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

ted1

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.

My main issue is what happens on shared foot paths/ cycle lanes. Do they have a specific designation ? How are they classified in law?

tomasrojo

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.

I think it's part of what Robert Davis of the Road Danger Reduction Form in the UK calls the "Even Stevens" philosophy of equal responsibility for road safety between all road users. It seems logical if you don't factor in that one of the parties has immensely more capacity to harm, and should have to shoulder a larger burden or responsibility (and not 20% more either).

check_six

ted1 wrote: »

My main issue is what happens on shared foot paths/ cycle lanes. Do they have a specific designation ? How are they classified in law?

Well that sign on the footpath makes everything okay, apparently. Cycle as fast as you can past pedestrians a hairsbreadth away from you. Do it at 5kph on a path with sign and it's gonna be a trip to the big house (or fine or whatever).

Unless, the shared cycle track/path has one of those signs which are not in the statute books. Surprisingly there are a number of signs which look official, but have essentially been "made-up" by the local county council and do not have any meaning in law. I can't recall which ones exactly but they were shared path/cycle track signs which enticed cyclists onto a path where they were not technically allowed to go. A "bait track" if you will. Perhaps this was the policy all along. Once the FPNs come in they'll be able to station some Guards there and start raking in the cash!

Perhaps someone will be good enough to post the "un-legal" sign.

tomasrojo

I think when they revised the regulation that made all cycle tracks compulsory, they brought a few of the Shared Use-style signs into law as well. General clean up of the regulations.

ardmacha

laraghrider wrote: »

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.

How does it explain it? On the contrary it is the typical nonsense.
Who has posted anything about cyclists running red lights who has in any way justified motorists running red lights. Please direct us to one single post or public comment that does this.

magicbastarder wrote:

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

Perhaps they should too be banned and sent off to some sports facility.
But one difference is that the joggers are not carrying metal bars with which to hit the other path users.

laraghrider

ardmacha wrote: »

How does it explain it? On the contrary it is the typical nonsense.
Who has posted anything about cyclists running red lights who has in any way justified motorists running red lights. Please direct us to one single post or public comment that does this.

Did you actually read my post or did you just take the last line and react? I never once said anyone posted anything that justified motorists running red lights. A poster asked a question regarding a statistic. I answered explaining what the comparison is often used in connection with the statistic. If you actually read my post you'd see where I said this: "I doubt you'd find many on this forum who would defend running red lights" Go back and re-read it again.

ardmacha

laraghrider wrote: »

Did you actually read my post or did you just take the last line and react? I never once said anyone posted anything that justified motorists running red lights. A poster asked a question regarding a statistic. I answered explaining what the comparison is often used in connection with the statistic. If you actually read my post you'd see where I said this: "I doubt you'd find many on this forum who would defend running red lights" Go back and re-read it again.

Your post contained the phrase "Completely overlooking the amount of drivers that break reds at the same time" which strongly suggests that you were implying that someone was justifying this. The point is that the law needs to be enforced for both groups.

clod71

I would justify a cyclist crossing a road with a red light in many occasions and have absolutely no problem with it. I often do it with caution, when it doesn't cause disruption to the traffic. I would never do it while driving a car.

laraghrider

ardmacha wrote: »

Your post contained the phrase "Completely overlooking the amount of drivers that break reds at the same time" which strongly suggests that you were implying that someone was justifying this. The point is that the law needs to be enforced for both groups.

So you took one comment, disregarded the context which surrounded it and based your angle from that. Nice. If it pleases you I also said: "car/van/lorry breaking a red light where as it stands at probably 0" You can take anything you like out of any comment ignoring the context and use that to make any argument you wish. Keep up the good work.

NeedMoreGears

For me the FPN is about stopping people acting like w****ers and being inconsiderate towards other road users.

I welcome them and I'm (possibly in vain) hoping for some actual enforcement.

Lemming

ardmacha wrote: »

Perhaps they should too be banned and sent off to some sports facility.
But one difference is that the joggers are not carrying metal bars with which to hit the other path users.

Just to throw your attempt at pedantry back at you, cyclists are not carrying metal bars. Unless of course .... a cyclist is actually carrying a metal bar on their person for some peculiar reason, in addition to cycling.

laraghrider

Lemming wrote: »

Just to throw your attempt at pedantry back at you, cyclists are not carrying metal bars. Unless of course .... a cyclist is actually carrying a metal bar on their person for some peculiar reason, in addition to cycling.

Nothing quite like a good cycling joust it has to be said.

Jawgap

laraghrider wrote: »

Nothing quite like a good cycling joust it has to be said.

EDIT: Note the complete disregard for anyone's safety - no helmets or hi-viz, but plenty of tweed!

magicbastarder

Deedsie wrote: »

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.

the reason death toll is used as a statistic, and not the sort of anecdote similar to yours, is that reports like yours remain anecdotes and aren't statistics. there's no recording of them.

Macy0161

ardmacha wrote: »

But one difference is that the joggers are not carrying metal bars with which to hit the other path users.

Those joggers in a relay are a menace though.

RainyDay

magicbastarder wrote: »

the reason death toll is used as a statistic, and not the sort of anecdote similar to yours, is that reports like yours remain anecdotes and aren't statistics. there's no recording of them.

And also because he fails to report/record the number of days that he cycles along the canal track without incident.

Deedsie

RainyDay wrote: »

And also because he fails to report/record the number of days that he cycles along the canal track without incident.

Monday to Friday every week. I usually see some poor behaviour from cyclists. I wouldn't say everyday because I try to leave early to avoid it. I could say with 99% certainty that if I was to cycle on the N11 between 8:30 and 9:30 any day during the week I would see some seriously stupid and reckless cycling. Any members of AGS reading, please call down for a look any morning. I'll cheer to myself as I cycle past.

CramCycle

RainyDay wrote: »

And also because he fails to report/record the number of days that he cycles along the canal track without incident.

To be fair, the canal track is a cluster f*ck of poor design, poor traffic management and the highest % of assh*les in terms of population density.

If people wanted a stick to beat cyclists with, that canal path would be it. Its not all cyclists fault but a large chunk of d1ckish behaviour in the area is perpetuated by cyclists. I for one really hope as they role out FPNs and red light cameras, they put some there.

There were so many ways it could have been done better and yet still, its like an engineer who flunked out of college got a job through nepotism and we are left with this sh1t.

Whoever designed it should be ashamed.

rubadub

check_six wrote: »

A "bait track" if you will. Perhaps this was the policy all along. Once the FPNs come in they'll be able to station some Guards there and start raking in the cash!

Perhaps someone will be good enough to post the "un-legal" sign.

I think it is not just the signs. I think there has to be a continous white line on one or both sides of cycletracks. In a lot of places these are worn away or never there in the first place.

If they do fine a single person in a "bait track", then word will get out and far more cyclists will stick to the road. I was saying motorist may seem pleased but may have journeys slowed a fair amount once cyclist start obeying the law to the letter.

I will be sticking to the roads now a lot more, on sections I used to cycle on cycletracks. There is a stretch between whites cross and foxrock church where you often have gangs of pedestrians walking in the cycletrack. There is a large grass verge beside them and then a footpath. I used to cycle onto the grass and sometimes the path to avoid them, now I would fear being done so will stick to the road. People have dogs on illegally long leads too walking on the cycletracks. And at the moment they are still littered with thick cable ties kindly left by the polictical party bastards.

RainyDay

CramCycle wrote: »

To be fair, the canal track is a cluster f*ck of poor design, poor traffic management and the highest % of assh*les in terms of population density.

If people wanted a stick to beat cyclists with, that canal path would be it. Its not all cyclists fault but a large chunk of d1ckish behaviour in the area is perpetuated by cyclists. I for one really hope as they role out FPNs and red light cameras, they put some there.

