Cycling Fines - What Monitoring Is There ???

ceannair06

As a long standing pedestrian I was gratified to learn that fines were to be introduced for the cyclists who regularly commit the followingoffences:
· Running red lights
· Riding on pavements
· Riding in pedestrian areas
· Going past “no entry” signs into one way streets

I walk each day from Jervis (over a pedestrian only bridge )up through the Italian Quarter (pedestrianised), and then cross the road at Wellington Quay. All sites of daily infractions of the rules by cyclists – at least 5-6 per journey, I wear Dublin is the only city you can berun over whilst on the pavement.

Then comes the real problem – the T-junction of Dame Streetand South Great Georges Street. This is EXACTLY where the Garda Traffic Corpsneed to be, the conduct of cyclists is at best careless and at works downright dangerous. It’s certainly inconsiderate.

Exactly why has this behaviour been clamped down upon but there are no methods of viewing it and prosecuting these selfish individuals???

cgcsb

Cycling on pavements and pedestrian areas isn't going to inflict any penalty if you go slow and take care. Also cyclists are to be permitted to go contra flow down one way streets in the near future.

You do get a lot of dangerous cyclists too, I had one ring a bell at me when I was walking on the footpath on Capel street, I turned around gave him a look and continued walking unphased.

Part of the problem is the fact that, unlike most European Cities of our size, we have no cycling facilities, so often there is little/no choice for cyclists.

seamus

The same monitoring is in place for all road users.

galwaycyclist

ceannair06 wrote: »

Going past “no entry” signs into one way streets

Strictly speaking, you could argue that this was legalised under the 1998 amendments to the traffic signs regulations.

In this passage signs RUS 011, RUS 012, and RUS 013 refer to no entry or banned turn signs under the provisions of the the 1997 signs regulations.

5. The following shall be substituted for sub-article (4) of article 6 of the Principal Regulations:—


"(4) Traffic sign numbers RUS 011, RUS 012, and RUS 013 may be accompanied by a rectangular plate which shall be placed below the sign and on which may be shown in black letters on a white background,


(a) the message 'Except Buses and Taxis — Ach Amháin Busanna agus Tacsaithe', to indicate that the prohibitions indicated by the said signs do not apply in the case of omnibuses and taxis; or


(b) the message 'Except Cyclists — Ach Amháin Rothaithe', to indicate that the prohibitions indicated by the said signs do not apply in the case of cyclists; or


(c) the message 'Except Buses, Taxis, and Cyclists — Ach Amháin Busanna, Tacsaithe agus Rothaithe', to indicate that the prohibitions indicated by the said signs do not apply in the case of omnibuses, taxis, and cyclists.".

8. The following shall be substituted for article 23 of the Principal Regulations:—

"23. Traffic sign number RRM 019 shall —


(a) indicate that traffic is prohibited from entering the roadway at the entrance to which it is provided, save for pedal cycles entering a cycle track provided on the roadway, and


(b) consist of a continuous white line and a broken white line parallel thereto and approximately 300 millimetres therefrom, extending transversely across the entrance to a roadway or, where a cycle track is provided on the roadway, extending across the roadway from the right hand edge of the cycle track, each line being approximately 200 millimetres wide and the broken line consisting of segments approximately 1 metre long and spaced approximately 1 metre apart.".

For the last seventeen years the law clearly recognised systems for providing cyclists with exemptions to one-way streets. But for some very, very, very curious reason the councils have generally failed to provide those exemptions.

And before anyone raises the "safety" excuse, longstanding German and Belgian experience indicates that two-way cycling on one-way streets brings safety benefits.

Rakish Paddy

ceannair06 wrote: »

Then comes the real problem – the T-junction of Dame Streetand South Great Georges Street. This is EXACTLY where the Garda Traffic Corpsneed to be, the conduct of cyclists is at best careless and at works downright dangerous. It’s certainly inconsiderate.

Yep, I used to work near there and I don't think I ever crossed at that junction without seeing at least one cyclist doing something reckless / illegal.

Other bad blackspots for reckless cycling that could do with Garda checkpoints:

- Amiens St, between the railway bridge and the Five Lamps. There are cycle lanes on both side of the road, but the footpaths are absolutely plagued with cyclists and even the occasional motorcyclist.

- Talbot St. and Foley St. Lots of people cycling the wrong way on the road and also cycling on the footpath.

