Cyclists again: breaking pedestrian lights

carlmango11

The other cyclist thread got me wondering about a certain behaviour that's common among cyclists.

Say a cyclist is stopped at a pedestrian crossing and there are no pedestrians crossing the road. Do you get annoyed seeing the cyclist pedaling through and continuing on? I don't mean at top speed; at a reasonable safe pace.

I have to admit if there's no one crossing I just cycle through, slowly though. I think I justify it to myself because I know at that pace on a bike even if a pedestrian did pop out of nowhere in front of the bike the worst case scenario is maybe being pushed to the ground if the person is old/a child or something.

Also: Cue "omg anothercyclingthread wtfomgwtf!!111" posts.

uch

Aaahhh Heeeeour

Retrovertigo

Why not post in the other thread instead of starting another?

carlmango11

Retrovertigo wrote: »

Why not post in the other thread instead of starting another?

Because it's a different topic and I wouldn't get poll numbers.

Ronnie Beck

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wZIcHyJJrBs/T3UTuMr1h_I/AAAAAAAAC8M/y5n5EQSwzp4/s1600/falling-down-original.jpg

thebuzz

carlmango11 wrote: »

Say a cyclist is stopped at a pedestrian crossing and there are no pedestrians crossing the road.

Why would you be stopped if no one was crossing? Are you waiting for someone to come along and then try to cycle into them?

carlmango11

thebuzz wrote: »

Why would you be stopped if no one was crossing? Are you waiting for someone to come along and then try to cycle into them?

I normally stop at red lights. Then if the light stays red and there's no one around I just go through

Augmerson

Everybody is supposed to obey the rules of the road but not everybody does. I think in Dublin, dunno about the rest of the country, some cyclist's take the piss. And it's dangerous and they give cyclists who do obey the rules of the road and travel safely a bad name. I cycle myself and I know it's handy to cycle on when nothing is coming but I don't anymore and I don't recommend it to anyone.

Cookie_Monster

No I don't get annoyed when I see a cyclist do it or when I do it myself.

carlmango11

Augmerson wrote: »

Everybody is supposed to obey the rules of the road but not everybody does. I think in Dublin, dunno about the rest of the country, some cyclist's take the piss. And it's dangerous and they give cyclists who do obey the rules of the road and travel safely a bad name. I cycle myself and I know it's handy to cycle on when nothing is coming but I don't anymore and I don't recommend it to anyone.

I should clarify I'm specifically talking about pedestrian crossings. I don't cross junctions even if there are no cars coming.

BostonB

I don't believe its dangerous most of the time. But if you don't respect the rules, why should others respect the rules that keep you safe.

If people respected things like zebra crossing, pedestrians wouldn't need pedestrian lights.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Bugs the bollox out of me.

I wrote about this in the cycling forum.

Back in 1992 I was knocked down by a bastard cyclist, it resulted in me suffering two broken elbows and a broken left wrist.

Happened on Aisling Quay, Dublin.

F*ckers.

Zyzz

Red light = Stop
Green light = Go

..as you can see it is a very difficult piece of common sense to grab

Cookie_Monster

Zyzz wrote: »

Red light = Stop
Green light = Go

..as you can see it is a very difficult piece of common sense to grab

so difficult, in fact, that you got it wrong.
A green light does not mean go, it means "Go if it is safe to do so" There's a big difference.

S. Goodspeed

Zyzz wrote: »

Red light = Stop
Green light = Go

..as you can see it is a very difficult piece of common sense to grab

Do you apply that same 'common sense' as a pedestrian?

Cyclists who weave through pedestrians at red lights are wreckless Aholes, as are pedestrians who walk out in front of cyclists when the cyclist has the green light. Whether on foot or bike I see nothing wrong with breaking a red light after stopping and confirming the coast is clear.

LiamMc

There is a theory that the cyclists needs a few extra seconds ahead of the rear traffic to get up to a safe cycling speed and to maneuver away from the parked cars further up the street.
But cyclists in Dublin do believe they are entitled to every portion of the road environment from one pavement to another.

Cookie_Monster

LiamMc wrote: »

But cyclists in Dublin do believe they are entitled to every portion of the road environment from one pavement to another.

and they are, shockingly enough. the keep left rule is really only a courtesy to be observed when the situation allows, but there are many many times and reasons to be in the middle or right of the lane. You really need to be at least 1.5m from parked cars in case a door opens, or away from drains or gravel or the general **** that gets swept to the side of the road etc etc etc.

