Rogue cyclists set to face on-the-spot fines MOD WARNING in first post

Lumen

I had the weirdest traffic light conversation with a a driver in Fairview yesterday.

I was waiting at red, behind the stop line, and he pulled up alongside and said "What would happen if you broke the red light?".

"I don't know", I answered, "I don't generally do that".

"Well, my friend got taken to court for jumping a red light on his bike".

"Oh".

And off we went.

It was the definitive "nice story bro".

airuser

We can make Laws. Will they be enforced ?

In a car one has ID. On a bike, none.

Pinch Flat

airuser wrote: »

We can make Laws. Will they be enforced ?

In a car one has ID. On a bike, none.

Someone suggested micro chipping cyclists to overcome this very problem recently. I found it a novel approach and demonstrated some real 'blue sky' thinking.

Macy0161

airuser wrote: »

We can make Laws. Will they be enforced ?

In a car one has ID. On a bike, none.

Hows the enforcement of red light jumping cars working out?

Lumen

airuser wrote: »

We can make Laws. Will they be enforced ?

In a car one has ID. On a bike, none.

Maybe the answer is on the spot fines.

You should start a thread about that.

looksee

I have just had a quick read through this thread and I am baffled by the arguments on the lines of 'why should cyclists wear hi-viz when cars don't have to have hi-viz stripes' and all the whataboutery in connection with say jumping lights, - 'I'll stop jumping lights when car drivers obey all the rules' etc.

Surely it all comes back to everyone respecting other road users and keeping themselves safe. So cyclists don't jump lights and car drivers give cyclists a bit more space. Cyclists go single file on narrow roads (yes I know what they are allowed to do, I am talking tolerance and courtesy) and cars don't roar up behind them. So some drivers are ignorant/arrogant/stupid, and some cyclists are too, all you can do is make sure you personally don't fall into one of those categories. Using the excuse that its ok for you to do your own thing because everyone else does is not going to improve safety on the roads.

I always assume that my full headlights would blind a cyclist same as a car driver, so I dip for them. If I can see them. Those little twinkly headlights on bikes are not as good as a constant light, though the rear light works fine as a flashing light. On several occasions I have seen a reflective band on a cyclist before I have seen the light. You don't have to wear a full reflective jacket, one of those over the shoulder bands is very effective.

Of course if you are cycling on city roads where there is always lighting, a lot of these points become somewhat irrelevant, but I am talking about driving on narrow, winding, country roads in total darkness.

edit, didn't see the mod warning about hi-viz till now, sorry!

buffalo

Lumen wrote: »

I had the weirdest traffic light conversation with a a driver in Fairview yesterday.

I was waiting at red, behind the stop line, and he pulled up alongside and said "What would happen if you broke the red light?".

"I don't know", I answered, "I don't generally do that".

"Well, my friend got taken to court for jumping a red light on his bike".

"Oh".

And off we went.

It was the definitive "nice story bro".

I nearly got wiped out by a U-turning SUV on the way home from Baldonnell yesterday. A driver pulled up alongside a red light a few metres down the road.

"Janey, yer man nearly killed you there, what was he playing at?"

"Yeah, she just didn't lo-" oh, the window's already been rolled back up.

Rejected again.

desertcircus

looksee wrote: »

Surely it all comes back to everyone respecting other road users and keeping themselves safe. So cyclists don't jump lights and car drivers give cyclists a bit more space. Cyclists go single file on narrow roads (yes I know what they are allowed to do, I am talking tolerance and courtesy) and cars don't roar up behind them.

Cyclists don't go side by side on narrow roads just because they're allowed to - they do it to stop impatient drivers from overtaking them dangerously on narrow roads! It's not tolerance and courtesy, it's minimising the chance of being knocked off your bike and hospitalised.

Pinch Flat

desertcircus wrote: »

Cyclists don't go side by side on narrow roads just because they're allowed to - they do it to stop impatient drivers from overtaking them dangerously on narrow roads! It's not tolerance and courtesy, it's minimising the chance of being knocked off your bike and hospitalised.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJiixtKuVq8

This video illustrates it pretty well.

tomasrojo

I don't really get this term "whataboutery". I think I first saw it when Fintan O'Toole used it to defend a by-the-numbers article he wrote about how awful he found cyclists.

"Whataboutery" itself seems to be a sort of meta-deflection, deflecting criticism of partisanship or partiality by accusing your opponent of deflection.

It's also one of the most ungainly words ever invented.

munstermaddog

buffalo wrote: »

I nearly got wiped out by a U-turning SUV on the way home from Baldonnell yesterday. A driver pulled up alongside a red light a few metres down the road.

"Janey, yer man nearly killed you there, what was he playing at?"

"Yeah, she just didn't lo-" oh, the window's already been rolled back up.

Rejected again.

Sorry about that mate, I had underestimated how cold it was out when rolling down the window!

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't really get this term "whataboutery". I think I first saw it when Fintan O'Toole used it to defend a by-the-numbers article he wrote about how awful he found cyclists.

"Whataboutery" itself seems to be a sort of meta-deflection, deflecting criticism of partisanship or partiality by accusing your opponent of deflection.

It's also one of the most ungainly words ever invented.

Whataboutery is simply the debating tactic of absolving oneself from personal responsibility because somebody else is doing something wrong.

e.g. "Why should I pay my taxes? What about the nasty corporations that don't pay theirs?".

Or that dude who got prosecuted for garlic smuggling. "What about the banks eh? All he was doing was selling food for a fair price, they broke the economy".

It's often the mark of a total moron.

seamus

looksee wrote: »

I have just had a quick read through this thread and I am baffled by the arguments on the lines of 'why should cyclists wear hi-viz when cars don't have to have hi-viz stripes'

So, the argument usually goes like this:

"The cyclist wasn't even wearing hi-viz"
"Cyclists don't have to wear hi-viz"
"Yeah, but you have a duty to make yourself as safe and as visible as possible"
"There is no evidence that wearing hi-viz makes you safer or more visible"
"But of course it does, it's just common sense"
"Then why aren't cars painted hi-viz to make them more visible?"
"Ah, That's just whataboutery!"

The hi-viz argument will rumble on forever until some halfwit like Finian McGrath gets into a place where they can legislate.

tomasrojo

Lumen, that seems reasonable. I keep seeing it in contexts, like this, of "yes, that's wrong, and I certainly think some punishment is appropriate, but I don't think it deserves as harsh a punishment as X. Speaking of which, why does nobody seem to care about X?" Which is a reasonable point, in some contexts.

Pinch Flat

seamus wrote: »

So, the argument usually goes like this:

"The cyclist wasn't even wearing hi-viz"
"Cyclists don't have to wear hi-viz"
"Yeah, but you have a duty to make yourself as safe and as visible as possible"
"There is no evidence that wearing hi-viz makes you safer or more visible"
"But of course it does, it's just common sense"
"if you paid "road tax" and insurance ,motorists would respect you more and not so many cyclists would get themselves killed and injured"
"Then why aren't cars painted hi-viz to make them more visible?"
"Ah, That's just whataboutery!"

The hi-viz argument will rumble on forever until some halfwit like Finian McGrath gets into a place where they can legislate.

FYP

Qualitymark

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't really get this term "whataboutery".

Norn word: "But you're kneecapping children!" "But what about you - you're parading with your flegs in our area!" (or whatever outrages are being committed by each side)

Andalucia

Saw a guard this evening outside swan centre in Rathmines lying in wait for the cyclists running reds. I remember her last year she was kept busy.As I slowed to stop at the light turning red, the tulip behind me berated me for stopping in front of him and kept going. I couldn't help but smile as I passed him when light turned green, guard just had the notebook out.

Should be more of this.sick of cyclists and drivers not stopping at reds.real Dublin thing.red means its safe for another 3 cars.majority of cyclists don't stop either

Danjamin1

I was driving through Harold's Cross yesterday and say a bicycle-mounted Garda cycle onto the footpath and continue cycling along it for a good distance.

Is that allowed under normal circumstances? Can the Gardai flout the law as they please?

Beasty

Danjamin1 wrote: »

I was driving through Harold's Cross yesterday and say a bicycle-mounted Garda cycle onto the footpath and continue cycling along it for a good distance.

Is that allowed under normal circumstances? Can the Gardai flout the law as they please?

If they can argue it's in pursuit of their duties, yes

Danjamin1

Beasty wrote: »

If they can argue it's in pursuit of their duties, yes

I thought that might be the case alright but wasn't sure. This fella was just trundling along in a normal manner, didn't look to be in obvious pursuit of anything.

Just thought it seemed odd without any particular cause for him to be doing it.

Alanstrainor

Danjamin1 wrote: »

I thought that might be the case alright but wasn't sure. This fella was just trundling along in a normal manner, didn't look to be in obvious pursuit of anything.

Just thought it seemed odd without any particular cause for him to be doing it.

It's definitely stupid, as surely they should be setting an example...but unfortunately there's nothing to stop them doing it.

I haven't seen anyone stopped for breaking reds on my commuting through Dublin daily.

Danjamin1

Alanstrainor wrote: »

It's definitely stupid, as surely they should be setting an example...but unfortunately there's nothing to stop them doing it.

I haven't seen anyone stopped for breaking reds on my commuting through Dublin daily.

I haven't either, I often wonder when travelling out of town through Donnybrook how they don't post a Garda at the junction of Sussex Road and Burlington Road, they'd have cyclists and motorists stopped by the dozens for running red lights, blocking the junction, stopping on a yellow box, no lights, etc. Basically any of the most common traffic offences.

check_six

Danjamin1 wrote: »

I thought that might be the case alright but wasn't sure. This fella was just trundling along in a normal manner, didn't look to be in obvious pursuit of anything.

Just thought it seemed odd without any particular cause for him to be doing it.

I'd guess the reason is that he did it because he could. The point of the bikes is that they are super-mobile in town as long as you can do what you like, but it's not a great example to be honest. I'd like to see them behave the way everyone else is supposed to when just patrolling around.

I saw a squad car zip through a 30kph zone in town the other day swerving from lane to lane with no indicator going a good bit above 30. They weren't going anywhere in particular as they got stopped at a red in front of us, but it was a bit annoying to see as they could show a better example for others to follow rather than just copying everyone else's bad behaviour.

Danjamin1

check_six wrote: »

I'd guess the reason is that he did it because he could. The point of the bikes is that they are super-mobile in town as long as you can do what you like, but it's not a great example to be honest. I'd like to see them behave the way everyone else is supposed to when just patrolling around.

Yep, that's the same conclusion I came to myself. You would expect them to lead by example, but I guess it's just human nature

maxamillius

Cycling home from work today,driver decides to turn left cutting in directly in front of me as I cycle up the bike lane.

The window was down so I told her to use her wing mirrors.

Guard on motorbike pulls me over and proceeds to tell me that she had the right to merge directly in front of me.

I asked him who had right of way and his answer was "its a bit of a grey area" yet I somehow was in the wrong.

Ridiculous.

Deedsie

maxamillius wrote: »

Cycling home from work today,driver decides to turn left cutting in directly in front of me as I cycle up the bike lane.

The window was down so I told her to use her wing mirrors.

Guard on motorbike pulls me over and proceeds to tell me that she had the right to merge directly in front of me.

I asked him who had right of way and his answer was "its a bit of a grey area" yet I somehow was in the wrong.

Ridiculous.

Report him, we have an ombudsman for a reason.

RainyDay

Deedsie wrote: »

Report him, we have an ombudsman for a reason.

We do indeed, but I don't think this is the reason why we have an Ombudsman. Complain to the local Sgt or Inspector first, and see if you can get it sorted locally.

Deedsie

RainyDay wrote: »

We do indeed, but I don't think this is the reason why we have an Ombudsman. Complain to the local Sgt or Inspector first, and see if you can get it sorted locally.

And after that doesn't work I'd go to the ombudsman. Going local first might help find details of the Garda in questions name, rank etc?

What is the purpose of the ombudsman if not to report Garda misconduct? Traffic corp Gardaí reprimanding a cyclist for his total misunderstanding the rules of the road should be reported to the ombudsman.

CramCycle

Deedsie wrote: »

And after that doesn't work I'd go to the ombudsman. Going local first might help find details of the Garda in questions name, rank etc?

What is the purpose of the ombudsman if not to report Garda misconduct? Traffic corp Gardaí reprimanding a cyclist for his total misunderstanding the rules of the road should be reported to the ombudsman.

Misconduct is a bit harsh, a mistake, it's not like he fined or abused maxamillius (maybe he did, if he did then it is misconduct). He pulled him over for an error to tell him (even though he was incorrect), I presume his grey area was a subtle realisation that maxamillius was in fact right (pride is a hard thing to overcome).

Local super would be the way to go IMO, give him the guys badge number or a general note about the traffic corp in the area. Say listen, no harm, no foul but the car that pulled across me was completely in the wrong, if you could reiterate it to the traffic corp as I think that the driver should have gotten a talking to for many reasons including lack of observation, reckless endangerment etc. rather than me for shouting as I was generally shocked/shook as the driver pulled across me without indication, without right of way and most importantly without looking.

If the Super comes back and says of course, problem solved, if the Super disagrees with you, then its time to talk to the Ombudsman but going to the Ombudsman with a, presumably, non provable instance, which even if accepted, was not an abuse of power (the jockey thought he was doing the right thing), seems like a slight waste of time, but that's just my opinion.

Uno my Uno.

CramCycle wrote: »

Misconduct is a bit harsh, a mistake, it's not like he fined or abused maxamillius (maybe he did, if he did then it is misconduct). He pulled him over for an error to tell him (even though he was incorrect), I presume his grey area was a subtle realisation that maxamillius was in fact right (pride is a hard thing to overcome).

Local super would be the way to go IMO, give him the guys badge number or a general note about the traffic corp in the area. Say listen, no harm, no foul but the car that pulled across me was completely in the wrong, if you could reiterate it to the traffic corp as I think that the driver should have gotten a talking to for many reasons including lack of observation, reckless endangerment etc. rather than me for shouting as I was generally shocked/shook as the driver pulled across me without indication, without right of way and most importantly without looking.

If the Super comes back and says of course, problem solved, if the Super disagrees with you, then its time to talk to the Ombudsman but going to the Ombudsman with a, presumably, non provable instance, which even if accepted, was not an abuse of power (the jockey thought he was doing the right thing), seems like a slight waste of time, but that's just my opinion.

I would expect that the most likely outcome of writing to the Local Super is that your letter will find its way into the bin quite rapidly. I'm not saying that is right just that the Super isn't going to give a damn about one irritated cyclist.

As stated, the Ombudsman isn't the correct person to receive a complaint of this nature.