Cyclists should be "taken out and shot"

Banjoxed

Not my words, I hasten to add, but Ryanair's Michael O'Leary.

A novel if not brave solution but perhaps just a tad extreme.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/ryanair-s-michael-o-leary-says-cyclists-should-be-shot-1.2634793

coylemj

Does Michael O'Leary shooting his mouth off yet again warrant a new thread on boards? On any subject?

devnull

On the day Michael O'Leary reports that traffic has been slightly hit by the Belgian terror attacks, he comes out with anther publicity seeking statement, people see the article, it gets reported everywhere, then people think of Ryanair and have a look at some fares and maybe sell a few thousand extra more seats.

He's done it so many times, you'd think people would cop on by now. This is how he works. Notice how the time he came out with the toilet idea was when he was saying it was a slow news week. They're timed purposefully.

Banjoxed

devnull wrote: »

On the day Michael O'Leary reports that traffic has been slightly hit by the Belgian terror attacks, he comes out with anther publicity seeking statement, people see the article, it gets reported everywhere, then people think of Ryanair and have a look at some fares and maybe sell a few thousand extra more seats.

He's done it so many times, you'd think people would cop on by now. This is how he works. Notice how the time he came out with the toilet idea was when he was saying it was a slow news week. They're timed purposefully.

The toilet one came off the back from a bit of mock outrage from Bill Turnbull on BBC Breakfast - "Mr O'Leary, you'll be charging for toilet use next!"

Quick as a flash O'Leary deadpanned that his development team were looking at card vouchers that could be sold on the website. Clearly he was taking the P, but it was still ran with on a slow news day...

magicbastarder

lest anyone forget, this is not the first idea he's had to beat the traffic.

Grandeeod

I have great respect for MOL in terms of aviation, but he knows **** all about public transport. Never has and never will. He doesn't really care either.

pj.dublin

Just confiscate the bike of bad cyclists, within a week Ireland would have zero problems with cyclists breaking the rules of the road.

magicbastarder

that's always been my bright idea in relation to cars - if you get X penalty points, you have to surrender your car for X days within one week.

TheExile1878

Finally, something Michael O'Leary says that I agree with!!!!

Surely in this techie age we can get something rigged up that if you run a red light you a vaporised ?? Cars, and pedestrians too!

cdebru

The guy is an ass every time he opens his mouth he just proves it.

MJohnston

TheExile1878 wrote: »

Finally, something Michael O'Leary says that I agree with!!!!

Surely in this techie age we can get something rigged up that if you run a red light you a vaporised ?? Cars, and pedestrians too!

There would be no pedestrians left in the city

demanufactured

Gobsh1te

Carawaystick

Grandeeod wrote: »

I have great respect for MOL in terms of aviation, but he knows **** all about public transport.

Eh, He runs the biggest profitable public transport company in Ireland...

Grandeeod

Carawaystick wrote: »

Eh, He runs the biggest profitable public transport company in Ireland...

You know what I meant.

Roadhawk

there is another thread relating to this topic in the Cycle forum. Just thought i would add my tuppence worth here too.

However controversial MOL sounds, in my opinion, he is right. Cyclists are a menace in Dublin City. Between Aug 2015 and Jan 2016 nearly 600 fines were issued from the Gardai to cyclists breaking the law. The Gardai are short on resources so imagine how many are getting away without fines.

magicbastarder

your comment is meaningless out of context. if there were 50,000 cyclists using bikes in that period, that's a detection rate of approx. 1% for that timeframe.

MJohnston

Roadhawk wrote: »

there is another thread relating to this topic in the Cycle forum. Just thought i would add my tuppence worth here too.

However controversial MOL sounds, in my opinion, he is right. Cyclists are a menace in Dublin City. Between Aug 2015 and Jan 2016 nearly 600 fines were issued from the Gardai to cyclists breaking the law. The Gardai are short on resources so imagine how many are getting away without fines.

A typical lack of empathy that pervades 'popular' Irish opinion these days. Your numbers are meaningless without context:

1. What percentage of the total cyclists travelling during that period were fined?
2. How many pedestrians were breaking the law unpunished during the same period? How many punished?
3. How many drivers were breaking the law unpunished during the same period? How many punished?
4. What is the breakdown of the fineable offenses in those 600?
5. How many of those offenses are actually a "menace" to pedestrians or drivers?
6. Would the number be the same if the Gardai hadn't just introduced the new laws, run a big public campaign around them, and then had a short crackdown?

Let's put this in perspective, before you start calling everyone with a bike a menace. Better to recognize that there are careless and inattentive pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike, and they're all making it worse for the rest of us.

Roadhawk

MJohnston wrote: »

A typical lack of empathy that pervades 'popular' Irish opinion these days. Your numbers are meaningless without context:

1. What percentage of the total cyclists travelling during that period were fined?
2. How many pedestrians were breaking the law unpunished during the same period? How many punished?
3. How many drivers were breaking the law unpunished during the same period? How many punished?
4. What is the breakdown of the fineable offenses in those 600?
5. How many of those offenses are actually a "menace" to pedestrians or drivers?
6. Would the number be the same if the Gardai hadn't just introduced the new laws, run a big public campaign around them, and then had a short crackdown?

Let's put this in perspective, before you start calling everyone with a bike a menace. Better to recognize that there are careless and inattentive pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike, and they're all making it worse for the rest of us.

1. Not sure, might look into those figures.
2. Not sure and I don’t think there are fixed penalty fines for pedestrians. Although not a bad idea.
3. Absolutely loads. Maybe more traffic corps members might be able to reduce this figure. But what has that got to do with cyclists?
4. Not sure that the breakdown matters but http://www.dublincycling.ie/cycling/more-cyclists-get-fined-motorists-cycling-related-offences
5. Well all of them really
6. No but the number of offenders would more than likely stay the same or increase.

I never insinuated that cyclists were the only menace in the city.

cdebru

Roadhawk wrote: »

there is another thread relating to this topic in the Cycle forum. Just thought i would add my tuppence worth here too.

However controversial MOL sounds, in my opinion, he is right. Cyclists are a menace in Dublin City. Between Aug 2015 and Jan 2016 nearly 600 fines were issued from the Gardai to cyclists breaking the law. The Gardai are short on resources so imagine how many are getting away without fines.

over 10,000 people a day enter the canal cordon on bicycle between 7 and 10am mon to fri, how many enter before and after that on saturdays and sundays on top of that you have up to 15,000 dublin bike trips per day, so in a 4 or 5 month period well in excess of 3 million bike trips so 600 is pretty miniscule

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

I never insinuated that cyclists were the only menace in the city.

define 'menace' so. how many people are killed or seriously injured by cyclists?
the last time a cyclist caused the death of another road user in dublin was 14 years ago; i'm not sure if there's any record of serious injuries caused by cyclists.

Roadhawk

cdebru wrote: »

over 10,000 people a day enter the canal cordon on bicycle between 7 and 10am mon to fri, how many enter before and after that on saturdays and sundays on top of that you have up to 15,000 dublin bike trips per day, so in a 4 or 5 month period well in excess of 3 million bike trips so 600 is pretty miniscule

I also read that article with all your stats:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/commuter-cyclists-in-dublin-top-10000-for-first-time-31144189.html

Its a good guidance to forecast but there are too many variables to be accurate. I think you might like this article:
http://www.dublincycling.ie/cycling/more-cyclists-get-fined-motorists-cycling-related-offences

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

Its a good guidance to forecast but there are too many variables to be accurate. I think you might like this article:
http://www.dublincycling.ie/cycling/more-cyclists-get-fined-motorists-cycling-related-offences

"Leaving out the last figure due to its ambiguous nature, that’s 188 fixed charge notices that were issued to motorists for cycling related offences for the same two month period that 244 cyclists received equivalent fines."

i would question the use of the phrase 'equivalent fines'; the fines listed for motorists are the ones which would be fairly specifically ones which just impact cyclists. the fines listed for cyclists are general fines.

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

define 'menace' so. how many people are killed or seriously injured by cyclists?
the last time a cyclist caused the death of another road user in dublin was 14 years ago; i'm not sure if there's any record of serious injuries caused by cyclists.

Menace: a person whose actions, attitudes, or ideas are considered dangerous or harmful.

