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

morana

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

High-viz is only one aspect of safety. My argument does not hinge on that specific criteria alone, just as yours doesn't about specifically not wearing a seat belt alone. it is about road safety in general.

just get the motorists to pay more carbon tax for separate cycling infrastructure with no red lights etc. etc.!

CramCycle

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

But I never suggested it was entirely to blame, Im saying it is very likely a sizeable factor, which let's be honest, it is.

Actually my understanding is that increases in cyclists numbers reduce accidents caused due to interaction with other road users (regardless of whose fault it is) by both numbers and percentages of cyclists.

tomasrojo

So when there is an increase in cycling and pedestrian deaths, the national conversation moves around to "how can we get cyclists and pedestrians to wear more hiviz", not how can we make motorists obey speed limits. When a cycling death comes before a judge, the judge generally accepts the claim that the motorist couldn't have seen the cyclist, even if the cyclist is wearing hiviz. Judges are reluctant to take licences of repeat offenders if that offender claims (as they all do) that it would affect their livelihood. If a driver claims that they couldn't see a cyclist because the sun was in their eyes, that is also acceptable, even though you shouldn't be driving when you're blinded.

Cyclists not wearing hiviz are not breaking any laws. There is no need to catch and punish them. It is also very unlikely that mandatory hiviz is going to be brought in just after the expansion of the dublinbike share scheme and analagous implementations in other cities. Successive governments are quite keen to keep a very successful and useful scheme going. Reducing it to Australian levels of use is not something they'd contemplate.

Buchaill_Mor

Hi-viz only works if drivers are looking for you. Studies show that drivers have difficulty seeing cyclists, particularly if they are not expecting to see them. Drivers tend to look for other cars, not bikes, and high-viz makes no discernable difference to this. You can look up the studies yourself, they are available on line.
As far as I can see, the problem here is that politicians and an organization that has some consideration of cyclists, but is mainly focused on motorised traffic (RSA) and the law enforcement agencies have decided to fine cyclists that do not adhere to the rules of the road. I have no problem with that. The other problem is that they may also in the future, decide that hi-viz is the answer as it would be too expensive, inconvenient, and take too long to implement proper infrastructure, so the quick cheap, half assed, not really investigated solution is the way to go.
Instead of venting all the rage and hot air with no effect or outcome on boards, why not set up a lobby group, or join an existing one? They may not represent all your ideas, but we all got to start somewhere, and a strong lobby group is needed.

MayoAreMagic

CramCycle wrote: »

Actually my understanding is that increases in cyclists numbers reduce accidents caused due to interaction with other road users (regardless of whose fault it is) by both numbers and percentages of cyclists.

So how do you explain the increase in accidents on the road coinciding with the increase of cyclists? To be honest, I don't agree with the above at all, and that is from experience of being on the road. Cars overtake cyclists when they shouldn't, cyclists weave in and out of traffic and jump lights when they shouldn't, you cant sit there and try to claim that that is a safer environment, it simply isn't.

Orion

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, Gotham CC wear black.......

......or they could've been from Grim Reaper CC looking to harvest the souls of the unworthy.....

.....or they could've been two guys just out for a spin.

This was me heading out last Sunday. Who would sell irresponsible black gear like this? :pac:

Grandpa Hassan

There will never be fines handed out for not wearing high viz, or not wearing helmets. Not when there is a Dublin bike scheme in operation. Completely unworkable.

Neither will there ever be licensing / taxing of cyclists (been tried, and failed, in other cities).

All the legislation to deal with antisocial cyclists is already there. There are on the spot fines for breaking lights. You can be pulled over for cycling dangerously. And not having lights.

There is nothing in legislation that needs to change. All that is needed is for the Gardai to be on the street and take action. As a relatively sensible cyclist, I'd be in favour of this.

I would also favour on the spot fines (plus points) for drivers that run the red. Multiple cars go through the red at the top of Dawson street, for example, every time it changes (the worst are the taxis that come from the rank, and regularly just drive through the green man). I've never seen any of these guys get pulled over

MayoAreMagic

tomasrojo wrote: »

So when there is an increase in cycling and pedestrian deaths, the national conversation moves around to "how can we get cyclists and pedestrians to wear more hiviz", not how can we make motorists obey speed limits.

