Garda checkpoints for cyclists?

Jawgap

Not sure of the veracity of this, but the Bike Hub today published the following update on their Facebook page........

" Just so you know....An Garda Siochana will now hold checkpoints for bicycles. They were spotted last week in the Bicycle Lane opposite Fosters Avenue last week checking tyres, helmets, lights and safety equipment. There are so many bikes on the street now it was bound to happen. Make sure you and your bike are safe and well lit up this Winter!"

Interesting if they do it..........

Lawrence1895

I don't mind, if they do it. I am well equipped, and know from Germany, that lights, helmets and stuff are compulsory

Dermot Illogical

Lars1916 wrote: »

I don't mind, if they do it. I am well equipped, and know from Germany, that lights, helmets and stuff are compulsory

When in Ireland feel free to forgo the helmets and stuff. They're not compulsory.
The bolshy one at the checkpoint is me.

Lawrence1895

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

When in Ireland feel free to forgo the helmets and stuff. They're not compulsory.
The bolshy one at the checkpoint is me.

Safety equipment should be compulsory everywhere imo.

For example lights, many (inexperienced or careless) cyclists easily forget, that it's more important to be seen, rather than to see.

Dermot Illogical

Lars1916 wrote: »

Safety equipment should be compulsory everywhere imo.

For example lights, many (inexperienced or careless) cyclists easily forget, that it's more important to be seen, rather than to see.

Lights already are compulsory. What more do you want? You want to tell me how to live? Force me to wear a helmet? A big-bird jacket perhaps?

kerry4sam

Jawgap wrote: »

Not sure of the veracity of this, but the Bike Hub today published the following update on their Facebook page........

" Just so you know....An Garda Siochana will now hold checkpoints for bicycles. They were spotted last week in the Bicycle Lane opposite Fosters Avenue last week checking tyres, helmets, lights and safety equipment. There are so many bikes on the street now it was bound to happen. Make sure you and your bike are safe and well lit up this Winter!"

Interesting if they do it..........

Fantastic News!

The amount of cyclists I've seen out there with no lights on their bikes and wearing dark-clothing is something shockin'. The weather is so bad and their just is not that much 'day-light' these days but people are still taking un-necessary risks by not being visible on their bikes.

Well done to An Garda Síochána on this!

luapenak

Jawgap wrote: »

" Just so you know....An Garda Siochana will now hold checkpoints for bicycles. They were spotted last week in the Bicycle Lane opposite Fosters Avenue last week checking tyres, helmets, lights and safety equipment.

Checking tyres for what, thread depth? As for helmets, didn't think they were compulsory. Are they just stopping cyclists and advising them to wear helmets? Does anybody know what they refer to as safety equipment? Am I likely to get pulled for being brakeless?

ciara1052

If you do get stopped - what would you need to have apart from lights?

EDIT: I was stopped last year on nasseau street but i was just told that I should have a helmet and that I needed to be more visible. I already had lights and a reflective jacket though. This is probably something similar.

Dermot Illogical

kerry4sam wrote: »

Fantastic News!

Well done to An Garda Síochána on this!

This is a 'story' posted by a shop that sells exactly the type of equipment being advocated. Save your congrats until it's on garda.ie?

CptMackey

I'm all for lights when it's dark or dusk. But apart from that leave me alone. I'll wear a helmet when I feel like it. As for reflective gear .... No thanks

kerry4sam

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

This is a 'story' posted by a shop that sells exactly the type of equipment being advocated. Save your congrats until it's on garda.ie?

Once it is out there it is out there. I've seen checks being done with cyclists in the mid-lands but never down my way. If their is hope of it being spread nation-wide, then I say Well Done! About time!

Their is no harm what so ever in getting statements like this being out there, regardless of where it originates. It needs to be done and hopefully will gather momentum too. Checks need to be done everywhere and cyclists need to be more vigilant on their safety measures from what I have seen down my way.

steve9859

kerry4sam wrote: »

Fantastic News!

