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

Terry5135

cjt156 wrote: »

Perhaps if we all try to stick to the laws pertaining to our chosen mode of transport we won't all seem so pig headed and hateful.

Whatchya reckon? Now com'ere give us a hug!

Accepted and thanks for the hug. I certainly did not mean for that to be as offensive as it apparently was. My apologies for that.

Remember Dustin Hoffman's run in with a taxi in "Midnight Cowboy"? I've had those. I've stopped on foot in front of cars that were attempting, consciously or not, to bully me into hurrying along. I know the rules of the road. You can't start (in a car) from a stopped position at a corner to make a turn and run down a pedestrian. lol. It's against the law to murder people. I've seen others get into these body language arguments with drivers and I'm certainly as bad as any of them.

But then, remember a few years ago when there was such a road rage incident between a pedestrian and a driver and the driver did exactly that? That is, he just murdered the pedestrian. It was really shocking for me.

About 35 years ago, I was on a motorbike and while making a right turn on a boulevard with a few lanes turning right, and I made a poor turn, drifting outside my own lane. A car came up fast from behind, also turning right, and nearly broadsided me with a side swipe. At the next light, I pulled up next to him and said, 'you nearly killed me back there'. His response, 'I was in my lane'. I couldn't believe my ears. I said, 'Yes, you were, and I made a poor turn and was in the wrong. That makes it ok to run over me?'

About 10 years later, I was driving. From Ranelagh to Rathmines, incidentally. A car was parked on the far side of the street where there really wasn't room for a parked car. A bus was coming from the opposite direction, about equidistant from the car. Normally, for good manners, I would defer passage to the oncoming car. But I could see that the bus was not hesitating, that he, in my projection, was using the mighty muscle of bus steel to bully his way ahead of me, even though, strictly speaking, the car was in HIS lane, not mine. So I accelerated to get there first (it was still pretty slow, we were both well within speed limits) and we both had to stop. He rolled down his window, so I did mine, fully expecting him to give out. But he didn't. He very calmly asked me, almost deadpan, as though quietly concerned for me, "Are you trying to commit suicide?" I had to laugh, at me, at the situation. It was priceless. I said back to him, "You have a point there, no question," and then laughed again.

It was not a serious incident. There was no road rage on anyone's part. But the incongruity of it all that made me laugh was, in part, he was right of course, what good do my legal rights do me if I'm dead (to exaggerate the consequences).

In actuality, I drive extremely carefully around cyclists. I always have. I despise drivers who fly by cyclists within inches, regardless of whether those drivers are within their rights, within the limit, within their lane. I'm very well aware of poorly thought out limits (and they are) and of how holes or fissures in a poorly kept road can cause a cyclist to suddenly swerve, momentarily out of control, or worse, actually take a spill. I know all the glib answers about keeping concentration, about watching the road, etc, etc. I also know life and habit and routine and what that does to concentration. I give cyclists a much wider berth than is required. Much. And I virtually never pass a cyclist at the same time as a car is going to pass coming the other direction - on a highway, that is, or a two lane street.

I started to legally drive almost 50 years ago. I came here just over 35 years ago and spent a decade+ without a car. I cycled a lot, had two cycles stolen, and decided that for primary transportation, the weather here made cycling too difficult. (I'm sorry I stopped, actually - I'd be much healthier now if I hadn't.) When I took up driving again, I had to get an Irish license. (I'm an Irish citizen, too.) To do that, I took a block of 3 lessons from a very good driving instructor. I did that for a few reasons: a) to get practice with a manual transmission; b) to get the use of the car for the test; c) to become more familiar with a few counter intuitive differences in rules of the road; and d) to learn and practice starting from a stopped position on an up-slope in a manual transmission.

Once, when about to make a near turn, i.e., a left turn, the instructor asked me why I kept glancing at the left side mirror and over my shoulder. For cyclists suddenly appearing, I said. She didn't challenge the answer, she appeared to like it.

I had heard how strict the testers were. When I took the test, he took me around a corner and had me pull over on a fairly steep up-slope. Then after stopping, he said, ok, go ahead. But a cyclist was behind me. They don't talk, those testers, lol. So, without a word, I just waited for the cyclist to pass, to forestall any possible error that would have me rolling back. But as I waited, the cyclist was getting tired on the hill and going slower and slower. I waited and I waited, silence causing tension to build in me. Then the hill finally defeated the cyclist entirely and he dismounted, to walk his cycle up. And I waited. Finally, uncomfortable in the silence, I said, "I'm just waiting for the cyclist to clear." He just said, "As you should." Fine. But it was too late and when I finally was clear to go, I popped the clutch slightly and had the accelerator down too hard, so I squealed away from the curb and probably left a bit of rubber on the road. I was absolutely certain I'd failed at that point, so I then relaxed and started to gab, drive normally (ie, without too much conscious overthinking). He said nothing. I even made a right turn into a left lane which turned out to be a left turn only lane, so I quickly moved to the right, looking carefully and signally the whole way. But I didn't think he'd like that either.

As it turned out, he passed me. On the way in, he said, "I don't know why you're depressed, you passed the test." I was surprised, pointed out the terrible launch up the hill. He shrugged, "everyone gets nervous, makes mistakes, but it's obvious you know very well how to drive".

But it's obvious to me I'm not going to last here. The mods are over-moderating. And now I'm talking about them, which in their minds will be worse. There is no power worse than small power. I think they should have let things play out, see how it went. But really? An almost dead thread? How about a Greek conversation that started thousands of years ago?, lol. I've seen it with community organization and "voluntary" contributions - voluntary doesn't mean you can say no and they're worse than the government. I've seen rent allowance officers in 3 counties and they're much worse, in general with exceptions, than the national social protection officers. I'm too old to go to primary school. Especially with hall monitors who have a heavy hand to justify their existence. I don't much care for threats over minor infractions. It's rude. But in this era, it's world wide. My dogs would have been shot by cops ten times over in America, so I'm thankful I'm here.

I came because I kept getting notices in my mailbox which seemed very inviting. But no need to explain them. I also came because I saw the article about fines for cyclists. And because of the Greek situation. But it's clear I'm not going to last. So, I'll just hold my breath, carry on, and wait for the axe. It won't be long coming, I suspect.

Thanks for your post. And especially for the hug. :-)

Darkglasses

As you seem to be well aware - discussing moderation on thread is against the rules of the site. You've received an in-thread warning here already, either start following the rules or you will have your access removed.

Terry5135

Darkglasses wrote: »

As you seem to be well aware - discussing moderation on thread is against the rules of the site. You've received an in-thread warning here already, either start following the rules or you will have your access removed.

Sure, Darkglasses, no prob.

Terry5135

Buchaill_Mor wrote: »

I am waiting on the YouTube video of George Hook holding Roco the Courrier's handlebars while shouting at the top of his voice some guff about citizens arrest. As an aside , anyone else spot George Wednesday evening stopped in the pedestrian crossing outside the College of Surgeons residence in his Brown Mercedes E class waiting on traffic that had already cleared while eyeing up some young ladies, preventing pedestrians with buggies crossing at that point? Reckon that is a regular occourance.

Love that story. Good one. I don't think eyeing young ladies is especially germane, lol. Why smear a guy who so effectively and constantly smears himself.

tunney

Buchaill_Mor wrote: »

I am waiting on the YouTube video of George Hook holding Roco the Courrier's handlebars while shouting at the top of his voice some guff about citizens arrest.

Any person can arrest someone who they have reasonable cause is in the act of committing or has committed an "arrestable" offence, that is one punishable by more than 5 years in prison.[20] The arrest can only be effected if the arrestor has reasonable cause that the person will attempt to avoid apprehension by Gardaí and the arrestor delivers the person to Garda custody as soon as is practicable.

Thats just George committing a crime himself, possibly assault.

rubadub

http://www.independent.ie/life/matt-cooper-brands-george-hook-a-criminal-on-ireland-am-31349256.html

In an interview with Mark Cagney and Sinead Desmond, keen cyclist Matt came head-to-head with George, who said he “hates cyclists with a passion” and classed them all as “criminals”.

Matt was quick to interject, pointing out George’s previous traffic offences, stating:
“He [George] goes on about criminals, George, you’re the criminal. You’ve got a string of road traffic offence convictions.

“I found three last night when I was searching the internet over a short period of time. There was a Judge who said that you were close to being, what was the phrase that was used? A ‘serial traffic offender’ and you were in court a number of times for breaking the speed limit. Speed is the most dangerous thing on the road.”

Maybe George will turn himself in if he did get a bike on the BTW scheme. If he claims he's not using it then its tax fraud.

galwaycyclist

rubadub wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/life/matt-cooper-brands-george-hook-a-criminal-on-ireland-am-31349256.html


Maybe George will turn himself in if he did get a bike on the BTW scheme. If he claims he's not using it then its tax fraud.

I believe George maybe doing something on this issue on this evenings "Right Hook" show.

tomasrojo

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I believe George maybe doing something on this issue on this evenings "Right Hook" show.

He's in a hole ... spade in hand ... next stop, Australia! (His opinions are more mainstream there anyway.)

Eamonnator

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I believe George maybe doing something on this issue on this evenings "Right Hook" show.

Thanks for the warning.

Jawgap

......so it begins.

The poster for the FCNs seems to suggest hi-viz and helmets are compulsory

buffalo

That is a terrible quality poster.

Jawgap

I'm probably being dense, but what's the difference between 4 & 7?

samvimes

Are Helmets now to be enforced? I was under the impression that they were not required by law? I've been wondering how these penalty notices are to be applied to the likes of the Dublin bike scheme users

seamus

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm probably being dense, but what's the difference between 4 & 7?

Who in the actual fnck produced that poster?

4 & 7 are supposed to refer to breaking normal lights and breaking bike-only lights (such as on the grand canal), but someone decided to put their own interpretation on the poster.

I wonder if that was produced by someone trying to be a good helpful citizen rather than by the RSA or Gardai?

Jawgap

seamus wrote: »

Who in the actual fnck produced that poster?

4 & 7 are supposed to refer to breaking normal lights and breaking bike-only lights (such as on the grand canal), but someone decided to put their own interpretation on the poster.

I wonder if that was produced by someone trying to be a good helpful citizen rather than by the RSA or Gardai?

It popped upon the Garda Twitter feed

https://twitter.com/gardatraffic/status/623796681851674624

So I assume it's official.

Darkglasses

That is such a sh!te poster, gah.

Jawgap

What's not to like?

All the stereotypes are there - including the idea that you have to be in full Lycra to ride a bike!

Wouldn't have the same impact if it showed Mrs Miggins going to the pie shop on her high nelly in flowing skirts.

The image of the Lycra-lout must be seated into the public imagination

Alanstrainor

I was handed that flyer yesterday by gardai stopping all cyclists crossing the Samuel Beckett bridge yesterday at 5ish.

CramCycle

seamus wrote: »

Who in the actual fnck produced that poster?

I wonder if that was produced by someone trying to be a good helpful citizen rather than by the RSA or Gardai?

You can tell it was produced by the RSA for many reasons including but not limited too:
- factually incorrect
- no proofreading for errors
- over emphasis on helmets and hi vis
- not run by someone with knowledge of the legislation


It also has lance armstrong riding a poorly fitting and cheap MTB , all very confusing

mathie

It looks like a baboon shat it out on MS Paint.

rubadub

The "reasonable consideration" is the big worry. We have all heard stories of pig ignorant gardai stopping people in the past and asking where there helmets or hi viz is, thinking it was the law. Now these gardai will see this sign and think it is the case. But the "reasonable consideration" gives them a chance to save face, since when the cyclist says

"eh its not the law to have a helmet, can you please state the the law regarding helmets?"

-"don't get schmart with me bucko, because you have no helmet I don't think you are cycling with reasonable consideration so I am doing you for that"

It's like the incredible vague public order offence law that came in a few years back, which allowed them to do you for all sorts.

buffalo

CramCycle wrote: »

It also has lance armstrong riding a poorly fitting and cheap MTB , all very confusing

Judging by the Europcar shorts and yellow jersey, I'm going to challenge that it's Thomas Voeckler? Maybe the 2011 Tour?

traprunner

rubadub wrote: »

The "reasonable consideration" is the big worry. We have all heard stories of pig ignorant gardai stopping people in the past and asking where there helmets or hi viz is, thinking it was the law. Now these gardai will see this sign and think it is the case. But the "reasonable consideration" gives them a chance to save face, since when the cyclist says

"eh its not the law to have a helmet, can you please state the the law regarding helmets?"

-"don't get schmart with me bucko, because you have no helmet I don't think you are cycling with reasonable consideration so I am doing you for that"

It's like the incredible vague public order offence law that came in a few years back, which allowed them to do you for all sorts.

Yep, it's a catch all revenue stream.

Jawgap

traprunner wrote: »

Yep, it's a catch all revenue stream.

I seriously doubt this will be revenue generative.

lennymc

Jawgap wrote: »

I seriously doubt this will be revenue generative.

I seriously doubt it will be enforced

traprunner

Jawgap wrote: »

I seriously doubt this will be revenue generative.

€40 a pop. Guard sees a cyclist not using a bike lane even though it's full of pot holes...that could be classed as cycling without reasonable consideration.

tunney

traprunner wrote: »

€40 a pop. Guard sees a cyclist not using a bike lane even though it's full of pot holes...that could be classed as cycling without reasonable consideration.

No because there is no requirement to use them.

Presuming like FPN there will be an appeals process

Jawgap

traprunner wrote: »

€40 a pop. Guard sees a cyclist not using a bike lane even though it's full of pot holes...that could be classed as cycling without reasonable consideration.

Take from that €40 the cost of administering each fine, the cost of prosecuting the minority who decline to pay and the cost of following up on dodgers, etc

That's even before you look at the opportunity cost of having a Guard monitor a cycle lane.

It'll be periodically enforced, but it won't be a revenue stream for the Guards, I reckon most Guards will run a mile from having to routinely issue these tickets.

elfy4eva

traprunner wrote: »

€40 a pop. Guard sees a cyclist not using a bike lane even though it's full of pot holes...that could be classed as cycling without reasonable consideration.

Want to get back into cycling but this stuff is putting me right off.

Jawgap

lennymc wrote: »

I seriously doubt it will be enforced

I seriously doubt you're wrong.