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

tomasrojo

buffalo wrote: »

Only some? How many were set in the future?

The ones relating to proceeding without reasonable consideration on a hoverboard.

galwaycyclist

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

Regarding cycling "without reasonable consideration", when cars are stopped at lights, is it generally considered okay to cycle past them to the front of the queue? If so, is that only on the left hand side (even though you never overtake on the left in a car), or on the right hand side (even though you probably normally cycle towards the left hand side of the lane, so you'd be doing a bit more weaving)?

Your main source of legal problems would likely lie in what you did when you get to the top of queue. If you deliberately pass the stop line at the traffic lights while the light is red then that is prohibited by the traffic regulations.

RainyDay

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Your main source of legal problems would likely lie in what you did when you get to the top of queue. If you deliberately pass the stop line at the traffic lights while the light is red then that is prohibited by the traffic regulations.

Indeed, it is prohibited to pass the stop line. Though it is recommended by many cycling experts, including John Franklin's CycleCraft as the best way to ensure that you are visible to other traffic.

ted1

Beasty wrote: »

If you've broken the law you face the consequences - what can be unfair about that? Obviously many will continue to get away with stuff, as also happens with motorists. So long as there is nothing discriminatory in the way the rules are applied I really cannot see how their application could be considered "unfair"

Well the law is written with motorists in mind, it was not thinking of the requirement of cyclists.

Let's look at an example the bike lane in the road that runs parallel to the luas from kimacud to stillorgan has T junction with Traffic lights, now the bike lane continues straight but you need to stop at red. There is really no need to stop at all as your in a private lane that cars shouldn't enter.
In other bike lanes with a similar setup they have moved the lights to the right of the lane meaning you don't have to stop.

So there is no joint up thinking.

Jawgap

ted1 wrote: »

Well the law is written with motorists in mind, it was not thinking of the requirement of cyclists.

Let's look at an example the bike lane in the road that runs parallel to the luas from kimacud to stillorgan has T junction with Traffic lights, now the bike lane continues straight but you need to stop at red. There is really no need to stop at all as your in a private lane that cars shouldn't enter.
In other bike lanes with a similar setup they have moved the lights to the right of the lane meaning you don't have to stop.

So there is no joint up thinking.

It's a red light - you stop.

If you don't stop and get done, don't complain.

Ask the local authority to relocate the light.

Simples.

Macy0161

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

Regarding cycling "without reasonable consideration", when cars are stopped at lights, is it generally considered okay to cycle past them to the front of the queue? If so, is that only on the left hand side (even though you never overtake on the left in a car), or on the right hand side (even though you probably normally cycle towards the left hand side of the lane, so you'd be doing a bit more weaving)?

Cyclists are allowed pass on the left. Also, many junctions have advanced stop lines to allow cyclists to safely position themselves at the front of the queue. I think they'd be a good case if someone was pulled for "without reasonable consideration" it a junction without an advanced stop line, given its a common road marking, and the reasons for it. I'd go to court anyway.

CramCycle

ted1 wrote: »

Well the law is written with motorists in mind, it was not thinking of the requirement of cyclists.

Let's look at an example the bike lane in the road that runs parallel to the luas from kimacud to stillorgan has T junction with Traffic lights, now the bike lane continues straight but you need to stop at red. There is really no need to stop at all as your in a private lane that cars shouldn't enter.
In other bike lanes with a similar setup they have moved the lights to the right of the lane meaning you don't have to stop.

So there is no joint up thinking.

Which junction are you on about? Is there an opportunity for cyclists coming onto the T junction to go into the lane you are in as they turn right?

galwaycyclist

RainyDay wrote: »

Indeed, it is prohibited to pass the stop line. Though it is recommended by many cycling experts, including John Franklin's CycleCraft as the best way to ensure that you are visible to other traffic.

Hmm source for this please if you don't mind?

My recollection is that Franklin tends to favour stopping one or two vehicles back from the top of the queue and expresses a particular caution about cyclists trying to use ASLs.

Chips Lovell

Agreed. You don't need to move to the head of the queue to make yourself more visible. Simply position yourself in the middle of the lane, behind the vehicle ahead of you.

tomasrojo

galwaycyclist wrote: »

My recollection is that Franklin tends to favour stopping one or two vehicles back from the top of the queue and expresses a particular caution about cyclists trying to use ASLs.

Yeah, that's what I do (stopping behind vehicles queueing, positioning myself fairly centrally), and I assume I got it from Franklin. Couldn't swear it though.

coolemon

tunney wrote: »

Jaywalking is not an offense in ireland though is it?

Only if one jay walks within something like 100 meters of a Zebra crossing.

There are not many Zebra crossings in Ireland so jaywalking is essentially allowed.

Wanderer78

when is ireland gonna introduce mandatory use of helmets with on the spot fines?? no brainer!!!

Chips Lovell

It isn't.

It isn't going to happen. And it isn't a no brainer. All helmet discussion is located here. Worth a reading before jumping in.

Wanderer78

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

It isn't.

It isn't going to happen. And it isn't a no brainer. All helmet discussion is located here. Worth a reading before jumping in.

thank you for that. i ll read it later when i have the time. helmets are a no brainer. they save lives end of. yes the cycling issue is much greater than helmets but as said....

mikhail

Wanderer78 wrote: »

when is ireland gonna introduce mandatory use of helmets with on the spot fines?? no brainer!!!

It's not really a no-brainer. It seems very sensible, and I've always worn a helmet myself, but in fact helmeted cyclists are no safer when you measure outcomes. All you'd actually be doing is selling helmets and collecting fines.

Chips Lovell

Rather than start at the start all over again, go read the thread. Suffice to say, if it were a "no brainer", there wouldn't be such extensive study and debate.

