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

rubadub

tomasrojo wrote: »

The remarkable thing is he's sold 80 million albums

Some artists attract more law abiding fans who actually buy stuff. I figured thats why Enya managed to sell so many. They probably don't even jump red lights.

tomasrojo

Roger Whittaker was one that always fascinated me. Very consistent, multi-multi-million seller.

galwaycyclist

CramCycle wrote: »

I presume if you dismount and walk along the pavement you are OK?

Here is what it says in the traffic regulations

Rules for Pedestrians


46. (1) A pedestrian shall exercise care and take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians.


(2) A pedestrian facing a traffic light lamp which shows a red light shall not proceed beyond that light.

(2) A pedestrian facing a traffic light lamp which shows a red light shall not proceed to cross the roadway.”,

(3) A pedestrian about to cross a roadway at a place where traffic sign number RPC 003 or RPC 004 [pedestrian lights] has been provided shall do so only when a lamp of the facing pedestrian lights is lit and emits a constant green light.


(4) Subject to sub-article (5), save when crossing the roadway, a pedestrian shall use a footway if one is provided, and if one is not provided, shall keep as near as possible to the right edge of the roadway.


(5) At a road junction where traffic is controlled either by traffic lights or by a member of the Garda Síochána, a pedestrian shall cross the roadway only when traffic going in the direction in which the pedestrian intends to cross is permitted (by the lights or the member) to proceed.


(6) Within a pedestrian crossing complex [traffic sign number RPC 002] a pedestrian shall only cross the roadway at the location of traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing].


(7) On a roadway on which a traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing] has been provided, a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing, except by the crossing.


(8) For the purposes of this article, each carriageway of a dual carriageway shall be deemed to be a separate roadway, and where there is a traffic refuge on a roadway the portion of the roadway on each side of the refuge shall be deemed to be a separate roadway.

So, in my reading, if there is no pedestrian crossing, then pedestrians work off the same traffic signals as everyone else.

EDIT: You could argue that the situation where the pedestrian is turning left would not seem to be covered by this, since it only seems to apply where a roadway is being crossed. So being on the pavement might come under this. This was updated under SI 212/2012 to make it clear that a pedestrian may not pass a red light to cross a road. So turning left on the path looks ok.

But it seems to me, if you were dismounting at a red light and pushing your bike past a red light protecting a pedestrian crossing with a green light, then you would arguably be interfering with the lawful use of the crossing by people who want to cross your path.

I am not a lawyer.

galwaycyclist

While we are considering "rogue behaviour" and looking at what it says in the traffic regulations

It has this for pedestrians.

46. (1) A pedestrian shall exercise care and take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians.

Funnily enough, after a very quick scan, I can find no similar general statement directed at drivers - there are occasional references to not performing particular manouevres in way that cause inconvenience or danger.

However, the Irish traffic regulations do not appear to state any general duty on Irish drivers - does that strike anyone else as a bit strange?

(The roads acts do state a general duty on road users to avoid injury and damage to property)

It also seems that the regulations on parking contain do not appear to contain any specific prohibition on obstructing the movement of pedestrians only for blocking "traffic". (and traffic does not include pedestrians)

buffalo

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Does anyone here have examples of traffic lights that will not change for someone on a bicycle? There is a series of junctions in Galway that have been designed in a way that means they cannot detect, or change for, cyclists. There are other junctions where there are sensor loops but they dont pick up bikes. In both situations the lights will only change if a car etc comes along that happens to be going the same direction.

Anyone have similar examples from other towns?

I got one today at Whitehall Road near the KCR - the northern end coming to the T with Kimmage Road West. Sat through a few minutes of red, then a pedestrian pushed the button for the crossing - they got the green man (all other lights red), and then it went green for Kimmage Road West again.

Had to get the car behind me to move up onto the sensor. I had been jumping up and down on my bike on it, but no joy.

Terry5135

I've used the title of an Irish Times article from two weeks ago as the title of this thread, since I can't post links yet. I recommend looking it up if you haven't seen it. The piece was written by Conor Lally.

Apologies if the thread already exists. I'm dizzy from the multitudes of threads at this site and I'm still very unfamiliar with navigating around, etc.

The possibility of a 2,000 euro fine for being egregiously disobedient to the forces of law and order (and, I'm sure, for being too uppity to our masters) is ridiculous in the extreme and I hope not enforced - but once laws are there, and the following of them is whim, you can be sure the time will come.

But if you're honest to cops and such, it's not too too draconian. I still would think a propaganda campaign, such as presented to car drivers, would be a much better approach to the subject. It might take a generation, but it can be very effective. Of course, it costs AND doesn't bring in money.

I grew up with that sort of educative media programming. Especially when very young, I was bombarded with it, mostly in schools. And it does no harm. I'll come back to this in a second, but first the list of fine-able offenses:

Offences now the subject of €40 fines are:
1. Cyclist driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration.
2. No front lamp or rear lamp lit during lighting-up hours on a pedal cycle.
3. Cyclist proceeding into a pedestrianised street or area.
4 . Cyclist proceeding past traffic lights when the red lamp is illuminated.
5. Cyclist proceeding past cycle traffic lights when red lamp is lit.
6. Cyclist failing to stop for a School Warden sign.
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.

Now, what astonishes me about that is that there is nothing there about cycling two (or more) abreast. I can't imagine anything more hazardous to the cyclist him/herself or, indirectly, to car drivers in regard to cyclists.

What also astonishes me in the propaganda put out for drivers (I'm glad, btw, after years of speed being the only thing the witless could think of, that finally commercials are focusing on other very important things for drivers, like distance from cars in front, sight lines, etc) is that cyclists riding two or three abreast is something car drivers should be careful of, yet not a word about the nitwits doing it.

Especially on narrow country roads in rural areas, where often in Ireland, sight lines are a disaster because of the Irish compulsion to banish all light from their properties. And especially at curves. I often wonder if the nincompoops cycling thus have any concept of how incredibly dangerous it is.

Nonetheless, for all that, I'm still opposed to the draconian incentives put into law, even the relatively small fines. Education would do a far better job for all concerned.

kenmc

steady, you're 5 hours premature

CheGuedara

Cycling two abreast is perfectly legal [S.I. No. 294/1964 - Road Traffic General Bye-Laws, 1964]. Cycling three abreast is legal in the context of it being transient while one rider overtaking two or two overtaking one.

When riding two abreast on small/narrow/winding country roads the greatest hazard is indeed motorists travelling too fast for the road and outside of their required ability to stop within the distance they can see to be clear.

jjpep

There's a number of very good reasons for cyclists to go two abreast, or ride in the centre of a lane etc at different times in different circumstances.

If you have a quick flick through any if the multitude of driver vs cyclists threads you'll find some detailed explanations.

ted1

Cycling 2 a Breast cyclists still take up less width than a car.

There's plenty of times when's it safer to go 2 a breast and plenty of times when it's not safer.

Driving a car and not feeling confident around other road users is not safe.

brianomc

If you cant see 2 cyclists side by side going around a bend then you aren't going to see 1 by him/herself.
If you don't have time to react to those 2 cyclists then you were going too fast for the road conditions and if the road is as narrow as you say then you have probably knocked the single cyclist off their bike potentially killing them.
It doesn't even have to be a cyclist, it could be a family walking from the relatives house down the road, a farmer with some livestock, etc

roverrules

CheGuedara wrote: »

Cycling two abreast is perfectly legal [S.I. No. 294/1964 - Road Traffic General Bye-Laws, 1964]. Cycling three abreast is legal in the context of it being transient while one rider overtaking two or two overtaking one.

When riding two abreast on small/narrow/winding country roads the greatest hazard is indeed motorists travelling too fast for the road and outside of their required ability to stop within the distance they can see to be clear.

Not so sure about 2 overtaking 1, I thought overtaking cyclists were supposed to be single file?

(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.

CramCycle

Terry5135 wrote: »

I've used the title of an Irish Times article from two weeks ago as the title of this thread, since I can't post links yet. I recommend looking it up if you haven't seen it. The piece was written by Conor Lally.

MOD VOICE: Threads merged

Shep_Dog

roverrules wrote: »

Not so sure about 2 overtaking 1, I thought overtaking cyclists were supposed to be single file?

'Other traffic' would be slow-moving vehicles, such as tractors or even parked cars. The regulations for passing other cyclists have already been quoted in an earlier post. Three abreast is spcificly permitted, temorarily, if the cyclist on the outside is passing two other cyclists.

if it is to be held that cycling two abreast is an inconsiderate use of roadspace and incoveniences others, then, the same logic would have to apply to cars parked on a roadway.

Tony EH

Is there anything in law about cars overtaking bicycles who are overtaking a car/other vehicle?

I experience this with lamentable regularity and to my mind it's one of the most dangerous things I see motorists doing.

CramCycle

Tony EH wrote: »

Is there anything in law about cars overtaking bicycles who are overtaking a car/other vehicle?