But they are making efforts to get motorists driving safer. They introduced penalty points, speed vans, etc. Why not try to improve performance on the side of the cyclists too? Surely enforcement on both sides is better than on just one? Of course they should wear clothes that make them more visible. How can that be a bad idea? This excuse of 'drivers don't look where they are going anyway' is just nonsense. It is like a drunk driver saying he doesn't have to get punished because another lad has no insurance. One doesn't excuse another. And before you say it, I know it isn't a law, Im talking about if it was brought in.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Cyclists not wearing hiviz are not breaking any laws. There is no need to catch and punish them. It is also very unlikely that mandatory hiviz is going to be brought in just after the expansion of the dublinbike share scheme and analagous implementations in other cities. Successive governments are quite keen to keep a very successful and useful scheme going. Reducing it to Australian levels of use is not something they'd contemplate.

The article states otherwise.

Deedsie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Have you ever cycled regularly? Please share your experiences, positive or otherwise.

For me cycling is an overwhelmingly positive experience. The down sides of the odd negative interaction do not in anyway out weigh the positives.

I am cycling all my life. I have a road bike for about 6 years. Commute 20 km Monday to Friday and get the odd long spin in at the weekend. Trickier since moving to Dublin.

Irrelevant though, my point was that cyclists need to accept responsibility and to condemn bad practice by some people in the cycling community. Stop the constant deflection and whataboutery

Jawgap

Seriously, the number Copenhagers cycling while dressed in black, no hi viz, no helmets etc is unreal. I surprised Denmark has not ceased to exist!!

http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/

Ding....dong......:D

tomasrojo

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

But they are making efforts to get motorists driving safer. They introduced penalty points, speed vans, etc.

And they sportingly tell everyone where the vans are, so they know they can speed everywhere else with minimal chance of punishment, and they let people off penalty points all the time.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

The article states otherwise.

The article is probably wrong. Journalists make mistakes, RSA representatives go on solo runs.

In fact, I'm reasonably sure the RSA presented something in the past (mandatory bike helmets for children) as a fait accompli to the press before approaching Varadkar, who told them he wasn't doing it.

Icepick

tunney wrote: »

I saw three cars and two vans run red lights at speed. Four drivers on mobile phones. But hey - lets obsess about the 100kg of bike and rider moving at 20kph.

This. First tackle problems with much more dangerous road users.

..some cyclists deserver it though

MayoAreMagic

tomasrojo wrote: »

And they sportingly tell everyone where the vans are, so they know they can speed everywhere else with minimal chance of punishment, and they let people off penalty points all the time.

And if they do that much with cyclists it would be a big step forward.

tomasrojo wrote: »

The article is probably wrong. Journalists make mistakes, RSA representatives go on solo runs.

Or maybe it is right and the above is 100% your opinion...

tomasrojo

So when the Indo said that An Post were going to make their employees on bikes comply with the law and wear helmets, that means I should ignore what's actually in the statutes and accept there is a helmet law? The Minister for Transport will decide this, if it ever reaches his desk. I'm quite certain he isn't the source for this newspaper report.

CramCycle

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

But I never suggested it was entirely to blame, Im saying it is very likely a sizeable factor, which let's be honest, it is.

But its not, most long term cyclist and study groups have concluded that there is safety in numbers. The more cyclists on the road, the more a motorist will expect to see one while on the road. Personally (anecdote time) I have found that my perception of safety has increased over the last few years.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

So how do you explain the increase in accidents on the road coinciding with the increase of cyclists? To be honest, I don't agree with the above at all, and that is from experience of being on the road. Cars overtake cyclists when they shouldn't, cyclists weave in and out of traffic and jump lights when they shouldn't, you cant sit there and try to claim that that is a safer environment, it simply isn't.

But its not coinciding, massive increases the last few years and last year saw the only increase. At least the preceding years had a pattern, for all you or I know for the moment is that it is a statistical blip. Looking at some of these deaths, hi vis would have done nothing, from the poor girl outside of the field of view of a left turning lorry to the father who had a car run through a blind junction. The only times I have come close to an accident in recent times is when a motorist who has seen me decides that they either don't care or they want to teach me a lesson to catch the traffic jam 25metres up the road.

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

All the legislation to deal with antisocial cyclists is already there. There are on the spot fines for breaking lights. You can be pulled over for cycling dangerously. And not having lights.

There is nothing in legislation that needs to change. All that is needed is for the Gardai to be on the street and take action. As a relatively sensible cyclist, I'd be in favour of this.

I would also favour on the spot fines (plus points) for drivers that run the red. Multiple cars go through the red at the top of Dawson street, for example, every time it changes (the worst are the taxis that come from the rank, and regularly just drive through the green man). I've never seen any of these guys get pulled over

Unfortunately while these acts on bikes are illegal there are no instruments as of yet in law to give an FPN to a cyclist, thankfully this will be enshrined in law soon though. At the minute its a day in court which is likely why Gardai turn a blind eye unless the cyclist was being utterly wreckless. There are on the spot fines for motorists for running reds already, it just seems not to be heavily enforced, most likely as Gardai can't be everywhere at once.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

This excuse of 'drivers don't look where they are going anyway' is just nonsense.

Have you read any of the links in regards this statement, look over at the last page of the hi vis thread for more info.

Deedsie wrote: »

Irrelevant though, my point was that cyclists need to accept responsibility and to condemn bad practice by some people in the cycling community. Stop the constant deflection and whataboutery

And again, at least on this site, most of us do, it grinds my gears TBH but I haven't seen any regular cyclists on this thread condoning bad cyclist behaviour, in fact all have been calling for tighter enforcement of existing laws.

Pinch Flat

Deedsie wrote: »

I am cycling all my life. I have a road bike for about 6 years. Commute 20 km Monday to Friday and get the odd long spin in at the weekend. Trickier since moving to Dublin.

Irrelevant though, my point was that cyclists need to accept responsibility and to condemn bad practice by some people in the cycling community. Stop the constant deflection and whataboutery

I'd come at it a different way. Cyclists breaking lights are all branded together - so the action of a few brands a whole group of road users.

So do a straw pole of say a few people and ask them the first thing they imagine about cyclists - invariably it's btealing red lights or cycling on footpaths. Ask the same question of motorists and the answer will be different. Cyclists are packaged up and unfairly branded as the nemesis on the roads, where it is those on 4 wheels that are a far bigger problem - road deaths, injuries, delays, increase in co2 and pollution.

MayoAreMagic

Deedsie wrote: »

I am cycling all my life. I have a road bike for about 6 years. Commute 20 km Monday to Friday and get the odd long spin in at the weekend. Trickier since moving to Dublin.

Irrelevant though, my point was that cyclists need to accept responsibility and to condemn bad practice by some people in the cycling community. Stop the constant deflection and whataboutery

Exactly right. This pack mentality is a big part of the problem. There are bad drivers, there are bad cyclists - let's punish both, its not a competition...

tomasrojo

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Exactly right. This pack mentality is a big part of the problem. There are bad drivers, there are bad cyclists - let's punish both, its not a competition...

You keep implying that the people disagreeing with you are opposed to cyclists being penalised for breaking the law. They're not saying that. Mostly people who frequent here are in favour of FPNs. They're, as far as I can tell, opposed to new regulations that are counterproductive, such as the probably never-to-materialise hiviz requirement.

Fian

tomasrojo wrote: »

So when the Indo said that An Post were going to make their employees on bikes comply with the law and wear helmets, that means I should ignore what's actually in the statutes and accept there is a helmet law? The Minister for Transport will decide this, if it ever reaches his desk. I'm quite certain he isn't the source for this newspaper report.

I think it is probably just badly parsed, the journalist probably intended to convey that An post would require employees to:

(a) Comply with the law, and
(b) Also to wear helmets.

Just didn't structure the sentence clearly enough.

MayoAreMagic

CramCycle wrote: »

Have you read any of the links in regards this statement, look over at the last page of the hi vis thread for more info.

But those are bad drivers who in turn are breaking the law. Nobody is saying these people are in any ways in the right or shouldn't be punished also... But I can tell you now, plenty drivers would take heed of someone in a high viz vest. how can you suggest higher visibility isn't a positive, would you suggest drivers turn off their lights too?

MayoAreMagic

tomasrojo wrote: »

You keep implying that the people disagreeing with you are opposed to cyclists being penalised for breaking the law. They're not saying that. Mostly people who frequent here are in favour of FPNs. They're, as far as I can tell, opposed to new regulations that are counterproductive, such as the probably never-to-materialise hiviz requirement.

What is counter-productive about better visibility? What is that taking away from a guy who is less visible?

morana

We are back to the hardcore motorists v the cyclist/motorist again!

TonyStark

dante2015 wrote: »

when i am driving i see a cyclist taking up half the road (they are not that big seriously),

its about time they were fined as 80% of them are Dangerous

Truth is if you run a red light you have a low chance of being caught whether in a car or a bike. The introduction of a fixed point notice is merely a soundbyte if its not followed up by enforcement.

Better roads would mean cyclists don't have to ride as defensively. Secondly if you gave us enough room to begin with and decided to wait before overtaking us with an oncoming vehicle. You might find that we might trust you not to kill us. Sadly motorists haven't earned that trust.

12 people dead last year not all of them ran red lights or cycled on a footpath.I'm not saying they were blameless but its a chilling indictment of what is quite rubbish behavior on the public highway from EVERYONE.

