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

Pinch Flat

Just picked up the news on newstalk, hooks employer.

They had some Garda sergeant on explaining that cycling is "out of control" and that this new regime is to clamp down on cyclists who are a danger to motorists and pedestrians (in that order).

Can any one link me to an article or study where a cyclist killed a motorist? Hopefully this new regime will prevent us crashing through their reinforced crash zones and killing the poor motorist

Buchaill_Mor

Pinch Flat wrote:

They had some Garda sergeant on explaining that cycling is "ou of control" and that this new regime is to clamp down on cyclists who are a danger to motorists and pedestrians (in that order).

This worries me a lot. If the Guard top brass are anti cyclists, will they be using the joker in the deck for the fixed penalty notices of undue care??

Pinch Flat

Buchaill_Mor wrote: »

This worries me a lot. If the Guard top brass are anti cyclists, will they be using the joker in the deck for the fixed penalty notices of undue care??

It'll be interesting to see how it pans out. My own experience in Dublin is that there's almost zero enforcement - so the north and South quays, both 30kph zones, are ignored when it comes to speed limits bring an example.

I'll expect the usual knee jerk policing - there'll be a clamp down in the next few weeks, then the guards will be posting statistics like "x amount if cycling fpns handed out". It'll delight the likes of hook and that other clown on the journal, but will fizzle out after that.

rp

Pinch Flat wrote: »

My own experience in Dublin is that there's almost zero enforcement - so the north and South quays, both 30kph zones, are ignored when it comes to speed limits bring an example.

Bachelor's walk in the mornings I'd often be doing c. 46kph, depending upon conditions, and I'll regularly be passed-out by cars, buses and taxis who'd have to be going about 60kph to manage that. What is it the Guards are saying when challenged about non-enforcement of motoring offences? "The city has to function"

HivemindXX

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Can any one link me to an article or study where a cyclist killed a motorist? Hopefully this new regime will prevent us crashing through their reinforced crash zones and killing the poor motorist

You are missing the point. See when a motorist hits and kills a pedestrian or a cyclist the real victim is the motorist. They have to live with the "guilt" for the rest of their lives whereas the lucky corpse never has to worry about it again.

To be honest I expect journalists to be cretins, or at least to pretend they are to appeal to their readers but I find it very worrying how many guards and judges seem to honestly think that the real dangers on the roads come from pedestrians and cyclists. It takes a specially warped lens to think that in light of the facts.

Note at the same time they are blaming cyclists and pedestrians they are also excusing motorists. I read a recent news story about a guy who was speeding and went through a red light with the result that a pedestrian on the footpath was killed who was given a fine. The judge said that "everyone makes mistakes" and "we are not automatons".

I'm all in favour of these FPNs but I really wish they had left out the "due consideration" one. I'd be willing to bet that gob****es all around the country consider being on the road on a bicycle to be inconsiderate full stop. I can see them formulating their letters to the editor now asking when this will be used to stop those inconsiderate cyclists who slow down traffic by using the roads during the rush hour. I worry how many guards and judges are numbered amongst those idiots.

rp

HivemindXX wrote: »

I can see them formulating their letters to the editor now asking when this will be used to stop those inconsiderate cyclists who slow down traffic by using the roads during the rush hour.

I'm hoping I could use my Strava times vs. the Google Maps estimate for car journey times to prove I wasn't holding anybody up, as for my commute, cycling is the fasts mode of transport.

tomasrojo

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Just picked up the news on newstalk, hooks employer.

They had some Garda sergeant on explaining that cycling is "out of control" and that this new regime is to clamp down on cyclists who are a danger to motorists and pedestrians (in that order).

This has been the very unfortunate spin put on this new regime. All they had to say was: "We are changing the rules to streamline policing of common offences. Cyclists will be treated the same as motorists."

There was no reason to frame it as about a bunch of uppity scofflaws finally getting their comeuppance. The cycling bodies largely back the concept of FCNs, even if they don't like how they've been implemented so far.

tomasrojo

http://www.herald.ie/news/cyclists-want-clear-lanes-as-gardai-roll-out-new-40-fines-31419723.html

"The most dangerous thing is cycling through red lights, which we have seen in Dublin for the past number of years and which we're trying to raise awareness on, and will be one of the more serious offences," he told Newstalk radio.