I didnt call cyclists terrorists? Why have you all of a sudden jumped to death/injury rates? I presume you are comparing with motorists? Its also very hard to prove the fault of a cycling incident even though stats will show there hasnt been a single cyclist at fault over the last 14years? Personally id find that very hard to believe.

magicbastarder

well, you've just defined menace as someone whose actions are dangerous or harmful, and now you're balking at the notion of quantifying harm?

thomasj

pj.dublin wrote:

Just confiscate the bike of bad cyclists, within a week Ireland would have zero problems with cyclists breaking the rules of the road.

Easier said than done!

Grandeeod

I'll float this one.

Every cyclist using a bike on a public highway should have passed a mandatory rules of the road test and have a registration number. Furthermore they should have insurance.

Lemming

Taken from the Irish Times, bold part is my emphasis

Irish Times wrote:

Almost 600 cyclists were given on-the-spot fines for breaking red lights, cycling without lights or in pedestrianised areas, or for one of four other offences in the first six months of a new penalty regime.
The number of fines issued to cyclists was described as “on the high side” by Green Party councillor and chairman of the council’s transport committee Ciarán Cuffe, who suggested gardaí would better off pursuing drivers who broke speed limits and parked in cycle lanes.
There were more than 20,000 fixed-charge notices issued to speeding motorists over the same period.

That's 20,000 speeding charges alone, not any other sort of road traffic offense such as parking fines, dangerous driving, etc. So in reality the number will be north of 20,000 by a considerable margin. Lets just put this in perspective for all those people calling cyclists a menace, shoot them, confiscate bikes, etc. rhubarb rhubarb b0lloxology:

Six hundred FPNs is a whopping 3% of 20,000 alone never mind the additional motoring fines that may be applied. Damn those cyclists, they'll kill us all ... or some such.

Lemming

Grandeeod wrote: »

I'll float this one.

Every cyclist using a bike on a public highway should have passed a mandatory rules of the road test and have a registration number. Furthermore they should have insurance.

And if they're under the age of eighteen?

I think that schools should run rules of the road education (indeed they used to when I was growing up but it was a bit haphazardly applied, in so much as some schools might run a course but only occasionally and perhaps not even from year to year), but the rest of what you've suggested is just George-Hook b0lloxology.

Grandeeod

Lemming wrote: »

but the rest of what you've suggested is just George-Hook b0lloxology.

Why?

And could you not just have said you disagreed instead of the foul mouthed nonsense?

magicbastarder

Grandeeod wrote: »

I'll float this one.

Every cyclist using a bike on a public highway should have passed a mandatory rules of the road test and have a registration number. Furthermore they should have insurance.

you know the government is trying to encourage more people to take up cycling - as it's easier in terms of traffic, and results in a healthier population, among other things.
so they're not likely to introduce such rules, which would drive down cyclist numbers, and have explicitly said so iirc.

i think the main issue with the idea of mandatory insurance is that it's a solution in search of a problem; how big an issue is it that cyclists currently *aren't* insured?

PeadarCo

Grandeeod wrote:

Every cyclist using a bike on a public highway should have passed a mandatory rules of the road test and have a registration number. Furthermore they should have insurance.

I'll bite.

Other than making you feel better how would the above improve road safety?

Or put it an another way how many incidents of death or serious injury were cyclists responsible for in the last year?

magicbastarder

plus, i can just imagine the daily mail disappearing in a big cloud of ireful logic. they wouldn't know whether to run a 'WELCOME CLAMPDOWN ON HATEFUL CYCLISTS' or 'MEDDLING GOVERNMENT TRYING TO CONTROL SIMPLE THINGS LIKE CYCLING' headlines.

BoatMad

I do think that while mol is engaging in his usual theatrics, he had a point

You just can't consign car usage with a blasé " I'm done with cars - Owen keeghan " approach. You have to accept the are and will remain the majority mode of transport for people. You have to plan to integrate them into the city centre not exclude them.

Dcc attitude to all electric cars for example is appalling compared to other CoCos ( and his old DL coco )

Lemming

Grandeeod wrote: »

Why?