- Smithfield in general, but particularly around the Jameson distillery in that little pedestrian area

- The footpaths and platforms along the Luas red line from Heuston to the Four Courts

- Grafton Street and St. Stephen's Green. At busy times there's a near-constant stream of cyclists going the wrong way along the west side of the green and through the pedestrian crossing when the pedestrians have the green light. Also the footpath all around the outside of the green itself (dishonourable mention for the rickshaws) and the entire pedestrian part of Grafton Street have a crazy amount of cyclists. I really can't fathom how anyone thinks it's OK to cycle down the pedestrian part of Grafton St, and it's the only place where I've ever seen Gardai telling reckless cyclists to dismount.

- Henry Street can be bad at times, but doesn't seem quite as bad as Grafton Street.

- The pedestrian-only (clearly marked) bridge over the Liffey near the CHQ building in the docklands.

I'd love to see a few blitzes of Garda activity at those locations - they would take in an absolute fortune in fines too.

Rakish Paddy

It has to be noted though that there appears to have been a bit of a climb-down in setting up these FPN offences - they took cycling on the footpath off the list as a specific offence. Apparently it can still be enforced under an offence of reckless cycling or cycling without due care or something similar. As pedestrians in Dublin we can only hope that the Gardaí do indeed clamp down hard on anyone cycling on footpaths and don't allow the current situation to continue.

Captain Chaos

Can they cover cycling in train stations? Idiots cycling every morning inside Connolly station. God forbid they had to walk theri bikes 200 metres.

Rakish Paddy

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Can they cover cycling in train stations? Idiots cycling every morning inside Connolly station. God forbid they had to walk theri bikes 200 metres.

Luas platforms on the red line are bad as well - I've never waited on a tram at the Museum stop and *not* seen cyclists on the platform.

Captain Chaos

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

Luas platforms on the red line are bad as well - I've never waited on a tram at the Museum stop and *not* seen cyclists on the platform.

Big time. I actually saw someone at a ticket machine at the Heuston stop get hit by a cyclist during the week. It was a big hit, the tram didn't moved off until she got up.

They race through Luas stops expecting people to jump out of the way. A big crackdown is needed.

ceannair06

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Can they cover cycling in train stations? Idiots cycling every morning inside Connolly station. God forbid they had to walk theri bikes 200 metres.

Almost ran over in Heuston just yesterday on the ******* platform!!!

AngryLips

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

Luas platforms on the red line are bad as well - I've never waited on a tram at the Museum stop and *not* seen cyclists on the platform.

Part of the problem is building thoroughfares without any consideration given to cyclists. Of course, in this particular example the problem will be somewhat alleviated by the planned north quays cycle way. As for the Dame St/George's St junction, part of the problem there is the absolute lack of right turn onto George's St coming from the direction of Christchurch. A possible solution here is to turn the laneway by the side of the Dublin Castle opposit Olympia Theatre going towards Why Go Bald into a two way cycle lane. It's good that fixed penalties are not being introduced for cyclists using footpaths specifically but instead falling under reckless cycling because often times cyclists mount footpaths where cycle paths are obstructed, that's not necessarily a dangerous activity in itself.

Rakish Paddy

AngryLips wrote: »

It's good that fixed penalties are not being introduced for cyclists using footpaths specifically but instead falling under reckless cycling because often times cyclists mount footpaths where cycle paths are obstructed, that's not necessarily a dangerous activity in itself.

Surely if the cycle lane is obstructed for whatever reason, then the cyclist should either cycle on the road with the rest of the traffic, or should dismount and walk on the footpath. I really can't see any valid reason for someone to be cycling on the footpath and really do think it should have been included as a specific offence. Anyone who walks through the city centre on a regular basis (especially through any of the blackspots I mentioned above) will appreciate how obnoxious this behaviour is.

LXFlyer

AngryLips wrote: »

Part of the problem is building thoroughfares without any consideration given to cyclists. Of course, in this particular example the problem will be somewhat alleviated by the planned north quays cycle way. As for the Dame St/George's St junction, part of the problem there is the absolute lack of right turn onto George's St coming from the direction of Christchurch. A possible solution here is to turn the laneway by the side of the Dublin Castle opposit Olympia Theatre going towards Why Go Bald into a two way cycle lane. It's good that fixed penalties are not being introduced for cyclists using footpaths specifically but instead falling under reckless cycling because often times cyclists mount footpaths where cycle paths are obstructed, that's not necessarily a dangerous activity in itself.

Or perhaps cyclists could either:
1) Dismount and use the pedestrian crossing
2) Actually take a legal alternative route

That's no excuse for breaking the law any more than a motorist has.

cython

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Can they cover cycling in train stations? Idiots cycling every morning inside Connolly station. God forbid they had to walk theri bikes 200 metres.

ceannair06 wrote: »

Almost ran over in Heuston just yesterday on the ******* platform!!!

Not a law enforcement issue, more a case of "don't give a fup" Irish Rail staff. Any of them could stop would be passengers from cycling within the station, the same as those responsible for any premises, but they just don't do it. This does not excuse the tools doing it, obviously, but don't expect the Gardai to prevent it in train stations any more than any normal premises!

seamus

lxflyer wrote: »

Or perhaps cyclists could either:
1) Dismount and use the pedestrian crossing
2) Actually take a legal alternative route

That's no excuse for breaking the law any more than a motorist has.

While I agree in principle, and anyone planning a journey should factor restrictions into their preferred route, it's an unavoidable fact that human nature is what it is and people will take the easiest route over the legal one. It's more prevalent with bikes because bikes are flexible and can be lifted and walked through any gap that a human can fit.

If one drives the wrong way up a one way road, the worst that can happen is that you get stuck and have to go back. So people don't generally do that. On a bike if you meet oncoming traffic you can either scooch past them or hop off onto the path until they go by. So the "wrong way" route emerges as the preferred one.

This is why traffic planning, just like architecture, should take the human factor into account. In fact, it's a very specific known phenomenon, known as the desire path and it's generally accepted that if a desire path emerges which wasn't in the original design, then the original design was flawed.

In this case, if cyclists turning right from George's St to Dame St is a continual issue, the appropriate thing to do is examine ways to provide a functional alternative that doesn't require a cyclist to take a large detour.

AngryLips

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

Surely if the cycle lane is obstructed for whatever reason, then the cyclist should either cycle on the road with the rest of the traffic, or should dismount and walk on the footpath. I really can't see any valid reason for someone to be cycling on the footpath and really do think it should have been included as a specific offence. Anyone who walks through the city centre on a regular basis (especially through any of the blackspots I mentioned above) will appreciate how obnoxious this behaviour is.

What about uncongested footpaths outside the city centre that often have shared space with designated cycle paths?

LXFlyer

seamus wrote: »

While I agree in principle, and anyone planning a journey should factor restrictions into their preferred route, it's an unavoidable fact that human nature is what it is and people will take the easiest route over the legal one. It's more prevalent with bikes because bikes are flexible and can be lifted and walked through any gap that a human can fit.

If one drives the wrong way up a one way road, the worst that can happen is that you get stuck and have to go back. So people don't generally do that. On a bike if you meet oncoming traffic you can either scooch past them or hop off onto the path until they go by. So the "wrong way" route emerges as the preferred one.

This is why traffic planning, just like architecture, should take the human factor into account. In fact, it's a very specific known phenomenon, known as the desire path and it's generally accepted that if a desire path emerges which wasn't in the original design, then the original design was flawed.

In this case, if cyclists turning right from George's St to Dame St is a continual issue, the appropriate thing to do is examine ways to provide a functional alternative that doesn't require a cyclist to take a large detour.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but it's still no excuse for cyclists to break the law, no more than it is for motorists or pedestrians.

Apart from speeding and drink driving, most road traffic offences are well down the list of offences that gardai appear to want to enforce.

There are alternatives such as Trinity Street or Werburgh Street.

I'm not sure what makes cyclists any different from motorists in that regard.

slimjimmc

cython wrote: »

Not a law enforcement issue, more a case of "don't give a fup" Irish Rail staff. Any of them could stop would be passengers from cycling within the station, the same as those responsible for any premises, but they just don't do it. This does not excuse the tools doing it, obviously, but don't expect the Gardai to prevent it in train stations any more than any normal premises!

Well it is against CIE bye-laws but clearly it's not generally enforced.

33. No person other than an authorised person shall ride a bicycle, tricycle, motorcycle or other similar machine or bring any handcart, barrow, or similar conveyance (excepting a hand trolley for carrying luggage) upon any platform, concourse, footbridge, footpath, causeway or subway on the railway and intended or constructed or set apart for the use or accommodation of pedestrians only or for the exclusive accommodation of freight, parcels or mails or any combination of them.

cdebru

While we are at it any chance of FPNs for jaywalking ? Virtually every junction in the city centre is blighted by people walking out onto the road, disobeying traffic lights etc etc. It needs to be clamped down on badly.

Victor

Let's take a look at the causes of of pedestrian causalities

Table 38 Single Vehicle Collisions, with or without Pedestrians, Classified by Vehicle Type
Vehicle Type Pedestrian Involved
Fatal % Injury %
Pedal Cycles 2 0% 136 1%
Motorcycles 16 2% 671 5%
Cars 614 66% 11,722 79%
PSVs 48 5% 576 4%
Goods Vehicles 195 21% 1,383 9%
Other or Unknown 53 6% 396 3%
TOTAL 928 100% 14,884 100%

Pedestrians casualties in all collisions 1,048 16,073
89% 93%


Cyclists only, i.e. excluding motorists 2 0% 136 1%
Motorists only, i.e. excluding cyclists 926 100% 14,748 99%

Motorist / cylist ratio 463 108

So, in a minimum of 928 collisions (multi-vehicle collisions that injured pedestrians weren't tabulated), there were 1,048 fatalities amongst pedestrians (note the slightly different metrics of collisions -v- fatalities - there can be more than one casualty in a collision). Of those, only two fatalities involved cyclists.

Cycling on the footpath is generally not appropriate. However, it is nowhere near as as dangerous as it is made out to be.

ceannair06 wrote: »

As a long standing pedestrian

:pac:

I walk each day from Jervis (over a pedestrian only bridge )up through the Italian Quarter (pedestrianised), and then cross the road at Wellington Quay. All sites of daily infractions of the rules by cyclists – at least 5-6 per journey, I wear Dublin is the only city you can berun over whilst on the pavement.

http://www.98fm.com/reader/523.685/14238/0/

No Jail Time For Man Involved In Luas Death Smash

You can speed, run traffic lights, hit trams and kill pedestrians and you'll get away with a fine.

Exactly why has this behaviour been clamped down upon but there are no methods of viewing it and prosecuting these selfish individuals???

What do you mean by this?

seamus wrote: »

The same monitoring is in place for all road users.

Not much then.

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

Also the footpath all around the outside of the green itself (dishonourable mention for the rickshaws)

It is not an offence for a four-wheeled rickshaw to be on the footpath. In any case, SSG is covered by the OPW and is not a public footpath.

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

Surely if the cycle lane is obstructed for whatever reason, then the cyclist should either cycle on the road with the rest of the traffic, or should dismount and walk on the footpath.

If a something was obstructing a traffic lane, would you encourage motorists to get out and pus? If not, why are you suggesting that cyclists should do the same?

cdebru wrote: »

While we are at it any chance of FPNs for jaywalking ? Virtually every junction in the city centre is blighted by people walking out onto the road, disobeying traffic lights etc etc. It needs to be clamped down on badly.

As someone put it 'Ireland is the only country where you have to ask for permission to cross the road' - the problem in this case is lack of service for pedestrians.

Carawaystick

Victor wrote: »

It is not an offence for a four-wheeled rickshaw to be on the footpath. In any case, SSG is covered by the OPW and is not a public footpath.

The footpath only, or the whole road?

xper

The footpath only. It's why Dublin Bus have those weirdly angled bus stops mounted in the road surface just off the footpath. OPW wouldn't let them mount them on the pavement.

xper

Cycling on the pavement is not dangerous ... If done at slow speed and with appropriate due care for others and if the pavement isn't very busy. Cycling on a crowded pavement or at full pelt such that you couldn't avoid an emerging person/vehicle or causing pedestrians to have to take sudden evasive action comes under recklessness and I'd have no problem with fines being dished out for that.

Instructing cyclists to dismount, as often seen at roadworks too, is utter nonsense and just shows the institutional disregard, thankfully lessening slowly, among authorities for cycling as a mode of transport.

Slunk

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

Luas platforms on the red line are bad as well - I've never waited on a tram at the Museum stop and *not* seen cyclists on the platform.

Have you tried cycling on the actually road / luas line. Its quite bumpy and annoying. Footpath/ platform is smooth and easy. No problem so long as your going slow and take care. Why they put cobbles on the luas line gets me. To stop people cycling on it? Doesn't work. As annoying as it us people use it when they have to. Smooth it out and we will keep off the footpath, especially them Dublin bikes. They don't take the cobbles like a normal bike.

the groutch

Victor wrote: »

Cycling on the footpath is generally not appropriate. However, it is nowhere near as as dangerous as it is made out to be.

there may be a very low fatality rate, but that doesn't automatically absolve it as not dangerous.
I'd like to see some sort of statistics on hospital admissions resulting from bicycle and pedestrian collisions, I'd say it could be quite the eye-opener.

Mucco

the groutch wrote: »

there may be a very low fatality rate, but that doesn't automatically absolve it as not dangerous.
I'd like to see some sort of statistics on hospital admissions resulting from bicycle and pedestrian collisions, I'd say it could be quite the eye-opener.

Victor's table, also has the injury rate: 136 out of 14,884, which is less than 1%.

Given these low rates, I'm always amazed at the amount of attention that is given to cyclists breaking the law compared to motorists breaking the law.

There's yet another letter in the Irish Times today. If people were concerned about the actual harm caused to pedestrians, there should be at least 99 times more letters commenting on motorists.

the groutch

ok, sorry didn't spot that, though it would be higher.

rp

cdebru wrote: »

While we are at it any chance of FPNs for jaywalking ? Virtually every junction in the city centre is blighted by people walking out onto the road, disobeying traffic lights etc etc. It needs to be clamped down on badly.

It's only jaywalking if you cross less than 50ft (15m) from a crossing (c. three car lengths). Of more concern is the behaviour of motorists in the city centre: crossing Pierce St., for example, easily 100m for a crossing, cars drive at you, no attempt to slow down. This both illegal and dangerous, and should be clamped down on hard.

Tarabuses

rp wrote: »

It's only jaywalking if you cross less than 50ft (15m) from a crossing (c. three car lengths). Of more concern is the behaviour of motorists in the city centre: crossing Pierce St., for example, easily 100m for a crossing, cars drive at you, no attempt to slow down. This both illegal and dangerous, and should be clamped down on hard.

Just because you are more than 50ft from a crossing doesn't mean you can walk out into the Pearse Street traffic and expect it to come to a grinding halt to let you cross.

Bucklesman

Tarabuses wrote: »

Just because you are more than 50ft from a crossing doesn't mean you can walk out into the Pearse Street traffic and expect it to come to a grinding halt to let you cross.

Speeding up when there are pedestrians crossing is utterly obnoxious driving behaviour in an urban environment.

Graham

Victor wrote: »

Let's take a look at the causes of of pedestrian causalities

Table 38 Single Vehicle Collisions, with or without Pedestrians, Classified by Vehicle Type
Vehicle Type Pedestrian Involved
Fatal % Injury %
Pedal Cycles 2 0% 136 1%
Motorcycles 16 2% 671 5%
Cars 614 66% 11,722 79%
PSVs 48 5% 576 4%
Goods Vehicles 195 21% 1,383 9%
Other or Unknown 53 6% 396 3%
TOTAL 928 100% 14,884 100%

Pedestrians casualties in all collisions 1,048 16,073
89% 93%


Cyclists only, i.e. excluding motorists 2 0% 136 1%
Motorists only, i.e. excluding cyclists 926 100% 14,748 99%

Motorist / cylist ratio 463 108

So, in a minimum of 928 collisions (multi-vehicle collisions that injured pedestrians weren't tabulated), there were 1,048 fatalities amongst pedestrians (note the slightly different metrics of collisions -v- fatalities - there can be more than one casualty in a collision). Of those, only two fatalities involved cyclists.

Cycling on the footpath is generally not appropriate. However, it is nowhere near as as dangerous as it is made out to be.

According to an OECD study "Pedestrian and cyclist crashes are heavily and disproportionally underreported in police
crash statistics compared to what hospital records and other studies show".

galwaycyclist

Graham wrote: »

According to an OECD study "Pedestrian and cyclist crashes are heavily and disproportionally underreported in police
crash statistics compared to what hospital records and other studies show".

I think by some estimates around 90% of cycling injuries are not recorded by the police.

