Gardai, cycling and the law

monument

Going by a few recent posts from different people, and things I've been told elsewhere, some members of the gardai seem to have a strange idea of what is and is required by law (helmets and high-vis mandatory, use of cycle lanes etc)

Anybody have a garda tell them something wrong?

I'm gussing it's mainly not traffic officers?

Please: This is not a gardai bashing thread and is not about apprent or real inaction etc.

Unregistered.

I had a Garda tell me he'd out-run me!

rp

my bell wasn't mounted on the handlebars - I think that was a bluff, after he accused me of not having a bell, until I pointed out it was mounted on the seat post.

Seaneh

rp wrote: »

my bell wasn't mounted on the handlebars - I think that was a bluff, after he accused me of not having a bell, until I pointed out it was mounted on the seat post.

You have to have a bell in Ireland?

Darkglasses

Seaneh wrote: »

You have to have a bell in Ireland?

Yes, unless it's a racing bike or a bike modified for racing. Whatever the heck that means.

Seaneh

Darkglasses wrote: »

Yes, unless it's a racing bike or a bike modified for racing. Whatever the heck that means.

Right, Mine is definitely a racing bike so, it has skinny wheels and dropped bars, ignore that pannier rack garda!

omicron

Gardai are not fully to blame for this when even the rules of the road site isn't updated:

A cyclist must use a cycle track if it is provided.

http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_cycling-safely.html

DirkVoodoo

Couple of years ago now. Incident in Donnybrook where a driver and I were having words, he swerved his car in towards me to intimidate me.

Both went to the station. Garda insisted we shake hands. Pulls me aside and says that he knows yer man is a grade-A tosser but there is nothing he can do.

Wait for it...

He then said that cycling was far too dangerous and he reckoned that I should ride on the footpath along Morehampton road instead if risking another incident.

I left, flabbergasted.

I'm sure the original thread is floating around here with more detail.

DirkVoodoo

In other news, got passed by a bus within about half a metre I would say for no good reason. reported the incident and today I got this, thought it was impressive that DB seem to be taking things more seriously:

Dear Dirk,

I refer to your email regarding an incident involving a driver of the number 7 bus last Thursday morning the 25 April 2013. On behalf of Dublin Bus I would like to apologise for any dissatisfaction you have experienced with our service.

I have identified the driver involved and requested mobile CCTV footage of the incident. I have also placed a note describing the incident on the driver's permanent record.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us and once again apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Kind regards

Mr. Dublin Bus

Wishbone Ash

I was pulled over with lights and sirens by a Garda Sergeant in an unmarked car last year for not using the cycle track on the Rathmore Road in Lusk.

To cut a long story short he wanted to see some form of ID. He asked if I had a driving licence. I replied that it had no relevance as I was cycling. After a bit more silly debate he stated that I was lucky I didn't have my driving licence on me as he would have applied penalty points to it. :rolleyes:

I wrote to the the Sergeant's "Super" about his attitude and lack of knowledge of basic road traffic legislation but got what seemed like a standard 'PFO' reply.

Wishbone Ash

omicron wrote: »

Gardai are not fully to blame for this when even the rules of the road site isn't updated

The ROTR have no relevance - they are only a lay man's guide and not used by Gardai.

It's the relevant statute instruments which matter and have been updated and which the Gardai should be familiar with.

Jawgap

Two incidents spring to mind....

A few years ago I was forced off the R132 just outside Balbriggan by an idiotic van driver - reported it immediately and the Guard's response was that I shouldn't have been cycling on that road as it's not suitable for bikes! Anyway, my response to that was to ask to see the sargent who took the incident much more seriously.

Last year, there was a fire at the scrapyard near Airside Retail Park and the road was closed to all traffic, including bikes. I asked one of the Guards what was the best way to divert and he suggested going down through Airside and on to the motorway. When I pointed out the feckin' obvious bike I was on, he told me not to worry, that the motorway was jammed and I could just use the hard shoulder - his parting remark was to criticise me for not wearing any hi-viz - apparently the strobing Exposure light I had on didn't make me visible enough!

dave_o_brien

Oficial Adnimistrator wrote: »

Cyclists are the scum of the earth

Christ on a bike, I never thought about it that way... So many life choices, so, so wrong...

Chips Lovell

And so ends Oficial Adnimistrator's brief time in the cycling forum. Banned

Barcafan11

It isnt illegal not to wear a helmet, or a hi vis vest, or not have a bell on your bike, and sure what use is a bell. Just let out a roar. If you are on a bike you dont have any closed windows to drown out the sound of your voice. Although any normal person will tell you, the more safety equipment you do wear, you would proably stand a better chance of being seen.

Motorists just dont give a rats about cyclists. End of.

Beasty

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

And so end's Oficial Adnimistrator's brief time in the cycling forum. Banned

... and if anyone is wondering the offensive post has now been deleted by the Admins

Beasty

Barcafan11 wrote: »

Motorists just dont give a rats about cyclists. End of.

I'm a motorist

Barcafan11

Beasty wrote: »

I'm a motorist

Me too, but I shouldnt tar all motorists with the same brush. My bad .

DirkVoodoo

Beasty wrote: »

I'm a motorist

Indeed, I believe a poll showed most people here drive too. I think the motorists who try and run cyclists off the road are the same ones who do 80 through 50 km/hr zones, honk at people for not turning right at a filtered light, don't slow down for pedestrian crossings, double park, park taking up two spaces...

The list is endless.

Bad drivers, in short.

HivemindXX

They also are the ones who use their phones in the cinema and take 30 items up to the express checkout. In short they are just bad people.

Barcafan11

Dont even get me started on cycle lanes

AstraMonti

I was stopped once 3 years ago coming down in N11 around stillorgan for speeding. I passed a garda car and they stopped me to tell me that the stretch of road has 60km/h limit and I must have going faster since I passed them :rolleyes:

Barcafan11

Beasty wrote: »

... and if anyone is wondering the offensive post has now been deleted by the Admins

And rightly so

rp

Beasty wrote: »

I'm a motorist

I've often had to drive a car, but I hope that doesn't make me a motorist?

manwithaplan

AstraMonti wrote: »

I passed a garda car and they stopped me to tell me that the stretch of road has 60km/h limit and I must have going faster since I passed them

Were you going the other way?

AstraMonti

Nope.. same way. I asked them if I could get a ticket for speeding on the bike so I can hang it on the wall but they didn't appreciate the humor and tell me to gtfo and be careful from now on.. lol.

RV

Got stopped at checkpoint once in my car and told I had too many children (5) in the back seat with only two seat belts. Made me put one child out assuring me she'd keep an eye out. When I returned after 15 mins to collect 'surplus child', guards and checkpoint had upped sticks and gone. Child said they'd left immediately I did.

That's the last time I am letting a girl in blue babysit for me! Been doing much more cycling lately and this hasn't arisen at all.

ezra_pound

Barcafan11 wrote: »

It isnt illegal not to wear a helmet, or a hi vis vest, or not have a bell on your bike, and sure what use is a bell. Just let out a roar. If you are on a bike you dont have any closed windows to drown out the sound of your voice. Although any normal person will tell you, the more safety equipment you do wear, you would proably stand a better chance of being seen.

Motorists just dont give a rats about cyclists. End of.

Just to be clear. It is illegal not to have a bell.

Lumen

ezra_pound wrote: »

Just to be clear. It is illegal not to have a bell.

Not true, unless this law has been superceded.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/si/0190.html

"93. (1) Every pedal cycle (other than a cycle constructed or adapted for use as a racing cycle) while used in a public place shall be fitted with an audible warning device consisting of a bell capable of being heard at a reasonable distance, and no other type of audible warning instrument shall be fitted to a pedal cycle while used in a public place."

Seaswimmer

got pulled in last week just past Northwood in Santry heading north towards Airport. Squad car pulled up alonside me with sirens and lights telling me I broke the red light at Northwood. I pointed out that there was a green light for bikes which comes on with the pedestrian green man and the reply was "Really, I never noticed that"..

We parted friends!!

RoboRat

Got stopped at checkpoint once in my car and told I had too many children (5) in the back seat with only two seat belts. Made me put one child out assuring me she'd keep an eye out. When I returned after 15 mins to collect 'surplus child', guards and checkpoint had upped sticks and gone. Child said they'd left immediately I did.

That's the last time I am letting a girl in blue babysit for me! Been doing much more cycling lately and this hasn't arisen at all.

I hope to God that is a joke. If that really happened I would be baying for blood.

seamus

RoboRat wrote: »

I hope to God that is a joke. If that really happened I would be baying for blood.

Depends on the age of the child.

If you left your 14 year old there, no biggie. A 5 year old, though, obviously a bigger deal.

RoboRat

True, but still if they said they would stay, they should have stayed.

Unregistered.

RV wrote: »

Got stopped at checkpoint once in my car and told I had too many children (5) in the back seat with only two seat belts. Made me put one child out assuring me she'd keep an eye out. When I returned after 15 mins to collect 'surplus child', guards and checkpoint had upped sticks and gone. Child said they'd left immediately I did.

That's the last time I am letting a girl in blue babysit for me! Been doing much more cycling lately and this hasn't arisen at all.

This did not happen.

Zyzz

RV wrote: »

Got stopped at checkpoint once in my car and told I had too many children (5) in the back seat with only two seat belts. Made me put one child out assuring me she'd keep an eye out. When I returned after 15 mins to collect 'surplus child', guards and checkpoint had upped sticks and gone. Child said they'd left immediately I did.

That's the last time I am letting a girl in blue babysit for me! Been doing much more cycling lately and this hasn't arisen at all.

Weren't you breaking the law by not having 1 seat belt per passenger? Or have I read this wrong..

NeedMoreGears

Lumen wrote: »

Not true, unless this law has been superceded.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/si/0190.html

"93. (1) Every pedal cycle (other than a cycle constructed or adapted for use as a racing cycle) while used in a public place shall be fitted with an audible warning device consisting of a bell capable of being heard at a reasonable distance, and no other type of audible warning instrument shall be fitted to a pedal cycle while used in a public place."

One for the barrack room lawyers

(i) the above article doesn't say where the bell should be mounted ; and

(ii) Art. 86 seems to govern the use of "audible warnign devices"

Art. 86. (1) Subject to the following sub-articles of this article, the driver of every vehicle which is required by article 28 of these Regulations to be fitted with an audible warning device shall, whenever necessary in a public place, give audible and sufficient warning of the approach or position of the vehicle by sounding the device.

but Art 28 does not appear to cover pedal cycles at all.

Hence it may be that I can attach a bell wherever I like on the bike but I don't have to use it ????? It would be fun trying to argue this one on the side of the road

enas

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

but Art 28 does not appear to cover pedal cycles at all.

I think it does? I don't see the inconsistency there. The main issue is really how you define a bicycle "adapted for use as a racing cycle", which could be really anything.

NeedMoreGears

The definition of "adapted for use as a racing cycle" is the icing on the cake of confusion that is SI/0190!

Additionally, there seems to be two words/phrases used to describe two-wheeled vehicles - "bicycle", "pedal cycle".

The bit that confuses me is that per art.28 you can only fit a bell to a vehicle which is a bicycle fitted with an engine of 50cc or less and which is capable of less than 24mph on a flat dry road. A further layer of confusion (this must be a layer cake) is that there is a specific provision for pedal cycles later on - i.e art 93(1).

brain hurts now - home time

RV

Zyzz wrote: »

Weren't you breaking the law by not having 1 seat belt per passenger? Or have I read this wrong..

Were you the guard in question? 'Cos they made the same mistake. I think the rule was... seat belts should be worn where provided... in the rear. There's an unwritten rule about NOT putting children out on the side of the road that should have taken precedence.

buffalo

Late to the thread - my own experience came after a bus overtook me with about a foot to spare from the end of my handlebars. The problem was not so much that the Garda was ignorant of the law, but that he thought it would be safer and more sensible for me to use the cycle lane on the footpath, rather than ride in the bus/cycle lane.

He didn't seem to think it necessary that the bus should behave safely around me in the bus/cycle lane, which is where I think his knowledge of the law failed - then again, the 1.5m rule isn't written in law, so I guess if he judged it a safe overtake, I'm not one to argue with that.

enas

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

The bit that confuses me is that per art.28 you can only fit a bell to a vehicle which is a bicycle fitted with an engine of 50cc or less and which is capable of less than 24mph on a flat dry road. A further layer of confusion (this must be a layer cake) is that there is a specific provision for pedal cycles later on - i.e art 93(1).

brain hurts now - home time

You're actually right. The law is... unclear. Basically, there's an inconsistency between 28 and 93, since art 28 explicitly forbids bells on pedal cycles (it's not in the list of exceptions), while art 93 explicitly forbids anything else other than bells on pedal cycles. Although I'm not a legal expert, I would think that at that level, this is just pedantry though. Is it?

endacl

dave_o_brien wrote: »

Christ on a bike, I never thought about it that way... So many life choices, so, so wrong...

Aren't hipsters the scum of the earth?!? @confused

endacl

I was pulled over last November by two guards in a car for.... wait for it.... being too visible. Two rear lights, two front lights, reflactive decals on the frame, 3m spoke reflectors on both wheels, and a flashing Respro Hump backpack cover. Disco Bike!

Apparently, I might prove a distraction to other road users! Feck it. At least I'm a highly visible distraction...

Oh. No bell. Bells are a bit silly. If I meet anybody who could benefit from a well-placed dingaling, they get a shout. Difference is, the shout is noticed.

Wishbone Ash

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

One for the barrack room lawyers

(i) the above article doesn't say where the bell should be mounted ; and

(ii) Art. 86 seems to govern the use of "audible warnign devices"

Art. 86. (1) Subject to the following sub-articles of this article, the driver of every vehicle which is required by article 28 of these Regulations to be fitted with an audible warning device shall, whenever necessary in a public place, give audible and sufficient warning of the approach or position of the vehicle by sounding the device.

but Art 28 does not appear to cover pedal cycles at all.

Hence it may be that I can attach a bell wherever I like on the bike but I don't have to use it ????? It would be fun trying to argue this one on the side of the road

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

The definition of "adapted for use as a racing cycle" is the icing on the cake of confusion that is SI/0190!

Additionally, there seems to be two words/phrases used to describe two-wheeled vehicles - "bicycle", "pedal cycle".

The bit that confuses me is that per art.28 you can only fit a bell to a vehicle which is a bicycle fitted with an engine of 50cc or less and which is capable of less than 24mph on a flat dry road. A further layer of confusion (this must be a layer cake) is that there is a specific provision for pedal cycles later on - i.e art 93(1).

brain hurts now - home time

enas wrote: »

You're actually right. The law is... unclear. Basically, there's an inconsistency between 28 and 93, since art 28 explicitly forbids bells on pedal cycles (it's not in the list of exceptions), while art 93 explicitly forbids anything else other than bells on pedal cycles. Although I'm not a legal expert, I would think that at that level, this is just pedantry though. Is it?

You are confusing bicycle and pedal cycle!

In road traffic legislation a "bicycle" is any two wheeled vehicle propelled with a motor petrol/diesel/electric.

A "pedal cycle" is a two wheeled vehicle physically propelled by one or more users.

enas

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

You are confusing bicycle and pedal cycle!

That's what I thought too, initially, but this isn't the case. Article 28 says that any vehicle, including pedal cycles, must have an audible warning device, but it says it shall not consist of a bell (sub-article 2 b: shall not consist of a bell, with exceptions not including pedal cycles). However, article 93 says the exact opposite.

Wishbone Ash

enas wrote: »

That's what I thought too, initially, but this isn't the case. Article 28 says that any vehicle, including pedal cycles, must have an audible warning device, but it says it shall not consist of a bell (sub-article 2 b: shall not consist of a bell, with exceptions not including pedal cycles). However, article 93 says the exact opposite.

Read it again. The part I have highlighted in red is not referring to pedal cycles but small motorcycles (often referred to as mopeds/scooters)

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.

My interpretation of section 28 is that every vehicle must be equipped with a horn or in the case of mopeds - a bell.

enas

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

My interpretation of section 28 is that every vehicle must be equipped with a horn or in the case of mopeds - a bell.

Exactly. So a pedal cycle must have a horn.

Wishbone Ash

enas wrote: »

Exactly. So a pedal cycle must have a horn.

mmmm..........I see what you mean!

endacl

enas wrote: »

Exactly. So a pedal cycle must have a horn.

Or a very 'excited' cyclist.

dave_o_brien

endacl wrote: »

Aren't hipsters the scum of the earth?!? @confused

Agreed! #yousaidit #scumbaghipsters #smashedit

Darkglasses

endacl wrote: »

Aren't hipsters the scum of the earth?!? @confused

I thought it was Triathletes.