and whether they're enforced by lay people or Gardai or an incompetent Gardai shouldn't make a difference. If you break the existing law, you get a fixed penalty from the Garda.

Simples.

AAAAAAAHHH

rubadub wrote: »

And give motorists the right to mow down pedestrians illegally crossing the road too I suppose.



Its a shame people still think like that, it should be that it gives people a bad name. Its no longer publicly tolerated for prejudiced bigots to moan about skin colour, religion, sex etc, so cyclists still seem to be the last bit of fair game for these arseholes.

Who will be the cyclists' Martin Luther King?

If this means more enforcement on all road users, then sounds good to me. But as was said, there have always been laws against what's mentioned in the OP, so I doubt much will change.

rubadub

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

They are only "exempt" when on course of duty in an emergency, any thing other than this they can be made accountable for.

I see them frequently breaking the law with no evident "emergency" taking place, namely cycling on footpaths.

-Chris-

-Chris- wrote: »

Can we not make this a Garda-bashing thread? It's about cyclists and a crackdown on them for breaking the law.

Final warning, seriously.

Victor

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Give pedestrians the right to clothesline any bike that breaks the light. Should stop that fairly sharp.

Assault of any kind is unacceptable. And whizzing past a pedestrians they try to cross is an assault, as it puts people in fear.

Victor

stop wrote: »

Actually afaik they are exempt so they're not breaking them.

Only if they don't endanger others.

Cuddlesworth

Right, lets look at this from a logistics point of view since my idea of random assaults making our life's a safer place keeps getting shot down no matter the forum.

Cyclists don't have any training, are not required to provide ID, are difficult to stop by both foot and motor, consistently and constantly break a large number of traffic laws which endanger themselves and others.

So here is my solution. Don't bother. Its a waste of time and resources that could be better used to actually enforce our traffic laws. Besides natural selection will take out the worst of them.

monument

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Cyclists don't have any training, are not required to provide ID, are difficult to stop by both foot and motor, consistently and constantly break a large number of traffic laws which endanger themselves and others.

So, what you're saying is that cyclists are much like every other road user grouping?

Pedestrians and learner drivers have no training, but are allowed on the road. And pedestrians and drivers generally consistently and constantly break a large number of traffic laws which endanger themselves and others.

And what's so difficult about stopping cyclists? Have watched gardai doing it over and over again on foot at aimed locations as well as at random a few time. The vast bulk of cyclists will stop -- around the same as motorists, peds, motorcyclists etc.

Cuddlesworth

monument wrote: »

So, what you're saying is that cyclists are much like every other road user grouping?

Pedestrians and learner drivers have no training, but are allowed on the road. And pedestrians and drivers generally consistently and constantly break a large number of traffic laws which endanger themselves and others.

And what's so difficult about stopping cyclists? Have watched gardai doing it over and over again on foot at aimed locations as well as at random a few time. The vast bulk of cyclists will stop -- around the same as motorists, peds, motorcyclists etc.

Pedestrians are the lowest common denominator. You have to make the assumption that since they are the most likley to get hurt in a collision they would try to not kill themselves. You know, common sense and all that.

Training is going to become compulsory for learner drivers of cars and has become for motorbikes. Since cars travel at a greater speed, do far more damage in a collision and are at a disadvantage to a another car with flashing blue lights they should be the full attention of the existing infrastructure.

To catch and stop Cyclist at rush hour you need to be in front watching them on the correct side of the road and clearly visible as a police officer to be able to stop them but hidden enough to stop them noticing you before committing the crime.

So you are advocating having police standing at the side of roads just after junctions and lights waiting patiently in bushes to be able to stop cyclists and have arguments with them over name, address, offence. And then what? Send them all out 50 Euro fines? To JP Freely at I don't care lane?

The reasons why we don't enforce the existing laws is because they are impossible to enforce to any adequte degree. And I can't personnel see any merit in doing so besides it looking good on some councillors webpage and being the person who brought law to the cycling population* of Dublin(*.002% of cycling population).

Which leads me back to the clothesline suggestion. Now there is a idea that could have a effect....

monument

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Pedestrians are the lowest common denominator. You have to make the assumption that since they are the most likley to get hurt in a collision they would try to not kill themselves. You know, common sense and all that.

If you think that about peds, surly the same holds for cyclists... or is your logic twisted for some reason?

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

To catch and stop Cyclist at rush hour you need to be in front watching them on the correct side of the road and clearly visible as a police officer to be able to stop them but hidden enough to stop them noticing you before committing the crime.

Gardai in the recent garda crackdowns over last summer and into the winter all managed to stop cyclists without much trouble.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

So you are advocating having police standing at the side of roads just after junctions and lights waiting patiently in bushes to be able to stop cyclists and have arguments with them over name, address, offence. And then what? Send them all out 50 Euro fines? To JP Freely at I don't care lane?

You're making a much out of nothing -- the gardai seem to have no problem stopping a load of cyclists in the recent crackdown.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

...to the cycling population* of Dublin(*.002% of cycling population).

What? Not sure what you're trying to say here, but the population of Dublin which cycles is much, much more than .002% and it's growing.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Which leads me back to the clothesline suggestion. Now there is a idea that could have a effect....

Just like cars and cyclists should be able to run over peds crossing on red? :rolleyes:

mossyc123

In my opinion any moves towards improving the standards of cycling particularly in Dublin City Centre is to be welcomed.
What i'd do would be make lights, helmets, reflector jackets all mandatory when cycling in any area between the canals (i.e the City Centre) at any time. Failure to adhere to this would result in an on the spot fine and/or repossession of the bike.

Failure to carry Photo ID when cycling anywhere in the City Centre would result in immediate repossession of the bike and a subsequent fine upon collection of the bike.

As a motorist I find it very difficult to have any respect for a lot of cyclists as they don't seem to have any respect for there own safety or the safety of other road users.

fenris

So just because you are a bit annoyed you think that others should be irritated too?

What will a helmet do to improve what you perceive as poor behaviour?
What will a high viz vest do to improve what you perceive as poor behaviour?
What will lights do to improve what you perceive as poor behaviour?

If you wear them in your car will it make you a better driver?
Will it stop you pulling out in front of fire engines and ambulances?
Will it stop you running amber lights or filling box junctions?


It appears to me that what you want is cyclists off the road and out of your way so you can have the road to yourself. To make that goal easier you are proposing helmets and high viz jackets and photo ID that is not required under law to be carried by people that annoy you in order to make them easier to persecute off the road, or maybe it is for their own good, like those cool yellow stars that you could get for your clothes so that people would know not to offer you ham sandwiches in the street.

Maybe we should ban all BMWs from driving in the snow, or make kids go to school at 4:00 am to keep them safe from traffic, you know I think I see where you are coming from, lets harrass everyone except you and me off the road then you can use the roads on the odd number dates.

monument

mossyc123 wrote: »

In my opinion any moves towards improving the standards of cycling particularly in Dublin City Centre is to be welcomed.
What i'd do would be make lights, helmets, reflector jackets all mandatory when cycling in any area between the canals (i.e the City Centre) at any time. Failure to adhere to this would result in an on the spot fine and/or repossession of the bike.

Failure to carry Photo ID when cycling anywhere in the City Centre would result in immediate repossession of the bike and a subsequent fine upon collection of the bike.

As a motorist I find it very difficult to have any respect for a lot of cyclists as they don't seem to have any respect for there own safety or the safety of other road users.

Yes! Because all the counties where there's less cyclists killed or injured per km all have high vis and helmets as the norm!... no, wait, they don't!?

mossyc123

fenris wrote: »

So just because you are a bit annoyed you think that others should be irritated too?

What will a helmet do to improve what you perceive as poor behaviour?
What will a high viz vest do to improve what you perceive as poor behaviour?
What will lights do to improve what you perceive as poor behaviour?

If you wear them in your car will it make you a better driver?
Will it stop you pulling out in front of fire engines and ambulances?
Will it stop you running amber lights or filling box junctions?