I experience this with lamentable regularity and to my mind it's one of the most dangerous things I see motorists doing.

If nothing else its dangerous driving. Not sure if it needs more specificity than that. I often get people (motorists and cyclists) pulling out while I am mid overtake to do it themselves. First of all, FFS, look behind you or use your mirror, secondly, look be-Fin-hind you.

Terry5135

CheGuedara wrote: »

Cycling two abreast is perfectly legal [S.I. No. 294/1964 - Road Traffic General Bye-Laws, 1964].

So what? Is this a law handed down from God through Moses? This is a non argument, it can still be idiotic.

Currently, in Co. Wicklow, the speed limit on the old N11 is 80 mph. And yet, on narrow winding side roads all around Wicklow and Wexford, with hedges and walls high and often to the edge of the road, the speed limit is 80 mph. And yet, the old N11 is far wider, usually has a hard shoulder, far straighter, and has sightlines that are vastly better. So it's very simple, either the speed on the old N11 is way too slow or the speed on most country roads is way too high. The latter, imo. But either way, these are legal speeds.

Please don't quote the law. Especially selectively, especially when it suits your bias.

Cycling three abreast is legal in the context of it being transient while one rider overtaking two or two overtaking one.

Please, I've come upon cycling groups that in part could be 3 or even 4 abreast and no one was passing anyone. It's suicidal. You can put that on a headstone - he was killed, but he was right, so sod the car driver.

When riding two abreast on small/narrow/winding country roads the greatest hazard is indeed motorists travelling too fast for the road and outside of their required ability to stop within the distance they can see to be clear.

This is a false dichotomy and a logical fallacy. Perhaps the greatest hazard is motorists, perhaps not. I don't care for this discussion. It's not an either/or.

I do happen to agree with you. As for required ability to stop within a distance that can be seen to be clear, well, that's ideal, but once in a while, it's just plain impossible. If you were a driver in the countryside, you'd realize this. But generally, yes, you are right. It's still irrelevant to the point.

Tony EH

CramCycle wrote: »

If nothing else its dangerous driving. Not sure if it needs more specificity than that. I often get people (motorists and cyclists) pulling out while I am mid overtake to do it themselves. First of all, FFS, look behind you or use your mirror, secondly, look be-Fin-hind you.

A taxi nearly bashed into me today on the way home doing that.

I swear it's getting more and more dangerous.

Lumen

Terry5135 wrote: »

As for required ability to stop within a distance that can be seen to be clear, well, that's ideal, but once in a while, it's just plain impossible. If you were a driver in the countryside, you'd realize this.

Nonsense. I've driven all over the place and never had to break the rule, which is properly suffixed with "and likely to remain so".

CramCycle

Terry5135 wrote: »

So what? Is this a law handed down from God through Moses? This is a non argument, it can still be idiotic.

Currently, in Co. Wicklow, the speed limit on the old N11 is 80 mph. And yet, on narrow winding side roads all around Wicklow and Wexford, with hedges and walls high and often to the edge of the road, the speed limit is 80 mph. And yet, the old N11 is far wider, usually has a hard shoulder, far straighter, and has sightlines that are vastly better. So it's very simple, either the speed on the old N11 is way too slow or the speed on most country roads is way too high. The latter, imo. But either way, these are legal speeds.

Please don't quote the law. Especially selectively, especially when it suits your bias.

Its a limit not a target, if you ever drive a motor vehicle please try and remember that.

Please, I've come upon cycling groups that in part could be 3 or even 4 abreast and no one was passing anyone. It's suicidal. You can put that on a headstone - he was killed, but he was right, so sod the car driver.

3 or 4 abreast is illegal and you will find no one advocating it here.

This is a false dichotomy and a logical fallacy. Perhaps the greatest hazard is motorists, perhaps not. I don't care for this discussion. It's not an either/or.

I do happen to agree with you. As for required ability to stop within a distance that can be seen to be clear, well, that's ideal, but once in a while, it's just plain impossible. If you were a driver in the countryside, you'd realize this. But generally, yes, you are right. It's still irrelevant to the point.

Not an ideal, but a simple basis for safe driving, and far from impossible. If you find it impossible it might be time to switch to walking, lifts and public transport only.

Eamonnator

@Terry5135
I think you might be confusing mph and kph.

If you drive at 80kph in an 80kph zone, you are not breaking the speed limit,
however, it does not necessarily mean, you are not driving dangerously.

Terry5135

jjpep wrote: »

There's a number of very good reasons for cyclists to go two abreast, or ride in the centre of a lane etc at different times in different circumstances.

Of course there are. So what?

ted1 wrote: »

Cycling 2 a Breast cyclists still take up less width than a car.

Well, of course. But there's a vast difference between the one getting tapped in the rear than for the other.

Driving a car and not feeling confident around other road users is not safe.

That's very helpful. Personally, I'm quite confident. And I haven't run down a cyclist for at least a month now.

brianomc wrote: »

If you don't have time to react to those 2 cyclists then you were going too fast for the road conditions and if the road is as narrow as you say then you have probably knocked the single cyclist off their bike potentially killing them.

That last bit doesn't follow. The first bit is true enough. That will comfort you no doubt as you lie in traction.

The bit above for those who don't have humour, about running down a cyclist, was a joke. In fact, in my life, I have done extensive cycling AND driving.

Part of the problem in this branch of the forum and with cyclists in general is this attitude of "us and them". A lot of this thread reeks of it. It makes it difficult to carry on a rational discussion. Too many false dichotomies, too many either/or's, too many irrelevancies.

Mainly I thought people would be interested in discussing the new laws regarding fines. Personally, I think they are somewhat ridiculous and would side with cyclists who felt that way - without, in an attempt to preempt the predictable come backs, being absolute about it.

coolbeans

With all your talk of logical fallacies and dichotomies etc your own bias is matched only by your ability to condescend. Quite amusing really. Happens a lot on this forum though. Someone'll learn you... l hope

tomasrojo

Terry5135 wrote: »

Part of the problem in this branch of the forum and with cyclists in general is this attitude of "us and them". A lot of this thread reeks of it. It makes it difficult to carry on a rational discussion. Too many false dichotomies, too many either/or's, too many irrelevancies.

And then you came along, bimodal Jesus.

CramCycle

Terry5135 wrote: »

Part of the problem in this branch of the forum and with cyclists in general is this attitude of "us and them". A lot of this thread reeks of it. It makes it difficult to carry on a rational discussion. Too many false dichotomies, too many either/or's, too many irrelevancies.

There is no us and them, most cyclists and motorists never even consider thinking that way. The only person in recent pages with that opinion would seem to be yourself.

My advice, follow the rules, don't be a dick, and leave early so you don't get annoyed over non issues.

Terry5135

CramCycle wrote: »

Its a limit not a target, if you ever drive a motor vehicle please try and remember that.

Oh, I'll do my best. Speaking as a driver who does drive according to conditions and often have cars with ants in their pants coming up my arse.

3 or 4 abreast is illegal and you will find no one advocating it here.

Actually, there were several here who, while not specifically advocating 3 abreast, obfuscated the question with irrelevances about the legal legitimacy of passing two abreast. Let's not parse words, people paint pictures.

Not an ideal, but a simple basis for safe driving, and far from impossible. If you find it impossible it might be time to switch to walking, lifts and public transport only.

You're rather insulting. I ignored it in the first sentence, but now you're getting ridiculous.

My point had to do with cycling, not with driving. But nice job hijacking the subject of my own post(s) and creating a very specious false dichotomy.

It's obvious that cyclists are simply pig headed and hate motorists. Fine, I've said several times that I agree about motorists. To be more explicit, there are a lot of dangerous motorists out there.

All the more reason to avoid cycling two abreast. The reason it's a law in other countries is for the cyclist safety, not cyclist stifling.

This is culture clash. Had you been raised in a different mindset, my point about cycling two abreast would be obvious. But it's not, so it goes. But please, continue to be glib, righteous, and smart arsed. It's your arse out there on the road against two tonnes of steel. Good luck standing on your rights in that reality.

Terry5135

Eamonnator wrote: »

@Terry5135
I think you might be confusing mph and kph.

If you drive at 80kph in an 80kph zone, you are not breaking the speed limit,
however, it does not necessarily mean, you are not driving dangerously.

That was my point, albeit the inverse of it. I agree - I would equally agree without the 'not'.

Terry5135

coolbeans wrote: »

With all your talk of logical fallacies and dichotomies etc your own bias is matched only by your ability to condescend.

Yes, that's true.

Terry5135

tomasrojo wrote: »

And then you came along, bimodal Jesus.

Aren't you lucky, then.

Terry5135

CramCycle wrote: »

There is no us and them, most cyclists and motorists never even consider thinking that way. The only person in recent pages with that opinion would seem to be yourself.

Actually, a lot of cyclists think that way. Not on pages, perhaps, but on the road.