Cyclists and the law, a different view

lazycyclist

Saw this in the New York Times - seems sensible

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/if-kant-were-a-new-york-cyclist.html?_r=1

Darkglasses

I have so many issues with this article, what a load of codswallop.

I have no interest in getting into his ever so intellectual talk about ethics, but I'll say that I don't see what is so ethical about him forcing his idea of what is safe and unsafe on everyone on the road. Him (and others) will always go on and say "I only break red lights when it is safe". These people have no right to say what is safe! But their decisions have serious consequences for other road users. Moreover, a significant number of these people flouting traffic laws have minimal road experience.

I particularly hate this idea of bikes on the road: "We are a third thing, a distinct mode of transportation, requiring different practices and different rules. ". In my opinion, this is responsible for the ignorance and disrespect of bikes on the road. If all cyclists had road legal (lights when needed, road-worthy etc.) bikes and travelled the roads as they should (good road position, paying heed to lights/signs/road markings), then I really think cycling would be an awful lot easier, safer, and viewed with more respect. I see this "third thing" idea of cycling as a distinctly "second class" road user idea.

Does anyone else feel that you could easily use his reasoning to condone stealing from rich people? It won't do them any harm, I do it in the pursuit of happiness, other people break the law, I don't break most laws, etc.

Jawgap

Fortunately / unfortunately, he is answering a legal question ("when is it ok to break lights / not stop when required etc?") with a moral answer ("any time you like as long as you take care and no one gets hurt").

Unless the argument is that the road traffic legislation is itself immoral then his argument is corrupt.

Also, he doesn't say why he breaks lights etc - if Kant were a New York Cyclist I think he would argue that the reason for not respecting the law is the key factor in deciding whether what you do is moral or immoral. If you break a law because it doesn't suit you rather than because you consider it to be unjust or illegitimate then you are behaving both illegally and immorally.

He sounds more libertarian than Kantian.

Regardless, I'd like to see this defence run in the district court if someone gets caught RLJ'ing:)

fat bloke

Cue the usual impotent outrage, but in my opinion that article is spot on.

lazycyclist

The important point of the article to me (and I agree, some of the article is dubious) is highlighting that the introduction by authorities in many large cities of bicycle lanes and measures to encourage cycling as a legitimate alternative commuting option are at best poorly considered and at worst, superficial. Yes, cyclists rarely come out of collisions with cars and other motorised vehicles positively, however, pedestrians and cyclists don't really collide very well either. Cyclists and pedestrians also are more at the mercy of the elements and their own physical capabilities, all of which contribute to some of the risky decisions people make. Not forgetting stupidity!

What is maybe lost in some of the anarchy of that article is the need through a combination of planning and education (for all) to allow every user of public space, particularly in towns and cities, a reasonable expectation of getting from A to B without having to adopt a defensive, "them against us" attitude.

The Dutch and Danes seem to have a good model, why not learn from them?

ROK ON

I dont disagree with the overall sentiment of the article at all.
Accepting ones responsibility to follow laws of the land, it would be sad to think that people must implicitly agree with all of the laws of the land.

As is usual on this forum the sanctity ministers are all too quick to jump down someones throat for posting an alternative viewpoint.

Beasty

ROK ON wrote: »

As is usual on this forum the sanctity ministers are all too quick to jump down someones throat for posting an alternative viewpoint.

It would be a very boring forum if everyone agreed with everyone else. I don't see anyone jumping down anyone's throat here - the posters that have expressed any form of contrary view have at least gone to the trouble of explaining their position

opti0nal

Jawgap wrote: »

Unless the argument is that the road traffic legislation is itself immoral then his argument is corrupt.

I've seen just such a stance taken in 'motors' when drivers there discuss how to evade speed traps. And we all know their excuses for failing to stop on amber.