MayoAreMagic

In fairness tony, what have cyclists done to win the trust of the motorists? Im not saying you are wrong, but it is a two way street and that point seems to be lost on a high number of people. How about less of the victim stuff as a startpoint? Plenty cyclists carry out daft manouvers in traffic putting themselves and others in danger and they should know better, just like driverwls. We have to be pragmatic and proactive about it, not always looking to be hard done by

MayoAreMagic

In fairness tony, what have cyclists done to win the trust of the motorists? Im not saying you are wrong, but it is a two way street and that point seems to be lost on a high number of people. How about less of the victim stuff as a startpoint? Plenty cyclists carry out daft manouvers in traffic putting themselves and others in danger and they should know better, just like driverwls. We have to be pragmatic and proactive about it, not always looking to be hard done by

Jawgap

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

In fairness tony, what have cyclists done to win the trust of the motorists? Im not saying you are wrong, but it is a two way street and that point seems to be lost on a high number of people. How about less of the victim stuff as a startpoint? Plenty cyclists carry out daft manouvers in traffic putting themselves and others in danger and they should know better, just like driverwls. We have to be pragmatic and proactive about it, not always looking to be hard done by

What?

Most cyclists are motorists - and I'm not sure any road user group is required to "win the trust" of any other group!

tomasrojo

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

What is counter-productive about better visibility? What is that taking away from a guy who is less visible?

It's counterproductive to make it illegal not to wear hiviz. It would reduce the number of cyclists, stymie the bikeshare schemes and there is no real-world evidenc that it would reduce KSIs. In fact, I can't think of any jurisidiction that has tried it, though France has a requirement for rural roads at night.

It's counterproductive to harp on about hiviz to the practical exlcusion of all other measures to address KSIs. It also frequently elides into victim blaming.

It's counterproductive to harp on about hiviz and never to mention the excellent lights that are now visible. Indeed, there are many cyclists wearing free RSA hivz jackets and using free RSA lights who are much less conspicuous than our friends Venom and Zorro from earlier in the thread would be using top-of the-range LED lights.

Chips Lovell

I'd like to remind people to read the charter, if they already haven't. In particular this section:

8. Negativity
There are lots of places on the internet where you can have a rant about cyclists. This isn't one of them. This is a place for people with an interest in cycling to discuss cycling. If you treat it as a venue for holding all cyclists to account for perceived or actual misbehaviour by some, you can expect to find your access swiftly removed. In short, we are not your punching bag. If you really do want do want an answer to your gripe, do a search. The usual topics, such as cycle lanes, cycling two abreast etc. have been discussed, ad nauseam, many, many times before

A few recent posts are failing to heed this rule.

Snickers Man

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Cyclists, like cars, are required to have lights.

High viz clothing is a poor alternative to adequate lights.

I respectfully disagree as a motorist. (I am also a fairly frequent cyclist and pedestrian too)


If bicycles had lights that were the same size and power rating of cars then yes, there would be no need for high viz clothing. But sadly, they don't. And the problem for motorists is that given the amount of vehicular lighting on city streets today, the illumination of a cyclist is frequently drowned out (if that is the right term) by the lighting around them. Far from lighting cyclists up, light from other vehicles just seems to swallow them into the darkness.

I am sure there is a physical explanation for all this, but all I am saying IN MY EXPERIENCE is that in busy city centre traffic in the dark, I frequently find it very difficult to see cyclists unless they are wearing reflective strips. I have gone so far as to have my own eyes checked to see if I have a problem with "night blindness". I don't.

Why do so many cyclists not take this simple feedback on board? It's not nanny state interference. It's a simple effortless recommendation that could enhance road safety for careful cyclists. A high-viz device need not be a bulky unattractive overcoat that one might not want to wear while going on the pull. (Although apparently arriving at a social gathering streaming of sweat having pedalled like crazy through every red light on the way is perfectly alluring, if you believe some here)

It could be a simple fold up overall that would fit over another jacket and which could be rolled up into a pocket or handbag.

Facetious comments like "Why don't pedestrians wear high viz" are utterly impertinent. For a start, they walk on pavements while bicycles for the most part share the road with cars. And secondly, in rural regions where there are no pavements it is indeed common practice for pedestrians, at least the sensible ones, to wear reflective clothing and/or carry a torch.

I am not anti-cyclist. I am one myself. But I hate bad cyclists, just like I despise careless drivers and heedless pedestrians.

No to compulsory helmets; yes to compulsory hi-viz.

tomasrojo

Fian wrote: »

I think it is probably just badly parsed, the journalist probably intended to convey that An post would require employees to:

(a) Comply with the law, and
(b) Also to wear helmets.

Just didn't structure the sentence clearly enough.

Good point, but the article was about only about making them wear helmets. If I come across it, I'll post a link. (My memory may have failed me, so I'll keep your explanation in mind.)