Simple.
If y need to do something on the bike you can't do in a car, hop off the bike & push. Once you're past the red light/whatever, hop back on the bike & be on your way.

TwoShedsJackson

If there's no-one crossing, who cares? It's the twats who weave their way through the obviously crossing pedestrians (who also have right of way once they're on the road), or shout at people to get out of the way while they do it that boil everyone's piss.

Matt_Trakker

I used to be a cyclist, but I gave them up New Years Eve, 2001. I miss it sometimes and do get the odd craving for having the wind flow up my shorts to cool down my nuts, especially when I see those cool dudes on modd'ed racers hangin around St Stephen's Green smoking rollies.

But I finally realised that cycling was bad for my health. I want to live a long and happy life, see my children grow up. I couldn't take constantly being splashed by buses/taxies and motorists. Nearly getting dragged under buses and trucks when they whizzed by. Or the absolute embarrassment of not owning a car and having to use trains and buses with all the other poor losers to leave the Pale.

I know an ex-cyclists is the worst kind of cyclist, but I'm happier now, healthier too, blood pressure is back to normal, and I don't get hit by people opening their car doors. I've yet to crash my car, and I'm not afraid of being smashed by taxis or buses or trucks and I don't look like a complete dork with helmets & hi-vis jackets. And I don't need to worry about it being robbed coz it's insured.

Take it from me, I used to cycle, but now I'll never take that chance again.

Matt_Trakker

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

But I finally realised that cycling was bad for my health. I want to live a long and happy life, see my children grow up. I couldn't take constantly being splashed by buses/taxies and motorists. Nearly getting dragged under buses and trucks when they whizzed by. Or the absolute embarrassment of not owning a car and having to use trains and buses with all the other poor losers to leave the Pale.

That's right, because no cyclist owns a car.

hardCopy

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

If there's no-one crossing, who cares? It's the twats who weave their way through the obviously crossing pedestrians (who also have right of way once they're on the road), or shout at people to get out of the way while they do it that boil everyone's piss.

That was basically my attitude for a long time.

These days I just wait at the red light, not because of any perceived danger but just because it winds other people up.

I believe Dublin needs more cyclists and it needs to become more cycle friendly. I feel that annoying other road users is counter-productive so I stop to do my bit to help the image of cyclists in Dublin.

There are one or two places where I might edge across the line to get ahead of the cars if I need to change lanes. E.g. at the Eternal Flame heading towards Matt Talbot Bridge, I'm in the bike lane to the left but want to make a right turn over the bridge onto George's Quay, if I can see the light is amber for traffic coming from the right, there's no car coming and no pedestrian crossing, I'll go a few seconds early to get in position for the bridge.

Iwannahurl

When I'm on my bike (an Atari Jaguar MZK6000) I feel like a right twonk if I stop at a red light when there are no pedestrians about and there is no other traffic to be seen. On such rare occasions I sneak guiltily through.

On the vast majority of occasions I obey the red light. I don't feel like a twonk, but I know I look like one to the other cyclists blissfully whizzing past, as often as not on the footpath.

For maximum subjective and objective twonkishness, though, when I'm first up at a signalised junction I stop on the induction coil and wait (and wait) patiently at the red light until a good proper line of cars has built up behind me. Then a well-intentioned motorist (it's always a motorist) will beep, jolting me out of my law-abiding stupor. Suddenly I will remember my place in the world, and I will move sheepishly forward through the red light, allowing the real road users to move up to pole position. Ta-dah, the light goes green and proper order is restored.

Tigger

I used to work nights and if if was driving home at stupid o'clock in the morning then is seldom stop for red lights if I could see there were no vehicles around
Common sense says that if a pedestrian light is activated and goes red but the people are gone then cycle away
However a cyclist recently got a shock when he nearly cycled into my wife as we were crossing at a green light and he cycled through the group of people crossing on dame street
I boxed him in the ear as he went past.

ThisRegard

Where's the F off, not this shit again option ?

Threads like this should be all immediately locked with a link to previous ones, as they never go anywhere.