There are reasons why we license motor vehicles. It's a bit obvious, as in Captain-Obvious obvious. There are also reasons why we restrict the age requirements in order to even apply for said licenses. Again, because it's all rather obvious. The requirement for motor insurance extends from all of the above due to the financial and legal implications of what may happen if a motor vehicle is not handled with sufficient care & attention.

Lemming

BoatMad wrote: »

I do think that while mol is engaging in his usual theatrics, he had a point

You just can't consign car usage with a blasé " I'm done with cars - Owen keeghan " approach. You have to accept the are and will remain the majority mode of transport for people. You have to plan to integrate them into the city centre not exclude them.

Dcc attitude to all electric cars for example is appalling compared to other CoCos ( and his old DL coco )

The reason why MoL is p1ssing & moaning is because the bus lanes that taxis are eligible to use, are also designated cycle lanes in the absence of other cycle lane infrastructure. Thus those pesky cyclists are "getting in MoL's way" when he is abusing a taxi licence to dodge traffic.

And he wants some free press for his company.

BoatMad

Lemming wrote: »

There are reasons why we license motor vehicles. It's a bit obvious, as in Captain-Obvious obvious. There are also reasons why we restrict the age requirements in order to even apply for said licenses. Again, because it's all rather obvious. The requirement for motor insurance extends from all of the above due to the financial and legal implications of what may happen if a motor vehicle is not handled with sufficient care & attention.

I think most agree with the idea that insurance is nonsense. You might as well suggest walking should be insured

Bycycles however should be registered and display such registration.

magicbastarder

again, a $50 solution to a $5 problem. we'd just need to wait six months to find out how much maintaining such a system costs the country before it'd need to be scrapped again.

PeadarCo

BoatMad wrote:

Bycycles however should be registered and display such registration.

How would that help road safety?

Grand cyclists break the rules of the road but so does every other mode of transport. Given that the amount of deaths and serious injuries caused by cyclists are negligible why go through the cost of setting up and maintaining a database for it. The money would be far better spend on improved roads etc. Thats before you talk about decreasing both recreational and commuting usage of bikes and related health benefits.

Lemming

BoatMad wrote: »

Bycycles however should be registered and display such registration.

And how might one do this in a manner that doesn't involve having sharp edges hanging off the edge of bicycles? And given that bicycles don't have VINs .... prove that registration number belongs to that bicycle.

And again, what happens when the cyclist is under the age of eighteen? How to you legally register a bike to them?

MJohnston

I don't mind the idea of cyclists registration, however it would absolutely kill off Dublin Bikes, which I don't think would be a great thing. I'd be interested in knowing how many of those 600 fines were given to DB 'cyclists' as I have the feeling it'd be a high enough amount of them.

Separately, it's still my belief that we need to change some of the rules for cyclists to create a consistent, yet reasonable, set that is safer for everyone - pedestrians are allowed the leeway to jaywalk, for example, because in most cases it is safe and reasonable.

Roadhawk

magicbastarder wrote: »

you know the government is trying to encourage more people to take up cycling - as it's easier in terms of traffic, and results in a healthier population, among other things.
so they're not likely to introduce such rules, which would drive down cyclist numbers, and have explicitly said so iirc.

i think the main issue with the idea of mandatory insurance is that it's a solution in search of a problem; how big an issue is it that cyclists currently *aren't* insured?

Yes some members of the government want to see an increase in cyclists but not all. you are right to say that implementing a license or insurance is counter productive in increasing the numbers but logically it makes sense as a measure to increase the level of safety on our roads.

The issue may not be big in comparison to other modes of transport but it is an issue. Surely insurance would be relevant in such incidents as the recent Phoenix Park collision? http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/cyclist-injured-after-collision-with-a-pedestrian-in-the-phoenix-park-has-died-34687597.html

magicbastarder

i think we should institute a system for cyclists where each one is assigned a mandatory identification code, consisting of a sequence of letters (though numbers would be allowed too, if that floats your boat) and a designation based on the typical storage location of said cyclist, to make it easier to identify them should they end up transgressing a law.

magicbastarder

Roadhawk wrote: »

Yes some members of the government want to see an increase in cyclists but not all. you are right to say that implementing a license or insurance is counter productive in increasing the numbers but logically it makes sense as a measure to increase the level of safety on our roads.