There was work done on this in Galway in the 1970s I will see if I can dig this out as an indicator.

Thinkingaboutit

I hope this joke asked by OP has a punchline. Gardai are rarely seen except when some crackdown on something happens (so there might be five fines given for the sake of the news) or there's some dignitary about.

Tarabuses

Bucklesman wrote: »

Speeding up when there are pedestrians crossing is utterly obnoxious driving behaviour in an urban environment.

Where was there any mention of speeding up? Only a lunatic would do that.

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I think by some estimates around 90% of cycling injuries are not recorded by the police.

There was work done on this in Galway in the 1970s I will see if I can dig this out as an indicator.

Ok a study was done on this in Galway in the late 1970s. For the years 1975, 1976 and 1977 the Garda recorded 9% of serious injuries and 4% of minor injuries involving cyclists. Among cyclist casualties only 15% involved another vehicle - most incidents were falls or single vehicle collisions.

roverrules

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Ok a study was done on this in Galway in the late 1970s. For the years 1975, 1976 and 1977 the Garda recorded 9% of serious injuries and 4% of minor injuries involving cyclists. Among cyclist casualties only 15% involved another vehicle - most incidents were falls or single vehicle collisions.

There was also a study carried out in an ER in the states which would seem to confirm the lack of reported incidents in non motorised collisions
http://sfic.surgery.uc.../bicycle-injury.aspx

Some 50% of the hospital admissions for cyclist injuries were attributed to non motor vehicle accidents

In the market for stabilisers anyone.

Anyone know how much tricycles and them rickshaw bikes are fetching now?

dubscottie

xper wrote: »

Cycling on the pavement is not dangerous ... If done at slow speed and with appropriate due care for others and if the pavement isn't very busy. Cycling on a crowded pavement or at full pelt such that you couldn't avoid an emerging person/vehicle or causing pedestrians to have to take sudden evasive action comes under recklessness and I'd have no problem with fines being dished out for that.

Instructing cyclists to dismount, as often seen at roadworks too, is utter nonsense and just shows the institutional disregard, thankfully lessening slowly, among authorities for cycling as a mode of transport.

So its OK for me to ride my motorbike on the pavement as long as I do it very slowly?

NO.. Because it is illegal just like cycling on the pavement.

Roadworks involve heavy machinery, which even in a well maintained condition, still leak "fluids" on to the road surface not to mention the mud etc... Hit that on a rainy day.. Good luck. Thats why there is a "Cyclists Dismount" sign.. For your safety.. Cop on..

This sort of post annoys me as it is the usual from cyclists. Do cyclists ever stop to think why there is a sign or a light etc?

As for institutional disregard for cyclists.. Are you the ones that not have a institutional disregard for the Road Traffic Act unless it suits you?

cython

dubscottie wrote: »

So its OK for me to ride my motorbike on the pavement as long as I do it very slowly?

NO.. Because it is illegal just like cycling on the pavement.

Roadworks involve heavy machinery, which even in a well maintained condition, still leak "fluids" on to the road surface not to mention the mud etc... Hit that on a rainy day.. Good luck. Thats why there is a "Cyclists Dismount" sign.. For your safety.. Cop on..

So as a motorcyclist, with a similar propensity for instability being present in your vehicle (i.e. only 2 wheels), are you expected to dismount in these instances? Do you dismount out of concern for same even if there is no expectation? If not, then please cop on also!

Realistically, there is no such expectation of motorcyclists, and it is a double standard for there to be one for cyclists, especially given that the latter are not capable of as high speeds as the former, but can have similar levels of grip on their tyres.

dubscottie wrote: »

This sort of post annoys me as it is the usual from cyclists. Do cyclists ever stop to think why there is a sign or a light etc?

As for institutional disregard for cyclists.. Are you the ones that not have a institutional disregard for the Road Traffic Act unless it suits you?

And this sort of post annoys me in trying to project some sort of non-existent logic on a nonsensical double standard. Also, your last question doesn't actually make sense in how it is asked, but extrapolating what I believe you are trying to ask, no there is no institutional disregard for the RTA among cyclists, regardless of any question of convenience. It's not like cyclists are all part of some bloody secret society like the Illuminati, conspiring to flout all the traffic laws possible in the name of convenience, after all. We don't meet up every week to decide how to best to piss off motorists for the next 7 days, or any of the tropes that people seem to like to imagine.

The sooner that people get it into their heads that no cycling group is any more linked to/speaking for all cyclists than the AA is linked to all motorists, nor is any cyclist necessarily linked to any other than you are to the driver in the car beside you, and start treating each cyclist on the merits of their own conduct on the road, the bloody better!

cdebru

dubscottie wrote: »

So its OK for me to ride my motorbike on the pavement as long as I do it very slowly?

NO.. Because it is illegal just like cycling on the pavement.

Roadworks involve heavy machinery, which even in a well maintained condition, still leak "fluids" on to the road surface not to mention the mud etc... Hit that on a rainy day.. Good luck. Thats why there is a "Cyclists Dismount" sign.. For your safety.. Cop on..

This sort of post annoys me as it is the usual from cyclists. Do cyclists ever stop to think why there is a sign or a light etc?

As for institutional disregard for cyclists.. Are you the ones that not have a institutional disregard for the Road Traffic Act unless it suits you?

That's bs there was a cyclist dismount sign at Hueston station last week may still be there it has nothing to do with leaking fluids it is because the cycle track is blocked by the road works. But since there is no obligation to cycle in the cycle track even if it is unblocked there is no reason to request cyclists to dismount they are perfectly entitled to use the normal traffic lanes, if they have spilt oil or any other substance it should be cleaned and covered with grit and a warning sign that the road may be slippery. If the cycle track is closed it should be signposted that it is closed.

Victor

cython wrote: »

It's not like cyclists are all part of some bloody secret society like the Illuminati, conspiring to flout all the traffic laws possible in the name of convenience, after all. We don't meet up every week to decide how to best to piss off motorists for the next 7 days, or any of the tropes that people seem to like to imagine.

I'll send you an invite.

cdebru

Victor wrote: »

I'll send you an invite.

Sshh we already decided not to let Cython in.

monument

dubscottie wrote: »

Roadworks involve heavy machinery, which even in a well maintained condition, still leak "fluids" on to the road surface not to mention the mud etc... Hit that on a rainy day.. Good luck. Thats why there is a "Cyclists Dismount" sign.. For your safety.. Cop on..

If that was the case we should also have dismount signs at roadworks for motorcyclists!

xper

dubscottie wrote: »

So its OK for me to ride my motorbike on the pavement as long as I do it very slowly?

NO.. Because it is illegal just like cycling on the pavement.

I was pointing out that cycling on the pavement is not dangerous in the correct circumstances and therefore should not be illegal and subject to fines. I did not advocate breaking the law. Recklessness can still be punished without a blanket ban on a safe activity.

Roadworks involve heavy machinery, which even in a well maintained condition, still leak "fluids" on to the road surface not to mention the mud etc... Hit that on a rainy day.. Good luck. Thats why there is a "Cyclists Dismount" sign.. For your safety.. Cop on..

As others have pointed out, that's absolute nonsense. Such "fluids" would pose a threat to all road users and no contractor should be allowing the pavement or road surface condition to deteriorate to such a degree that it endangers users without slowing down or diverting all traffic. Signs saying "Cyclists - Slow Down" or "Cyclists - Use Traffic Lane" or whatever appropriate safe and reasonable action is required would be fine when a cycle path is impacted. But "Cyclists Dismount" is just a big lazy f**k you to cyclists.

This sort of post annoys me as it is the usual from cyclists. Do cyclists ever stop to think why there is a sign or a light etc?

As for institutional disregard for cyclists.. Are you the ones that not have a institutional disregard for the Road Traffic Act unless it suits you?

Yes, let's lump cyclists into one great hive mind, assume they only ever travel by bike and never experience the public realm as a driver or pedestrian and are all hell bent on mindless self destruction. Well done you.

dubscottie

cython wrote: »

So as a motorcyclist, with a similar propensity for instability being present in your vehicle (i.e. only 2 wheels), are you expected to dismount in these instances? Do you dismount out of concern for same even if there is no expectation?

Eh.. Motorbike and pushbike have 2 wheels.. That is where it ends..

My bike is 100kg with big tyres. We also do a test. Cyclists do not. Hit oil slicks daily..

And before you bang on about "Ive done the test for a car" and " I drive so know everything"..

Having a car license and commuting does not make you a expert (ex= meaning once was , Spurt= drip under pressure)

dubscottie

monument wrote: »

If that was the case we should also have dismount signs at roadworks for motorcyclists!

See above..

Motorcycles can traverse the Luas tracks, no problem..

I did the N7 when it was no more than a mud road in heavy rain..

Iwannahurl

Graham wrote: »

According to an OECD study "Pedestrian and cyclist crashes are heavily and disproportionally underreported in police
crash statistics compared to what hospital records and other studies show".

For some reason cyclist crashes are (according to old data) more likely to go unreported -- even in the Netherlands, surprisingly.

However, the under-reporting mainly involved cyclist-only crashes, and since both pedestrian casualties and inter-modal crashes are more likely to be reported, imo this suggests that if there was a significant problem with cyclist-pedestrian fatal or serious-injury crashes we'd have heard about it by now.

A 1989 study by Monash University found that the level of pedestrian casualties arising from collisions with cyclists on footpaths was "of very small proportions".

A much more recent paper by two professors at Hunter College in NYC claimed that "pedestrian-cyclist accidents are far more common occurrences than previously thought and that government and public health officials need to pay more attention to this phenomenon officials need to pay more attention to this phenomenon."

However, the paper did not address the issue of causality, which led to some arguments about the authors' conclusions.

cython

dubscottie wrote: »

Eh.. Motorbike and pushbike have 2 wheels.. That is where it ends..

My bike is 100kg with big tyres. We also do a test. Cyclists do not. Hit oil slicks daily..

Inertia is a very dangerous thing in a loss of traction, making that extra 100kg not necessarily a good thing. A bit of extra mass may slightly reduce the risk of a loss of traction, but if it was the be all and end all then surely cars could never skid, which is obviously rubbish. Also, not sure why you think cyclists are any less likely to hit oil slicks on a public road, and thus have less experience of handling them?! Fairly sure traversing road works is not necessarily part of the motorcycle test either (it may happen to be part of an individual test, but not prescribed as a requirement for them all), so I'm really not sure what bearing any of the points you've tried to make actually have on each other.

dubscottie wrote: »

And before you bang on about "Ive done the test for a car" and " I drive so know everything"..

No need to, there's already an distinct echo of "I'm a motorcyclist so I know exactly what's right for a different class of road user" in the thread.

dubscottie wrote: »

Having a car license and commuting does not make you a expert (ex= meaning once was , Spurt= drip under pressure)

And being a motorcyclist makes you no more of an expert about how pedal cycles work, or what is and is not appropriate for them. The rest of your comment is utterly pointless and irrelevant.

dubscottie wrote: »

See above..

Motorcycles can traverse the Luas tracks, no problem..

I did the N7 when it was no more than a mud road in heavy rain..

I can traverse the Luas tracks or any level crossing on a bike with no issue also. It just takes due care, as does using any vehicle. Really don't see you making any point with this post, to be blunt.

It really seems at this stage that you don't want to have a discussion based on reality, and instead you are resorting to flippancies and vague comments with no actual point to try to peddle your tenuous opinions. I would also suggest that you consider that the best road users are arguably not so arrogant as to consider themselves among the best road users, as they know there is plenty that they do not know - the tone of your posts suggests you are not among that group, unfortunately.

Confucius say

As a cyclist, this won't change how I behave on the roads and I don't plan adhering to the rules. I hope other cyclists do the same. They are being put in place purely to generate revenue, nothing to do with safety or order.

laraghrider

Confucius say wrote: »

As a cyclist, this won't change how I behave on the roads and I don't plan adhering to the rules. I hope other cyclists do the same. They are being put in place purely to generate revenue, nothing to do with safety or order.

So basically you currently don't and have no intention in the future of ever stopping at a red light?

Like anything this will all come down to enforcement of which be it for a bike or a car there is next to none out there.

LeinsterDub

laraghrider wrote: »

So basically you currently don't and have no intention in the future of ever stopping at a red light?

If that what they were actually saying they'd be a long time dead. They are saying they will continue to do what the normally do which is I assume stop at some light and ignore others when safe

Confucius say

laraghrider wrote: »

So basically you currently don't and have no intention in the future of ever stopping at a red light?

Like anything this will all come down to enforcement of which be it for a bike or a car there is next to none out there.

When I think it's unsafe to others and myself I'll stop