Tigger

Tigger wrote: »

I used to work nights and if if was driving home at stupid o'clock in the morning then is seldom stop for red lights if I could see there were no vehicles around
Common sense says that if a pedestrian light is activated and goes red but the people are gone then cycle away
However a cyclist recently got a shock when he nearly cycled into my wife as we were crossing at a green light and he cycled through the group of people crossing on dame street
I boxed him in the ear as he went past.

Made me LOL for some reason.

I don't have a particular problem with cyclists going through a pedestrian crossing slowly, if there's obviously nobody crossing, but more often than not, they do it regardless. Last time I was in London, I was standing outside a pub and watched a cyclist try to go through a green pedestrian light. The pedestrians just trampled him. Literally trampled him. Knocked him off his bike and just kept going. Normally I'd think that was a bit harsh, but I'd say they were all as sick to death of selfish, hypocritical cyclists as I am. He picked up his broken, twisted bike, looking completely dazed. Serves him right, tbh. Next time, he might actually think about other people instead of assuming bikes always have right of way.

StephenHendry

Augmerson wrote: »

Everybody is supposed to obey the rules of the road but not everybody does. I think in Dublin, dunno about the rest of the country, some cyclist's take the piss. And it's dangerous and they give cyclists who do obey the rules of the road and travel safely a bad name. I cycle myself and I know it's handy to cycle on when nothing is coming but I don't anymore and I don't recommend it to anyone.

i agree , a lot of cyclists behave like that in dublin, when for so long there hasnt' been any type of enforcement but if even there was proper enforcement, you would still have lots breaking it as the gardai simply dont have the time. cycling even , doing it the proper way , you are really vulnerable anyway as its all so easy to get knocked off. i had a few close shaves myself and decided enough was enough

jaffacakesyum

Pedestrians cross roads when the coast is clear, not at pedestrians crossings. Pedestrians cross roads even if there's a green light for cars. Do drivers care? No. Not unless it's idiots jumping across the street when there's clearly cars coming. If the cyclist safely cycles slowly through a pedestrian crossing when the coast is completely clear, drivers go apesh1t. Why? Because there's a serious anti-cycling attitude in Dublin.

I'm not talking about dangerous cyclists who fly through red lights swerving to avoid pedestrians by the way.

ghogie91

carlmango11 wrote: »

I normally stop at red lights. Then if the light stays red and there's no one around I just go through

How can you justify a thread topic like this and then come out with a statement like that?

carlmango11

ghogie91 wrote: »

How can you justify a thread topic like this and then come out with a statement like that?

...because I'm curious about the opinions of other people...?

Iwannahurl

Tigger wrote: »

I boxed him in the ear as he went past.

Common assault, but still I LOLd.

Fuzzy_Dunlop

There's a thing called the Idaho stop law which I think should be in place everywhere. It allows bikes to treat red lights as stop signs and stop signs as yield signs.

http://bikeportland.org/2009/01/14/idaho-stop-law-faq-13387

gibraltar

LiamMc wrote: »

But cyclists in Dublin do believe they are entitled to every portion of the road environment from one pavement to another.

Well that's the law so why would they not believe it?

rubadub

Emilee Curved Cowhide wrote: »

Bugs the bollox out of me.

I wrote about this in the cycling forum.

Back in 1992 I was knocked down by a bastard cyclist, it resulted in me suffering two broken elbows and a broken left wrist.

Happened on Aisling Quay, Dublin.

F*ckers.

So you mean what the OP describes ALSO bugs you. Since what you said you wrote about is NOT what he is talking about. I expect many did not fully read/get what he is saying and instantly voted yes

Zyzz wrote: »

Red light = Stop
Green light = Go

..as you can see it is a very difficult piece of common sense to grab

That is not common sense, that's the law. Thankfully most gardai do have common sense -and not not enforcing what you consider seem common sense to the letter of the law. They know why the laws were introduced and what they set out to prevent -many pedantic gobshites seemingly have no idea.

Frank Bullitt

I both cycle and drive, mostly cycle, and I adhere to the rules of the road.

I might have a better appreciation due to me driving as well, but yes of course, cyclist NEED to obey the rules of the road, in the same way that cars do.

jaffacakesyum

Gintonious wrote: »

I both cycle and drive, mostly cycle, and I adhere to the rules of the road.

I might have a better appreciation due to me driving as well, but yes of course, cyclist NEED to obey the rules of the road, in the same way that cars do.

What's the difference between a pedestrian crossing a road that's clear and a cyclist travelling at not a much greater pace than the pedestrian and crossing a road that's clear? Do you suggest they get off their bike and walk (A lot of people would say yes and fair enough have seen it done). Or do you suggest they just use common sense and cycle carefully if the coast is clear?

If anything - and if motorists realised this a lot of them would probably change their minds - cyclists getting a head start is actually more beneficial for them, especially if you're turning left or the road is particularly tricky that you can't advance ahead of the cyclist quicker.

hatrickpatrick

S. Goodspeed wrote: »

Do you apply that same 'common sense' as a pedestrian?

Cyclists who weave through pedestrians at red lights are wreckless Aholes, as are pedestrians who walk out in front of cyclists when the cyclist has the green light. Whether on foot or bike I see nothing wrong with breaking a red light after stopping and confirming the coast is clear.

Most cyclists do no such thing, they just sail through said lights and expect pedestrians to dive out of the way.

I'm going to do a time lapse of this next week on Dame Street and see how right I am about it. One hour at George's street junction, tally the number of light breaking cyclists vs the number of law abiding ones, and for the craic I'll tally how much would be taken off our deficit if we were to fine each of the bastards 50 quid.

Knasher

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Most cyclists do no such thing, they just sail through said lights and expect pedestrians to dive out of the way.

I'm going to do a time lapse of this next week on Dame Street and see how right I am about it. One hour at George's street junction, tally the number of light breaking cyclists vs the number of law abiding ones, and for the craic I'll tally how much would be taken off our deficit if we were to fine each of the bastards 50 quid.

While you are at it, could you also tally up the number of cyclists whose actions force pedestrians to dive out of their way.

rubadub

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

tally the number of light breaking cyclists vs the number of law abiding ones, and for the craic I'll tally how much would be taken off our deficit if we were to fine each of the bastards 50 quid.

If you are interested in the money side of things then definitely do the pedestrian 'bastards' too. There are far more of them and they break the law all the time. People are far more likely to break the law when on foot, next comes bicycles, then probably motorbikes, then cars, then trucks. Makes perfect sense why.

The tolerance of pedestrians is understandable, since the prejudiced whinging pedantic cunts view them as "one of their own". You can see the tolerance in this very thread -nobody has even commented on how the OPs situation occurs, and its a very common situation. Pedestrian presses a light, illegally crosses the road, leaves the "scene of the crime" and you are left with red lights for traffic and nobody crossing.

There are flaws & loopholes in many laws. You could sort of think of them as bugs or known problems, like software. If there was no such thing as traffic lights and I was to design & propose them, I would point out the OP situation as a recognized flaw/bug/problem. Thankfully most gardai also recognise this, have cop on, and do not enforce laws when reasonable actions are performed which happen to technically break a law.

blackwhite

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

What's the difference between a pedestrian crossing a road that's clear and a cyclist travelling at not a much greater pace than the pedestrian and crossing a road that's clear?

The difference is that under law a cyclist on a bicycle is classified as a vehicle on the road, and is required to follow the laws for vehicles. Why is that so hard to grasp?

I can't remember a morning going in the past year (since I started driving through Ballsbridge) that I haven't encountered a cyclist breaking the lights and causing either 1) pedestrians with right of way to have to dodge them, or 2) cars proceeding on green having to brake to avoid hitting them.

I drive to work every day, and usually go for a cycle most evenings. Yes, it's a bit of an inconvenience having to lose your momentum stopping at lights. But it's a hell of a lot less inconvenient than getting knocked off the bike, or clattering into a pedestrian.

blackwhite

blackwhite wrote: »

The difference is that under law a cyclist on a bicycle is classified as a vehicle on the road, and is required to follow the laws for vehicles. Why is that so hard to grasp?

I can't remember a morning going in the past year (since I started driving through Ballsbridge) that I haven't encountered a cyclist breaking the lights and causing either 1) pedestrians with right of way to have to dodge them, or 2) cars proceeding on green having to brake to avoid hitting them.

I drive to work every day, and usually go for a cycle most evenings. Yes, it's a bit of an inconvenience having to lose your momentum stopping at lights. But it's a hell of a lot less inconvenient than getting knocked off the bike, or clattering into a pedestrian.

As always in these threads - lots of anecdotes about cyclists 'clattering into pedestrians' and pedestrians having to 'dive out of the way', zero actual evidence.

Facts and figures on pedestrians killed or seriously injured by cyclists in Dublin please. Until I see them I think it's safe to assume this isn't a massive problem, despite what the anti-cycling lobby like to claim.

When we are talking about right and wrong, reference to the law is almost irrelevant. Do you think every law in this country is right? Do you follow them all? I know I don't.

When a pedestrian thinks it's safe to cross the road, I think it's also safe for a cyclist. In terms of danger and inconvenience to the public, a cyclist is a lot closer to a pedestrian than a car.

Monty - the one and only

A red light is a red light, you see that, you stop. Simple as that.

And yes I'm a cyclist.

blackwhite

Deleted User wrote: »

As always in these threads - lots of anecdotes about cyclists 'clattering into pedestrians' and pedestrians having to 'dive out of the way', zero actual evidence.

Facts and figures on pedestrians killed or seriously injured by cyclists in Dublin please. Until I see them I think it's safe to assume this isn't a massive problem, despite what the anti-cycling lobby like to claim.

When we are talking about right and wrong, reference to the law is almost irrelevant. Do you think every law in this country is right? Do you follow them all? I know I don't.

When a pedestrian thinks it's safe to cross the road, I think it's also safe for a cyclist. In terms of danger and inconvenience to the public, a cyclist is a lot closer to a pedestrian than a car.

The usual defence trotted out by the few who think they can disregard the law as they see fit:

Any law that I don't like is stupid, and because I am so intelligent I am perfectly entitled to break the laws that I don't like.


I don't claim to obey every law, but generally I try to do my best. If and when I do break the law, I'm quite happy to acknowledge that I'm doing wrong, and will suffer the consequences if caught.
What I don't do is make excuses to try and justify why I or people like me should be exempt from certain laws, just because they cause me a small bit of inconvenience.

Frank Bullitt

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

What's the difference between a pedestrian crossing a road that's clear and a cyclist travelling at not a much greater pace than the pedestrian and crossing a road that's clear? Do you suggest they get off their bike and walk (A lot of people would say yes and fair enough have seen it done). Or do you suggest they just use common sense and cycle carefully if the coast is clear?

If anything - and if motorists realised this a lot of them would probably change their minds - cyclists getting a head start is actually more beneficial for them, especially if you're turning left or the road is particularly tricky that you can't advance ahead of the cyclist quicker.

I have seen people get off their bikes and walk, get to the other side of the road and hop back on, perfectly fine.

The implications for a cyclist if they were to go through a red light and hit someone are far higher though, both in the legality of it and also in the safety of it.

For instance, coming to a junction with a set of lights that were red, the pedestrian had a yellow man so they can proceed with caution. A cyclist approaching at speed decides to keep going, and a pedestrian decides to rush across it, now imagine that the person is pushing a buggy with a child in it, not a nice image is it? I know that people are saying to go through at a low speed etc, but not everyone will do that and there are so many factors to be considered, like if crossings are clear or if they are obstructed by something on the path, like a bush or a wall.

Honestly, and I know I am one of the few because I see it every morning where others just go through the lights with no consideration, even had an incident where I stopped at the lights and another cyclist behind me hit me because I had stopped, a few nice tuts from him and he then mounted the path and went through the red light, but I know how important it is to stop, so I do. I'd rather add a few minutes to my journey over an accident.

LiamMc

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

and they are, shockingly enough. the keep left rule is really only a courtesy to be observed when the situation allows, but there are many many times and reasons to be in the middle or right of the lane. You really need to be at least 1.5m from parked cars in case a door opens, or away from drains or gravel or the general **** that gets swept to the side of the road etc etc etc.

I don't agree that cyclists are entitled to either pavement. I believe they should dismount when on the pavement.

Ray Palmer

LiamMc wrote: »

I don't agree that cyclists are entitled to either pavement. I believe they should dismount when on the pavement.

So cars parked on the pavement? Should they be there?

I cycle everyday and I see far more cars break more rules than any cyclists. Pedestrians break more than cyclists too.

I never go through pedestrians crossing the road and I see very few who do and they are idiots. I see more pedestrians walk out on the road ignoring cyclists.

I hop on the path ar one section everyday as the parked cars on the road and path block my way and there is nobody on them. No risk to anyone. Common sense should prevail instead of going into a rage about cyclists on the path.

If it is about the rules fine but it is absurd to say it is really a safety issue.

hatrickpatrick

Ray Palmer wrote: »

So cars parked on the pavement? Should they be there?

I cycle everyday and I see far more cars break more rules than any cyclists. Pedestrians break more than cyclists too.

I never go through pedestrians crossing the road and I see very few who do and they are idiots. I see more pedestrians walk out on the road ignoring cyclists.

I hop on the path ar one section everyday as the parked cars on the road and path block my way and there is nobody on them. No risk to anyone. Common sense should prevail instead of going into a rage about cyclists on the path.

If it is about the rules fine but it is absurd to say it is really a safety issue.

1: Cars parked on the pavement should absolutely be fined, it's a feckin' nuisance.
2: It 100% is a safety issue, where I tend to walk anyway. The situation around Dame Street / Trinity at the moment is that the onus is on pedestrians to move when they see a cyclists weaving in and out of crowds on the pavement. The pavement is designed for people on foot and it should be the other way around, but of course nobody wants to get hit and injured for the sake of making a point.
It shouldn't be necessary. Anything moving fast enough to injure somebody does not belong on the pavement, period. I apply the same logic to idiots who go sprinting on crowded pavements in town. It's completely unfair and in many cases a safety hazard for ordinary pedestrians walking to work / college / the shops / whatever.

Ray Palmer

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

1: Cars parked on the pavement should absolutely be fined, it's a feckin' nuisance.
2: It 100% is a safety issue, where I tend to walk anyway. The situation around Dame Street / Trinity at the moment is that the onus is on pedestrians to move when they see a cyclists weaving in and out of crowds on the pavement. The pavement is designed for people on foot and it should be the other way around, but of course nobody wants to get hit and injured for the sake of making a point.
It shouldn't be necessary. Anything moving fast enough to injure somebody does not belong on the pavement, period. I apply the same logic to idiots who go sprinting on crowded pavements in town. It's completely unfair and in many cases a safety hazard for ordinary pedestrians walking to work / college / the shops / whatever.

So if they are going slowly is it OK? Empty path safe?
As you say designed for people on foot you should check out the many shared paths around Dublin with no seperate markings. No different to any path other than a sign

hatrickpatrick

Ray Palmer wrote: »

So if they are going slowly is it OK? Empty path safe?
As you say designed for people on foot you should check out the many shared paths around Dublin with no seperate markings. No different to any path other than a sign

1: Not really as "going slowly" is still fast enough to hurt someone if you hit them. I used to cycle myself (never once broke the lights or failed to dismount on a footpath, btw) and I would guess that the amount of momentum you need to keep a bike upright by definition involves enough speed to hurt someone if you crashed into them.

2: Empty paths are still not ok because you never know when someone might come around a corner.

A pedestrian walking along on a pavement shouldn't have to worry at all about being hit by anything fast. If I wanted to worry about that I'd just wander along the road instead. Pavements exist for a reason.

AlDPal

Well as a pedestrian, who so far has been lucky not to have been hit by cyclist careering along Henry St. or on a footpath. I have a few friends who have been knocked over by a cyclist. one, only yesterday as she was using a pedestrian crossing a cyclist ran the red light and knocked her to the ground, with quite nasty results. My own reaction, and I feel perfectly justified, is to kick out at the wheels of these idiots, if they have no regard for me as as pedestrian, I feel perfectly justified to take this action, and if they fall to the ground, well better them , than some older pedestrian or child that they might injure. After all they take no responsibility for causing injury, they,ve no identification, and are free to just leave the scene scott free. I wish the law of the land would get to grips with this Grey area,
This has gone way beyond, the point of people like me just been called grumpy old men, When I go to cross a road now, My first thought is to look out for cyclist's, and I especially look both ways on one way streets, as theres a very good chance of a cyclist going against the flow of traffic
Anyone else out there that is sick of the present situation of lawless cyclist's... Alan Pigott

Deedsie

If I wanted to report someone for a parking offense, who would I contact? People parking on a double yellow line, parking in a cycle lane everyday of the week?

Do Gardaí deal with parking offenses?