[citation needed]

Buchaill_Mor

I have been thinking and one thing that strikes me is that a lot of the reasons drivers infractions are ignored is the "economic" argument. Well, should the cycling community not make their economic input felt? Should we have a month, say September, where we conduct NO personal economic activity in the city, except for the purchase of cycling stuff. No pubs, coffee shops, clothes, restaurants, papers, lunches, sandwiches, crisps, anything. That would make them see how much cyclists contributed to the city's economy. I said September because the holidays will be over so a dip could not be explained away by people just not being about. It could be promoted to let the city know it is happening and frame it around the need for providing proper infrastructure. No cyclists, this is the cost.

ozzy jr

From what I could see after this mornings cycle, it's "as you were". I stop at red lights as per normal and the people that have always gone through red lights continued to do so.

The only problem I encountered was having to leave a cycle lane due to a parked Garda car

Pinch Flat

tomasrojo wrote: »

This has been the very unfortunate spin put on this new regime. All they had to say was: "We are changing the rules to streamline policing of common offences. Cyclists will be treated the same as motorists."

There was no reason to frame it as about a bunch of uppity scofflaws finally getting their comeuppance. The cycling bodies largely back the concept of FCNs, even if they don't like how they've been implemented so far.

The intro on newstalk mentioned 7 new offence for cyclists, which is totally incorrect. It also gives the spin to the anti cyclist motorist setting behind their steering wheels that cyclists have gotten off scot free up to now - it's just extracting the find is easier, not new offences

Tenzor07

ozzy jr wrote: »

The only problem I encountered was having to leave a cycle lane due to a parked Garda car

Were they gonna drop the coffee and doughnuts to go chasing any errant cyclists around Merrion square?

Weepsie

Was passed by a Garda car heading towards Clonsskeagh and they didn't bother to do anything about the 3 blatantly illegally parked cars they passed. Its's going to come down to very much to what sort of mood a Garda is in I feel. There are those who love the rush of power, and those who apply common sense and probably wish they were out and about dealing with bigger crimes.

I support the FPN, but I honestly think that they will be quite unbalanced in their approach for some time. The dozens and dozens of drivers I see on phones, the handful I see speed up on amber and the pedestrians who step out into traffic need as much media attention.

HivemindXX

tomasrojo wrote: »

http://www.herald.ie/news/cyclists-want-clear-lanes-as-gardai-roll-out-new-40-fines-31419723.html

[citation needed]

We are supposed to believe that going through red lights is both extremely frequent (which it kind of is) and also very dangerous. This is written as self evident. Yet somehow the amount of deaths and injuries as a result seem very low. Even if every cyclist fatality in the country was a result of a cyclist breaking a red light it wouldn't be very dangerous in the big scheme of things. However I'm not aware of any incidents like this, most fatalities seem to be on the open road or as a result of left turning vehicles at lights which are green.

Went for a cycle through the city, noticed no reduction in the number of red light jumpers.

buffalo

Tenzor07 wrote: »

If ever there was a more inflammatory gutter journalism at it's best, George Hook style article, then this is it!

http://jrnl.ie/2246289

every senior civil servant and county manager involved in roads policy likes to cycle in to work from the leafy inner suburbs of Dublin.

hahahahaha! :pac: I presume this article is a piece of Myles na gCopaleen-style satire at its very finest?

tomasrojo

HivemindXX wrote: »

We are supposed to believe that going through red lights is both extremely frequent (which it kind of is) and also very dangerous. This is written as self evident. Yet somehow the amount of deaths and injuries as a result seem very low. Even if every cyclist fatality in the country was a result of a cyclist breaking a red light it wouldn't be very dangerous in the big scheme of things. However I'm not aware of any incidents like this, most fatalities seem to be on the open road or as a result of left turning vehicles at lights which are green.

Yes, in terms of injuries where the person on the bike would be partially or totally to blame, salmoning would be higher up the list. Dooring is probably the biggest cause for which little or no blame attaches to the cyclist. For serious outcomes, left hooks top the list, I think.

All the same, red-light jumping does set my teeth on edge.

Leroy42

What a strange article. He basically says that car owners pat large amounts of tax and therefore deserve to retain their place on the roads (I agree with this thinking) and this constant move towards removing the car in favour of the bicycle is crazy.