On reviewing the evidence you could well still come down on the side of helmets, but you could hardly argue that its an indisputable position.

Wanderer78

mikhail wrote: »

It's not really a no-brainer. It seems very sensible, and I've always worn a helmet myself, but in fact helmeted cyclists are no safer when you measure outcomes. All you'd actually be doing is selling helmets and collecting fines.

fair point but after getting serious about mountain biking last couple of years, protection is at the forefront of my mind. yes mountain biking is a different story but we have to start protecting cyclists out there. im getting sick of hearing about cyclists being injured or killed. its a fantastic pastime and everything else that goes with it but saving lives should always be a priority. the fines could be used to educate both drivers and cyclists of the dangerous of it all but this being ireland, some chance of all that happening. i believe the helmet debate is similar in the motor biking world but id rather have helmets on people. maybe your right in saying they dont make much difference but im yet to be convinced

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: All helmet discussion to the helmet thread, it will derail this thread, if you wish to discuss it, do it there, that goes for all posters in this thread

Located here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057030568

Any issues please PM me, do not discuss in thread

monument

coolemon wrote: »

Only if one jay walks within something like 100 meters of a Zebra crossing.

There are not many Zebra crossings in Ireland so jaywalking is essentially allowed.

It's 15 metres from pedestrian crossings or zebra crossings.

magicbastarder

just out of curiosity, i kept an eye out for cycling offences (or bad practice) while on the bus crossing over from o'connell street and up d'olier street. in that short space of time, i saw cyclists on the footpath, cyclists cycling across pedestrian crossings against a red light, and one cyclist breaking a red. one was not wearing a helmet, and i think only one was wearing a hi-vis.

needless to say, the death toll was immense.

cython

magicbastarder wrote: »

just out of curiosity, i kept an eye out for cycling offences (or bad practice) while on the bus crossing over from o'connell street and up d'olier street. in that short space of time, i saw cyclists on the footpath, cyclists cycling across pedestrian crossings against a red light, and one cyclist breaking a red. one was not wearing a helmet, and i think only one was wearing a hi-vis.

needless to say, the death toll was immense.

What's the death toll from amber gambling, or running red lights? Probably pretty low as we are conditioned to expect it at this stage, but it doesn't mean the laws shouldn't be enforced. However it's also unreasonable to only ask for the laws that suit you to be enforced. Personally I'm in favour of FPNs for cyclists (and I commute from D15 to D2 by bike on a daily basis), as I find myself cringing at some of the stuff pulled by other cyclists purely because they know no Garda could be arsed pursuing a prosecution even if they were to be caught. Only yesterday I saw a guy I used to work with cycle against the flow of traffic on the wrong side of O'Connell Bridge, for example.

magicbastarder

cython wrote: »

What's the death toll from amber gambling

i'd be surprised if it's above zero, but how many prosecutions are there from breaking an amber light?
what struck me earlier was the notion that the guy doing maybe 5mph on a footpath on his bike could (clarification required on whether this is an FPN offence) be considered a danger to life or limb.

Deedsie

Why is death toll always the stat used for justifying poor cycling or running red lights on this forum. I saw a knobhead cycling in front of me going over the canal at lesson street run a red and crash into a pedestrian who had right of way to cross the road. The woman got an awful fright, knobhead cyclist basically scolded her for inconveniencing him by daring to cross the road on his way to wherever he was going. I was cycling behind him for about 5km and I was hoping a Garda would catch him.

laraghrider

Deedsie wrote: »

Why is death toll always the stat used for justifying poor cycling or running red lights on this forum.

To be fair I don't think it's ever used to justify it. I doubt you'd find many on this forum who would defend running red lights or poor cycling. Christ a lot of us race and some of the choice words we shout at each other when there is a bit of poor cycling in the group pale into comparison to what you hear on the road! That being said the reason some people throw out the death toll is that running red lights is often the stick used by drivers to beat cyclists with. Completely overlooking the amount of drivers that break reds at the same time. The difference being of course plenty of people have died at the hands of a car/van/lorry breaking a red light where as it stands at probably 0 in the case of a cyclist.

That's not to justify it at all but hopefully it explains it.

magicbastarder

is there an FPN for cycling on the footpath now?

Flatzie_poo

magicbastarder wrote: »

what struck me earlier was the notion that the guy doing maybe 5mph on a footpath on his bike could (clarification required on whether this is an FPN offence) be considered a danger to life or limb.

Of course it could, depending on the way the person you hit falls for example...

:rolleyes:

magicbastarder

joggers should be banned from paths so, as they carry more momentum and kinetic energy than a cyclist at 5mph.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

is there an FPN for cycling on the footpath now?

seems to be (at least) €50 for this.
driving a car on a footpath carries a €60 fine and one penalty point.

that's actually amusingly disproportionate.

Chinasea

magicbastarder wrote: »

just out of curiosity, i kept an eye out for cycling offences (or bad practice) while on the bus crossing over from o'connell street and up d'olier street. in that short space of time, i saw cyclists on the footpath, cyclists cycling across pedestrian crossings against a red light, and one cyclist breaking a red. one was not wearing a helmet, and i think only one was wearing a hi-vis.

needless to say, the death toll was immense.

While you were doing your research did you happen to have a look at the minute non existent space that cyclists are supposed to squish themselves onto in this lethal, treacherous area?

Flatzie_poo

magicbastarder wrote: »

seems to be (at least) €50 for this.
driving a car on a footpath carries a €60 fine and one penalty point.

that's actually amusingly disproportionate.

Agreed,

But as a cyclist, nothing annoys me more than waiting at a red light while another cycles on by on the path...

As a responsible cyclist I think the path fine is just, - but the cycle lane in question, should be widened & the car path fine/penalty points amount needs to change...