It appears to me that what you want is cyclists off the road and out of your way so you can have the road to yourself. To make that goal easier you are proposing helmets and high viz jackets and photo ID that is not required under law to be carried by people that annoy you in order to make them easier to persecute off the road, or maybe it is for their own good, like those cool yellow stars that you could get for your clothes so that people would know not to offer you ham sandwiches in the street.

Maybe we should ban all BMWs from driving in the snow, or make kids go to school at 4:00 am to keep them safe from traffic, you know I think I see where you are coming from, lets harrass everyone except you and me off the road then you can use the roads on the odd number dates.

Perhaps improving behaviour was a bad way to phrase that. Im looking more from the point of view of improving motorist-cyclist relationsions in the City Centre.

Helmet, high-viz, lights, etc makes everything safer... do you think it's your entitlement to just hop on a bike and away into packed City Centre streets without any of these items on your vehicle?!

I personally have no beef with cyclists skipping the lights IF there are no pedestrians crossing and no cars coming... its just a common sense to do that.

I think you compared my little bit of proposed regulation of people cycling in Dublin City Centre to a certain religious minorities persecution in a certain fascist state in 1930's Europe...or am I mistaken?!

What's wrong with carrying a Photo ID with you...
Your using the public highway, what have you got to hide?!

mossyc123

monument wrote: »

Yes! Because all the counties where there's less cyclists killed or injured per km all have high vis and helmets as the norm!... no, wait, they don't!?

So your NOT willing to use/wear items that would improve your visibility to motorists and hence improve your safety on the road?!

Victor

mossyc123 wrote: »

So your NOT willing to use/wear items that would improve your visibility to motorists and hence improve your safety on the road?!

I understand hiv-vis is popular with cyclists. Perhaps pedestrians should all wear hi-vis green and all cars (especially the black and metallic silver ones) should be repainted in a hi-vis pink colour.

fenris

mossyc123 wrote: »

Perhaps improving behaviour was a bad way to phrase that. Im looking more from the point of view of improving motorist-cyclist relationsions in the City Centre.

No you are looking for a way to clear people out of your way, even though they have exactly the same right to be on the road as you.

mossyc123 wrote: »

Helmet, high-viz, lights, etc makes everything safer...

Apart from lights at night as required by law, there is no proof that the other items make "everything safer"

mossyc123 wrote: »

do you think it's your entitlement to just hop on a bike and away into packed City Centre streets without any of these items on your vehicle?!

Actually I do, apart from lights at night, I am perfectly entitled by law to hop on a bike and toddle off about my business regardless of how packed the city centre is, guess what you could do the same if you wanted!

mossyc123 wrote: »

I personally have no beef with cyclists skipping the lights IF there are no pedestrians crossing and no cars coming... its just a common sense to do that.

No it is not common sense it is illegal.

mossyc123 wrote: »

I think you compared my little bit of proposed regulation of people cycling in Dublin City Centre to a certain religious minorities persecution in a certain fascist state in 1930's Europe...or am I mistaken?!

Well spotted, you may not have a clue about the rules of the road but your history is bang on :P

mossyc123 wrote: »

What's wrong with carrying a Photo ID with you...
Your using the public highway, what have you got to hide?!

Maybe I could get a number tatooed on my arm - just so it wouldn't get lost, in fact we could probably go for opposite ankle and back of neck just in case I forget my high viz vest and my arm falls off because my helmet isn't covering it adequately on my way to the postbox with all of my correspondences on postcards because I have nothing to hide.

mossyc123

Victor wrote: »

I understand hiv-vis is popular with cyclists. Perhaps pedestrians should all wear hi-vis green and all cars (especially the black and metallic silver ones) should be repainted in a hi-vis pink colour.

Stupid reply. Your travelling at speed alongside vehicles that could have you mangled under there wheels in the blink of an eye. An ordinary sized motor car is far more visible then someone pedelling along on a bike. Get real.

mossyc123

fenris wrote: »

No you are looking for a way to clear people out of your way, even though they have exactly the same right to be on the road as you.

