Gardi to tackle cycle menaces

fasttalkerchat

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

As a cyclist attitudes like that genuinely concern me. A bicycle is classed, by the law, as a vehicle. While on the road I behave just like that. I position myself on the road as a car, I don't skip red lights, I don't cycle on footpaths and I don't weave in-between traffic. I'm not alone.

I treat everyone who uses the road with respect and only have a problem when someone acts out of line. I don't automatically decry any class of road user simply for the means that they use to get around.

As I said, an attitude like that displayed above genuinely concerns me for my welfare while on the road and others like me.

I don't like the way he phrased it but classing a bike as a vehicle is absurd when quads and small mini-mopeds are banned from the road!

Piliger

SerialComplaint wrote: »

No irony at all. Paris have recently passed a law to allow cyclists to break a red light when turning left. It avoid having a group of cyclists building up at a junction - great idea.

What a completely insane and dumb idea.

dutopia

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Delighted with this news, cyclists are mostly clowns who have nothing but a blatant disregard for the rules of the road.

Here's an idea, raise some much needed govt money but making ever take a written exam to get a bicycle license. €5 a pop. And fine people €500 for not wearing a helmet. I cannot understand why a person would get on a bicycle without a helmet. And yea sure feck it, same fine for not wearing a seatbelt in a vehicle & talking/texting on the phone.

Another example of a bizarre and immature attitude towards cyclists. As a driver and a cyclist I find it hard to understand the animosity towards cyclists sometimes. There are bad drivers, there are also cyclists who don't follow the rules of the road like they should. To say cyclists are 'mostly clowns' is just silly.

Cyclists who don't wear helmets are putting their own safety at risk. Whether they should be mandatory or not maybe should be debated. You can't exactly compare wearing seatbelts to wearing a helmet though, motor vehicles can go much faster and carry passengers which can have more severe consequences for everyone inside the vehicle compared to a cyclist.

Deise Vu

BostonB wrote: »

Go find some stats then compare them.

Then ask yourself why are ye targeting the group with the lowest stats.

Has it occurred to you that enforcing the law with cyclists is actually for their own protection? The fact that some motorists are spared the horror of being involved in a tragedy is only incidental.

reprazant

Piliger wrote: »

What a completely insane and dumb idea.

AFAIK, Germany allows all cars to break the red light if turning left.

If turning left, the red light is considered like a flashing amber.

Open to correction on that though

tuxy

reprazant wrote: »

AFAIK, Germany allows all cars to break the red light if turning left.

If turning left, the red light is considered like a flashing amber.

Open to correction on that though

That's crazy, they drive on the right hand side of the road so this would cause lots of accidents!

reprazant

tuxy wrote: »

That's crazy, they drive on the right hand side of the road so this would cause lots of accidents!

I am mixing up my sides.

They can turn right (afaik, as opposed to left obviously)

opinion guy

reprazant wrote: »

So do you believe then that bicycles should not be allowed on roads?

Well what we should really be asking is should cars be allowed on certain roads ?
Personally I think a town or city centre should be pedestrians and cyclists only as much as possible bar public transport and maybe taxis

iregk

Piliger wrote: »

What a completely insane and dumb idea.

Germany and the US both do this for cars. What is insane and dumb about it?

BostonB

Deise Vu wrote: »

Has it occurred to you that enforcing the law with cyclists is actually for their own protection? The fact that some motorists are spared the horror of being involved in a tragedy is only incidental.

No because it doesn't. Drivers are causing the vast majority of accidents not cyclists.

Undercover Elephant

Deise Vu wrote: »

Has it occurred to you that enforcing the law with cyclists is actually for their own protection? The fact that some motorists are spared the horror of being involved in a tragedy is only incidental.

That is what we psychologists call "rationalisation".

Logical_Bear

Darkglasses wrote: »

Source.

post number 1

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056769053

BostonB

The simply fact is as the number of cyclists increase the rate of accidents is decreasing not increasing.

The issue here is the article is very badly written to draw negative attention to cyclists to get a reaction from those that won't read it properly.

SerialComplaint

Piliger wrote: »

What a completely insane and dumb idea.

Why? Do you really think that you know more about this issue than the traffic authorities in Paris?

Jawgap wrote: »

Cyclists get a 40% tax break on purchasing a bike - car owners' paying VRT subsidise that

Why do you choose VRT - why not garlic import tax? Or cider customs duty? Or Microsoft's few crumbs of corporation tax? Or the VAT paid by cyclists on bike purchases, repairs and equipment?

As it happens, the extra business created by the bike-to-work scheme has more than paid for itself in increased employment in the bike sector.

Slurryface wrote: »

We see hundreds of thousands of them receive penalty points and fines, while cyclists, who contribute no a cent to the upkeep of the roads seem to believe that they own them and can cycle as dangerously as they want with impunity!

Others have explained to you the dramatic news that cyclists pay tax. Research from the UK showed that cyclists have on average higher income than motorists.

But that's not the main issue - the main issue is that while indeed, hundreds of thousands of motoring offences do result in penalty points and fines, millions of motoring offences don't result in penalty points and fines. Just look around you on any urban road, and count the drivers speeding, phoning, texting, surfing, not-indicating etc. A registration system doesn't stop people from breaking the law.

What it might do, is deter people from cycling. So we'll have more obesity, more diabetes, more carbon emissions, and more cars on the road in front of you, holding you up. Be careful what you wish for.

Deise Vu

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

That is what we psychologists call "rationalisation".

Why? Logic would suggest that the vast bulk of injuries caused when cyclists ignore the law will involve the cyclist or maybe a pedestrian, but almost certainly no injury to a motorist.

Viper_JB

Oh dear these threads drive me crazy so please excuse my rant I know there are decient cyclists who won't give a crap about someone enforcing these laws as they already follow them.

But why one with half a brain be against enforcing laws that stop "cyclists who go through red lights, cycle on footpaths or travel the wrong way on a one-way street", I don't understand how possibly enforcing these rules could be bad for the cyclist they're trying to save lives by enforcing the most basic of the rules of the road. Just because plenty of drivers get away with breaking ROTR it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be enforced for anyone else :S I just can't see the logic here. I mean unless you're actively going out and breaking these rules on a daily basis I can't see how these would effect you in anyway and if you are then you deserve to be caught and fined! It's like saying plenty of people get away with murder so lets not enforce any laws against assault!

BostonB

Deise Vu wrote: »

Why? Logic Guessing would suggest that the vast bulk of injuries caused when cyclists ignore the law will involve the cyclist or maybe a pedestrian, but almost certainly no injury to a motorist.

Corrected that for you.

Your premise is flawed. What vast bulk of injuries when cyclist ignore the law?

Jawgap

reprazant wrote: »

In what way is the different from the car scrappage schemes of old?

As a proportion of the purchase price, it's more than the scrappage schemes, and you get it without having to scrap something.

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Why do you choose VRT - why not garlic import tax? Or cider customs duty? Or Microsoft's few crumbs of corporation tax? Or the VAT paid by cyclists on bike purchases, repairs and equipment?

As it happens, the extra business created by the bike-to-work scheme has more than paid for itself in increased employment in the bike sector.


.

Why choose VRT? It stirs the AH pot more than income tax or VAT (or cider duty, or corporation tax!)

Logical Fallacy

The King of Moo wrote: »

Are they also going to crack down on drivers and pedestrians who break the law and act recklessly around roads?

It seems bizarre to just focus on cyclists when all road users are capable of stupid behaviour.

The article clearly states that pedestrians need to cop the **** on as well.

BostonB

Viper_JB wrote: »

......how possibly enforcing these rules could be bad for the cyclist they're trying to save lives by enforcing the most basic of the rules of the road. ...

You're making the assumption that its braking these laws that kills cyclists. Whereas you've not bothered to find out the actual main causes of accidents or death. You've just picked this out of your hat at random.

No ones against enforcing the laws where they make sense. Its like the law that requires you to keep left or in the cycle lane, but that not always the safest position.

Deise Vu

BostonB wrote: »

Corrected that for you.

Your premise is flawed. What vast bulk of injuries when cyclist ignore the law?

Ok you tell me. When a car and a cyclist collide who is more likely to come off worst?

Secondly, when is there more likely to be a collision: when the rules of the road are obeyed or when the rules are being ignored?

Everlong1

Long overdue. I used to cycle myself but the amount of kno* ends flying along the footpath is beyond a joke.

StephenHendry

intellectual dosser wrote: »

The “casualty reduction” plan, launched yesterday, will see “the full rigours of the law” applied to cyclists who go through red lights, cycle on footpaths or travel the wrong way on a one-way street facing increased levels of Garda enforcement.

A press release and initiative to announce that they are actually going to enforce the law. Congrats.

This thread however - is going to get out of hand :-)

i believe it when i see as we still don't have near enough gardai to cope with this type of enforcement not to mention the more serious stuff. i wonder what the penalties will be for pedestrians crossing at non-pedestrianed zones :pac:

StephenHendry

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

As a cyclist attitudes like that genuinely concern me. A bicycle is classed, by the law, as a vehicle. While on the road I behave just like that. I position myself on the road as a car, I don't skip red lights, I don't cycle on footpaths and I don't weave in-between traffic. I'm not alone.