He then ends the article by saying that since Dublin is getting bigger but we can increase the road space the best answer is a congestion charge in the city centre (so instead of blocking all cars from the city centre only block those of us you can't afford to pay for it!)

tomasrojo

Leroy42 wrote: »

What a strange article. He basically says that car owners pat large amounts of tax and therefore deserve to retain their place on the roads (I agree with this thinking) and this constant move towards removing the car in favour of the bicycle is crazy.

He then ends the article by saying that since Dublin is getting bigger but we can increase the road space the best answer is a congestion charge in the city centre (so instead of blocking all cars from the city centre only block those of us you can't afford to pay for it!)

He's right that people who use cars pay a lot of tax, but more revenue is lost through costs and negative externalities on them than they pay out, so they are actually subsidised.

Despite this, I support their continuing right to use the road. But not to use city centres as a through road, or as a giant open-air parking lot.

Grandpa Hassan

HivemindXX wrote: »

We are supposed to believe that going through red lights is both extremely frequent (which it kind of is) and also very dangerous. This is written as self evident. Yet somehow the amount of deaths and injuries as a result seem very low. Even if every cyclist fatality in the country was a result of a cyclist breaking a red light it wouldn't be very dangerous in the big scheme of things. However I'm not aware of any incidents like this, most fatalities seem to be on the open road or as a result of left turning vehicles at lights which are green.

There was research posted earlier in the thread from London saying that only 2% of serious accidents involving cyclists are caused by cyclists running red lights. It's a complete non-issue...just disproportionally irritates drivers because they are stuck in a queue

Deedsie

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

There was research posted earlier in the thread from London saying that only 2% of serious accidents involving cyclists are caused by cyclists running red lights. It's a complete non-issue...just disproportionally irritates drivers because they are stuck in a queue

It also irritates some other cyclists and pedestrians.

fat bloke

What's the legal situation then with the old "dismount, walk past the light, remount and pedal away merrily" trick?
The fines are for cyclists, not pedestrians pushing bicycles, after all.

doolox

...at least if two walking cyclists crash into each other there will be very little damage done. Its when two cyclists crash into each other at 40-50 kph because one has run a red light that the trouble begins.

On hills I have seen some cyclists break 50kph speed limits esp at the Strawberry beds and South of Castleknock where the roads are narrow and twisty and these high speed "stealth" cyclists are often difficult to spot.

I also hate the ones who undertake on the left of stopped cars in heavy traffic at high speed making constant vigilance of the left hand rearview mirror compulsory for already overloaded drivers.

cdaly_

doolox wrote: »

On hills I have seen some cyclists break 50kph speed limits esp at the Strawberry beds and South of Castleknock where the roads are narrow and twisty and these high speed "stealth" cyclists are often difficult to spot.

Speed limits do not apply to bicycles.

I also hate the ones who undertake on the left of stopped cars in heavy traffic at high speed making constant vigilance of the left hand rearview mirror compulsory for already overloaded drivers.

Also legal.

Grandpa Hassan

Deedsie wrote: »

It also irritates some other cyclists and pedestrians.

Exactly. It's an irritation. Not a danger. And the stats prove that

Zyzz

doolox wrote: »

...at least if two walking cyclists crash into each other there will be very little damage done. Its when two cyclists crash into each other at 40-50 kph because one has run a red light that the trouble begins.

On hills I have seen some cyclists break 50kph speed limits esp at the Strawberry beds and South of Castleknock where the roads are narrow and twisty and these high speed "stealth" cyclists are often difficult to spot.

I also hate the ones who undertake on the left of stopped cars in heavy traffic at high speed making constant vigilance of the left hand rearview mirror compulsory for already overloaded drivers.

Not possible at all.

GrumpyMe

Zyzz wrote: »

Not possible at all.

It appears it is possible...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_records

Eamonnator

GrumpyMe wrote: »

It appears it is possible...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_records

Speed limits still don't apply to pedal cyclists, no matter how fast they go.

GrumpyMe

Eamonnator wrote: »

Speed limits still don't apply to pedal cyclists, no matter how fast they go.

Well of course it wouldn't matter how fast they go if the speed limits didn't apply!

Lusk_Doyle

GrumpyMe wrote: »

Well of course it wouldn't matter how fast they go if the speed limits didn't apply!

Grumpy by name...!