The amount of cyclists I've seen out there with no lights on their bikes and wearing dark-clothing is something shockin'. The weather is so bad and their just is not that much 'day-light' these days but people are still taking un-necessary risks by not being visible on their bikes.

Well done to An Garda Síochána on this!

I think you'll find, if it exists at all, that it's an 'advisory' type deal....they'll pull people over and suggest that there might be better ways to be going about things....I doubt very much they'll be dishing out fines

Lawrence1895

Just on a personal note...I was knocked off the bike a few times (different reasons for that, such as kids trying to push me off the bike), and I was glad, I had the helmet.

Maybe, some people don't like wearing them, but always remember, you can be lucky in 99 cases, and then comes No100...that's how I learnt to wear a helmet.

kerry4sam

steve9859 wrote: »

I think you'll find, if it exists at all, that it's an 'advisory' type deal....they'll pull people over and suggest that there might be better ways to be going about things....I doubt very much they'll be dishing out fines

And where is the harm if it is only advisory? Some cyclists need, they actually need a talking to about safety measures, or their own lack of!

CptMackey

kerry4sam wrote: »

And where is the harm if it is only advisory? Some cyclists need, they actually need a talking to about safety measures, or their own lack of!

They will only drive people bonkers. If I got a lecture off a Garda about lights etc during the day I'll throw my eyes to heaven and carry on. Too much nanny state going on.

Dermot Illogical

kerry4sam wrote: »

Once it is out there it is out there. I've seen checks being done with cyclists in the mid-lands but never down my way. If their is hope of it being spread nation-wide, then I say Well Done! About time!

Their is no harm what so ever in getting statements like this being out there, regardless of where it originates. It needs to be done and hopefully will gather momentum too. Checks need to be done everywhere and cyclists need to be more vigilant on their safety measures from what I have seen down my way.

Absolute nonsense. The law is there for lights and lack of them is easily detected. You're advocating going beyond that and enforcing a point of view which has no legal backing.
I'd rather see the laws we already have being enforced. The streets are full of ninjas, salmon, RLJs and footpad cyclists. How about a crackdown on them? No, some would rather nanny the law-abiding.
Juvenile nonsense.

kerry4sam

CptMackey wrote: »

They will only drive people bonkers. If I got a lecture off a Garda about lights etc during the day I'll throw my eyes to heaven and carry on. Too much nanny state going on.

& you won't be alone in that either. Not everyone will react that way though.

If the message gets through to even a fraction that need to hear it, then maybe, just maybe, it might make more people think more about the safety of everyone when they take to their bicycles with little to no safety measures.

kerry4sam

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. The law is there for lights and lack of them is easily detected. You're advocating going beyond that and enforcing a point of view which has no legal backing.
I'd rather see the laws we already have being enforced. The streets are full of ninjas, salmon, RLJs and footpad cyclists. How about a crackdown on them? No, some would rather nanny the law-abiding.
Juvenile nonsense.

In your opinion, and I can see exactly where you are coming from.

Some people need to be made more aware of all safety measures available though for when taking to their bicycles. Not every cyclist does btw, but some do.

If a friendly word saying such is done, and will be done nation-wide, even sporadically, then it gets my backing. It might just reach people who need to hear it.

Their is very little being done in the way of promoting safe cycling, imo, and this could well be a start of something, or nothing! Either way, I hope this is done and I say Well Done to those members who are. They have my support.

jetsonx

About time something was done about this scourge of these "ghost cyclists"
that are on Irish roads.

As a motorist, I am fed of having to put my headlights on high beam in case
any of these shadowy figures are attempting to cross my path.

As a cyclist who clocks up a lot of yearly kms, if my bike has no lights - the journey get canceled.

feck sake lads

A garda stopped me one time no idea why ,i think he was just a bit pissed at the job, anyway he said theres not a lot of thread on those tires , no i said as a matter of fact theres none, well then you should not be on the road, i told him there were slicks.:D:D
an hour later he told me to be on my way and get better tires.;)

ThisRegard

feck sake lads wrote: »

an hour later he told me to be on my way and get better tires.;)

He kept you for an hour?

