Cyclists breaking lights!!

Spook_ie

CramCycle wrote: »

2 points to the last two posts.

1. 5 year old are legally and more importantly for their own safety allowed cycle on the footpads.

2. Lack of enforcement does not equal no enforcement. The punishments are so minor and the risk of getting caught so slight that alot of people gamble on it. I am just sorry for those I see do it, that they care more about the zero time saved over the safety of others and basic manners.

Just to add some figures according to RSA for Dublin drivers

2013
7416 drivers were given points for failing to obey traffic lights
19624 drivers were given points for using mobile phones
125925 drivers were given points for speeding
28 drivers were given points for driving on/across a cycle track

galwaycyclist

CramCycle wrote: »

2 points to the last two posts.

1. 5 year old are legally and more importantly for their own safety allowed cycle on the footpads.
.

This is not correct unless the regulations have been changed in the last year.

To my knowledge a child cycling on the footpath is still breaking the law under Article 13 of the traffic regs.

Their age may prevent them from being prosecuted directly but that is a separate matter.

For the record I view the failure of the Irish state to recognise children in the traffic regulations as regrettable and embarrassing. In particular I view the failure of the state to impose a specific duty of care towards children by adult road users as perverse.

It all derives from an apparent and general attitude within state institutions that the safety and rights of vulnerable road users are of little consequence.

This attitude then makes it extremely difficult for low ranking members of the Garda to do anything about the safety of vulnerable road users, including red light violations, not using lights at night etc

Ps it is in my view not correct to imply that it is "safe" to cycle on footpaths, regardless of age. There are increased risks at junctions including driveways. This is why children should be cycling on the roads in housing estates and similar locations and why we need motorist speed limits down to walking speed at these locations (as happens in the Netherlands - where they take child safety more seriously)

RainyDay

PeadarCo wrote: »

Well to fair to Spook there is more attention to motoring offences but the Op case is a prime example why.

Yep, there is a lot more attention paid to motoring offences. Given that motorists kill 200+ people a year and maim thousands of others, it's a reasonable approach.

Spook_ie wrote: »

How do you reckon incorrect, how many penalty points issued to motorists v court appearances of cyclists. If there were no enforcement you would expect no penalty points.

Just because you've escaped a lot so far doesn't mean there's no enforcement

I didn't say that there was no enforcement, but is very little effective enforcement for any group of road users. I'm not sure why you would measure court appearances. I'm not aware of court appearances for cyclists, but I am aware of fixed penalty notices. And if you want to start comparing, you'll have to bring some proportionality into it. You'd need to look at the number of actions in proportion to the miles travelled or hours travelled or (most interestingly) in proportion to offences committed.

CramCycle

RainyDay wrote: »

Yep, there is a lot more attention paid to motoring offences. Given that motorists kill 200+ people a year and maim thousands of others, it's a reasonable approach

Don't give me your facts and logical reasons, shur didn't a gaggle of cyclists decapitate a bus full of school children when they ran a red light last week. John was telling me in the shop.

SeanW

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Quoting 11 Year old posts, you really have lost the debate here haven't you!?

There's plenty more where those came from:

galwaycyclist wrote: »

No brainer really - and very welcome news if they are serious. Its insane that you can buy cars in this country that are capable of significantly exceeding the highest speed limits 120km\hr.

Ideally also they should put strict limits on acceleration performance.

According to galwaycyclist, strict speed governors in everyones car are only a good start, there should also be strict limits on "acceleration performace." No point in buying a sports car then :rolleyes:

This post was thanked by Victor, who is a high up figure in the Dublin City Cycling campaign, and may be a representative of that particular entity. Make of that what you will.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The reality is that many if not most cyclists will continue to take the most direct and convenient route, even when engineers/planners/whoever haven't bothered their arses to anticipate that and provide infrastructure accordingly.

It's the same with desire lines in relation to pedestrian infrastructure. Pedestrians will walk or cross where it's most direct and convenient, not where engineers/planners want them to (usually for traffic flow or cost-cutting reasons).

No amount of pedantic pointing to signs will alter that reality. The proper official response should be to maximise the convenience of walking and cycling instead of making useless attempts to limit these modes of travel for no good reason.

This is Iwannahurl being asked point blank what his view of illegal cycling on the Sean O'Casey bridge in Dublin City, which remains a footway but back then had signs, explicity barring cyclists from it. He was asked point blank whether he supported this illegal behaviour. As you can see, his response was, somewhat deflectionary. This poster does not equivocate on laws relating to motorists though, nor on - in his mind - the need to make and enforce things that are hostile to motorists.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Do you mean two distinct classes of 'speeders'? Though many drivers break the speed limit, whether through carelessness or recklessness or for some other reason, not all of them do.

The "my speed" argument is regularly trotted out in forums and threads such as this. Why people defend, and try to rationalise, such behaviour is beyond me.

It's why enforcement measures, especially penalty points perhaps, had to be invented.

...

These are dangerous attitudes because there is no such thing as safe speeding.

I showed him two grade separated dual carriageways, one on the N3 with a 30kph limit, another, a fully HQDC with a 50kph limit. I asked him point blank, many times, why in his view motorists - having given due regard to safety and prevailing conditions - always create unacceptable danger in exceeding these, since he stated so adamantly that there is NO SUCH THING AS SAFE SPEEDING, LIKE, EVER !!!!

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Images of illegal, obnoxious and utterly lazy parking taken from StreetView. The housing development is in Portlaoise and is based on the Essex Design concept, I'm told, which tries to make streets more pedestrian and child friendly. One of the ways this is done is to minimise on-street parking and place it instead between and behind houses.

The first photo shows a "parking court" typically seen in the Essex Design. There seems to be only one car parked in it. The second photo (of the street immediately adjacent) shows what some people think of the concept, of parking laws and of pedestrian friendly notions.
(images cut)


Because of the residents' unwillingness to walk a few metres from a parking court to their front door, illegal parking became endemic. ...

TL:DR; IWH quoted a pic from Streetview of a housing where because the design of a recent housing estate was so hostile to the needs of its people, every house had a car illegally parked outside its front door. We both saw the picture but percieved it in completely different ways.

Myself, and every other sane person on the planet, saw a sensible response to a godawful housing design that was hostile to the needs of the people who live there and should never, ever have been built in such a crappy, anti-human manner.

IWH and two thankers (Cookie Monster and No Pants) both of whom I also know to be cyclists saw an attempt to "change our car is king culture" or something and that all the residents were the scum of the Earth who should should all be subject to massive parking enforcement. The design - despite being provably against the interests of the residents - was held by him and the others to be totally blameless.

You couldn't make it up.

That was the only part of his post that I agreed with!

I can't find the post from bamberg_bike right now but I recall that individual making it clear that he took his news and views from a blog that is the environmental-lefts equivalent of the Glenn Beck show.

I think I've shown some evidence that there is a strong correlation between being cyclist, and being a hate filled cretin that wants motorists to be treated like scum at all points of governance. Yet despite this, cyclists are themselves among the most profligate lawbreakers.

So I want consistency. If you believe that breaking certain road laws in a certain manner is victimless crime, and want a "so what?" defence, that's fine. So long as you extend this defence to all road users.

But if a cyclist believes that motorists need speed limits cut all over the place, GPS speed enforcers/monitors, acceleration limiters, strict liability, "the Essex design" principles, more regulations, more taxes, then that's also fine, so long as those cyclists also support licensing, compulsory training, registration, penalty points and the zero tolerace to the laws that they break wholesale. And that they be made pay ROAD TAX!

And I've mentioned 7 people here, who fit the above criteria. What are the odds that none of those people (or indeed any random selection of 7 cyclists) have never run a red light, mounted a footway or disregarded a lane direction? As a routine pedestrian, I can safely guess: 0.