If there were a zero-tolerance policy on all road-traffic offenses, who'd get the most penalty points?

buffalo

If you don't like a law, or think it's immoral, seek to have it changed or repealed. Don't just disobey it and justify it because you're only breaking one of the 'bad' laws. This isn't the civil rights movement.

Mucco

I'm pretty much with the article.
When I lived in Dublin, I never cycled on the bike lanes, thereby breaking the mandatory use law.

He says that red lights can be treated like yield signs. I remember meeting a bunch of cyclists waiting at a red cycle signal in London last year. Normally nobody waited, but this day there was a policeman standing there. I hopped off the bike, took two steps, jumped back on and cycled off, as did the dozen or so other cyclists. This is within the law, but there is no difference in rolling through the light on your bike.

In Japan, everyone cycles on the footpath, no-one gets outraged, they don't have a problem with it, and I doubt they have a massive accident rate.

M

magicbastarder

i'm 100% with the idea that cyclists should not be considered on a par with motorists; pedestrians, cyclists and motorists are on a continuum and cyclists are closer to pedestrians than they are to motorists in that continuum.

opti0nal

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm 100% with the idea that cyclists should not be considered on a par with motorists; pedestrians, cyclists and motorists are on a continuum and cyclists are closer to pedestrians than they are to motorists in that continuum.

Pedestrians are heavily discriminated against, with restrictions placed on where and when they are permitted to cross a road and with little enforcement of any laws that are for their benefit. Drivers denying them right of way when crossing at minor junctions are never penalised. And, one frequently sees unsanctioned cars parked on footpaths.

I'm not sure cyclists would want to align themselves with that mode.

Wishbone Ash

Mucco wrote: »

In Japan, everyone cycles on the footpath

You don't state if it is legal to do so in Japan but if "everyone" does it then presumably pedestrians expect to encounter cyclists on the footpath. That doesn't mean that those pedestrians aren't inconvienienced by cyclists.

magicbastarder

opti0nal wrote: »

Pedestrians are heavily discriminated against, with restrictions placed on where and when they are permitted to cross a road and with little enforcement of any laws that are for their benefit. Drivers denying them right of way when crossing at minor junctions are never penalised. And, one frequently sees unsanctioned cars parked on footpaths.

I'm not sure cyclists would want to align themselves with that mode.

sounds like very similar problems that cyclists face already. cars using cycle lanes, cars parking in cycle lanes, cars performing left hooks on cyclists, all with little risk of being penalised.

galwaycyclist

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

You don't state if it is legal to do so in Japan but if "everyone" does it then presumably pedestrians expect to encounter cyclists on the footpath. That doesn't mean that those pedestrians aren't inconvienienced by cyclists.

I understand that it is legal and common practice. However, I also understand that the culture or manner of cycling is very, very different to Ireland and that Japanese cyclists tend to roll along in a much slower and more sedate - pedestrian friendly - style. I suspect also that Japan cities and towns are much more densely populated than the Irish equivalents. This tends to lead to correspondingly shorter journey distances and less pressure to "maintain progress".

galwaycyclist

Mucco wrote: »

He says that red lights can be treated like yield signs. I remember meeting a bunch of cyclists waiting at a red cycle signal in London last year. Normally nobody waited, but this day there was a policeman standing there. I hopped off the bike, took two steps, jumped back on and cycled off, as did the dozen or so other cyclists. This is within the law, but there is no difference in rolling through the light on your bike.

To my knowledge this is also illegal and cyclists have been prosecuted for dismounting and wheeling against red.

dearg lady

Some of the article is a bit over the top, but I agree that cyclists should be treated differently than other road users, and sensible laws should be put in place for cyclists.

Wishbone Ash

galwaycyclist wrote: »

To my knowledge this is also illegal and cyclists have been prosecuted for dismounting and wheeling against red.

Yup - otherwise all motorcyclists would do the same!

dearg lady

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Yup - otherwise all motorcyclists would do the same!

really?! that's mad, I'm surprised, could you point me in the direction of this law?

Greenmachine

Should be a fine for cyclist caught breaking red lights. If caught again bike should be seized. Caught a third time behaviour order and banned from using one in public for 6 months.

Too much? This would be in the interest of the cyclists safety. Look at country like finland and germany where even the pedestrian are extremely obedient. There logic: A car might come,

What if car drivers took it upon themselves which red lights to stop at the place would be bedlam

ROK ON

It is debatable as to whether there would be bedlam.

Many regulations in society exist for our safety, but they may not actually incentivise safe behaviour.

A town in the Netherlands is experimenting with a system that has no lights, ped crossings or footpaths. The idea is that town users (cars, cyclists and peds) must all be more vigilant due to the lack of safety facilities.

It is early days but initial results are positive.

Sometimes certain infrastructures exist to make is feel safe, but they can incentivise complacency. Sometimes if one feels more vulnerable, behaviour can be modified to counteract.

opti0nal

Greenmachine wrote: »

What if car drivers took it upon themselves which red lights to stop at the place would be bedlam

It's already bedlam. Drivers generally ignore the 'stop on amber' rule and 78% of motorists ignore speed limits....They rationalise this by claiming it was not safe to stop at the amber light and that 'slow drivers are dangerous' and cause people to speed when trying to overtake them.

There's a risk here, that cyclists are deluding themselves in the same way as motorists already have.

Jawgap

Is complying with the Road Traffic Legislation as currently written such an onerous burden?

I quick scan of my recent commutes suggests that stopping for lights and generally following the law lengthens my commute by about 2.5% to 4%.

I know some may travel on routes with more lights etc but my impression is that difference between following the law and ignoring significant parts of it is marginal at best (YMMV) and any gain in time saved would likely not be worth the extra risk incurred.

I could probably knock the 2.5% off my time just by being less of a lard-arse - without running the risk of hitting someone, getting side-swiped, or fined.

Chips Lovell

I read it and found it to be insufferably smug. It exemplifies the sense of entitlement that some cyclists seem to have. Owning a bicycle doesn't make you special.

magicbastarder

ROK ON wrote: »

A town in the Netherlands is experimenting with a system that has no lights, ped crossings or footpaths. The idea is that town users (cars, cyclists and peds) must all be more vigilant due to the lack of safety facilities.

It is early days but initial results are positive.

they've done something similar with the street beside the science museum in london.

magicbastarder

Greenmachine wrote: »

Should be a fine for cyclist caught breaking red lights. If caught again bike should be seized. Caught a third time behaviour order and banned from using one in public for 6 months.

a colleague was stopped and fined for jaywalking in germany. if they introduced that measure here, there would be an outcry from the jaywalkers who insisted cyclists be fined.

buffalo

BikeSnobNYC on the money - everyone who thinks they're above the law thinks they're special. The law's the law though.

there is one thing he doesn't point out, which is that everybody thinks their rule-breaking is "ethical and safe." I agree it's ethically fine to roll through a red light at a quiet intersection, and I'm also willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's smart enough to do so responsibly. Unfortunately though, the clueless Nü-Freds who ride heedlessly through crosswalks and leave hordes of disgruntled pedestrians in their wake also think they're doing so ethically and responsibly.

Jawgap

Greenmachine wrote: »

Should be a fine for cyclist caught breaking red lights. If caught again bike should be seized. Caught a third time behaviour order and banned from using one in public for 6 months.

Care to explain elaborate on how such a law would be enforced, especially the bit about banning someone from using a bike for six months.

A bit more enforcement of existing legislation would be more than enough to deal with this behaviour.

Greenmachine wrote: »

Too much? This would be in the interest of the cyclists safety. Look at country like finland and germany where even the pedestrian are extremely obedient. There logic: A car might come,

What if car drivers took it upon themselves which red lights to stop at the place would be bedlam

Scandinavian countries and Germany have completely different cultures to Ireland - you hear of the protestant north and catholic south in relation to Europe, well the approach to laws, rule-breaking etc is a manifestation of that........


......I know we're west, but culturally we're more catholic south, than protestant north:) - pity we don't get their weather!

mcmoustache

galwaycyclist wrote: »

To my knowledge this is also illegal and cyclists have been prosecuted for dismounting and wheeling against red.

What about dismounting, bringing the bike onto the footpath, wheeling the bike past the light while on the footpath and then mounting the bike on the road and continuing on your way?

I would see it as ending one bike journey and starting another but I have no idea where it stands legally.

opti0nal

Jawgap wrote: »

Care to explain elaborate on how such a law would be enforced, especially the bit about banning someone from using a bike for six months.

Penalty points for road traffic offences while riding a bicycle may be applicable to a person's driving license. Many cyclists also have driving licences.

I've often wondered how many of those wrong-way-up-a-one-way-street, traffic-light-blind Dublin Bikers might also be motorists?

opti0nal

mcmoustache wrote: »

What about dismounting, bringing the bike onto the footpath, wheeling the bike past the light while on the footpath and then mounting the bike on the road and continuing on your way?

In my opinion, technically, you've driven a bicycle on a footpath. It's a matter of Garda discretion when and where they take issue with wheeling a bike on a path, but riding or wheeling is still 'driving' a vehicle.

Less hassle just to wait for the lights to change.

magicbastarder

opti0nal wrote: »

Penalty points for road traffic offences while riding a bicycle may be applicable to a person's driving license. Many cyclists also have driving licences.

should people who jaywalk also have their licence endorsed?

Captain Havoc

Could you make all cyclists carry a provisional licence, thus making them pass the theory test? Your bike would be confiscated until you are able to produce a license in a garda station, this could also help reduce stolen bikes as I'd say the toe-rags who steal them wouldn't be going to a garda station in a hurry to retrieve them. Kids would be introduced to road safety early.

Jawgap

opti0nal wrote: »

Penalty points for road traffic offences while riding a bicycle may be applicable to a person's driving license. Many cyclists also have driving licences.

I've often wondered how many of those wrong-way-up-a-one-way-street, traffic-light-blind Dublin Bikers might also be motorists?

What about tourists? People without driving licences? Cyclists aged 16 and younger? Would it apply to tri-cycles?

steve9859

Until such time as drivers get points on their licences for running red lights, I shan't pay much attention to the legislation. Once a Garda is stationed at the lights at the top of Dawson Street radioing his mate down the road to stop the 2 or 3 cars that run the red (and the green man) at every change, there might be a bit more credibility behind the calls for cyclists to get policed more strongly.

Anyway, no group has the moral superiority. Cars run red lights, break the speed limit and block cycle lanes. Bikes run red lights and often mount the pavement. Pedestrians walk around plugged into their iPods, texting away, without even looking. Everyone is as bad as each other. In fact the only two serious crashes I have had we're when idiot pedestrians stepped into the road without even looking up (they came off worse both times)

magicbastarder

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Could you make all cyclists carry a provisional licence, thus making them pass the theory test? Your bike would be confiscated until you are able to produce a license in a garda station, this could also help reduce stolen bikes as I'd say the toe-rags who steal them wouldn't be going to a garda station in a hurry to retrieve them. Kids would be introduced to road safety early.

do you want people to use bikes?
should pedestrians be banned from using footpaths if they cannot obey lights at junctions?

buffalo

steve9859 wrote: »

Until such time as drivers get points on their licences for running red lights, I shan't pay much attention to the legislation. Once a Garda is stationed at the lights at the top of Dawson Street radioing his mate down the road to stop the 2 or 3 cars that run the red (and the green man) at every change, there might be a bit more credibility behind the calls for cyclists to get policed more strongly.

Is a motorist allowed say, "Until such time as cyclists get points on their licences for running red lights, I shan't pay much attention to the legislation." ? What difference does it make what someone else does?

Mucco

galwaycyclist wrote: »

To my knowledge this is also illegal and cyclists have been prosecuted for dismounting and wheeling against red.

In the UK, there's appeal court precedent for this being legal, though the cyclist has to start and finish on the footpath. I'd love to know the circumstances of successful prosecutions - who would bother?

mcmoustache

opti0nal wrote: »

In my opinion, technically, you've driven a bicycle on a footpath. It's a matter of Garda discretion when and where they take issue with wheeling a bike on a path, but riding or wheeling is still 'driving' a vehicle.

Less hassle just to wait for the lights to change.

I don't know. I'd have thought that wheeling your bike on the footpath to be similar to wheeling a pram or a wheelbarrow. Again, I don't actually know if this is the case.

As it happens, by the time you dismount, bring your bike onto the path, walk your bike past the lights, return to the road and remount, the lights will most likely have changed anyway so waiting is better in reality. I was just wondering about the legality of such a maneuver.

monument

I don't agree with the article, strongly don't agree with breaking red lights, and agree that the writer comes across as smug, but....

buffalo wrote: »

BikeSnobNYC on the money - everyone who thinks they're above the law thinks they're special. The law's the law though.

We're all now following the law on mandatory use of cycle lanes then? :pac:

Darkglasses wrote: »

I particularly hate this idea of bikes on the road: "We are a third thing, a distinct mode of transportation, requiring different practices and different rules. ".

Bicycles are a distinct mode of transport!

The bicycle is the most energy efficient mode of transport.

For bicycle, the average weight is much lower than 40 Kg while the average of the car is over 1,000 Kg.

Bicycles are power by humans but the average speed of a cyclist is around three times the speed of the average speed of somebody walking. A car on the other hand can go distinctly faster and can get to very high speed in very little time and no notable effort by the driver.

Bicycles should not go on footpaths, nor should they go on motorways.

Bicycle infrastructure (advance stop lines/boxes, cycle lanes from normal to contra-flow lanes, etc) are things just for cyclists -- distinctly so.

Darkglasses wrote: »

In my opinion, this is responsible for the ignorance and disrespect of bikes on the road. If all cyclists had road legal (lights when needed, road-worthy etc.) bikes and travelled the roads as they should (good road position, paying heed to lights/signs/road markings), then I really think cycling would be an awful lot easier, safer, and viewed with more respect.

This can't be right because cyclists who light up "like Christmas trees" still get disrespected (search that term), and good road positioning can be highly annoying to many motorists.

Darkglasses wrote: »

These people have no right to say what is safe!

"These people" have as much of a right to say what is safe or not as you or I do. Your right to hold the view that what they do is unsafe does not change their right to think the opposite.

Darkglasses wrote: »

Moreover, a significant number of these people flouting traffic laws have minimal road experience.

The link between law breaking and minimal experience is dubious - some of the worst offenders work as cyclists. Furthermore, a lot of the new law breakers are just following the example set by more experienced ones.

opti0nal wrote: »

Pedestrians are heavily discriminated against, with restrictions placed on where and when they are permitted to cross a road and with little enforcement of any laws that are for their benefit. Drivers denying them right of way when crossing at minor junctions are never penalised. And, one frequently sees unsanctioned cars parked on footpaths.

I'm not sure cyclists would want to align themselves with that mode.

+1

Using a pram in Dublin City Centre for about six months before putting my son on a bike was nearly a bigger transport pain than relying on Dublin Bus for a while after a bike was stolen a few years ago. With a pram you suffer the worst footpath conditions, and are forced into using crossing etc.

Greenmachine wrote: »

What if car drivers took it upon themselves which red lights to stop at the place would be bedlam

lol ...Where do you live??? In the above mentioned six months solid I had with a pram, motorists did the following daily:

• Blocked and/or kept moving slowly over a crossing where people where already crossing. I'm not talking about slowing moving past the stop line, but moving across the actual crossing -- happens daily at rush hour and other times that traffic is heavy.
• Broke red lights and sped past as if {a} there was not a pram already 1/4 or 1/2 way across the road OR {b} I was doing something wrong.
• Broke amber/orange lights rather than stopping.

tomasrojo

mcmoustache wrote: »

I don't know. I'd have thought that wheeling your bike on the footpath to be similar to wheeling a pram or a wheelbarrow.

In fact, if you get a puncture and have no repair kit, you don't really have any choice but to wheel your bike on the footpath.

dearg lady

tomasrojo wrote: »

In fact, if you get a puncture and have no repair kit, you don't really have any choice but to wheel your bike on the footpath.

That's what I was thinking, I've had to do that plenty of times! it doesn't make logical sense for it to be illegal....but that never stopped a law I suppose

Also, great post monument

tomasrojo

monument wrote: »

lol ...Where do you live??? In the above mentioned six months solid I had with a pram, motorists did the following daily:

• Blocked and/or kept moving slowly over a crossing where people where already crossing. I'm not talking about slowing moving past the stop line, but moving across the actual crossing -- happens daily at rush hour and other times that traffic is heavy.
• Broke red lights and sped past as if {a} there was not a pram already 1/4 or 1/2 way across the road OR {b} I was doing something wrong.
• Broke amber/orange lights rather than stopping.

When someone does finally stop their car at red (at a pedestrian crossing it's usual for the three or so cars to go through the red), it gives the impression that all the motorists behind are all law-abiding. They probably aren't all law-abiding. It's just physically impossible for them to get around the law-abiding one at the top. Cyclists, unfortunately, can get past.

Naturally, I have a slight bias in favour of cyclists that most people wouldn't, but I have to say that I have been inconvenienced or endangered far more by motorists breaking lights than cyclists. And it's a daily occurrence.

And, as with monument, I have had quite a lot of experience of motorists driving straight at me through a red light while I'm crossing with a pram. I expect the RSA will soon duplicate their "safety" advice for cyclists: Pram-users, don't get into shouting matches with motorists.

ROK ON

As an aside, while notcondoning RLJing, Dublin has a very high density of traffic lights.

Now ask the following questions?
What company had (has?) the contract for installation of traffic lights?

What company has been a significant corporate donor to a disgraced ex minister (one of the ones that went to jail).

The traffic system in Dublin with it's many traffic lights is an inconvenience for all city users regardless of the mode of transport. Surely it can be designed in a fashion more fit for purpose.

buffalo

monument wrote: »

We're all now following the law on mandatory use of cycle lanes then? :pac:

That's in the process of being repealed (as well you know ), and I'm actively lobbying against it. On top of which, the ones I ignore have non-regulation signage (which I sincerely hope they never remedy), and therefore it's not even legal for me to cycle on the "cycle track" (footpath), never mind the ethics.

Besides which, I'm special, and I only break the law when it's totally and completely sensible and responsible and safe and moral and ethical for me to do so. In fact, I'm so great, it'd be a crime for me not to break the law.

CramCycle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSsRmxc0ImM

POSTED AGAIN

Jawgap wrote: »

What about tourists?

Tourists could be fined although, with the exception of certain groups abroad, I would have generally perceived tourists to follow the crowd and possibly be slightly more cautious.

People without driving licences?

I thought his post insinuated a driving license for bicycles or even a certificate through school, something you could earn as part of your education, someone tells you the rules etc. so ignorance is not an excuse. As for older people, a booklet that bike shops must supply with new purchases, as well as a media campaign, a license seems like alot of paperwork but it may also save the hassle for the gardai, only having to arrest those who can't provide identification, could alternatively make it part of the national age card, passport and drivers license application or renewal process, covering 99% of people inside of 10years (no proof).
Personally, just a mandatory ID for everyone would be easier and the ignorance is not an excuse line, should cover this plus a whole lot more but some people have issues with the requirement to hold an ID law.

