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

buffalo

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I noticed a higher level of compliance than usual among cyclists in Dublin city centre today. At one stage there must have been 20 of us at the lights on D'Olier Street/Fleet Street. If this level of compliance continues we will have complaints from motorists about cyclists causing congestion at the lights!

I always thought a 'civil obedience' protest like this would be great to raise awareness of how many cyclists there are out there, and how RLJing isn't the genocidal offence it's sometimes made out to be.

My other protest idea was a 'don't cycle to work day', where everyone who normally cycles uses a car to get to work instead, and see how much more congested rush hour is.

tomasrojo

buffalo wrote: »

My other protest idea was a 'don't cycle to work day', where everyone who normally cycles uses a car to get to work instead, and see how much more congested rush hour is.

I remember bikesnobnyc mentioning an estimate of what would happen to traffic in Portland if all the cyclists who also owned a car drove instead. Not much difference, it concluded. Not sure what level of cycling Portland has, or how it compares to Dublin. Given the concentration of journeys in the city centre of Dublin, and the relatively high modal share for cycling within the canals (10+%)? I assume it would make a difference here, but that's just a hunch.

magicbastarder

from that link:

Overall, the impact would be 10 percent in the central business district, 11 percent in the Pearl, 9 percent in Old Town and 11 percent in the PSU area.

10% could be a huge impact though, depending on how close to capacity the roads already are.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

from that link:

10% could be a huge impact though, depending on how close to capacity the roads already are.

Yeah, if you look at the schematic depiction of an intersection in Portland, it's a typical network of right-angled roads. Not at all like Dublin city centre.



Presumably much easier to choke up windy narrow streets with a 10% extra cars. Not to mention the canal bridges severely limiting how many extra cars can get to the city centre in the first place.

tomasrojo

Paschal Donohoe confirms on Twitter that using a mobile phone while cycling will be under the FPN regime, under "cycling without consideration to others".

I'm fine with it this behaviour under the FPN regime, but I'm starting to get a little concern about all the things they might be sticking under "without consideration to others".

OleRodrigo

tomasrojo wrote: »

"without consideration to others".

Exactly, could be anything if a Guard is in a bad mood.

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Paschal Donohoe confirms on Twitter that using a mobile phone while cycling will be under the FPN regime, under "cycling without consideration to others".

I'm fine with it this behaviour under the FPN regime, but I'm starting to get a little concern about all the things they might be sticking under "without consideration to others".

Does the minister have the authority to decide that on a whim? Surely if one is cycling on an empty road on the phone, they can't be charged with cycling without consideration with others, given that there are no others?

It is an odd approach to try to include a specific offence under a general catch-all. Why not just outlaw the specific offence?

Tenzor07

What I think it means is that, basically it's not illegal to use a mobile phone whilst cycling, but for example, if the person using a bicycle is cycling down through say College green whilst talking on a phone would come under "cycling without consideration."

Apart from that... Only people I see on bicycles using phones are usually shady looking scobes...

check_six

tomasrojo wrote: »

Paschal Donohoe confirms on Twitter that using a mobile phone while cycling will be under the FPN regime, under "cycling without consideration to others".

I'm fine with it this behaviour under the FPN regime, but I'm starting to get a little concern about all the things they might be sticking under "without consideration to others".

This is a new law entirely. When did it become illegal to use a phone while cycling?

Bear in mind that holding a phone (or supporting it with your body) in a car is part of the penalty points system, but this was never defined for cyclists before in any shape or form.

cython

buffalo wrote: »

Does the minister have the authority to decide that on a whim? Surely if one is cycling on an empty road on the phone, they can't be charged with cycling without consideration with others, given that there are no others?

Ah, but this comes back to the old paradox (and I may be paraphrasing/misquoting here ) "If a cyclist is minding their own business on an empty road and there is nobody around to enforce the ridiculous stereotype is (s)he still a lawbreaking asshole? :P Or maybe it was something about trees...... Either way, if it's really an empty road there's nobody to catch them :pac:

buffalo wrote: »

It is an odd approach to try to include a specific offence under a general catch-all. Why not just outlaw the specific offence?

Possibly standard lazy efforts at lawmaking in Ireland, I guess, though there may also be the issue that there is no current explicit law against it, and they stated that in doing this that they would not introduce new offences, but rather change enforcement mechanisms for existing offences. It might come in down the line when that has "expired" though!

rubadub

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm fine with it this behaviour under the FPN regime, but I'm starting to get a little concern about all the things they might be sticking under "without consideration to others".

I hope it will put off the likes of the "cool dude" fools who cycle with no hands, wobbling all over the place so you dare not pass them out.

henryporter

check_six wrote: »

This is a new law entirely. When did it become illegal to use a phone while cycling?

Bear in mind that holding a phone (or supporting it with your body) in a car is part of the penalty points system, but this was never defined for cyclists before in any shape or form.