Pinch Flat

Road tax? Is there a new one proposed?

DrGreenthumb

The cyclists in town are starting a chain gang

You'd think after cycling all day they'd be pretty tyred but them seemed really pumped

Pwindedd

just did a 15 min journey round 9ish. spotted, just in time I might add, 3 cyclist in the dark - no lights, c'mon lads give yourself a fighting chance. Visibility is the most important thing, if we can't see ya, we cant aim for..I mean avoid you.

Spook_ie

RainyDay wrote: »

Yep, there is a lot more attention paid to motoring offences. Given that motorists kill 200+ people a year and maim thousands of others, it's a reasonable approach.


I didn't say that there was no enforcement, but is very little effective enforcement for any group of road users. I'm not sure why you would measure court appearances. I'm not aware of court appearances for cyclists, but I am aware of fixed penalty notices. And if you want to start comparing, you'll have to bring some proportionality into it. You'd need to look at the number of actions in proportion to the miles travelled or hours travelled or (most interestingly) in proportion to offences committed.

AFAIK FPNs for cyclists haven't yet been introduced, they were supposed to introduce them by 2nd quarter of 2014 but it ( as usual ) is on the long finger
http://leovaradkar.ie/2013/07/fixed-charge-notices-for-cyclists-to-be-introduced-in-line-with-road-safety-strategy/

SeanW

RainyDay wrote: »

The existing of a registration scheme in itself does not lead to enforcement. Enforcement leads to enforcement.

But enforcement is a lot easier when the road vehicle (car or bike) carries a unique registration plate, and the operator of said road vehicle has a license that can be very easily endorsed.

For example, a week ago I had to jump back onto the pavement while crossing a street on a green man light because a cyclist was running his red at very high speed and I would have been creamed had I not retreated with great haste.

Because the cyclist was not obliged to carry registration plates, I have no means of identifying him for reporting to the guards, so I had to ignore the incident. If that was a motorist, I would have (tried to at least) taken their reg and gone directly to a garda station which was about 200M away.

Tenzor07

SeanW wrote: »

There's plenty more where those came from:

so long as those cyclists also support licensing, compulsory training, registration, penalty points and the zero tolerance to the laws that they break wholesale. And that they be made pay ROAD TAX!

So you spend hours looking for select examples of Anti-private car bias, yet to come out at the end with the old "Road Tax" argument... FAIL! :mad:

Yourself and Spunk_ie loose the debate each time you come out with this and the licensing/registration/points chesnut also..no matter how much Spunker argues that this is just for safety reasons and quotes his little "SI rules", it's still thinly veiled "I hate all cyclists" ...

Until the next "All bicyclists are bad thread!"..... /end

SeanW

Tenzor07 wrote: »

So you spend hours looking for select examples of Anti-private car bias, yet to come out at the end with the old "Road Tax" argument... FAIL! :mad:

Yourself and Spunk_ie loose the debate each time you come out with this and the licensing/registration/points chesnut also..no matter how much Spunker argues that this is just for safety reasons and quotes his little "SI rules", it's still thinly veiled "I hate all cyclists" ...

Until the next "All bicyclists are bad thread!"..... /end

I never had a problem with cyclists until I read their policies on boards and in other areas as well. In between reading all the above about the need for Essex designed housing, GPS monitored speed, acceleation limiters, instant ban penalties and so on, while I also became a routine pedestrian in our major cities (Cork/Dublin) and observed that people like the above were in absolutely no position to complain about petty lawbreaking by others. Zero.

Your group can be characterised by blatant hypocrasy and unimaginable venom towards other people, the latter of which I have just demonstrated.

I haven't FAILed anything, I've proven my point. Conclusively. And all you can do is whine about it. BTW who is Spunk_ie/Spunker?

Tenzor07

SeanW wrote: »

Your group can be characterised by blatant hypocrasy and unimaginable venom towards other people, the latter of which I have just demonstrated.
I haven't FAILed anything, I've proven my point. Conclusively. And all you can do is whine about it. BTW who is Spunk_ie/Spunker?

"My Group?" I don't recall joining a "Group", please explain?


Bringing up license plates for bicycles as well as tax and insurance = Automatic FAIL.

I think you can guess that one yourself!

SeanW

Tenzor07 wrote: »

"My Group?" I don't recall joining a "Group", please explain?

You are a cyclist, correct? I've shown that a considerable number of cyclists and possibly their representative entities are only concerned with laws that affect other people, to an obsessive degree, and many of them also would like those laws to be used a weapon in an ideological war that is occuring in their little minds.

People like that are my enemy.

Bringing up license plates for bicycles ... Automatic FAIL.

I think you can guess that one yourself!

Nope. Just pointing out that the status quo has disadvantages of its own.

Jawgap

SeanW wrote: »

You are a cyclist, correct? I've shown that a considerable number of cyclists and possibly their representative entities are only concerned with laws that affect other people, to an obsessive degree, and many of them also would like those laws to be used a weapon in an ideological war that is occuring in their little minds.

People like that are my enemy.

.........

Thank God I'm a motorist pedestrian motorist.....

Out of interest I wonder how many 'cyclists' drove to the SKT today.......and how many are members of the AA?

Tenzor07

SeanW wrote: »

You are a cyclist, correct? I've shown that a considerable number of cyclists and possibly their representative entities are only concerned with laws that affect other people, to an obsessive degree, and many of them also would like those laws to be used a weapon in an ideological war that is occuring in their little minds.

People like that are my enemy.

Nope. Just pointing out that the status quo has disadvantages of its own.

No, I'm a Mountain-biker, but I drive a big car too.. So i'm confused, does this mean i'm "playing for both sides?"

Man, I hope I don't hear of a Sniper on top of Trinity college taking out innocent Bicyclists in the news tomorrow and makes his escape in a Taxi which never breaks the speed limit or a red light!!! :eek:

SeanW

Tenzor07 wrote: »

No, I'm a Mountain-biker, but I drive a big car too.. So i'm confused, does this mean i'm "playing for both sides?"

I keep hearing points like "most cyclists are also motorists" but that is something I find very dubious given what I've read from those 7 cyclists I referenced earlier.

Spook_ie

Tenzor07 wrote: »

So you spend hours looking for select examples of Anti-private car bias, yet to come out at the end with the old "Road Tax" argument... FAIL! :mad:

Yourself and Spunk_ie loose the debate each time you come out with this and the licensing/registration/points chesnut also..no matter how much Spunker argues that this is just for safety reasons and quotes his little "SI rules", it's still thinly veiled "I hate all cyclists" ...

Until the next "All bicyclists are bad thread!"..... /end

Is there not some net law that when you have to resort to changing user names to try and raise your game then you've lost by default similar to Godwin's Law?

Kinet1c

The other fella wrote: »

I just wish they would **** off up on to the footpath. They dont pay a penny road tax.

Nobody else in Ireland pays road tax, as it doesn't exist. Motor tax does however and it's a tax on motorised vehicles. For the past 6 years it's been based on emissions. So with neither a motor or emissions, there's no need to pay it should you want to own a bicycle.

RainyDay

CramCycle wrote: »

Don't give me your facts and logical reasons, shur didn't a gaggle of cyclists decapitate a bus full of school children when they ran a red light last week. John was telling me in the shop.

They ate them afterwards too. My brother-in-law's mate was there.

SeanW wrote: »

There's plenty more where those came from:
According to galwaycyclist, strict speed governors in everyones car are only a good start, there should also be strict limits on "acceleration performace." No point in buying a sports car then :rolleyes:

This post was thanked by Victor, who is a high up figure in the Dublin City Cycling campaign, and may be a representative of that particular entity. Make of that what you will.

This is Iwannahurl being asked point blank what his view of illegal cycling on the Sean O'Casey bridge in Dublin City, which remains a footway but back then had signs, explicity barring cyclists from it. He was asked point blank whether he supported this illegal behaviour. As you can see, his response was, somewhat deflectionary. This poster does not equivocate on laws relating to motorists though, nor on - in his mind - the need to make and enforce things that are hostile to motorists.

I showed him two grade separated dual carriageways, one on the N3 with a 30kph limit, another, a fully HQDC with a 50kph limit. I asked him point blank, many times, why in his view motorists - having given due regard to safety and prevailing conditions - always create unacceptable danger in exceeding these, since he stated so adamantly that there is NO SUCH THING AS SAFE SPEEDING, LIKE, EVER !!!!

TL:DR; IWH quoted a pic from Streetview of a housing where because the design of a recent housing estate was so hostile to the needs of its people, every house had a car illegally parked outside its front door. We both saw the picture but percieved it in completely different ways.

Myself, and every other sane person on the planet, saw a sensible response to a godawful housing design that was hostile to the needs of the people who live there and should never, ever have been built in such a crappy, anti-human manner.

IWH and two thankers (Cookie Monster and No Pants) both of whom I also know to be cyclists saw an attempt to "change our car is king culture" or something and that all the residents were the scum of the Earth who should should all be subject to massive parking enforcement. The design - despite being provably against the interests of the residents - was held by him and the others to be totally blameless.

That was the only part of his post that I agreed with!

I can't find the post from bamberg_bike right now but I recall that individual making it clear that he took his news and views from a blog that is the environmental-lefts equivalent of the Glenn Beck show.

I think I've shown some evidence that there is a strong correlation between being cyclist, and being a hate filled cretin that wants motorists to be treated like scum at all points of governance. Yet despite this, cyclists are themselves among the most profligate lawbreakers.

So I want consistency. If you believe that breaking certain road laws in a certain manner is victimless crime, and want a "so what?" defence, that's fine. So long as you extend this defence to all road users.

But if a cyclist believes that motorists need speed limits cut all over the place, GPS speed enforcers/monitors, acceleration limiters, strict liability, "the Essex design" principles, more regulations, more taxes, then that's also fine, so long as those cyclists also support licensing, compulsory training, registration, penalty points and the zero tolerace to the laws that they break wholesale. And that they be made pay ROAD TAX!

And I've mentioned 7 people here, who fit the above criteria. What are the odds that none of those people (or indeed any random selection of 7 cyclists) have never run a red light, mounted a footway or disregarded a lane direction? As a routine pedestrian, I can safely guess: 0.

This post establishes one thing, and one thing only - that you have very serious disagreements with these folks. And you are of course, entitled to disagree, just as they disagree with you. There is nothing in these views to support your earlier derogatory comments about 'zero tolerance' and 'iron rods', so you should have the decency to withdraw these false claims.

Spook_ie wrote: »

AFAIK FPNs for cyclists haven't yet been introduced, they were supposed to introduce them by 2nd quarter of 2014 but it ( as usual ) is on the long finger
http://leovaradkar.ie/2013/07/fixed-charge-notices-for-cyclists-to-be-introduced-in-line-with-road-safety-strategy/

Someone should tell my boss so, who paid an €80 fine 2 or 3 years ago. Somebody should tell these posters too;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75306977
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=66139828

SeanW wrote: »

But enforcement is a lot easier when the road vehicle (car or bike) carries a unique registration plate, and the operator of said road vehicle has a license that can be very easily endorsed.

For example, a week ago I had to jump back onto the pavement while crossing a street on a green man light because a cyclist was running his red at very high speed and I would have been creamed had I not retreated with great haste.

Because the cyclist was not obliged to carry registration plates, I have no means of identifying him for reporting to the guards, so I had to ignore the incident. If that was a motorist, I would have (tried to at least) taken their reg and gone directly to a garda station which was about 200M away.

You don't seem to get the difference between theory and practice. So to take your example, you go into the Garda station and make a report. You have no evidence, other than your own opinion. If you think that Gardai are going to prosecute any body based on unsupported single person claims, you're living in fairyland.

SeanW wrote: »

I never had a problem with cyclists until I read their policies on boards and in other areas as well. In between reading all the above about the need for Essex designed housing, GPS monitored speed, acceleation limiters, instant ban penalties and so on, while I also became a routine pedestrian in our major cities (Cork/Dublin) and observed that people like the above were in absolutely no position to complain about petty lawbreaking by others. Zero.

Your group can be characterised by blatant hypocrasy and unimaginable venom towards other people, the latter of which I have just demonstrated.

I haven't FAILed anything, I've proven my point. Conclusively. And all you can do is whine about it. BTW who is Spunk_ie/Spunker?

SeanW wrote: »

You are a cyclist, correct? I've shown that a considerable number of cyclists and possibly their representative entities are only concerned with laws that affect other people, to an obsessive degree, and many of them also would like those laws to be used a weapon in an ideological war that is occuring in their little minds.

People like that are my enemy.

Nope. Just pointing out that the status quo has disadvantages of its own.

You really need to get over 'the group' thing. There are all kinds of cyclists - many of them have cars, some don't. Some break lights, some don't. Some have strong opinions about cyclist, most don't.

No-one holds you responsible for the actions and views of every driver on the road. You should pay the same respect to others, even those who you disagree with.

SeanW wrote: »

I keep hearing points like "most cyclists are also motorists" but that is something I find very dubious given what I've read from those 7 cyclists I referenced earlier.

Strange to think that you find it so head-wrecking that people have views different to yourself. Time to take off the blinkers...

galwaycyclist

Tenzor07 wrote: »

No, I'm a Mountain-biker, but I drive a big car too.. So i'm confused, does this mean i'm "playing for both sides?"

Mine's a Berlingo but its red.

If it was white I could be a cyclist and a "white van man".

<returns to breakfast roll>

Jawgap

SeanW wrote: »

I keep hearing points like "most cyclists are also motorists" but that is something I find very dubious given what I've read from those 7 cyclists I referenced earlier.

What about the idea that some motorists are also cyclists? Or do you also find that idea dubious too?

I've one family member who cycles, drives a car and has a HGV licence and uses a motorbike........is that dubious?

Tenzor07

Spook_ie wrote: »

Is there not some net law that when you have to resort to changing user names to try and raise your game then you've lost by default similar to Godwin's Law?

Awww where's your sense of humour!?

Maybe some sort of Godwin's law applies when the oul "Road Tax" is mentioned...


Anyhoo, all rational, sensible debate on this matter ended about 14 pages ago...:pac:

I'll see you in the next cycle-bashing thread and have the same oul "debate" again and probably... again!

Spook_ie

RainyDay wrote: »

<snipped>



Someone should tell my boss so, who paid an €80 fine 2 or 3 years ago. Somebody should tell these posters too;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75306977
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=66139828



<snipped>

Both those threads relate to the cyclist being issued with a summons to attend court NOT an FPN, you need to know what the difference is

Laymans Guide perhaps someone will correct it if my understanding is incorrect

Summons Appearance before a court, plea guilty/not guilty, evidence presented/not presented, deicision of guilt/innocence, fined upto maximum usually with costs

FPN If accepted pay fixed penalty, if not accepted or you wish to dispute it, await court summons for non payment proceed as for summons

Spook_ie

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Awww where's your sense of humour!?

Maybe some sort of Godwin's law applies when the oul "Road Tax" is mentioned...


Anyhoo, all rational, sensible debate on this matter ended about 14 pages ago...:pac:

I'll see you in the next cycle-bashing thread and have the same oul "debate" again and probably... again!

My rational, sensible debate is still ongoing, as I don't believe in a free for all on the roads.

If you believe that the SI system of laws is wrong you should get the next boat out, but until then the SI is all important in any argument to do with roads and road users to establish guilt or innocence of an infringement.

Perhaps you're one of these cyclists that believe the laws shouldn't apply to them because "Sure we're only cyclists, what harm are we doing"

As to

I'll see you in the next cycle-bashing thread and have the same oul "debate" again and probably... again!

I look forward to you actually debating a point instead of just throwing your usual rhetoric around

Spook_ie

RainyDay wrote: »

<snipped>
You don't seem to get the difference between theory and practice. So to take your example, you go into the Garda station and make a report. You have no evidence, other than your own opinion. If you think that Gardai are going to prosecute any body based on unsupported single person claims, you're living in fairyland.



<snipped>.

Just as a PoI, have you read the number of threads on boards, where someone reckons a car/bus etc. was being driven too close or whatever.
The number of replies that say report it to the Gardai because they will at least have a record of the driver and the next time he does something wrong they'll have him, is unbelievable

Tenzor07

Spook_ie wrote: »

My rational, sensible debate is still ongoing, as I don't believe in a free for all on the roads.
If you believe that the SI system of laws is wrong you should get the next boat out, but until then the SI is all important in any argument to do with roads and road users to establish guilt or innocence of an infringement.
Perhaps you're one of these cyclists that believe the laws shouldn't apply to them because "Sure we're only cyclists, what harm are we doing"
As to
I look forward to you actually debating a point instead of just throwing your usual rhetoric around

Pot-Kettle there pal... don't try and pigeon-hole me as "your group" or "you're one of those cyclists"

Thinly veiled "Tax, insure, issue penalty points to all cyclists" is about how i'd sum it all up.....

....Entirely disproportionate, totally unworkable, so the day I see that argument dropped is when you'll see a real debate...

Spook_ie

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Pot-Kettle there pal... don't try and pigeon-hole me as "your group" or "you're one of those cyclists"

Thinly veiled "Tax, insure, issue penalty points to all cyclists" is about how i'd sum it all up.....

....Entirely disproportionate, totally unworkable, so the day I see that argument dropped is when you'll see a real debate...

Typical rhetoric again.

I make no secret that I believe people should pay for what they use in society, be that hospitals, roads, water or whatever, you just spout out "Thinly veiled.....whatever" way to go with a debate.

As to issuing penalty points to all cyclists just shows how much you actually enter into debating, I only believe in penaties for those that break the law, much like motorists get penalised for breaking laws.

Now if it were possible to persuade the powers that be, to actually put points onto cyclists driving licenses or hold them in readiness for when they get a license ( seeing as they are classified as traffic I see no reason why not ) then we might actually get somewhere.

Tenzor07

Spook_ie wrote: »

Now if it were possible to persuade the powers that be, to actually put points onto cyclists driving licenses or hold them in readiness for when they get a license ( seeing as they are classified as traffic I see no reason why not ) then we might actually get somewhere.

You still don't get it, these points have been explained to you many many times in 100's of posts and threads... You are talking about a system which would cost more to implement then it would save. As well as having no benefit to society..

Sure, the powers that be can't even implement a north/south cross-border penalty point system for motorists!

If you can name one country in the democratic world where Bicyclists are licensed to use roads, and taxed then I'll eat my old lycra shorts!

So have you got any other points on this matter?

Spook_ie

Tenzor07 wrote: »

You still don't get it, these points have been explained to you many many times in 100's of posts and threads... You are talking about a system which would cost more to implement then it would save. As well as having no benefit to society..

Sure, the powers that be can't even implement a north/south cross-border penalty point system for motorists!

If you can name one country in the democratic world where Bicyclists are licensed to use roads, and taxed then I'll eat my old lycra shorts!

So have you got any other points on this matter?

Does it matter if they can't implement a north/south one, the fact is if you have an Irish license you'd get points for breaking Irish laws, or is it such an anathema to you that people would like to see cyclists in general obeying road traffic law