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

buffalo

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

Just edging in on this. In recent months I have seen a huge upsurge in really bad cycling. These people aren't cyclists though, it's the lads or ladies that are purely commuters or lunatics on Dublin bikes.

This really grinds my gears - why makes a person on a bike not a cyclist? How often must I ride my bike to attain the level of 'cyclist'? Am I only a cyclist when I'm in lycra up the Sallygap on a road bike, and not a cyclist when commuting to work in jeans on a hybrid?

rubadub

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

Would a more sensible approach not be to make it an automatic offence for anyone above the age of 18 (just an example - the age should probably be lower) to cycle on the footpath. Excluding it as a specific offence sounds like a climbdown to avoid having to enforce it.

The most dangerous guys I come across are teenagers on paths, so I would certainly not like to see an age limit like you suggest.

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

Excluding it as a specific offence sounds like a climbdown to avoid having to enforce it.

I think it possibly to shut up the idiot whingers who do want the law to be fully enforced, in cases where the actions are obviously not what the law set out to prevent.

CramCycle wrote: »

For those who couldn't read between the lines of the ministers very clear comments, unless you are a child or accompanying a child, your probably going to get done.

I thought/hoped it was you are going to get done if you are dangerously cycling on a footpath -i.e. what the law makers actually set out to prevent happening. I have often cycled on footpaths in full view of gardai, and cycling past gardai who said nothing. People go on about it being hard to prosecute it is extremely easy to say "get off that bike sonny and walk", but they never have, as if I am never doing anything that deserves a warning. In fact walking with a bike is often more dangerous as pedals could take out someones shin.

His comments do seem to suggest that kids cycling on footpaths will be exempt, regardless if they are doing it in a dangerous manner.

Decuc500

rubadub wrote: »

In fact walking with a bike is often more dangerous as pedals could take out someones shin.

I really don't see this argument for cycling rather than walking your bike on a footpath.
Cyclists dismounting and pushing their bikes are respecting pedestrians right of way on a footpath.
A footpath is the only space I feel safe and not expect to encounter a moving vehicle (no matter how slow it's going).

nullzero

buffalo wrote: »

This really grinds my gears - why makes a person on a bike not a cyclist? How often must I ride my bike to attain the level of 'cyclist'? Am I only a cyclist when I'm in lycra up the Sallygap on a road bike, and not a cyclist when commuting to work in jeans on a hybrid?

"Cyclist"> lycra

Grandpa Hassan

Decuc500 wrote: »

I really don't see this argument for cycling rather than walking your bike on a footpath.
Cyclists dismounting and pushing their bikes are respecting pedestrians right of way on a footpath.
A footpath is the only space I feel safe and not expect to encounter a moving vehicle (no matter how slow it's going).

Except that walking the bike takes up twice as much space and I have on many occasions hit peoples shins with my pedals. Which hurts like hell. And which wouldn't have happened if I was on my bike. I've had people passed at me many times for walking my bike on the footpath in the city instead of cycling down a one way the wrong way or cycling on the footpath (my bike control skills are very good and can comfortable cycle at walking lace in a crowd of pedestrians)

rubadub

Decuc500 wrote: »

Cyclists dismounting and pushing their bikes are respecting pedestrians right of way on a footpath.
A footpath is the only space I feel safe and not expect to encounter a moving vehicle (no matter how slow it's going).

If you encounter a pedestrian pushing a bike then you are encountering a moving vehicle...

The main place I have done it is on grafton street, I have seen the same gardai who walked by me not batting an eyelid calling over a courier who was cycling dangerously -again what the law actually set out to prevent. I was not on the bike to save time, I would be going slower than I would usually walk at.

On regular footpaths if walking with a bike I would usually move my bike onto the road to keep it away from pedestrians.

Tony EH

barrymanilow wrote: »

I completely agree , when I'm at the front of the cue at a red and I see the way is clear I always go for it . It means the traffic behind doesn't have to wait for me to accelerate . I can get well clear and I'm more visible taking off down the empty road ahead and able to move faster up the next junction too.Cars have to deal with me a lot less .

Just wait and see.

If these FPNs are enforced and cyclists start stopping at every single red light, including pedestrian lights even when there is nobody crossing, you'll have motorists pissing and moaning that they are being held up by cyclists at traffic lights.

:pac:

Tony EH

tomasrojo wrote: »

As a courtesy, even if it were not illegal, I think when there are pedestrians on a footpath, cyclists should not cycle there, but rather wheel the bike, if they really need to progress that way.

However, objectively speaking, cycling slowly on relatively uncrowded or deserted footpaths with good sight lines is not a major problem, so I think it's appropriate that it should not be included in the Fixed-Penalty Notices. If someone is doing some really obnoxious footpath cycling, there is the option to issue a FPN for inconsiderate cycling (or whatever they're going to call it).

Cycling slowly on an uncrowded footpath will do no harm whatsoever, no more danger than someone with a pram. But there are dickheads that fly down pedestrian areas that are a real danger.

Decuc500

If I see a person walking a bike on a path towards me I will gladly give way if the path is very narrow (carefully avoiding the pedals!). Happened last week when a courier was walking his bike towards me on a narrow path to get around roadworks. If they are cycling I’ll keep walking and expect them to stop.

A bit of respect and courtesy goes a long way.

Tony EH

lennymc wrote: »

realistically, imho, there will be a couple of weeks of enforcement, then there will be nothing, as per the current enforcement level of the existing laws that are already in place.

And there'll be the same level of accidents caused by cyclists. Miniscule.

jon1981

Tony EH wrote: »

Just wait and see.

If these FPNs are enforced and cyclists start stopping at every single red light, including pedestrian lights even when there is nobody crossing, you'll have motorists pissing and moaning that they are being held up by cyclists at traffic lights.

:pac:

This is so true. I guess it's time to start filling the lane wide cyclist box at the lights in front of the motor vehicles rather than pilling up at the side of the curb

Tony EH

buffalo wrote: »

This really grinds my gears - why makes a person on a bike not a cyclist? How often must I ride my bike to attain the level of 'cyclist'? Am I only a cyclist when I'm in lycra up the Sallygap on a road bike, and not a cyclist when commuting to work in jeans on a hybrid?

Ah, you have to take time to level up. You're not playing the game right.

Tenzor07

Good article in the Guardian: sabotage-and-hatred-what-have-people-got-against-cyclists

Other comments under the piece surmised that such deaths happen because of rampant cyclist lawbreaking, notably jumping red lights. Again, this doesn’t bear scrutiny. An analysis of police statistics found a failure to stop at a red light or stop sign was a factor in just 2% of serious adult cycling incidents; in contrast, drivers were deemed solely to blame about two-thirds of the time.

Lawbreaking is one of the difficulties of the debate for cyclists. The average person on a bike is arguably no more likely to break a law then their peer in a car. However, when they do so it’s more obvious, less normalised. People notice a cyclist pedalling through a red light, whereas speeding – which 80% of drivers admit to doing regularly – is often ignored, despite the immeasurably greater human cost this causes.

Tony EH

jon1981 wrote: »

This is so true. I guess it's time to start filling the lane wide cyclist box at the lights in front of the motor vehicles rather than pilling up at the side of the curb

Do it.

And start off really slowly and take your time about everything.

In a week they'll be asking for cyclists to be able to cycle through red at pedestrian crossings when there's no obstruction.


:pac:

jon1981

Tony EH wrote: »

Do it.

And start off really slowly and take your time about everything.

In a week they'll be asking for cyclists to be able to cycle through red at pedestrian crossings when there's no obstruction.


:pac:

I think rule 1. Cyclist driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration. should have covered the red lights and left it at that.

If a cyclist breaks a red light and is deemed to have endangers themselves or others then sure throw a fine at them. I myself do obey the red light but I think an exception should be made for cyclists ( by the way I'm also a car owner... before anyone chimes in with the "why shouldn't cars", i don't believe cars should have the same road rights... they are far more lethal).

magicbastarder

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/07/02/wwn-guide-on-how-to-avoid-new-cycling-fines/

Tenzor07

magicbastarder wrote: »

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/07/02/wwn-guide-on-how-to-avoid-new-cycling-fines/

Excellent!!

Sad Professor

Re: the "proceeding past traffic lights when the red lamp is illuminated” rule, what about stopping past the line or ASL (which motorists usually ignore) in order to make yourself more visible to cars behind? I do this all the time and have encountered extreme hostility from some motorists and a friend was once berated by a garda for doing it, but it seems to massively reduce the risk of a collision.

Also what about the magnetic/pressure sensors at lights that only activate for cars? I don’t break red lights but don’t have much choice when confronted with one of these bloody things at 6am in the morning. And when traffic is coming from the other side I just have to wait.

Tony EH

jon1981 wrote: »

I think rule 1. Cyclist driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration. should have covered the red lights and left it at that.

If a cyclist breaks a red light and is deemed to have endangers themselves or others then sure throw a fine at them. I myself do obey the red light but I think an exception should be made for cyclists ( by the way I'm also a car owner... before anyone chimes in with the "why shouldn't cars", i don't believe cars should have the same road rights... they are far more lethal).

Cyclists who fly through red lights when pedestrians are crossing are a real danger. But incidents are so low, it's negligible.

A cyclist who comes to a stop while the pedestrian is crossing and then slowly moves away after the pedestrian has crossed is doing no harm.

I believe though that cyclists should slow down and make absolutely sure that that the way is free and not just speed through a pedestrian crossing with abandon.

Honestly, even with these new fines, I can't see these laws being pressed too rigorously. Perhaps there'll be a couple of weeks with a few fines, but things will go back to normal. Most Gardai will have the common sense to see where there is no danger, there's nothing to worry about. I've talked to Gardai about this issue and they've said they aren't too worried about cyclists is any way. They're such a non-issue. You get the odd ejit who'll take silly chances, but by-and-large nothing much happens that warrants their attention.

Tony EH

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Today's announcement from the department only has seven offences

http://www.dttas.ie/press-releases/2015/introduction-fixed-charge-notices-cyclists-aims-promote-safe-cycling-practices

Description of Offence Fixed Charge

1. Cyclist driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration. €40

2. No front lamp or rear lamp lit during lighting-up hours on a pedal cycle. €40

3. Cyclist proceeding into a pedestrianised street or area. €40

4. Cyclist proceeding past traffic lights when the red lamp is illuminated. €40

5. Cyclist proceeding past cycle traffic lights when red lamp is lit. €40

6. Cyclist failing to stop for a School Warden sign. €40

7. Cyclist proceeding beyond a stop line, barrier or half barrier at a railway level crossing, swing bridge or lifting bridge, when the red lamps are flashing. €40

I would have liked to see cycling on the wrong side of the road in the list but there you go.

Is 4 not the same, or roughly the same as 5?


il·lu·mi·nate
iˈlo͞oməˌnāt/
verb
past tense: illuminated; past participle: illuminated

1. 1.
   light up.
   "a flash of lightning illuminated the house"
   synonyms:light (up), lighten, throw light on, brighten, shine on, irradiate; Moreliteraryillumine, illume, enlighten
   "the bundle was illuminated by the torch"
   
   
   
   
   antonyms:darken
   
   
   • decorate (a building or structure) with lights for a special occasion.
     
     
   
   
   
   
2. 2.
   decorate (a page or initial letter in a manuscript) with gold, silver, or colored designs.
   synonyms:decorate, illustrate, embellish, adorn, ornament "the manuscripts were illuminated"
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

Darkglasses

Tony EH wrote: »

Is 4 not the same, or roughly the same as 5?

I think the difference is that rule 4 refers to normal traffic lights for roads, whereas rule 5 refers to bike-only ones on off-road cycle paths (for example on the canal cycle path)

wtlltw

Tony EH wrote: »

I've talked to Gardai about this issue and they've said they aren't too worried about cyclists is any way. They're such a non-issue.

Wait until they are told to hit their monthly targets.

Trent Houseboat

wtlltw wrote: »

Wait until they are told to hit their monthly targets.

If monthly targets are a real thing, why do they not enforce most driving offences? Using a phone while driving is quite common (in Dublin City it appears to be about as common as red light jumping cyclists), that allegedly carries a fine of €1000.

Much like the above mentioned phone offence it's to be seen to be doing something rather than actually doing something.

CramCycle

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

If monthly targets are a real thing, why do they not enforce most driving offences? Using a phone while driving is quite common (in Dublin City it appears to be about as common as red light jumping cyclists), that allegedly carries a fine of €1000.

Much like the above mentioned phone offence it's to be seen to be doing something rather than actually doing something.

i am pretty convinced that mobile phone usage has gone up since the 1000euro fine was introduced. Not sure whether its perceived lack of enforcement or whether its just the belief that no Garda would be mean to fine you a grand.

Spend 50euro and get bluetooth installed, hell I think Aldi had OK ones for 15 euro awhile back.

I admit no data to back it up but I definitely notice it more now than then.

Trent Houseboat

CramCycle wrote: »

i am pretty convinced that mobile phone usage has gone up since the 1000euro fine was introduced. Not sure whether its perceived lack of enforcement or whether its just the belief that no Garda would be mean to fine you a grand.

Spend 50euro and get bluetooth installed, hell I think Aldi had OK ones for 15 euro awhile back.

I admit no data to back it up but I definitely notice it more now than then.

I've noticed it more in the past year or two. Pure Dublin based conjecture here but I think it might have to do with greater congestion leading to more time spent in cars and the greater likelihood of facebook/twitter/periscope/snapchat/grindr withdrawals that such down time creates.
Add to that the decrease in price of mobile data and smartphones themselves.

Pre-recession levels of congestion and 4G could be the death of us all.

ThisRegard

Paschal was on the Last Word just after 4.30, he said cyclists should use Cycle Lanes.

check_six

ThisRegard wrote: »

Paschal was on the Last Word just after 4.30, he said cyclists should use Cycle Lanes.

There's a Minister on top of his brief! :eek:

ThisRegard

In fairness he didn't say have to.

But he did say he'd have to go and check the legality of cycling two abreast because he wasn't too sure about it.

Tony EH

Then he shouldn't be legislation in this area.

magicbastarder

while i'd prefer he knew that cyclists can travel two abreast, he's a minister, not a barrister.