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

magicbastarder

poochiem wrote: »

Wondering if anyone knows how we could find out if a motorist has ever been cautioned for stopping in the advanced stop line area (bike box)? I haven't been able to find any mention of a prosecution.

cautions and prosecutions are different things though.

mcgratheoin

tomasrojo wrote: »

Well, hi-viz clothing, as most people now use the term, includes reflective stripes as well as fluorescent material. The latter is useful during daytime and at dawn/dusk, while the reflective stripes are effective at night.

I completely agree with you, but what happens when the term "hi-viz" gets used is that people assume that if they wear some hi-viz clothing then they'll be visible all the time. There are those of the misplaced opinion that hi-viz clothing is equal to or better than lights in the dark. What I'm saying is that if you replace the term hi-viz with "two reflective strips" then it doesn't seem that highly visible at all.
If someone says "I always wear hi-viz so cars can see me in the dark" it sounds like a logical argument, but if someone says "I always wear two reflective strips on my back so cars can see me in the dark" it wouldn't inspire confidence.
I'm 100% in agreement with you on the RSA as well - their practices for safe night cycling are atrocious - inadequate lights and hi-viz :mad:

tomasrojo

If you're an Irish meteorologist, the last day of summer is the 31st of August.

poochiem

magicbastarder wrote: »

cautions and prosecutions are different things though.

I mean, has there ever been a single motorist sanctioned for this. I've asked on social media and nobody could find a report. What's the point of the boxes if theyre not going to be enforced?

tomasrojo

mcgratheoin wrote: »

I completely agree with you, but what happens when the term "hi-viz" gets used is that people assume that if they wear some hi-viz clothing then they'll be visible all the time. There are those of the misplaced opinion that hi-viz clothing is equal to or better than lights in the dark. What I'm saying is that if you replace the term hi-viz with "two reflective strips" then it doesn't seem that highly visible at all.
If someone says "I always wear hi-viz so cars can see me in the dark" it sounds like a logical argument, but if someone says "I always wear two reflective strips on my back so cars can see me in the dark" it wouldn't inspire confidence.

Yeah, I think people, despite the evidence of their eyes, think the green/yellow/orange bit glows in the dark, or is unusually reflective.

tomasrojo

It's just a convention, for convenience. Dividing the year's weather in four is a convention itself. I think it's fair enough. It does roughly coincide with the warmest weather, and it's neater to have it end on a calendar boundary.

EDIT: post I was replying to has disappeared. But still, what the hell, I like this kind of hair-splitting.

RainyDay

ec18 wrote: »

and for drivers that behaviour is targeted especially phones. The point being that those actions are dangerous whether a cyclist or driver commits the offence so the punishment should be the same for whomever commits the offence.

Do you think that perhaps the damage caused or potential for damage caused should be a factor in the punishment?

If I steal €5 from my granny, and you steal €5 million from your boss, should our punishments be the same?

oakley2097

As someone who has been hit by a car while cycling; hospital stay, 2+ mts off the bike and driver is only likely to get a FPN. it a joke to target cyclists without putting proportionate resources policing car driver behaviour in term of the number of motorist

oakley2097

RainyDay wrote: »

Do you think that perhaps the damage caused or potential for damage caused should be a factor in the punishment?

If I steal €5 from my granny, and you steal €5 million from your boss, should our punishments be the same?

In sweden (one of those cold countries upthere anyway) the fines in the court system are based on the ability to pay. Millionaires pay more than paupers.

For breaking the law drivers should be fine more heavily than cyclist, they have 1500+kg of metal under their control...

For professional drivers (taxi, lorry etc) the punishment should be more again

RainyDay

tomasrojo wrote: »

Well, hi-viz clothing, as most people now use the term, includes reflective stripes as well as fluorescent material. The latter is useful during daytime and at dawn/dusk, while the reflective stripes are effective at night.

Are you sure about flourescent material being useful during daytime? Is yellow really the best colour to stand out against bright yellow sunlight?

buffalo

poochiem wrote: »

Wondering if anyone knows how we could find out if a motorist has ever been cautioned for stopping in the advanced stop line area (bike box)? I haven't been able to find any mention of a prosecution. With that in mind I went back on my camera footage today and only saw a couple of boxes being observed correctly - surprisingly the one going east on Baggot st bridge junction which is normally totally ignored.

For a motorist to be cautioned the Garda would have had to witness the act of driving over the ASL while the associated light was red. And to care enough to issue the caution.

The former probably happens occasionally, I don't know about the second. For them to occur together... very slim chance I'd say.

edit: actually, the former is probably very rare - everyone tends to be extra-careful when there's a Garda about.

tomasrojo

RainyDay wrote: »

Are you sure about flourescent material being useful during daytime? Is yellow really the best colour to stand out against bright yellow sunlight?

Yeah, it's a mixed bag. You usually can see a cyclist from further away during the daytime, but it really depends on what sort of contrast the hi-viz makes with the background (for example). It's not important for urban cycling anyway. You don't need to see a cyclist from over a kilometre away, and you can definitely see them wearing normal clothing from a few hundred metres away, which is all you need in an urban context.

wisejohn

the government are trying to promote healthy lifestyles, and use alternative methods of transport to the car, yet they then try to make it more difficult for cyclists, no joined up thinking here.

ec18

RainyDay wrote: »

Do you think that perhaps the damage caused or potential for damage caused should be a factor in the punishment?

If I steal €5 from my granny, and you steal €5 million from your boss, should our punishments be the same?

What I meant was that provided the offence was just using a phone while cycling/driving the punishment should be the same. If there is damage/injury /death caused obviously the punishment should be worse.

07Lapierre

wisejohn wrote: »

the government are trying to promote healthy lifestyles, and use alternative methods of transport to the car, yet they then try to make it more difficult for cyclists, no joined up thinking here.

Its the goverment's fault that cyclists break red lights?

As pointed out already, these FPN's refer to laws that already exist. The FPN do not affect the majority of cyclists out there who cycle responsibly. There are some things that even the Government cant be blamed for

oakley2097

ec18 wrote: »

What I meant was that provided the offence was just using a phone while cycling/driving the punishment should be the same. If there is damage/injury /death caused obviously the punishment should be worse.

but the potential for damaged is high (just a little bit) in a car and there is a higher responsibility because of than

oakley2097

07Lapierre wrote: »

Its the goverment's fault that cyclists break red lights?

Not normally but those magnetic sensors under stop points at lights don't work with carbon bikes....

RainyDay

ec18 wrote: »

What I meant was that provided the offence was just using a phone while cycling/driving the punishment should be the same. If there is damage/injury /death caused obviously the punishment should be worse.

I disagree. The potential for injury from a driver using the phone is dramatically different for the potential for injury from a cyclist using the phone, so different punishments would be appropriate.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, it's a mixed bag. You usually can see a cyclist from further away during the daytime, but it really depends on what sort of contrast the hi-viz makes with the background (for example). It's not important for urban cycling anyway. You don't need to see a cyclist from over a kilometre away, and you can definitely see them wearing normal clothing from a few hundred metres away, which is all you need in an urban context.

I'm not sure that it adds value at all during daylight. You probably get more contrast from a strong red or blue or green top than a yellow top.

There is also the cultural issue, as to whether positioning cyclist as dangerous activity requiring specialist clothing is a deterrent. And any such deterrent makes cycling more dangerous for the rest of us by reducing critical mass. In my opinion, the RSA fetish for hi-vis and helmets is one of the reasons why more teenage girls drive themselves to school than cycle to school.

Burning Bridges

Anyone any experience of the Parisian situation , where cycling through red lights is allowed because it makes it safer?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097882/Paris-allow-cyclists-run-red-lights-bid-cut-accidents.html

tomasrojo

RainyDay wrote: »

I'm not sure that it adds value at all during daylight. You probably get more contrast from a strong red or blue or green top than a yellow top.

There is also the cultural issue, as to whether positioning cyclist as dangerous activity requiring specialist clothing is a deterrent. And any such deterrent makes cycling more dangerous for the rest of us by reducing critical mass. In my opinion, the RSA fetish for hi-vis and helmets is one of the reasons why more teenage girls drive themselves to school than cycle to school.

I rather agree with you (though I think we're getting into territory that is more the concern of the hi-viz megathread).

I haven't seen any research into which colours are best for conspicuity during daylight. I know workers on the railways use orange because there's better contrast with vegetation, and colour-blind people aren't allowed to drive trains, which might otherwise be a drawback of using orange. First people to use hi-viz in the workplace too, IIRC.

I'm pretty sure that the net effect of using hi-viz (day or night) is quite close to zero, but I'm willing to revise that opinion if any decent future research is done. A study did show that people can be seen from further away using hi-viz, but that doesn't seem to translate into fewer collisions.


(Something about it here:
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/10/31/hi-viz-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians-sensible-precaution-or-victim-blaming/)

Deedsie

wrt40 wrote: »

Summer ends on 23rd September.

I seriously doubt the Gardaí will be too happy with this. As if they have nothing better to do with their time. But I suppose, when was the last time you saw a guard walking the streets. It's more likely to be self regulated by good law abiding cyclists.

According to Met Éireann, summer ends on August 31st in Ireland. I'll be going with that as the last day of summer. Don't think the equinox comers into it. It's the job of Gardaí to uphold the laws of the land. Of course they should enforce these new fines. The only way behaviour will ever change and then hopefully AGS won't have to waste their time with this kind of rubbish as people will finally have copped on.

Deedsie

wisejohn wrote: »

the government are trying to promote healthy lifestyles, and use alternative methods of transport to the car, yet they then try to make it more difficult for cyclists, no joined up thinking here.

That's outrageous, the bike to work scheme, penalty points system, greenways infrastructure all over the country, city bike scheme, new cycle lanes and upgrades to the existing cycle lane system all disprove that comment.

With the massive increase in cyclist commuters it is only right and proper that the government rebalance things to be someway fair to both motorists and cyclists.

I honestly don't see the big deal. Don't break the law and you have nothing to worry about.

KingBrian2

Deedsie wrote: »

That's outrageous, the bike to work scheme, penalty points system, greenways infrastructure all over the country, city bike scheme, new cycle lanes and upgrades to the existing cycle lane system all disprove that comment.

With the massive increase in cyclist commuters it is only right and proper that the government rebalance things to be someway fair to both motorists and cyclists.

I honestly don't see the big deal. Don't break the law and you have nothing to worry about.

You don't see cyclists drinking while riding a bike like the asshole motorists.

Deedsie

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You don't see cyclists drinking while riding a bike like the asshole motorists.

I drink water while cycling my bike? If you are talking about alcohol, I definitely know of people that cycle drunk. Morons on both modes of transport.

Darkglasses

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You don't see cyclists drinking while riding a bike like the asshole motorists.

I'm saying this as a poster, not a mod, but language like that only grows the us vs. them mentality, which is completely hollow and helps nobody.

cython

wisejohn wrote: »

the government are trying to promote healthy lifestyles, and use alternative methods of transport to the car, yet they then try to make it more difficult for cyclists, no joined up thinking here.

FPNs for these offences are actually making things easier for cyclists, as if they were to enforce the existing laws, and punish the same existing offences at present, they would have to summons offenders to court to mete out fines or whatever punishment is associated with it.

cdaly_

magicbastarder wrote: »

actually, i meant to say that you would have to surrender the car for as many days as penalty points are on your licence in total.

I'd go for weeks rather than days...

poochiem

buffalo wrote: »

For a motorist to be cautioned the Garda would have had to witness the act of driving over the ASL while the associated light was red. And to care enough to issue the caution.

The former probably happens occasionally, I don't know about the second. For them to occur together... very slim chance I'd say.

edit: actually, the former is probably very rare - everyone tends to be extra-careful when there's a Garda about.

Well I know places that have a Garda stationed on the path and cars stopping in front of them don't obey the bike box marking. I don't believe the drivers or Guards know that it's against the law, and I don't think anyone's ever been pulled for it.

kenmc

Deedsie wrote: »

I honestly don't see the big deal. Don't break the law and you have nothing to worry about.

Well that's only true as long as it is the law, and not some notion of the law that a guard might mistakenly believe or randomly make up, which is upheld. I'm thinking specifically of those who think you have to cycle on a cycle track, even though that was repealed in 2012.

Oh and as long as they uphold the law evenly amongst all road users and don't go for the low hanging fruit as a money making exercise.

(FWIW I stop for red and don't cycle on the path.)

roverrules

cdaly_ wrote: »

I'd go for weeks rather than days...

If you get above the cutoff you lose your license for upto 6 months, why would you need to take the car for a few weeks?