People who don't exhibit enough intelligence to realise that Hi-Vis jackets make you more visible and hence safer SHOULDN'T be on the road.

Apart from lights at night as required by law, there is no proof that the other items make "everything safer"

As above. Hi-Vis jackets make you more visible. Obviously. You shouldn't need proof to grasp that fundamental.

Actually I do, apart from lights at night, I am perfectly entitled by law to hop on a bike and toddle off about my business regardless of how packed the city centre is, guess what you could do the same if you wanted!

Yep! Just as I suspected. Typical arrogant cyclist. I can do what I want and to hell with the everyone else.

No it is not common sense it is illegal.

It is common sense as a cyclist to cross ahead of the cars waiting in traffic as opposed to moving off with the cars. IF of course there are no cars coming from the other direction/no pedestrians crossing.
Common Sense and Law aren't always concurrent.

Well spotted, you may not have a clue about the rules of the road but your history is bang on :P

Maybe I could get a number tatooed on my arm - just so it wouldn't get lost, in fact we could probably go for opposite ankle and back of neck just in case I forget my high viz vest and my arm falls off because my helmet isn't covering it adequately on my way to the postbox with all of my correspondences on postcards because I have nothing to hide.

And again you try and compare regulation of cyclists to fascism and persecution. Give it a rest.

Victor

mossyc123 wrote: »

An ordinary sized motor car is far more visible then someone pedelling along on a bike.

Odd the way so many people crash into these cars then.

fenris

mossyc123 wrote: »

People who don't exhibit enough intelligence to realise that Hi-Vis jackets make you more visible and hence safer SHOULDN'T be on the road.

More visible is not the same as safer, just because I am wearing a high viz vest doesn't mean that you are paying enough attention to avoid hitting me or care enough to avoid me assuming that you are not trying to teach a law abiding but wrong in your opinion road user a lesson.

mossyc123 wrote: »

As above. Hi-Vis jackets make you more visible. Obviously. You shouldn't need proof to grasp that fundamental.

High viz vests work well in rural and sub urban settings i.e. where the road is not cluttered by flourescent posters, shop lights, lines of vehicles etc. that are much more brightly illuminated than a high viz vest, in darker less busy settings the vest is a contrast to the surroundings in a dense urban area it is part of the clutter.
What you are really looking for is an excuse for when you hit a cyclist due to inattention or pure carelessness while fiddling with your phone or stereo. Vests are not a legal requirement, get over it.

mossyc123 wrote: »

Yep! Just as I suspected. Typical arrogant cyclist. I can do what I want and to hell with the everyone else.

Law abiding = arrogant???
I disagree with your walter mitty "if I was king of the road" law and obey the law of the land and that makes ME arrogant, fantastic. Do I detect a little hostility towards cyclists?
Does this mean that you really don't care about cyclists and their safety and maybe wish they would just FOAD somewhere out of your way?

mossyc123 wrote: »

It is common sense as a cyclist to cross ahead of the cars waiting in traffic as opposed to moving off with the cars. IF of course there are no cars coming from the other direction/no pedestrians crossing.
Common Sense and Law aren't always concurrent.

My My, we can't get multiquote to work, but we do a nice line in the ninja edit!

Bit of a change from your original statement regarding it being okay for cyclists to break traffic lights (assuming they are properly attired with "safety gear" and have photo ID to ease identification of the body)
The RTA applies and should be obeyed, makey up rules by someone who thinks cyclists are arrogant and inconvenient do not have the same weight.

mossyc123 wrote: »

And again you try and compare regulation of cyclists to fascism and persecution. Give it a rest.

only that particular brand of soundbites dressed up as hysterical "think of the children" "it's for your own good" brain fart that you are pedalling.

mossyc123

fenris wrote: »

More visible is not the same as safer, just because I am wearing a high viz vest doesn't mean that you are paying enough attention to avoid hitting me or care enough to avoid me assuming that you are not trying to teach a law abiding but wrong in your opinion road user a lesson.

It would help... at least admit that!

High viz vests work well in rural and sub urban settings i.e. where the road is not cluttered by flourescent posters, shop lights, lines of vehicles etc. that are much more brightly illuminated than a high viz vest, in darker less busy settings the vest is a contrast to the surroundings in a dense urban area it is part of the clutter.
What you are really looking for is an excuse for when you hit a cyclist due to inattention or pure carelessness while fiddling with your phone or stereo. Vests are not a legal requirement, get over it.

Do I dedect a little hostility towards motorists?
What makes you think I would be fiddling with my phone/car radio?!

Law abiding = arrogant???
I disagree with your walter mitty "if I was king of the road" law and obey the law of the land and that makes ME arrogant, fantastic. Do I detect a little hostility towards cyclists?
Does this mean that you really don't care about cyclists and their safety and maybe wish they would just FOAD somewhere out of your way?

I see your nazi reference and raise you a financial crises bit of hyperbole:

The credit institutions were following the strict letter of the law regarding there lending practices in the last few years. Does that make there reckless lending ok?

Does that make certain cyclists reckless lack of safe practice on the road OK because there are no rules against it?

My My, we can't get multiquote to work, but we do a nice line in the ninja edit!

Yes I didn't know how to multiquote. I do now. I was adding in a couple of words to my reply if thats OK by you. Nothing "ninja" about that.

Bit of a change from your original statement regarding it being okay for cyclists to break traffic lights (assuming they are properly attired with "safety gear" and have photo ID to ease identification of the body)
The RTA applies and should be obeyed, makey up rules by someone who thinks cyclists are arrogant and inconvenient do not have the same weight.

Not a change at all. I've consistently said that common sense can supercede the strict letter of the law in this case.
Judging by recent public commentary the rules in there current form and levels of enforcement aren't working and a lot of people are getting increasingly frustrated by the attitude of a lot cyclists.

only that particular brand of soundbites dressed up as hysterical "think of the children" "it's for your own good" brain fart that you are pedalling.

Don't know what your on about here. Your attitude screams "were cyclists, were doin no harm, leave us be". I can tell you now youse are a right pain in the arse for motorists and pedestrians in many parts of the city. Hence, the current move towards increased enforcement.

Carawaystick

mossyc123 wrote: »

It would help... at least admit that!

There's scientific evidence that motorists are more likely to be in a collision with a pushcyclist wearing a helmet than ones without.

as this seems to be non-obvious and is counterintuitive, I'd ask you to provide some evidence of how cyclists wearing high viz clothing would 'Help' - I assume by help you mean there'd be less bike/car collisions.

fenris

mossyc123 wrote: »

It would help... at least admit that!

My point is that if the motorist or cyclist is not paying attention then it doesn't matter if both are wearing space suit or are in the nip. Behaviour not clothing is the essence of the issue.

mossyc123 wrote: »

Do I dedect a little hostility towards motorists?
What makes you think I would be fiddling with my phone/car radio?!

Nope, the only motorists that I have felt strong emotion towards recently are the BMW drivers that bought the N11 to a standstill last night (4 of them sideways between Stillorgan park hotel and whites cross alone last night)
Modern cars are a very isolated little cocoon, air con to delay the onset of bad smells like fuel on the road, sound proofing and stereo so that you can't hear the ambulance, phone, cooler for drinks, hot box for pizza to keep you amused fed and watered.
Messing aside, a modern vehicle is quite disconnected from the outside world, a lot of the cues that you would have received 20 years ago in a car are now muted, ideally this should be compensated for by increased attention and concentration by the driver along with less driver fatigue.
I think that what happens now especially in slow nose to tail traffic is that people are insulated enough to think that tapping out an email on the blackberry or messing with the ipod is not that big a deal.
Awareness and attention is critical for all road users, people pull out in front of ambulances and fire engines the whole time, they are much more visible and audible than any cyclist, but if you attention is focused inside the car rather than outside then you will be slow to react and damage will be done regardless of attire. It is not the fault of the car manufacturer for putting the toys in, it is the drivers decision how and when to use them, so I don't believe that a cyclist not wearing a piece of clothing is a mitigating factor in the event of an fatality caused by lack of attention by either party.

mossyc123 wrote: »

I see your nazi reference and raise you a financial crises bit of hyperbole:

The credit institutions were following the strict letter of the law regarding there lending practices in the last few years. Does that make there reckless lending ok?

Does that make certain cyclists reckless lack of safe practice on the road OK because there are no rules against it?

That's the spirit!, were they on bicycles or in cars when they carried out this lending?, my guess is that it was carried out on their blackberrys while stuck in traffic on the quays in their snow good BMW's.

People had to borrow recklessly too, is "we had to buy then otherwise we would have never got on the property ladder" the same as "I had to go through the lights otherwise I would have never got home in time for corrie"? Personal responsibility is a bitch, I know that I had to sign half a million forms to get my mortgage but it is my signature on them. Just like I have to decide what to do when I get behind the wheel of my car or onto my bicycle, "Bertie made me do it, Garda" just doesn't cut it.
We live in a republic, we are citizens not subjects. If it is not illegal then it is okay, beyond that you have to make a personal (there's that word again) judgement call based on your ethics, morals and basic cop on as to whether somethin is right or not.
When I am on my bike, there are usually times where I could be legally right but splatted (Dublin Bus, I'm looking at you), make a decision and live with it but don't try to abdicate responsibility for your actions by blaming the other guy for not meeting your personal idea of how the world should be.

mossyc123 wrote: »

Not a change at all. I've consistently said that common sense can supercede the strict letter of the law in this case.

I don't agree, the law is clear regarding red lights, common sense particularly in Dublin would dictate that car of bike should watch out for the 4 gobsh*tes that will go through any reasonably fresh red light and stop in their special personal yellow box.
Put a cop on some of the main junctions, pull the bikes and cars that are acting the maggot, throw the book at them for not only breaking the lights but for being unobservant and stupid enough to do it in front of a cop!

mossyc123 wrote: »

Judging by recent public commentary the rules in there current form and levels of enforcement aren't working and a lot of people are getting increasingly frustrated by the attitude of a lot cyclists.

Would this be the commentary in the motors forum, drive time radio, where the target audience is the frustrated people in cars?
A bit like asking who are the worlds greatest soccer team on MUTV.

I commute to the Stephens green area of the city centre daily either via the N11 or through Goatstown/Ranalagh, bikes are the least of the problems and certainly form no significant part on the delays, I have never missed a light due to a cyclist, the same cannot be said for makeup girl, or those incapable of putting their car in gear and moving off smartly.
I really don't get the whole bring in more laws because the current ones are not being enforced idea, enforce what is there first and then look at changes if necessary, alternatively blame someone else because they are ginger and out in public without a hat on a tuesday without a permit.

mossyc123 wrote: »

Don't know what your on about here. Your attitude screams "were cyclists, were doin no harm, leave us be". I can tell you now youse are a right pain in the arse for motorists and pedestrians in many parts of the city. Hence, the current move towards increased enforcement.

My attitude is enforce what you have before you introduce changes, that applies equally to all areas be it cycling, driving, finance or cleaning up after your dog.

I am a motorist, I am a cyclist and I am a pedestrian, usually all within the same day. I am equally entitled to the safety of my life and limb and freedom from persecution in all three roles. My decisions are my own and the responsibility for my actions are mine alone.

YUSS

ill cycle on foothpath if i want...goin thru lights tho is stupid

monument

mossyc123 wrote: »

So your NOT willing to use/wear items that would improve your visibility to motorists and hence improve your safety on the road?!

Are you asking me to believe in your make believe nonsense over proof?



Germany was the last pic. This image by Daniel Sparing shows some typical cyclists in Copenhagen where high heels are more popular than high viz:



These are from Amsterdam, photos by Amsterdamize, and again are typical cyclists: