Fixed Penalty Notices for Cycling by end of year

Darkglasses

teddyhead wrote: »

This isnt fair at all. Grand if you live in Dublin , where some provision is made for cyclists but here in Limerick city , there are hardly any credible cycle lanes. This piecemeal,populist approach is an insult to cyclists. If councils are negligent in their duties to cyclists , then they cant complain when cyclists are forced to improvise.

I don't understand, are you saying cyclists should be allowed to jump lights and ride on pavements in towns/cities where there are no cycle lanes?

elfy4eva

I don't know how I feel about this,
While I'm comfortable cycling on main roads
I wouldn't expect a 60 year old awl
one with her shopping basket bike to
take to a main road. I'd be of the opinion
that where there are no suitable cycle lanes
a cyclist should at least be able to ride
slowly on a pavement. I mean where do we
draw the line.

I can see this leading to more road deaths.

MajesticDonkey

I thought it was always illegal to cycle on footpaths, no?

Darkglasses

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

I thought it was always illegal to cycle on footpaths, no?

Yes, it was. This thread is going to have copious amounts of fail, I can tell...And it's not even Friday yet.

CramCycle

elfy4eva wrote: »

I wouldn't expect a 60 year old awl
one with her shopping basket bike to
take to a main road.

Why not?

I can see this leading to more road deaths.

I am not sure if you are sarcastic or serious here?

elfy4eva

CramCycle wrote: »

Why not?

Because even I at the best of times find road cycling intimidating. Even the most experienced cyclists are vulnerable on roads. Many drivers have absolutely no time or respect for cyclists (an opinion which has been voiced many times on this forum)

CramCycle wrote: »

I am not sure if you are sarcastic or serious here?

Why wouldn't this be serious, this legislation will undoubtedly lead to more bad cyclists on the roads and therefore more accidents leading to deaths.

EDIT: On reflection of what I said above I agree that the pavement is no place for a cyclist personally i would rather see those who cycle poorly not cycle at all. However I would rather see somebody who cycles poorly cycling on the pavement than the roads.

Hmmzis

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

I thought it was always illegal to cycle on footpaths, no?

Yup, and I'm still trying understand what the fuss about is.

Guards will have more time to enforce the already existing laws, courts will not be clogged with these minor offences and we might see a bit less chaos in the city centres.

The overtaking one is a bit baffling though. The more I think of it the less I understand it, it's just way too broad to be properly interpreted.

beauf

Usual token gesture that will be forgotten in a few weeks.

beauf

Why wouldn't this be serious, this legislation will undoubtedly lead to more bad cyclists on the roads and therefore more accidents leading to deaths.

Actually research indicates that it's safer the more cyclists there are. Safety in numbers.

There's very few cycling deaths in Ireland. So I don't think you've done any research into the subject at all.

bambergbike

Hmmzis wrote: »

The overtaking one is a bit baffling though. The more I think of it the less I understand it, it's just way too broad to be properly interpreted.

I'm baffled too, no idea what that one is supposed to be about.

Strangely enough, the plans sounded a bit more logical and better thought out in January than they do now. The report on sticky bottle mentioned plans for fixed penalty notices for not having lights and wrong-way cycling.

elfy4eva

beauf wrote: »

Actually research indicates that it's safer the more cyclists there are. Safety in numbers.

There's very few cycling deaths in Ireland. So I don't think you've done any research into the subject at all.

You are 100% correct I have not done any research into cycling statistics I am saying what comes to me as common sense. However I would relish the chance to read over the research you have done that concludes "forcing crap cyclists on the roads makes roads safer."

TheChizler

elfy4eva wrote: »

"forcing crap cyclists on the roads makes roads safer."

Maybe 'crap' cyclists just shouldn't be cycling? Same as with cars, if you're intimidated on the roads (and you're not just learning or recovering from a shock or something) you probably should seek an alternate form of transport.

teddyhead

Darkglasses wrote: »

I don't understand, are you saying cyclists should be allowed to jump lights and ride on pavements in towns/cities where there are no cycle lanes?

Certainly should be allowed jump red lights when safe.
For instance when taking a left turn. Its more sensible that cyclists get ahead of the traffic ,instead of waiting for the truck beside you to go left at the exact same time as you do.

teddyhead

TheChizler wrote: »

Maybe 'crap' cyclists just shouldn't be cycling? Same as with cars, if you're intimidated on the roads (and you're not just learning or recovering from a shock or something) you probably should seek an alternate form of transport.

Maybe we should aim for a more inclusive transport system , not one soley designed for motorized transport.

Scuba_Scoper

Hmmzis wrote: »

The overtaking one is a bit baffling though. The more I think of it the less I understand it, it's just way too broad to be properly interpreted.

In a word (or two), 'inappropriate' filtering will be a fineable offence. Weaving in and out of traffic or passing between lanes of stationary traffic at too high a speed will give the 'member' appropriate leeway to give you at, the very least a dressing down. IMO

TheChizler

teddyhead wrote: »

Maybe we should aim for a more inclusive transport system , not one soley designed for motorized transport.

Absolutely. Meanwhile, saying it's ok for terrible cyclists to break the law because they're terrible cyclists isn't an effective argument.

Scuba_Scoper

TheChizler wrote: »

Maybe 'crap' cyclists just shouldn't be cycling?

Sure there would be no one left to race A4 then :pac:

bambergbike

The Irish Times has it now, too.

DirkVoodoo

Scuba_Scoper wrote: »

In a word (or two), 'inappropriate' filtering will be a fineable offence. Weaving in and out of traffic or passing between lanes of stationary traffic at too high a speed will give the 'member' appropriate leeway to give you at, the very least a dressing down. IMO

Again, subjective. A speed one person might feel comfortable moving through traffic at might appear fast to a Garda but might not be too fast a speed for the cyclist, depending on their skill.

If you get knocked off in stationary traffic, this more than likely is not down to speed, it's probably because a driver has decided they want to change lanes and what better way to do that other than pull the steering wheel all the way over and nudge your bumper into the other lane.

As I mentioned above, this "fine" in this instance seems to excuse dangerous driving. If I filter through traffic at 20 km/hr or 10 km/hr, it's not that much different if someone can't check mirrors and indicate. Anyone who says "well don't filter" doesn't understand why someone would choose to ride a bike and if it came down to that, I'd probably drive.

robertxxx

It must of being a slow news day for this sh1t to come out.

robertxxx

I for one will not obey any new future law.

I will cycle my way to keep ME safe and i will break lights when I think it's safer to do so, rather than wait to be engulfed be F1 wannabes.

worded

Proper order that these lawless cyclists ilegally flouting the law will be taken to task. Jail is too good for them, string them up likes sides of beef!

I've seen on countless occasions how they seem very happy and content as they cruise effortlessly around.

The amount of tomfoolery and riding that's going on this summer !

Look at these reckless feckers on this footage

http://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/ninan-doff-a-professional-display-of-no-handed-bike-moves

robertxxx

I say lets smash every car and bus window on the quays, that will teach them feckers.

Scuba_Scoper

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Again, subjective.

While I totally agree with the rest of your post the quoted text is the most relevant to the discussion.

But if in the eyes of the member you are overtaking dangerously (which will probably be loosely defined, if at all) the fine hammer will come out.

Oh and to the pro rider in last years Tour Of Meath jersey who nearly rear ended me at the Yellow House at 6:30pm this evening while I sat patiently at the red light - f*ck you very much

kenmc

Scuba_Scoper wrote: »

Oh and to the pro rider in last years Tour Of Meath jersey who nearly rear ended me at the Yellow House at 6:30pm this evening while I sat patiently at the red light - f*ck you very much

How do you know s/he was a pro?

Scuba_Scoper

kenmc wrote: »

How do you know s/he was a pro?

the socks - can always tell by the socks;)

worded

Well this is where the guberment gets their money back for the tax relief on bike to work scheme. Get people to buy 1000s of bikes and then hit them with fines years later when there are enough numbers.

Welcome to the "safety cameras" money spinner version for bikes. Motorists along with cyclists can take be screwed and shot like fish in a barrel.

I still think cyclist have too much fun and we can't be having that.

You've drink taken ! Step out of the vehicle

cdaly_

teddyhead wrote: »

Certainly should be allowed jump red lights when safe.
For instance when taking a left turn. Its more sensible that cyclists get ahead of the traffic ,instead of waiting for the truck beside you to go left at the exact same time as you do.

Or you could, like, wait behind the left turning truck and go when the light changes to green...

cdaly_

robertxxx wrote: »

I for one will not obey any new future law.

Well, how about you obey existing laws? You know, like the one that says you must stop at a red light or the one that says you may not cycle on a footpath?

Spook_ie

creativedrinker wrote: »

What i ment was theres no reason to overtake a cyclist and then slow down and pull in infront of said cyclist, just a retarded idea, and when overtaking, if its a bus or truck and they have the space which they always do they can afford to move out more, if their travelling at 80km/hr theres a fair amount of displacement of air if their right beside you. I did my test for the D1 licence for busses and coaches and my instructor clearly stated when overtaking to keep a good distance out because the air displacement off such a large veicle can knock a cyclist off course.

And if a cyclist is travelling at 10 m/s 36 Kph and is overtaken by a vehicle 15 m/s 54 Kph that slows to turn then it will take approx. 100/(15-10) or ~20 seconds for them to meet again, more than sufficent time and distance to complete the manouvre, even if for some reason the vehicle fails to complete the turn due to some unforseen obstacle such as a pedestrian crossing you still have ample time to take independant action