There were so many ways it could have been done better and yet still, its like an engineer who flunked out of college got a job through nepotism and we are left with this sh1t.

Whoever designed it should be ashamed.

My point was nothing really to do with the canal. It was to do with the difference between anecdotal evidence and real evidence.

CramCycle

RainyDay wrote: »

My point was nothing really to do with the canal. It was to do with the difference between anecdotal evidence and real evidence.

I know but it just really annoys me as a piece of infrastructure, it had so much potential and yet it is a failure to anyone who can see the possibilities.

You are right though, anecdotes are simply anecdotes, far from evidence let alone indicative. If I employed my anecdotes to form a complete view of the world I simply would not be able to function. For every road user who does something idiotic there are the 50 others who do nothing of note.

JBokeh

Why don't they bring in some kind of fine for not cycling with your own safety in mind, A guy i see on my commute around once or twice a week takes the 3rd exit at a roundabout on the industrial estate where I take the second, but he hugs the kerb the whole way around it with the bike. Only for I know he does it every day I can anticipate it, what has saved him is the fact he goes through it about 45 minutes before the big 8am rush

That kind of thing should be addressed, while breaking reds is a dick move, it is nowhere near as dangerous as this, i'd rate his carryon as dangerous as passing cars at a junction on their left and not glancing over your shoulder when switching lanes, but rather than hand out fines people caught with no self preservation skills should be made sit through a long arduous presentation on how to look out for your self

CramCycle

JBokeh wrote: »

Why don't they bring in some kind of fine for not cycling with your own safety in mind, A guy i see on my commute around once or twice a week takes the 3rd exit at a roundabout on the industrial estate where I take the second, but he hugs the kerb the whole way around it with the bike. Only for I know he does it every day I can anticipate it, what has saved him is the fact he goes through it about 45 minutes before the big 8am rush

That kind of thing should be addressed, while breaking reds is a dick move, it is nowhere near as dangerous as this, i'd rate his carryon as dangerous as passing cars at a junction on their left and not glancing over your shoulder when switching lanes, but rather than hand out fines people caught with no self preservation skills should be made sit through a long arduous presentation on how to look out for your self

It certainly is, but yet for some reason the "rules of the road" recommended this for a long time (not sure if they still do). This is the problem with recommendations by a non cyclist.

It would be worth pulling him over and having a word in his ear by the Gardai but does he look over his shoulder at each junction, does he stop for cars or at least indicate or is he blindly crossing each junction o faith alone?

I think the FPNs cover this in regards to the one vague fine about dangerous cycling (can't remember the wording of it)

schemingbohemia

CramCycle wrote: »

I know but it just really annoys me as a piece of infrastructure, it had so much potential and yet it is a failure to anyone who can see the possibilities.

You are right though, anecdotes are simply anecdotes, far from evidence let alone indicative. If I employed my anecdotes to form a complete view of the world I simply would not be able to function. For every road user who does something idiotic there are the 50 others who do nothing of note.

Maybe you've said this elsewhere before, but what exactly annoys you about it?

CramCycle

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Maybe you've said this elsewhere before, but what exactly annoys you about it?

The light sequences, the pinch points, the forced interaction with pedestrians (leeson st. bridge), the narrowing of the footpath to accomodate the lane so pedestrians lose more space, the light sequences which priortise the main road at Holles St. instead of priortising pedestrians. The several junctions where the lights encourage mingling and by default, d1ckish behaviour. To be honest, its a range of minor things that I feel could have been planned better but it is topped off by the ignorant and downright c***ish behaviour of many of the cyclists there, which has nothing to do with the cycle lane itself, but at no other junction in Dublin do I ever see why people hate cyclists made so clear.

Don't get me wrong, poor planning on the light sequences encourages poor behaviour from pedestrians at that junction, then poor behaviour by cyclists, followed by poor behaviour by motorists on the canal.

In theory it's great but a few minor changes when it was being built could have made it fantastic. Widen the footpath or remove car park spaces on the far side. At the pinch points, widen the footpath out towards the canal to lower areas of aggravation. ANPR cameras to stop people jumping the lights and parking essentially in pedestrian paths.

It seems to bring out the worst in all forms of transport, which to me says, there are issues that should have been addressed.

ted1

Deedsie wrote: »

Monday to Friday every week. I usually see some poor behaviour from cyclists. I wouldn't say everyday because I try to leave early to avoid it. I could say with 99% certainty that if I was to cycle on the N11 between 8:30 and 9:30 any day during the week I would see some seriously stupid and reckless cycling. Any members of AGS reading, please call down for a look any morning. I'll cheer to myself as I cycle past.

I do the N11 every morning, for the most part cyclists are good. Your guranteed that drivers break lights at every junction when turning on or off it.

Macy0161

ted1 wrote: »

I do the N11 every morning, for the most part cyclists are good. Your guranteed that drivers break lights at every junction when turning on or off it.

N11 is my cycling and car commute, in as far as Donnybrook Garage, every week day. I rarely see much rule breaking or bad practice by cyclists tbh.

In recent weeks, though only thing I've seen that was somewhat dodgy was a cyclist filtering between the driving lanes from RTE - wasn't anything illegal, I just thought I'm not sure I'd do it, with all the lane swapping that happens on that stretch.

The only red light jumping that's rampant is cars. The lights changed on me this morning going through mount merrion (I had just entered when it went amber) - 6 cars went through behind me in the lane I was in!

CramCycle

Macy0161 wrote: »

In recent weeks, though only thing I've seen that was somewhat dodgy was a cyclist filtering between the driving lanes from RTE - wasn't anything illegal, I just thought I'm not sure I'd do it, with all the lane swapping that happens on that stretch.

I used to go down Angelsea road so used to do it a bit but traffic would be near dead locked or moving slowly. Pull alongside traffic and start to merge over once I could see the turn. If moving, I match speed, indicate, do a couple of life savers to make sure the driver has acknowledged my intention and left space and merge over. Normally alot of people in the right lane are turning right so I might stay there until closer the junction or filter through if traffic is stalled.

Some people wait at the lights and move across when the filter comes on. I just prefer to merge over earlier so buses and taxis no what I am at, never once was an issue. The only thing I have ever had to do was to knock on a window to let the person with their ipad or make up that the lights have changed and you can hear the cars behind getting annoyed.

Macy0161

It was further back than that - between RTE and that school, including the u-turn/ cut out point. When it's gridlocked I wouldn't see an issue, but it was a morning it was kinda moving up that point. I personally would've stayed left and moved across later, but each to their own - I wouldn't say they were doing anything wrong, just something I wouldn't do. And that's the "worst" bit of cycling I've seen in recent weeks on the N11!

JBokeh

CramCycle wrote: »

It certainly is, but yet for some reason the "rules of the road" recommended this for a long time (not sure if they still do). This is the problem with recommendations by a non cyclist.

It would be worth pulling him over and having a word in his ear by the Gardai but does he look over his shoulder at each junction, does he stop for cars or at least indicate or is he blindly crossing each junction o faith alone?

I think the FPNs cover this in regards to the one vague fine about dangerous cycling (can't remember the wording of it)

He'd be in the middle of the lane coming onto it, but by the first exit he'll be at the kerb. Don't know how i'd feel about giving him advice, sure then i'd be one of them people cyclists hate because i'm imparting my "wisdom" out the car window :pac: He has a nice ridley, so he isn't one of the lot on a womans MTB with a sow wester on. He does everything else properly, I just thought it was strange that he'd put himself in that position.

If they're are doing FPNs in the name of safety that there'd be a push on educating the lads that are at the carryon of sitting in blindspots and being in the wrong place on the road. Maybe they'll put all the 50's from the FPNs into a pot in the barracks and use it to fund a cycle safety talk for all the people that donated to the kitty, I doubt that will happen though :rolleyes: