Cyclists should do a theory test!

Spook_ie

papu wrote: »

This part especially makes no sense.

I must have misread something somewhere, I was convinced that if you were ( for arguments sake ) under 17 and convicted of an offence that they held the points for you, maybe it used to be that way, because there were PPs for driving without a license as recently as 2010 but the present list of PP offences doesn't have it, whatever, it would still have a deterent effect on cyclists, after all according to some the number of cyclists who drive is very high

Spook_ie

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

What I like is that ridiculous plans like this will never see the light of day

So do you support Dr Mike and his letter, or are you another of these contributers that doesn't actually have anything to offer other than the usual rhetoric from cyclists?

SeanW

Jawgap wrote: »

N roads are N roads they are not motorways - urban or otherwise.

The speed limit on them is 100 km/hr - the N40 limit is 100km/hr is it not?

120km/hr is for motorways and cyclists are prohibited from those roads.

If you need to merge with fast moving traffic - take your time, and wait your turn and time your merge accordingly - you have no right of way or precedence over any other road user.

I'm sorry, are you seriously defending the cyclist in the post you quoted?

A merging lane is just that - for merging. Drivers are expected to accelerate to use it with the intention of joining the DC/Motorway at full speed. Additionally, I assume merging lanes are protected by the same ROTR as any other lane - traffic already in it has priority over traffic that wishes to enter it or cross it. Additionally, the motorist does not expect to see crossing traffic in a merging lane and will not be able to see it on some DCs where the vegetation/landscaping extends to the markings and limits the peipheral view. (See this for example) The hard shoulder does not continue into a merging lane it will always end with patterened white markings just before. A person or any road vehicle travelling in the hard shoulder should thusly yield, either merging into the mainline or yield to traffic in the merging lane.

What the cyclist did in the above post is either illegal or insane, or both.

Grandpa Hassan

Spook_ie wrote: »

So do you support Dr Mike and his letter, or are you another of these contributers that doesn't actually have anything to offer other than the usual rhetoric from cyclists?

My post history on this subject speaks for itself. I am a cyclist and a driver who supports better enforcement of the rules for all road users, including FPNs for cyclists. And policies which at the same time encourage bike use and discourage car use

But licencing, insurance, mandatory theory tests.....forget about it. Ineffective, prohibitively expensive and impractical when the cyclist demographic ranges from lycra clad dublin commuters, holidaying families on dublin bikes, and 8 year olds cycling down remote country lanes with their dad on a sunday morning outing.

RainyDay

Spook_ie wrote: »

Looks like the Cyclists of Ireland pressure groups Cyclists.ie and Dublincycling.ie don't fancy having FPNs foisted on them, because of the costs €50 even though some said they'd welcome them. Typical!

BTW Might be interesting to nail up your colors if you're a member of either of them or their regional groups when you post.

http://dublincycling.ie/sites/dublincycling.com/files/monetaryfinescyclistsoffences-paschaldonohoeletter-26-06-15.pdf



I suppose they'd prefer it to be a €5 fine, but I've a much better idea, seeing as they are traffic offences ( red lights etc. ) and cyclists forever like to tell people that they are traffic ( when it suits them ) charge them as traffic offences and if they have a license put penalty points on them, if no license treat them the same as any unlicensed driver and hold them in abeyence until they get a license.

Any specific cycling offences such as footpaths could well be then dealt with a lower fine

The lack of proportionality in relation to the risks involved is a serious point. But you're right, a €5 fine wouldn't be any kind of deterrent. I'd suggest keeping the cyclist fines around the €50-€100 mark, depending on the offence, and pushing up the motorist fines to €250-€500 depending on the offence, parking fines at the lower end and speeding and dangerous driving at the higher end.

But just to clarify, if I'm being held in abeyance, do I need to bring a sleeping bag?

Spook_ie

RainyDay wrote: »

The lack of proportionality in relation to the risks involved is a serious point. But you're right, a €5 fine wouldn't be any kind of deterrent. I'd suggest keeping the cyclist fines around the €50-€100 mark, depending on the offence, and pushing up the motorist fines to €250-€500 depending on the offence, parking fines at the lower end and speeding and dangerous driving at the higher end.

But just to clarify, if I'm being held in abeyance, do I need to bring a sleeping bag?

Typical obfuscation, you know full well that it's points being referred to as being held in abeyance not the actual driver/cyclist.

As to the fines, problem is you already have the disproportionality of motorists losing their license for offences, as I said perhaps if a cyclist had a driving license then as they are traffic offences and cyclists like to think themselves as traffic, then they should be subject to points on their driving licenses.

I was fairly sure that there was a system of holding onto the points on a virtual license until a real license was obtained but this seems to have been whittled down to holders of foreign licenses, shame really, as I'm sure that as with the majority of motorists, the majority of cyclists would fear the losing of their driving licenses above the financial penalty.

RainyDay

Spook_ie wrote: »

Typical obfuscation, you know full well that it's points being referred to as being held in abeyance not the actual driver/cyclist.

Aw, no sense of humour today then?

Spook_ie wrote: »

As to the fines, problem is you already have the disproportionality of motorists losing their license for offences, as I said perhaps if a cyclist had a driving license then as they are traffic offences and cyclists like to think themselves as traffic, then they should be subject to points on their driving licenses.

Yes, it's a reasonable proposal, assuming that the points would be in proportion to the risk involved. I guess you could weight the risk based on the ratio of deaths caused by cyclists to deaths caused by motorists (so a 0:200 ratio) or maybe the relative momentum of the average bike to the average car (1:1000 ratio) - or something like that.

Spook_ie

RainyDay wrote: »

Aw, no sense of humour today then?


Yes, it's a reasonable proposal, assuming that the points would be in proportion to the risk involved. I guess you could weight the risk based on the ratio of deaths caused by cyclists to deaths caused by motorists (so a 0:200 ratio) or maybe the relative momentum of the average bike to the average car (1:1000 ratio) - or something like that.

Don't think so, you are either obeying traffic laws or your not, perhaps you think that if someone robs a pensioner of a €10 note he should be treated more leniently than if he shop lifted a €500 laptop?

papu

Spook_ie wrote: »

Don't think so, you are either obeying traffic laws or your not, perhaps you think that if someone robs a pensioner of a €10 note he should be treated more leniently than if he shop lifted a €500 laptop?

Pedestrians get fines and PPs too then? How much do they get fined , do people in wheelchairs need licenses? What about buggies? Who gets the PPs the mother or the baby or is it split?

RecordStraight

Spook_ie wrote: »

Don't think so, you are either obeying traffic laws or your not, perhaps you think that if someone robs a pensioner of a €10 note he should be treated more leniently than if he shop lifted a €500 laptop?

I think we also come back to the point of every pedestrian and cyclist having to wear a license plate and carry their photo ID with them all the time so that you can identify those breaking the law.

RainyDay

Spook_ie wrote: »

Don't think so, you are either obeying traffic laws or your not, perhaps you think that if someone robs a pensioner of a €10 note he should be treated more leniently than if he shop lifted a €500 laptop?

Yep, that's a fairly well established principle in law that you're highlighting there, that the punishment fits the crime. Are you suggesting that the €10 robber and the €500 shop-lifter and the €10,000 bank-robber and the €500,000 embezzeller are all treated the same?

Spook_ie

RainyDay wrote: »

Yep, that's a fairly well established principle in law that you're highlighting there, that the punishment fits the crime. Are you suggesting that the €10 robber and the €500 shop-lifter and the €10,000 bank-robber and the €500,000 embezzeller are all treated the same?

Yes, because they are charged with what the actual crime is, not some fanciful notion of yours that the weight of the robber or some other stupid notion be taken into account

Spook_ie

RecordStraight wrote: »

I think we also come back to the point of every pedestrian and cyclist having to wear a license plate and carry their photo ID with them all the time so that you can identify those breaking the law.

I have no problem with carrying ID with me, do you?

Spook_ie

papu wrote: »

Pedestrians get fines and PPs too then? How much do they get fined , do people in wheelchairs need licenses? What about buggies? Who gets the PPs the mother or the baby or is it split?

Are any of those classes of people subject to traffic laws such as, keeping left, going the wrong way up one way streets, overtaking on either side, lights etc. or are you just being needlessy obfuscous

RecordStraight

Spook_ie wrote: »

I have no problem with carrying ID with me, do you?

On principle, yes, although that's another debate. But we are not even talking about carrying ID - if some arsehole knocks me over on the street, he's probably not going to stop to show me his ID. Therefore pedestrians (and cars and bikes, obviously) should be obliged to clearly show a registration number so that they can be reported to the cops and identified.

Spook_ie

RecordStraight wrote: »

On principle, yes, although that's another debate. But we are not even talking about carrying ID - if some arsehole knocks me over on the street, he's probably not going to stop to show me his ID. Therefore pedestrians (and cars and bikes, obviously) should be obliged to clearly show a registration number so that they can be reported to the cops and identified.

I have no problem with you wishing to have a barcode tatooed on your head ( if that's what you're into ) but I'm not sure why you're dragging this up. I do think that traffic offenders should be easily identifiable and easily traceable. You seem to think that it somehow equates to wanting transponders on people, how very Orwellian of you

RecordStraight

Spook_ie wrote: »

I have no problem with you wishing to have a barcode tatooed on your head ( if that's what you're into ) but I'm not sure why you're dragging this up. I do think that traffic offenders should be easily identifiable and easily traceable. You seem to think that it somehow equates to wanting transponders on people, how very Orwellian of you

A barcode isn't legible, and certainly not legible from a distance. Some sort of smock with your number on it over your clothes, or perhaps just a licence plate hung around your neck would be easier to read. How else can I identify the guy who knocked me over on the path, or whatever?

(I can't speak for everyone, but I've been bumped into many times by reckless walkers and runners, but never by a cyclist or a car)

Spook_ie

RecordStraight wrote: »

A barcode isn't legible, and certainly not legible from a distance. Some sort of smock with your number on it over your clothes, or perhaps just a licence plate hung around your neck would be easier to read. How else can I identify the guy who knocked me over on the path, or whatever?

(I can't speak for everyone, but I've been bumped into many times by reckless walkers and runners, but never by a cyclist or a car)

Still not sure why you want to drag the topic over to registrations for pedestrians ( seeing as they aren't liable for traffic offences in general ) perhaps it's because you don't believe cyclists should be classed as traffic. If that's the case, then fine, you just go against a multitude of SI's that do classify cyclists as traffic and subject to traffic law

EDIT Perhaps ( as you've never been bumped into by a car ), you're actually trying to advocate that cars need not be registered either, quite unsure of what you actually are trying to say!

RainyDay

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yes, because they are charged with what the actual crime is, not some fanciful notion of yours that the weight of the robber or some other stupid notion be taken into account

This is great, please do keep on digging a bigger hole for yourself here.

You really should get down to the Courts and tell the judges that all robbers should be getting the same sentance regardless of how much they took, given the wide disparity in sentancing today.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/nine-months-for-boy-who-stole-from-home-of-sleeping-mother-1.2263318

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/former-employee-who-stole-from-ibrc-avoids-jail-term-1.2261587
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-used-umbrella-in-robbery-attempt-hears-court-1.2238926

But perhaps you know better than all the judges...

Spook_ie wrote: »

Still not sure why you want to drag the topic over to registrations for pedestrians

Probably because pedestrians cause injuries too. On one of the two occasions I've come off my bike, it was because a pedestrian stupidly stepped out on the road in front of me. So she should have to wear a hi-vis registration plate on her back now and carry insurance, to prevent me being at a loss - right?

But on the broader issue, your touching and slightly naieve reliance on the registration system to allow people to track down drivers is misplaced. I was assaulted from a moving car a few years back, in a case not unlike this one, though with less consequences
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/man-who-pushed-boy-off-bicycle-sentenced-to-10-months-in-jail-1.2264289

When I went to the Gardai, they told me the car was a written-off banger, back on the roads illegally, and the driver could not be traced. So please stop assuming that a registration system means that drivers are actually traceable.

Spook_ie

RainyDay wrote: »

This is great, please do keep on digging a bigger hole for yourself here.

You really should get down to the Courts and tell the judges that all robbers should be getting the same sentance regardless of how much they took, given the wide disparity in sentancing today.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/nine-months-for-boy-who-stole-from-home-of-sleeping-mother-1.2263318

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/former-employee-who-stole-from-ibrc-avoids-jail-term-1.2261587
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-used-umbrella-in-robbery-attempt-hears-court-1.2238926

But perhaps you know better than all the judges...



Probably because pedestrians cause injuries too. On one of the two occasions I've come off my bike, it was because a pedestrian stupidly stepped out on the road in front of me. So she should have to wear a hi-vis registration plate on her back now and carry insurance, to prevent me being at a loss - right?

But on the broader issue, your touching and slightly naieve reliance on the registration system to allow people to track down drivers is misplaced. I was assaulted from a moving car a few years back, in a case not unlike this one, though with less consequences
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/man-who-pushed-boy-off-bicycle-sentenced-to-10-months-in-jail-1.2264289

When I went to the Gardai, they told me the car was a written-off banger, back on the roads illegally, and the driver could not be traced. So please stop assuming that a registration system means that drivers are actually traceable.

You really like grasping at straws and twisting like a fish on a hook to drag topics off.

Point one a crime is a crime, not all crimes are the same, not all punishments will be the same, however, the idea of FPN's is that all are treated the same for the same offence, i.e you jump a red light you get an FPN with a monetary sum to be paid, you go past a keep left sign on the right, you get an FPN, the sum of money may be different but you still get an FPN, now is my jumping a red light with due care or passing a keep left sign on the right with due care any different to a cyclist? If it's not then the cyclist should be paying the same as the motorist as it's an absolute offence rather than your " depends on the color of their hair/weight/number of wheels approach" approach

There would be nothing stopping you defacing the barcode on your head, so a pointless argument TBH.

As to pedestrians acting stupidly, some of them have a tendancy to do that, but suppose you had of been hurt, would the registration of pedestrians helped your case, if so then registration cyclists would also help pedestrians cases against stupid cyclists.

But again none of this is anything to do with cyclists being classed as traffic and as such are required to comply with Road Traffic Law, now if an offence carries a PP penalty ( such as passing a kep left sign on the right ) why shouldn't a cyclist who has a driving license receive the same fixed penalty as a motorist and the PPs.

RainyDay

Spook_ie wrote: »

Point one a crime is a crime, not all crimes are the same, not all punishments will be the same, however, the idea of FPN's is that all are treated the same for the same offence, i.e you jump a red light you get an FPN with a monetary sum to be paid, you go past a keep left sign on the right, you get an FPN, the sum of money may be different but you still get an FPN, now is my jumping a red light with due care or passing a keep left sign on the right with due care any different to a cyclist? If it's not then the cyclist should be paying the same as the motorist as it's an absolute offence rather than your " depends on the color of their hair/weight/number of wheels approach" approach

Nice to see that you've moved on from your 'all thefts are the same' position. You're welcome.

Just to make sure I fully understand your position about traffic offences, you're now saying that there is no difference between doing 150 kmph in a 20-ton artic pulling a 40-foot container, and doing 150 kmph in your taxi - right? And you see no need for the extra requirements for drivers of HGVs, the extra testing and mandatory CPD and the tachographs, right? Because speeding is speeding, regardless of the size or weight of the vehicle or the risk to others - that's your position now, correct?

Spook_ie wrote: »

As to pedestrians acting stupidly, some of them have a tendancy to do that, but suppose you had of been hurt, would the registration of pedestrians helped your case,

Yes, absolutely, it would have allowed me to pursue her for the damage to my bike, my phone, my clothing and my minor injuries. So you're up for mandatory registration of pedestrians - right?

rubadub

Spook_ie wrote: »

now is my jumping a red light with due care or passing a keep left sign on the right with due care any different to a cyclist?

Yes, its quite different, this is totally obvious, ask any garda you see ignoring it why he ignored it.

Some lying troll earlier in this thread claimed to have asked 3 gardai and claimed they all said they could not catch them, as if any idiot would believe him. If this is true why do the gardai not at least shout out or caution them? same with pedestrians, most gardai say nothing and easily could?

In the US several states allow motorbikes to break red lights let alone bicycles.

http://cincinnaticaferacer.com/2013/12/02/ohio-should-allow-motorcyclists-to-legally-run-red-lights/

States with safe-on-red laws

Arkansas – In effect since 2005, state law allows a motorcyclist to proceed with caution, after coming to a full and complete stop, through a red light that fails to detect the bike. (Arkansas Code section 27-52-206)

Idaho – (2006) If a signal fails to operate after one cycle of the traffic light that a motorcyclist may proceed, using due caution and care, after coming to a full and complete stop at the intersection. (Statute 49-802)

Illinois – (2012) Permits a driver of a motorcycles or bicycle facing a red light that fails to change within a reasonable period of time of not less than 120 seconds to proceed after yielding the right-of-way to any oncoming traffic. However, this law doesn’t apply to municipalities of over 2,000,000 people – such as Chicago. (625 ILCS 5/11-306)

Minnesota – (2002) A person operating a bicycle or motorcycle who runs a red light has an affirmative defense if the driver first came to a complete stop, the traffic light stayed red for an unreasonable amount of time and appeared not to detect the vehicle and no motor vehicles or people were approaching the street. (Statute 169.06)

Missouri – (2009) State law tells both motorcyclists and bicyclists that run red lights that they have an affirmative defense if they brought their vehicle to a complete stop, the light was red for an unreasonable time period, and there were no motor vehicle or person approaching. (Statute 304.285)

Nevada – (2013) Those using motorcycles, bicycles, mopeds, and tri-mobiles are allowed to proceed through an intersection with a red light after waiting for two traffic light cycles, and they yield to other vehicle traffic or pedestrians. (Statute 484B.307)

North Carolina – (2007) Motorcyclists are permitted to move cautiously through a steady red light after coming to a complete stop and waiting a minimum of three minutes and if no other vehicle or pedestrians are approaching the intersection. (NCGS 20-158)

Oklahoma – (2010) Motorcycles can proceed cautiously through a steady red light intersection after a making a complete stop and if no other motor vehicle or person is approaching the roadway. (Statute 47-11-202)

South Carolina – (2008) After making a complete stop and waiting for a minimum of 120 seconds, the driver of a motorcycle, moped, or bicycle may treat a steady red light that doesn’t change as a stop sign and proceed with caution. (S.C. Code 56-5-970)

Tennessee – (2003) After coming to a complete stop, motorcyclists and bicyclists may proceed through a steady red light when it is safe to do so. (Tennessee Traffic Control Signals 55-8-110)

Virginia – (2011) Drivers of motorcycles, mopeds, and bicycles may move with caution through non-responsive red lights as long as they yield the right-of-way to others approaching the intersection, and have come to a complete stop for two complete light cycles or 120 seconds, whichever is shorter.(Statute 46-2-833)

Wisconsin – (2006) A motorcycle, moped or bicycle is permitted to run a steady red light after making a complete stop and waiting at least 45 seconds and then yields the right–of-way to any vehicular traffic or pedestrians using the intersection. (Statute 346.37)

In early 2013, Nebraska introduced Bill LB 85 proposing a safe-on-red law, but the bill currently has a status of “indefinitely postponed.”