Gardi to tackle cycle menaces

opinion guy

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.

Braking a light on a bike is not the same as braking a light in a car. a) you can see oncoming traffic better from a bike b) you can position yourself in easier to cross palce & c) you can accelerate over the short distance of a junction quicker on a bike.

I agree with you on the cycling wrong way thing - stupid. Also agree with the on path cycling point you made - judgement call.

Deise Vu

BostonB wrote: »

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



When cycling? when the driver ignores the rules.

.

The thread is about enforcing the rules of the road with cyclists. Of course I expect any consequences to a motorist ignoring the rules of the road to be prosecuted. That is why the vast bulk of them obey the rules.

My point is that cyclists are mostly endangering themselves (see my original post for a classic example) when they decide to follow their own set of rules.

kincsem

Father Damo wrote: »

It is odd but I have never heard on the news or by word of mouth of anyone being killed or seriously injured by a cyclist even though some of them speed on footpaths like fcuking nutters. I would nearly rather tke my chances being hit by a car at 40mph rtaher than a bicycle- at least with a car the roll over the bonnet/ boot might actually save your life, with a bike you get completely pummeled.

And if you don't wear a seatbelt you will be able to jump out of the car in an accident? :rolleyes:

Deise Vu

BostonB wrote: »

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.

Where does it say that targeting cyclists will mean motorists will now be ignored?

BostonB

Deise Vu wrote: »

The thread is about enforcing the rules of the road with cyclists. Of course I expect any consequences to a motorist ignoring the rules of the road to be prosecuted. That is why the vast bulk of them obey the rules.

I'd dispute that. As a driver, my experience is enforcement and rule following is relatively low where they think they can get away without it.

Deise Vu wrote: »

My point is that cyclists are mostly endangering themselves (see my original post for a classic example) when they decide to follow their own set of rules.

The stats don't agree with your theory.

BostonB

Deise Vu wrote: »

Where does it say that targeting cyclists will mean motorists will now be ignored?

Not sure whats that got to do with my comments.

Maybe they'll use some form of magic so that putting resources on the least cause of accidents will not reduce the resources assigned to the biggest cause of accidents. Of course past experience over many years suggests this is a PR stunt that will be flash in the pan, and ultimately do nothing. But people who accept things at face value will lap it up.

Deise Vu

BostonB wrote: »

I'd dispute that. As a driver, my experience is enforcement and rule following is relatively low where they think they can get away without it.

I repeat: the thread is not about motorists breaking the rules of the road. I also repeat that motorist breaking the rules is clearly very dangerous and should be prosecuted. For your benefit any RTA where there is an injury will be investigated by the Gardaí and a prsecution will definitely follow if a motorist is show nto be in the wrong.

BostonB wrote: »

The stats don't agree with your theory.

There are stats which show the number of injuries to cyclists is greater where they obey the rules rather than when they disobey them? Well, that's fairly put me in my box, can you please tell me where I can access these statistics?

SerialComplaint

Deise Vu wrote: »

Where does it say that targeting cyclists will mean motorists will now be ignored?

By sending out their 'blame the victims' press release, they have sent the message to every driver in the country that cyclists are to blame for cyclist death and injuries. They have sent the message to every driver to keep on doing what you're doing, 'cos we're going to fix it by giving out hi-vis vests.

They are ignoring the active role of motorists in cyclist death and injuries. Shame on them.

BostonB

Deise Vu wrote: »

I repeat: the thread is not about motorists breaking the rules of the road....

Thats the primary cause of traffic accident to cyclists. How could it not be?

Deise Vu wrote: »

There are stats which show the number of injuries to cyclists is greater where they obey the rules rather than when they disobey them? Well, that's fairly put me in my box, can you please tell me where I can access these statistics?

I've posted a number of links to stats. You've posted none. Do your own homework to backup your wild unsubstantiated guesses.

Khannie

Deise Vu wrote: »

There are stats which show the number of injuries to cyclists is greater where they obey the rules rather than when they disobey them? Well, that's fairly put me in my box, can you please tell me where I can access these statistics?

I commute from where I live to work by bike quite a bit. It's 33K each way. I always stop at red lights. Never cycle on paths. Never cycle down one way streets the wrong way. I am courteous to other road users. However, it is dangerous for me to obey all the rules of the road, specifically the one that says that I need to cycle in a cycle lane if it exists. There are some really, really dangerous cycle lanes in Dublin both to me and pedestrians. The one that springs immediately to mind is the one leading from the old airport road towards santry. I use my cop on and don't cycle in cycle lanes when they are dangerous to me or others. Where there is proper cycling infrastructure (e.g. along the canal) I make full use of it and I'm glad it's there.

I am glad to see the Gardaí crack down on eejits mind you.

Viper_JB

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

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

As long as it doesn't result in them putting themselves in a dangerous position to themselves or pedestrians or me then I'm cool with it, cars travel much quicker then pedestrians though so much different situation to on the road.

Viper_JB

opinion guy wrote: »

Braking a light on a bike is not the same as braking a light in a car. a) you can see oncoming traffic better from a bike b) you can position yourself in easier to cross palce & c) you can accelerate over the short distance of a junction quicker on a bike.

I agree with you on the cycling wrong way thing - stupid. Also agree with the on path cycling point you made - judgement call.

It is different...but you're putting yourself in a position where you're not expected to be by other traffic, I've seen a lot of close calls because of this. I know as a driver you should always expect the unexpected and all but I wouldn't personally risk my live on the basis that all drivers on the road will adhere to that train of thought, also surely by the same logic as a cyclist you should always be expecting the unexpected which to me would make me very reluctant to break a red.

FanadMan

As a pedestrian, I find my biggest problem with cyclists is with their disregard for people crossing at lights. Who gave them the right to ignore my right to cross the road legally when the little green man is showing? I've had so many close shaves over the years but had an actual bang in London.

Was crossing legally and maybe because it was quiet, this idiot on a bike flew up along the stopped cars and ran straight into me. Only for the fact that I was carrying a large heavy suitcase I would have been badly injured. But thanks to my suitcase, the cyclist was knocked off his bike and his front wheel was badly buckled. And he had the gall to give out to me! Oh, how I laughed.

There needs to be a bit of cop-on and common sense on the part of cyclists, drivers and pedestrians.

Viper_JB

BostonB wrote: »

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.

So by your logic cyclists should be allow do what ever they want on the roads ? I agree that the roads should be policed better - there are far to many drivers who are just accidents waiting to happen, but I don't see how that procludes cyclists from sticking to the rotr if anything it should motivate them more.

galwaycyclist

Deise Vu wrote: »

There are stats which show the number of injuries to cyclists is greater where they obey the rules rather than when they disobey them? Well, that's fairly put me in my box, can you please tell me where I can access these statistics?

There is a body of evidence suggesting that those cyclists who cycle on footpaths or cycle tracks put themselves at increased risk of collision with motor vehicles.

Start here and read the following posts
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77227158&postcount=16

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77231682&postcount=17

RobbieTheRobber

Viper_JB wrote: »

So by your logic cyclists should be allow do what ever they want on the roads ? I agree that the roads should be policed better - there are far to many drivers who are just accidents waiting to happen, but I don't see how that procludes cyclists from sticking to the rotr if anything it should motivate them more.

Isn't that your logic though, in your quoted post below in fact you espouse that very point.
So you dont seem to mind cyclists breaking laws at times.

Viper_JB wrote: »

As long as it doesn't result in them putting themselves in a dangerous position to themselves or pedestrians or me then I'm cool with it, cars travel much quicker then pedestrians though so much different situation to on the road.

Viper_JB

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Isn't that your logic though, in your quoted post below in fact you espouse that very point.
So you dont seem to mind cyclists breaking laws at times.

Hey, I'm only human . I wanna see less cyclist deaths and I believe that the other two are a small part of the solution, the fact that it's law is less important to me then the fact that it has the potential to save lives.

RobbieTheRobber

Viper_JB wrote: »

Hey, I'm only human . I wanna see less cyclist deaths and I believe that the other two are a small part of the solution, the fact that it's law is less important to me then the fact that it has the potential to save lives.

Simplest way to save lives would be to take cars off the roads though, they seem the biggest single risk on them.

Stollaire

Deise Vu wrote: »

The thread is about enforcing the rules of the road with cyclists. Of course I expect any consequences to a motorist ignoring the rules of the road to be prosecuted. That is why the vast bulk of them obey the rules.

Not sure about that:

• 77.8% of car drivers surveyed exceeded the 50km/h limit on urban
national roads, a decrease of 8% on 2007 figures;
• However, 53% of these drivers exceeded the speed limit by 10km/h or
more;
• The average speed of cars on urban national roads was about 10 km/h
above the 50 km/h posted speed limit. Furthermore, only 19.9% of
drivers were observed travelling below the speed limit and 6.3% were
travelling between 80 and 100 km/h

http://www.rsa.ie/Utility/News/2010/Vehicle-Speed-Survey-Shows-Mixed-Results/

Also, if you would like some anecdotal evidence of rule breaking by 1.5+ ton vehicles every five minutes/daily just observe any crossing location along the Grand Canal in Dublin (or any road running parallel to the canal also)
I've yet to see a red light between Ringsend and Adelaide Road not been broken by at least one or two motorised vehicles.

And for the OT to describe cyclists as "cycle menaces" is just hilarious and borderline trolling.

humbert

It's interesting to see that most cyclists are happy to see the gardai catching cyclists breaking the law, whereas when it's motorists being caught speeding there's an attitude that it's us against the system.

Yakult

humbert wrote: »

It's interesting to see that most cyclists are happy to see the gardai catching cyclists breaking the law, whereas when it's motorists being caught speeding there's an attitude that it's us against the system.

Wtf you on about? If a person breaks the law in a motor vehicle then that law is wrong?

Viper_JB

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Simplest way to save lives would be to take cars off the roads though, they seem the biggest single risk on them.

Possibly not the simplest, but I take your point

Chinasea

Slurryface wrote: »

It aint illegal to park on a cycle lane in many cases.

WTF are cars parking for in cycle lanes ? most of these are just downright ignorant.

Just cause it might not be illegal (and I doubt that) fecken cars should not be parking in the few cycle lanes that we have.

Cookie_Monster

Bradidup wrote: »

€100 fines are far too much for cyclists to pay considering most of them are either students or those on the dole.

this is probably the worst generalisation of the thread to date. How could you possibly know what they do? How do you know they're not millionaire business men who just don't want to waste their time in traffic and get fit on the way to work?
Using a car is not some flash sign of wealth, it just shows you're a lazy fooker for the most part

humbert

Yakult wrote: »

Wtf you on about? If a person breaks the law in a motor vehicle then that law is wrong?

No, but thanks for trying.

For the remedial readers, what I'm saying is that I find it encouraging to see that most cyclists who have posted here have no objection to seeing other cyclists punished for breaking the law. This is in stark contrast to the way motorists on here often regard, for example, speeding tickets, as though they are being victimised.

L.Jenkins

It's about time the Gardai started cracking down on the stupidity of cyclists and pedestrians.

woodoo

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

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

These free loaders don't pay any road tax and then act as if they own them. Pests the lot of them.

magicbastarder

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Yes there are awful drivers out there, but you don't get loads of them sailing through red lights in the city centre and constantly almost hitting pedestrians.

this is probably largely to do with the fact that once one car stops at a red light, every car behind has to follow suit.
if a cyclist stops at a red light, it does not prevent any other cyclists behind them from stopping.
it's down to ability, not will.

SerialComplaint

woodoo wrote: »

These free loaders don't pay any road tax and then act as if they own them. Pests the lot of them.

You don't pay any road tax either - pest.

Run_to_da_hills

How do Gardai intend to catch some of these rogue cyclists?

It should be fun seeing some cycle chases across the rush hour traffic.

lycra lout on his super light Reynolds 531 steel framed fixie VS a Garda on his ton weight full laden mountain bike in hot pursuit bumping on and off curbs and breaking traffic lights

Gardai will have to upgrade to something sportier. : )