It looks to me that in the rush to nit pick the entire Cyclist FPN apart, that common sense cycling behaviour (e.g. not cycling whilst being distracted by using a mobile phone, not cycling on footpaths where it is unnecessary to do so etc.) is being seen as something that needs a law to eradicate it - legislating to impart cop on is never a good idea.

kazamo

henryporter wrote: »

It looks to me that in the rush to nit pick the entire Cyclist FPN apart, that common sense cycling behaviour (e.g. not cycling whilst being distracted by using a mobile phone, not cycling on footpaths where it is unnecessary to do so etc.) is being seen as something that needs a law to eradicate it - legislating to impart cop on is never a good idea.

I think legislation is necessary unfortunately as common sense cycling behaviour is not as common as we may all think.
If the introduction and policing of FPN's leads to reduced speeds by cyclists on footpaths as well as lights used during the hours of darkness, I think it would be a big improvement.
I walk about 10-12 hours a week on footpaths so I meet many cyclists on footpaths and it is becoming a more unpleasant experience in the past three years.


My fear is that the legislation will be enacted and that will be the end of it apart from when cash is needed or statistics need to be improved.

monument

tomasrojo wrote: »

Paschal Donohoe confirms on Twitter that using a mobile phone while cycling will be under the FPN regime, under "cycling without consideration to others".

I'm fine with it this behaviour under the FPN regime, but I'm starting to get a little concern about all the things they might be sticking under "without consideration to others".

Yeah, and BS was called on that.

Using a phone alone unlikely amounts to cycling "without consideration to others", that offense likely needs to include another act (ie not indicating, not looking where one is going etc). It would be easily open to chalange in court if there was not a secondary act recorded by the garda who gives the ticket.

If the minister wants to ban cyclists holding phones and make that in its self an offense, he should legislate for such.

mcgratheoin

kazamo wrote: »

My fear is that the legislation will be enacted and that will be the end of it apart from when cash is needed or statistics need to be improved.

Of course it will be. The most we can hope for is that the most egregious offenders (cyclists speeding through pedestrian areas or pedestrian crossings) will be more likely to be stopped when the relevant Garda will have less paperwork and no threat of a trip to court. Gardai are undermanned and under resourced as it is and more dangerous traffic offences already subject to FPNs are not being policed adequately so why would it be any different with cyclists. I got stuck having to drive out of the city on Friday afternoon instead of cycling and I had two main thoughts.
1. Why do gardai not converge on places at rush hour where traffic offences are constant? The amount of cars sitting in junction boxes after the lights turned red, undertaking up bus lanes (I even saw one car following a squad car up a bus lane before trying to merge with traffic) and breaking red lights - surely a few crackdowns here and there would help to seriously free up traffic
2. When stuck in bumper to bumper car traffic, how is it possible for any motorist to direct the majority of their frustration towards cyclists? Poor driver behaviour has an exponentially bigger effect on traffic congestion than any number of bikes on the road.

On a slightly separate note, for those who think that these FPNs are the greatest thing since sliced bread and that cyclists are the number 1 hazard on the road i would ask the following questions

• Do you think that driving and traffic offences are adequately policed at present?
• Do you think that AGS are sufficiently resourced to police these cycling offences adequately?
• If not, do you think that AGS resources should be diverted from elsewhere to combat poor cycling behaviour?
• If AGS were to receive extra resources to manage traffic, do you think that poor cycling behaviour should be their highest priority?

If you answered yes to any of these, I'd be really interested in hearing your logic.

lgk

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

But even undertaking in a car is illegal here. It's legal in Germany so you expect it and look out for it. Here it's illegal so drivers don't expect it.

Ah, it's perfectly legal here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html

kazamo

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Of course it will be. The most we can hope for is that the most egregious offenders (cyclists speeding through pedestrian areas or pedestrian crossings) will be more likely to be stopped when the relevant Garda will have less paperwork and no threat of a trip to court. Gardai are undermanned and under resourced as it is and more dangerous traffic offences already subject to FPNs are not being policed adequately so why would it be any different with cyclists. I got stuck having to drive out of the city on Friday afternoon instead of cycling and I had two main thoughts.
1. Why do gardai not converge on places at rush hour where traffic offences are constant? The amount of cars sitting in junction boxes after the lights turned red, undertaking up bus lanes (I even saw one car following a squad car up a bus lane before trying to merge with traffic) and breaking red lights - surely a few crackdowns here and there would help to seriously free up traffic
2. When stuck in bumper to bumper car traffic, how is it possible for any motorist to direct the majority of their frustration towards cyclists? Poor driver behaviour has an exponentially bigger effect on traffic congestion than any number of bikes on the road.

On a slightly separate note, for those who think that these FPNs are the greatest thing since sliced bread and that cyclists are the number 1 hazard on the road i would ask the following questions

• Do you think that driving and traffic offences are adequately policed at present?
• Do you think that AGS are sufficiently resourced to police these cycling offences adequately?
• If not, do you think that AGS resources should be diverted from elsewhere to combat poor cycling behaviour?
• If AGS were to receive extra resources to manage traffic, do you think that poor cycling behaviour should be their highest priority?

If you answered yes to any of these, I'd be really interested in hearing your logic.

Cyclists are the number 1 hazard on footpaths imo.
So if they are enforced (which is highly unlikely) I do consider them as a great thing.

Having been hit twice by cyclists on a footpath (and quite a few near misses), anything that reduces that possibility is a good thing.
And if a cyclist travels on a footpath at top speed, a FPN is a very light punishment for such crass stupidity.

Re resources of AGS to police road behaviour.
My own view is that if money wasn't an issue and all resources needed to police road offences was made available, cycling bad behaviour would still be largely unpunished as it's not seen as an offence because no one is killed. I have personal experience of that attitude.

mcgratheoin

kazamo wrote: »

Having been hit twice by cyclists on a footpath (and quite a few near misses), anything that reduces that possibility is a good thing.

What did AGS say when you reported it?

RainyDay

kazamo wrote: »

Cyclists are the number 1 hazard on footpaths imo.

kazamo

You can be a hazard without actually killing someone.

Decuc500

What has that stat got to do with cycling on footpaths? Children killed on roads...

Tenzor07

kazamo wrote: »

Cyclists are the number 1 hazard on footpaths imo.

A slight exaggeration! :rolleyes:

kazamo

mcgratheoin wrote: »

What did AGS say when you reported it?

When I left hospital after the second collision and went to the local garda station, I was asked first of all if I had any witnesses.
I said I was more concerned with the pain in my head after being knocked backwards and the back of my head hitting a wall. Didn't know if anyone would be reporting it

And I will quote the response "well reporting this would be a waste of your time and of my time so we will leave it at that"

kazamo

Tenzor07 wrote: »

A slight exaggeration! :rolleyes:

And the bigger hazard on footpaths would be ?

petethedrummer

kazamo wrote: »

And the bigger hazard on footpaths would be ?

For me it's my blood alcohol level.

tomasrojo

kazamo wrote: »

And the bigger hazard on footpaths would be ?

Depends what you mean by "bigger". You're probably most likely to be injured, albeit trivially, by other pedestrians, just because of the sheer number of them. You're more likely to be struck by a person on a bicycle than by a car or motorbike, because it's more common for them to use the footpath, but you're more likely to be significantly injured, seriously injured or killed by someone on a motorbike or in a car.

Unbelievably, or maybe all too believably, motorbikes and cars do kill a fair number of people on footpaths.

Tenzor07

kazamo wrote: »

And the bigger hazard on footpaths would be ?

Ok, going OT here but:

To pick one instance, last week around 5pm, a lad on a Moto-X bike hammering along the footpath along the side of a housing estate by the main road at full throttle!.. Get hit by him and if you're dead or seriously injured.

(Unlicensed Quad and Moto-X bikes are an epidemic around Dublin(and outside) housing estates, Gardai don't chase them because they can't catch them so don't bother, and can't identify the motorcyclist due to the helmets.)

mcgratheoin

Decuc500 wrote: »

What has that stat got to do with cycling on footpaths? Children killed on roads...

I think he's pointing out how low down in the list of road safety priorities cycling offences can be listed. I don't want to get into a round of whataboutery, but we have to be realistic about the aims and outcomes of specific pieces of legislation and specific actions. In this case, while the vast majority of people welcome FPNs for cyclists and condemn poor behaviour, it is irresponsible to suggest that cycling on footpaths, breaking red lights, cycling without lights or any other abhorrent behaviour is as dangerous or as reckless as equivalent behaviour in motor vehicles. If the government truly want to crack down on poor cycling behaviour without addressing the greater dangers then they have their priorities completely wrong. So the question then becomes what are these FPNs being introduced for? I may be cynical, but it smells to me of an easy piece of legislation that can be held up during the next general election as an "achievement" by the existing government in the area of road safety.

Apropos of this, there is an insidious narrative, promulgated by the Finian McGrath and George Hook types, that cyclists are criminals, irresponsible and a menace to society, when cyclists are in fact amongst the most vulnerable of road users. These commentators suggest that FPNs for cyclists should be uppermost in the minds of AGS, allowing drivers to continue along their merry way unaccosted. This narrative seeks to create and promote a division amongst all road users that increases the dangers for all road users.


@kazamo - did you seriously say that to a Garda? :rolleyes: Turning up in a garda station and providing a sarcastic answer to their first question is hardly the best way to go about things. A call logged with Trafficwatch is usually the first option. I would imagine if a bike knocked you into a wall necessitating a trip to hospital/possible concussion that it should be taken more seriously than that. I definitely would have demanded a more satisfactory response. Having said that, the last time I was knocked down, I was so shaken I never even thought of gathering details etc.

monument

Decuc500 wrote: »

What has that stat got to do with cycling on footpaths? Children killed on roads...

There's a number of cases where people have been killed while on footpaths when cars mount the footpath.

tomasrojo

Some of the "road" stats for children include children killed by cars in driveways, including their own driveways. So I've been told anyway by a hospital librarian. Don't know of any primary source for this.