I treat everyone who uses the road with respect and only have a problem when someone acts out of line. I don't automatically decry any class of road user simply for the means that they use to get around.

As I said, an attitude like that displayed above genuinely concerns me for my welfare while on the road and others like me.

thats similar to the other thread which criticises all young males as being boy racers and the good young drivers are so pisd with trying to defend themselves

BostonB

Deise Vu wrote: »

Ok you tell me. When a car and a cyclist collide who is more likely to come off worst?

Your logic is if a robber kills someone the problem is with the victim. So lets target the victims.

Deise Vu wrote: »

Secondly, when is there more likely to be a collision: when the rules of the road are obeyed or when the rules are being ignored?

When cycling? when the driver ignores the rules.

For cyclists its often safer to come out of the cycle lane (against the rules) at junctions into centre lane to stop cars cutting you up last minute.

Lesson St out of town is no entry for cyclists (for no good reason) Which is more dangerous cycling up lesson street or the legal alternative Baggot street where traffic is much faster, theres trucks and buses, lots of dubious parking, lots of pedestrians and a surface rougher than the moon.

Viper_JB

BostonB wrote: »

You're making the assumption that its braking these laws that kills cyclists. Whereas you've not bothered to find out the actual main causes of accidents or death. You've just picked this out of your hat at random.

Well getting hit by a car will kill a cyclist....braking a light won't directly kill them but will put them at much higher risk of being hit by a car as will going down the wrong way in a one way street I don't know why anyone would want to put themselves at risk by trying it anyways?....as for not cycling of foot paths, that's more of a common sense issue really - footpath empty then fine - footpath full of padestrians then no.

RobbieTheRobber

Viper_JB wrote: »

Well getting hit by a car will kill a cyclist....braking a light won't directly kill them but will put them at much higher risk of being hit by a car as will going down the wrong way in a one way street I don't know why anyone would want to put themselves at risk by trying it anyways?....as for not cycling of foot paths, that's more of a common sense issue really - footpath empty then fine - footpath full of padestrians then no.

Are you now suggesting cyclists break the law as long as it doesnt obstruct anyone?

SerialComplaint

Viper_JB wrote: »

Well getting hit by a car will kill a cyclist....braking a light won't directly kill them but will put them at much higher risk of being hit by a car as will going down the wrong way in a one way street I don't know why anyone would want to put themselves at risk by trying it anyways?....as for not cycling of foot paths, that's more of a common sense issue really - footpath empty then fine - footpath full of padestrians then no.

Viper_JB wrote: »

Oh dear these threads drive me crazy so please excuse my rant I know there are decient cyclists who won't give a crap about someone enforcing these laws as they already follow them.

But why one with half a brain be against enforcing laws that stop "cyclists who go through red lights, cycle on footpaths or travel the wrong way on a one-way street", I don't understand how possibly enforcing these rules could be bad for the cyclist they're trying to save lives by enforcing the most basic of the rules of the road. Just because plenty of drivers get away with breaking ROTR it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be enforced for anyone else :S I just can't see the logic here. I mean unless you're actively going out and breaking these rules on a daily basis I can't see how these would effect you in anyway and if you are then you deserve to be caught and fined! It's like saying plenty of people get away with murder so lets not enforce any laws against assault!

I don't think anyone has a particular problem with enforcement of traffic laws against cyclists, provided it comes with enforcement against other road users. This particular campaign is like blaming women who wear short skirts for being raped. If lots of cyclists are being injured by cars/trucks, then you might want to look at the behaviour of those driving the cars and trucks. Maybe they need to leave more space for cyclists when overtaking, and watch out for cyclists when joining major roads.

Of course, cyclists should have lights and should not be cycling on paths or breaking red lights. But this campaign is a distraction from the real issue - poor driving around cyclists by many motorists.

Darkglasses

Logical_Bear wrote: »

post number 1

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056769053

How is that a source for stating this?

most of them are either students or those on the dole.

BostonB

Viper_JB wrote: »

Well getting hit by a car will kill a cyclist....braking a light won't directly kill them but will put them at much higher risk of being hit by a car as will going down the wrong way in a one way street I don't know why anyone would want to put themselves at risk by trying it anyways?....as for not cycling of foot paths, that's more of a common sense issue really - footpath empty then fine - footpath full of padestrians then no.

So your logic is 5% of accidents are cause by something, it makes sense to target that rather than the 60% of accidents caused by something else.

I'm not defending breaking red lights. I'm against that. But not for the same reasons. But the argument it causes carnage on the roads is simply wrong. Take the canal about 70%+ cyclists (my guesstimate) break the lights along that route. There isn't daily carnage.