Cyclists aged 16 and younger? Would it apply to tri-cycles?

Through schools, children under a certain age under the protection of their parents, I imagine currently if a young child ran through lights and their was no parents present, the gardai, if present would pick the child up for its own safety and have to get in contact with the parents regardless.
I can't see why it would not apply to tricycles.

Personally, the only reason I think it would need to be introduced is because we live in Ireland. In other countries alot of the suggestions would work because people may approach these issues with common sense, unfortunately here, there is a large amount (although visibly a small percentage) of road users who don't just disregard the law, they disregard common sense and therefore the need for the suggested laws and enforcement becomes necessary as we/they need protection from ourselves/themselves more than anything else.

magicbastarder

what does the law say about cyclists breaking red lights where the lights are on a switched rather than timed circuit, and the bike doesn't have enough steel in it to operate the switch?
the exit from the phoenix park beside mount sackville being one i often was forced to break lights at.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

what does the law say about cyclists breaking red lights where the lights are on a switched rather than timed circuit, and the bike doesn't have enough steel in it to operate the switch?
the exit from the phoenix park beside mount sackville being one i often was forced to break lights at.

Its referred to as a stalled light, not sure of the legal standing of it but I have been told by members of AGS, you can roll through with caution, after stopping and satisfying yourself that it won't change after waiting. How long you wait for is another question?

As with many things, I presume it depends how many people are around at the time :eek:

monument

CramCycle wrote: »

I thought his post insinuated a driving license for bicycles or even a certificate through school, something you could earn as part of your education, someone tells you the rules etc. so ignorance is not an excuse. As for older people, a booklet that bike shops must supply with new purchases, as well as a media campaign, a license seems like alot of paperwork but it may also save the hassle for the gardai, only having to arrest those who can't provide identification, could alternatively make it part of the national age card, passport and drivers license application or renewal process, covering 99% of people inside of 10years (no proof).

Personally, just a mandatory ID for everyone would be easier and the ignorance is not an excuse line, should cover this plus a whole lot more but some people have issues with the requirement to hold an ID law.

Gardai already have the power to take bikes if they think somebody is lying about their name or address, so, what's the need for any of this?

magicbastarder wrote: »

what does the law say about cyclists breaking red lights where the lights are on a switched rather than timed circuit, and the bike doesn't have enough steel in it to operate the switch?
the exit from the phoenix park beside mount sackville being one i often was forced to break lights at.

It's more about getting your bike over the sensors in the ground, see video here.

Is this the junction? In any case, do you see the box outline behind the car? That's the sensor, you should position you bike along the line. (There also seems to be a sensor under the car in front at the stop line)...

magicbastarder

it's been a few years since i've been at that junction, but i'm fairly sure i positioned my bike over the sensor when i realised it was not on a timed cycle. i had already heard about aluminium framed bikes not being able to trip the switch.

CramCycle

monument wrote: »

Gardai already have the power to take bikes if they think somebody is lying about their name or address, so, what's the need for any of this?

Could you imagine the hassle this causes and therefore the reason it is not enforced, gardai have the right of discretion, a luxury many forces do not have, the problem with "thinking" someone is lying is that you can be wrong, possibly alot if people get nervous when halted and two, if they are a good liar, they may get away with it.

The ID idea takes this issue out of the hands of the gardai and makes it easier to enforce and follow up on any incidences they deem necessarty, its the reason it is compulsory to have your license present while in a car, it saves alot of hassle, which can only be a good thing.

It's more about getting your bike over the sensors in the ground, see video here.

Those sensors often are not always sensitive enough to pick up carbon or aluminium bikes and sometimes get buried too deep for light bikes if the road is resurfaced. They pick up my bike just fine as it is a steel beast but there are times when a junction/bike combination will not work.