y'see, this is what makes cyclists grind their teeth; we're so often faced with derisory or downright idiotic facilities for cycling, which increase the danger of cycling, and are then told that the primary means by which to increase safety is a tax or insurance on the cyclist.
from the window i'm sitting at, i can see a cycle lane which has a traffic light sitting smack bang in the centre of it; and it's not an afterthought. it was built that way. if i was to use that cycle lane, i'd have to swerve onto a footpath to avoid the traffic light - which is a violation which earns an FPN!

brooke 2

Roadhawk wrote: »

there is another thread relating to this topic in the Cycle forum. Just thought i would add my tuppence worth here too.

However controversial MOL sounds, in my opinion, he is right. Cyclists are a menace in Dublin City. Between Aug 2015 and Jan 2016 nearly 600 fines were issued from the Gardai to cyclists breaking the law. The Gardai are short on resources so imagine how many are getting away without fines.

It was hilarious listening to Eamon Ryan talking to Pat Kenny today, trying to tell him that cyclists don't go too fast in Dublin! Pat was not buying it.
I happened to see Mr. Ryan on the news a few days ago - he was cycling along the Merrion Square side of Leinster House when he spotted the TV camera across the road, by the gates. He
shot across in front of a girl who was cycling in the opposite direction, and in the path of an approaching pedestrian who had to sidestep Ryan as he braked hard. Ryan sheepishly nodded to the pedestrian who did not seem at all amused. The thought struck me if this is the inconsiderate way he normally carries on when he cycles, I am not surprised that he thinks that most cyclists are well behaved!

brooke 2

Grandeeod wrote: »

I'll float this one.

Every cyclist using a bike on a public highway should have passed a mandatory rules of the road test and have a registration number. Furthermore they should have insurance.

And a bell!!

MJohnston

brooke 2 wrote: »

And a bell!!

Bells are of little use these days between white earbuds and smartphone distraction syndrome.

MJohnston

Roadhawk wrote: »

Its very hard to prove who is at fault in situations like this. I mean if a pedestrian gets knocked down by a speeding car the driver is at fault unless the pedestrian dives infront of the car. Very sticky situation.

True, the only thing for certain is that pedestrians should not be walking on well marked cycle paths. I still don't see what good the cyclist having insurance would have made though?

2RockMountain

Grandeeod wrote: »

I'll float this one.

Every cyclist using a bike on a public highway should have passed a mandatory rules of the road test and have a registration number. Furthermore they should have insurance.

I'll sink this one.

How's that test / registration / insurance working out in terms of stopping drivers from driving dangerously?

Roadhawk

MJohnston wrote: »

True, the only thing for certain is that pedestrians should not be walking on well marked cycle paths. I still don't see what good the cyclist having insurance would have made though?

Maybe your right with the insurance. It would only make a difference at a financial level after an accident has happened.

Are there any laws around pedestrians being allowed to walk in cycle tracks?

MJohnston

Roadhawk wrote: »

Are there any laws around pedestrians being allowed to walk in cycle tracks?

Would it make any difference? Here's what I see as a frequent cyclist and driver: pedestrians are by far the most likely out of three to cause danger to themselves, other pedestrians, or to other cyclists or drivers.

I cycle on OCS daily, and while buses and taxis can be careless or just generally block the flow of lots of other modes, pedestrians are the ones who always make me nervous. Not because I think I'll hit a pedestrian, but because they frequently walk across the street without looking, or even after looking and just ignoring whatever is coming. And while 99% of the time I am able to stop in time or swerve to avoid them, I'm worried about that 1% of the time where it's too wet and I'll slide under the wheels of a bus, or more likely just fall off the bike and wreck myself because of them.

As a cyclist, you're constantly aware (or should be) that you're easily the most vulnerable thing on the move (pedestrians might be softer and squishier but they're moving slowly and separated from the vehicles, vehicles have little to worry about but bigger vehicles), and it doesn't help to be constantly told that *you* are the menace.

traprunner

brooke 2 wrote: »

And a bell!!

A loud shout is far more effective. So it should be law that all cyclists can shout. It would also limit the number of cyclists by ruling out a minority i.e. non verbal people.