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

Qualitymark

buffalo wrote: »

I passed an unoccupied Garda car parked on the double yellow lines opposite the Criminal Courts last night. The driver was inside the nearby chipper. I presume eating is part of their duties?

To be fair, if one left the car and walked 100 metres to the chipper, and then there was an urgent call-out, it wouldn't be acceptable either. If you or I were the one being mugged we wouldn't want to hear "I had to pick up my partner in the chipper at the other end of the one-way street first" either!

Baron Kurtz

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Interesting!

https://twitter.com/RadioCleary/status/629599802771292161/photo/1

I taper off this route on occasion to work, and if it's congested I'll get off (as per sign) but generally if there's a free path I'll cycle through (perfectly reasonable imo) but if I do encounter a pedestrian I slow to somewhere about snail's pace and pass. I don't think there is a law yet about cycling on a pavement per se. Only one that prohibits cycling on a pavement in an obnoxious, speedy manner. Which is probably fair enough.

HivemindXX

Baron Kurtz wrote: »

I taper off this route on occasion to work, and if it's congested I'll get off (as per sign) but generally if there's a free path I'll cycle through (perfectly reasonable imo) but if I do encounter a pedestrian I slow to somewhere about snail's pace and pass. I don't think there is a law yet about cycling on a pavement per se. Only one that prohibits cycling on a pavement in an obnoxious, speedy manner. Which is probably fair enough.

This is right outside my previous employment. The road is closed because of construction work on the offices on one side. For some reason the builders were able to close the entire road when they could probably have left a gap between their barriers and the path to allow cyclists to pass. Since there is no access for cars past this point they probably didn't feel the need since it would just be cyclists being inconvenienced.

The path actually is quite narrow due to street furniture at points and it is very busy with pedestrians during the prime commuting hours. I walked my bike along it. I did see an impatient motorcyclist who waited for a while, then realising the flow of pedestrians wasn't going to let up just revved the engine and headed down anyway forcing people out of his way.

Maximus Alexander

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Interesting!

https://twitter.com/RadioCleary/status/629599802771292161/photo/1

I go through there twice a day, if they were fining for that they could stand at the end there and rake in thousands per hour. I'd say about 1 cyclist in 5 actually dismounts.

In fairness, you take up much more space if you dismount and the path is very narrow, so it's actually more considerate to slow to a crawl and stay on the bike.

Eamonnator

Baron Kurtz wrote: »

I taper off this route on occasion to work, and if it's congested I'll get off (as per sign) but generally if there's a free path I'll cycle through (perfectly reasonable imo) but if I do encounter a pedestrian I slow to somewhere about snail's pace and pass. I don't think there is a law yet about cycling on a pavement per se. Only one that prohibits cycling on a pavement in an obnoxious, speedy manner. Which is probably fair enough.

There is a law about cycling on a pavement. A person can be prosecuted for this by summons only.
There is no FPN for this offence.

Lusk_Doyle

Eamonnator wrote: »

There is a law about cycling on a pavement. A person can be prosecuted for this by summons only.
There is no FPN for this offence.

And an advisory notice from a construction company can't have any basis in law with regards to suggesting what people do can it? It's more there to cover their bums from a health and safety perspective were someone to have an accident.

CramCycle

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

And an advisory notice from a construction company can't have any basis in law with regards to suggesting what people do can it? It's more there to cover their bums from a health and safety perspective were someone to have an accident.

More likely a requirement as part of their road closure order. It's a 10 second walk when you dismount. Even when the road is open you get cyclists on the footpad.

It is nice that the radio cars that are normally illegally parked and obstructing traffic can't for a few days. Once asked the campers why they don't clamp them and they said they are one of the few companies with a window watcher who is quick enough to get out to the cars when they drive in.

colossus-x

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm not talking about people flying down footpaths bashing into people.

My response was to:



At times hopping onto the footpath is safer for the cyclist and is a far better scenario than risking being struck by some gobshite in a car that doesn't give a fuk.

I've been cycling the streets of Dublin for decades and there have been numerous occasions where I've had to hop up onto a footpath.

Yes exactly. I don't do it to be nice to the driver although I'll take the car beep, I do it to feel safer. Hate that sudden roar of engines revving when taking off at the green light ( on narrower roads).

Alanstrainor wrote: »

7600km in the last year and a half through Dublin city centre, no trouble, never had to jump onto a path. Must be luck I guess...

That's because you've a racer. I'm a leisure cyclist. If I could get up speed like your can I'd never feel the need to get up on the footpath and let the traffic pass. Your not holding anyone up like I am !

JayRoc

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

In fairness, you take up much more space if you dismount and the path is very narrow, so it's actually more considerate to slow to a crawl and stay on the bike.

There's a lane beside Blackrock Dart station, huge bike traffic due to it being part of the whole "Dublin Bay cycle route" that has signs insisting cyclists must "dismount", when in fact doing so would literally make the lane impassible for anyone coming from the opposite direction, cyclist or pedestrian

RainyDay

buffalo wrote: »

I passed an unoccupied Garda car parked on the double yellow lines opposite the Criminal Courts last night. The driver was inside the nearby chipper. I presume eating is part of their duties?

check_six wrote: »

Having said that, I did nearly get run over by a guard in a car on the way to the Spar who ran a red and swung across my path. Didn't think that was too smart!

I might be accused of being over-generous, but it is possible that the Gardai at the Spar or the chipper were indeed in performance of their duties, buying food for prisoners detained at their station.

dreamerb

colossus-x wrote: »

That's because you've a racer. I'm a leisure cyclist. If I could get up speed like your can I'd never feel the need to get up on the footpath and let the traffic pass. Your not holding anyone up like I am !

I'm a commuter cyclist, almost exclusively. I have never felt the need to get up on the footpath on my commute and I resent most cyclists on footpaths*, including the sods who footpath-hop to skip traffic queues or lights. My broad (and slightly) flexible guideline is that cyclists over 8 and under 80 should not be on the footpath for minor roads. For main / heavy traffic roads, I'll go to about 14 ad 70.

If you're on a bike, you *are* traffic There are very few occasions where you'll hold up *other* traffic by more than a few seconds - and if you feel the need, you can usually find a place to pull in that doesn't involve footpath cycling.

*on the other hand, I'd generally prefer that cyclists who've had a drink too many, or are cycling after dark with no lights, cycle on footpaths so long as they do so cautiously and affording absolute priority to pedestrians. Provided they also use the same caution as a pedestrian should at any road crossing point, too.

Qualitymark

CramCycle wrote: »

More likely a requirement as part of their road closure order. It's a 10 second walk when you dismount. Even when the road is open you get cyclists on the footpad.

It is nice that the radio cars that are normally illegally parked and obstructing traffic can't for a few days. Once asked the campers why they don't clamp them and they said they are one of the few companies with a window watcher who is quick enough to get out to the cars when they drive in.

Time for FPNs for parking illegally in cycle lanes and on footpaths? A few of the clampers on bicycles, with cameras that can go snap, snap, snap at all the cars and their number plates, and tickets tucked into the wipers.

kazamo

dreamerb wrote: »

*on the other hand, I'd generally prefer that cyclists who've had a drink too many, or are cycling after dark with no lights, cycle on footpaths so long as they do so cautiously and affording absolute priority to pedestrians. Provided they also use the same caution as a pedestrian should at any road crossing point, too.

Cyclists who have had a drink too many shouldn't be cycling. Transferring them to the footpath doesn't make them any less of a hazard.

dreamerb

kazamo wrote: »

Cyclists who have had a drink too many shouldn't be cycling. Transferring them to the footpath doesn't make them any less of a hazard.

Oh, I'm not arguing in favour of drunk cycling at all, any more than I'm arguing for night-cycling without lights. I should probably have qualified that with a whole lot of criteria about "If someone's going to cycle when they shouldn't anyway", and I'm certainly not referring to cycling when very drunk etc. I once saw someone plough into the back of a taxi on O'Connell Bridge - he was so drunk he couldn't stand when he got up. Pavement cycling would have been as awful a choice by him.

On the other hand, I disagree (slightly) on one aspect - transferring someone whose reaction times are a bit slower but is well able to cycle predictably off the road probably mitigates risk of making a misjudgement in moving traffic. I'm also talking about slow and cautious cycling such as not to cause a hazard or inconvenience to any pedestrians around, and only, in any case, when footpaths are very quiet. So, for example, I never see Camden Street so deserted I'd excuse it, but I wouldn't be too bothered about parts of Harold's Cross Road.

FWIW, I don't do it, I'm not actively advocating it, I just think it may be a less-worse option in some circumstances. If you disagree, I accept that's a perfectly reasonable position.

P_1

One thing I'll say about that stretch of road is that I'd love to find the genius who decided designating a cobble locked street as part of a cycle route (supposedly it's a part of the Grand Canal track) and find out what they were smoking that day.

CramCycle

P_1 wrote: »

One thing I'll say about that stretch of road is that I'd love to find the genius who decided designating a cobble locked street as part of a cycle route (supposedly it's a part of the Grand Canal track) and find out what they were smoking that day.

It was closed of to facilitate motor traffic flow and make it more predictable, putting up a blue bike sign was an afterthought as there is only that spot under the bridge designated as bikes only. The rest used to be a rat run and that's all the bike signs are there for. The bike lanes at the canal end should show you what little thought went in to pedestrian or cyclist safety.

magicbastarder

P_1 wrote: »

I'd love to find the genius who decided designating a cobble locked street as part of a cycle route

it's for commuters who like a bit of paris-roubaix on their way to work.

check_six

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's for commuters who like a bit of paris-roubaix on their way to work.

The resurfaced bit after the cobbles heading for Pearse St is great.

You go CobbleCobbleCobbleCobbleCobbleCobble-Whoosh! As you accelerate onto the smooth tarmac. Good stuff!

Bigus

It's like the two nuns in the Vatican on the bikes when younger one says to the older nun
" I never came this way before"

and the other one relies

" oh that'll be the cobbles sister"

:D:D

kazamo

dreamerb wrote: »

On the other hand, I disagree (slightly) on one aspect - transferring someone whose reaction times are a bit slower but is well able to cycle predictably off the road probably mitigates risk of making a misjudgement in moving traffic. I'm also talking about slow and cautious cycling such as not to cause a hazard or inconvenience to any pedestrians around, and only, in any case, when footpaths are very quiet. So, for example, I never see Camden Street so deserted I'd excuse it, but I wouldn't be too bothered about parts of Harold's Cross Road.

FWIW, I don't do it, I'm not actively advocating it, I just think it may be a less-worse option in some circumstances. If you disagree, I accept that's a perfectly reasonable position.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point
The above has just too many caveats in it for me to see it as a realistic or safe option.

mathie

My first day cycling in Dublin since the new rules were introduced.
The first junction I came to in the city centre had 3 cyclists waiting at a red that the bulk of cyclists usually go through.
I noticed at least 4 cyclists going the wrong way up one way streets though.
One guy passed by two Gardai as well. They paid him no attention.

jon1981

mathie wrote: »

I noticed at least 4 cyclists going the wrong way up one way streets though.

This isn't a fine AFAIK

A cyclist riding a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration.
No front lamp or rear lamp lit during lighting-up hours.
Cycling in pedestrianised street or area.
A cyclist proceeding past traffic lights when the red lamp is illuminated.
A cyclist proceeding past cycle traffic lights when red lamp is lit.
A cyclist failing to stop for a School Warden sign.
A cyclist going beyond a stop line, barrier or half barrier at a railway level crossing, swing bridge or lifting bridge, when the red lamps are flashing.

Perhaps they were cycling with reasonable consideration

Jawgap

Bloody, TdF, Lance Armstrong, Lycra Louts......:D

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/630718149470629888

Jawgap

The suggestion seems to be the cyclist was done for carrying a concealed weapon

https://twitter.com/steolen/status/630719708677996544

JBokeh

From the hand gestures it looks like he is explaining the leaflet to the Garda, which is probably the case

buffalo

DMR South Traffic cautioned this cyclist and reminded them of new offences!

What new offences?

Darkglasses

buffalo wrote: »

What new offences?

That account is so consistently bad.

jon1981

buffalo wrote: »

What new offences?

Jawgap

buffalo wrote: »

What new offences?

Non-matching kit
Bidons not matching bike frame
Unshaved legs
etc
etc
etc

galwaycyclist

buffalo wrote: »

What new offences?

Looks like they are keeping up the "new offences" line in responses to other twitter queries.

Which suggests they are trying to deny that cycling on footpaths was ever an offence(as far as AGS were concerned)

What a strange little "police force", I suppose in the world of big brother and Britain's got talent we're all supposed to lose any capacity for self embarrassment.