Dermot Illogical

feck sake lads wrote: »

an hour later he told me to be on my way and get better tires.;)

Big knobbly ones are best, as everyone knows...

Limestone1

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. The law is there for lights and lack of them is easily detected. You're advocating going beyond that and enforcing a point of view which has no legal backing.
I'd rather see the laws we already have being enforced. The streets are full of ninjas, salmon, RLJs and footpad cyclists. How about a crackdown on them? No, some would rather nanny the law-abiding.
Juvenile nonsense.

Salmon ?

Dermot Illogical

Limestone1 wrote: »

Salmon ?

Swims against the flow.

Edit: He's the one that appears out of nowhere going against the flow of traffic. Advanced salmon will use a one-way cycle lane against the flow. Usually has ninja status as well.

feck sake lads

ThisRegard wrote: »

He kept you for an hour?

well near enough but only because i changed the subject and we had a great laugh,i told him he was too good looking and young to be a cop and had he ever tried scuba diving.
yeah drove the poor fecker up the walls .

tomasrojo

Lars1916 wrote: »

I don't mind, if they do it. I am well equipped, and know from Germany, that lights, helmets and stuff are compulsory

Helmets are not compulsory in Germany either.

tomasrojo

feck sake lads wrote: »

A garda stopped me one time no idea why ,i think he was just a bit pissed at the job, anyway he said theres not a lot of thread on those tires

A lot of people don't seem to know that bikes don't aquaplane.

RidleyRider

I'd just like to know, can we be done for speeding? :L

Cookie_Monster

kerry4sam wrote: »

Their is very little being done in the way of promoting safe cycling, imo, and this could well be a start of something, or nothing!

there's little being done because there's little need. cycling is not dangerous, you don't need a hundred million stupid rules and you don't need to waste everyones timing trying to enforce them.
By all means stop and fine people without lights but advising people to wear helmets or high vis or anything else is just nonsense and a complete waste of AGS and cyclists time.

Maudi

kerry4sam wrote: »

Fantastic News!

The amount of cyclists I've seen out there with no lights on their bikes and wearing dark-clothing is something shockin'. The weather is so bad and their just is not that much 'day-light' these days but people are still taking un-necessary risks by not being visible on their bikes.

Well done to An Garda Síochána on this!

yea and stop cycleing thru red lights.f.f.s

RidleyRider

Maudi wrote: »

yea and stop cycleing thru red lights.f.f.s

oh please dont start this again..

DaveyDave

I'd love a checkpoint, anyone without lights should be fined. I went out at about 8 the other day, which is what, 3-4 hours after the sun goes down, and saw 2 lads on road bikes without lights. Ridiculous, of all people who should know better, actual cyclists.

I'm sick of cycling around town and not spotting someone until I'm right behind them because they haven't got lights. Especially those commuters who pull out from a side road, that happens on Pearse St all the time. I'm tempted to just cycle into them to be honest. Why pull out slowly while looking straight as if I'm not going to notice?

I was just thinking about that new-ish ad on TV I've seen about the new one way street sign and road markings. I've seen it on Discovery, it's a good ad and I've love to see it on all cable channels and more of them. I liked it because it reminded motorists that you're not supposed to cross a solid white line. That's how I got hit by a car and almost recently at high speed. One based on/for cyclists wouldn't hurt.

kenmc

Lars1916 wrote: »

Just on a personal note...I was knocked off the bike a few times (different reasons for that, such as kids trying to push me off the bike), and I was glad, I had the helmet..

There's 2 sides to every story though.
If you hadn't bothered putting on your helmet, you would have been on the road what 10? 20? 30? seconds earlier? That might have just been enough time to get through one light that you had to stop at. And that might have been enough time to get past the kids who pushed you over before they came out of the shop or around the corner or whatever. Likewise it might have been the difference between you not getting hit by a car.

I hate this whole "oh the helmet saved my life sh1te" - we have know way of knowing if the helmet did save your life, or if it in fact it was actually the cause of your needing it in the first place.

(FWIW I wear a helmet, but thankfully I've never had to use it, but if I do, I won't be claiming that it saved my life)

aN.Droid

kenmc wrote: »

There's 2 sides to every story though.
If you hadn't bothered putting on your helmet, you would have been on the road what 10? 20? 30? seconds earlier? That might have just been enough time to get through one light that you had to stop at. And that might have been enough time to get past the kids who pushed you over before they came out of the shop or around the corner or whatever. Likewise it might have been the difference between you not getting hit by a car.

I hate this whole "oh the helmet saved my life sh1te" - we have know way of knowing if the helmet did save your life, or if it in fact it was actually the cause of your needing it in the first place.

(FWIW I wear a helmet, but thankfully I've never had to use it, but if I do, I won't be claiming that it saved my life)

What if the 30 seconds you lose putting the helmet on was the cause of you hitting a red light and missing an accident at the other side of it?

Terrible argument.

Wear a helmet. Put on your lights. Be fecking safe.

kenmc

Limericks wrote: »

What if the 30 seconds you lose putting the helmet on was the cause of you hitting a red light and missing an accident at the other side of it?

Terrible argument.

Wear a helmet. Put on your lights. Be fecking safe.

That's my point entirely. You can never know what would have happened if you choose the other path, so claiming something to be true when you only know one possible outcome is ludicrous.

bob11

I've seen this in action twice over the last week or so ..

Both times in Rathmines, just at the clock tower ..

Great initiative by the Guards ...

tomasrojo

Given the general direction we know this is about to take, it might be as well to point out that arguments for and against helmet compulsion or promotion and claims into how effective they are as a safety device have been played out here many times.

This was a recent one:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056686864

But there are plenty more. All these threads are close to being identical, so there's no real need to turn this into one.

Good idea to enforce use of lights. Not sure of the utility of trying to enforce non-existent helmet- and hi-viz laws though. I'd prefer a crackdown on motorists sailing through red lights at pedestrian crossings myself, but I guess we all have our own bugbears.

Andy Magic

Can anyone provide me a link to the actual laws that apply to cyclists?

buffalo

I would take a Garda at a bike checkpoint telling me to wear hi-viz and a helmet in the same way I would take a Garda at a car checkpoint telling me I should replace my air freshener and clean my sun roof - politely, but ignoring it completely.

Again, a fixation on irrelevant safety issues and 'victim at fault' mentality is pushed, instead of education. Nice to see some enforcement though.

buffalo

Andy Magic wrote: »

Can anyone provide me a link to the actual laws that apply to cyclists?

The basics are at ROTR.ie, but need to be read with a caveat.

They are not the definitive laws. Anything with "must" is most likely defined in a SI somewhere - e.g. "At night you must carry a lamp showing a white or yellow light to the front and a lamp showing a red light to the back. These are the minimum lighting requirements laid down by law." Anything with "should" merely 'helpful' RSA advice.

Some of the sections are out of date - e.g. "A cyclist must use a cycle track if it is provided." This no longer applies as of 1st Oct 2012.

Maybe monument or galwaycyclist would have a better link, but that page will give you a good rough idea.

A_Sober_Paddy

buffalo wrote: »

The basics are at ROTR.ie, but need to be read with a caveat.

They are not the definitive laws. Anything with "must" is most likely defined in a SI somewhere - e.g. "At night you must carry a lamp showing a white or yellow light to the front and a lamp showing a red light to the back. These are the minimum lighting requirements laid down by law." Anything with "should" merely 'helpful' RSA advice.

Some of the sections are out of date - e.g. "A cyclist must use a cycle track if it is provided." This no longer applies as of 1st Oct 2012.

Maybe monument or galwaycyclist would have a better link, but that page will give you a good rough idea.

Have you got a link to that piece of info?

buffalo

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Have you got a link to that piece of info?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Part 3 of the Regulations amend, from 1 October 2012, provisions of the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations 1997 to 2011. The main amendments include... new and amended requirements for use of cycle tracks (only use of contraflow cycle track and of any cycle track in pedestrianised area is mandatory); consolidation of regulation provisions of 1997-2011 for use of bus lanes (including change in law to permit pedal cyclists to use contra-flow bus lanes and bus-only streets) and consolidation of the regulatory rules of 1997-2011 for pedal cyclists.

humbert

If it was good advice and clearly advice I'd be all for this.

I'd be worried that it would be advice many experienced commuters wouldn't agree with and delivered in the form of an order or a warning.

seamus

I have visions of being stopped and warned about no high-vis and wearing a "walkman". "Sure you had to take them out to hear me talkin' to ye".
"And what's the story with those pedals? There's no grip on them and they're tiny, they're lethal! You're attached to them? By jaysus, are ye mad? What would happen if you crashed?"

I'd probably just smile nicely, look blankly, nod and say nothing, then stick the earbuds back in and head on my way.

JRant

You've got to give it to AGS, they really are a clueless bunch if they think this is the best use of resources.
Under what law are they going to be stopping people if you have lights on your bike and obeying the ROTR?
It seems they're just going to be stopping people and offering their opinion, great stuff, gives us an opportunity to voice our opinions to them (gangland murders, garda corruption etc) and see how they like them apples.

ciotog

humbert wrote: »

If it was good advice and clearly advice I'd be all for this.

I'd be worried that it would be advice many experienced commuters wouldn't agree with and delivered in the form of an order or a warning.

Seeing some of the behaviour of fellow cyclists on my daily commute I wonder how many consider themselves 'experienced' and above taking advice. It makes sense to check for lights, it also makes sense to enquire about the road-worthiness of some bicycles. Personally I'd prefer straight enforcement of the laws.

spokesm0del

I was pulled over by a Garda last week after I rolled through a red light at a deserted pedestrian crossing at about 5km/hr, not realising he was right behind me on a motorbike. Fair enough, I had broken the Rules of the Road so I was fully prepared for being told off, and was suitably polite and apologetic, but I was not expecting to be subjected to a 20 minute lecture on the topic, being FORCED AGAINST MY WILL (!) to don a hi-vis vest which he gave me (even though I politely reminded him that they are not obligatory, and that I have several at home), and finally being told I "may or may not" receive a summons in the post?! He also sniffily commented that the LED rear light I have is too small - these are the same ones AGS are currently giving out to cyclists...

Meanwhile, several cyclists passed with no lights, whom me merely stopped, told-off and then let them go. How unfair is that?!

Anyway, I'm optimistically hoping that the summons was an empty threat, but it all seemed a bit OTT to me.

Andy Magic

It's starting to look like cyclists are the new boy racers in society...

myxi

I got stopped on Amiens Street a couple of weeks ago after the clocks changed. I was grand, lit up like a christmas tree, but the guy he stopped at the same time had to either get his back light working again on the spot or "lock it up and come back for it later"!

I think it's a good idea. There's far too many people cycling around the city in dark clothes with no lights!

kling

Make sure you've got your bell fitted then:

Audible warning device.
28. (1) Every vehicle (other than a pedestrian-controlled vehicle) shall be fitted with an audible warning device complying with the provisions of sub-article (2) of this article, capable of giving sufficient warning of the approach or position of the vehicle.

(2) The device referred to in sub-article (1) of this article shall not consist of—

(a) a gong, siren or other strident-toned device except in the case of a vehicle used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, or
(b) a bell, except in the case of—
(i) a vehicle used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, or
(ii) a bicycle—
I. the engine of which does not exceed 50 cubic centimetres in cylinder capacity as calculated in accordance with article 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations, 1958 ( S.I. No. 13 of 1958 ) and
II. which is incapable of exceeding 24 miles per hour on a dry level road under normal atmospheric conditions.

tomasrojo

spokesm0del wrote: »

being FORCED AGAINST MY WILL (!) to don a hi-vis vest which he gave me

Possibly illegal, certainly unprofessional.