Calling out fellow cyclists for illegal or dangerous behavior

AndrewJRenko

tdf7187 wrote: »

It's basically unenforceable.

Why? Enforcement is working in many other countries.

07Lapierre

If only the Gardai would accept video evidence from GoPro’s...it could then be enforced by everyone.

tdf7187

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why? Enforcement is working in many other countries.

Let's see some links.

site_owner

Lastly, our results underscore the irreplaceable role of human resources in reducing the number of traffic fatalities. Human resources are an indispensable component that enables the implemented strategies to achieve their full effectiveness through legislation. In addition, the value (and significance) of the coefficient for police officers over that for their productivity, measured by numbers of reported violations, highlight the work done by law enforcement, not only with respect to punishment but also deterrence and raising intercity road users’ awareness by their mere presence.

From legislation to compliance: The power of traffic law enforcement for the case study of Spain

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967070X18303299

magicbastarder

this is the problem. ireland's traffic fatalities are at or near an all time low. the response from the government/gardai is almost certainly one of 'why do we need to pour resources in when we have success already?', which is a legitimate response if the only metric you're interested in is fatalities.

RobbieMD

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why? Enforcement is working in many other countries.

Any idea how other jurisdictions work around it? I can see the issue our AG had with the proposed legislation, and this latest proposal seems like a sensible alternative.

AulWan

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I reported a car where the passenger had leaned out the window and assaulted me while cycling. The Garda told me it was an unregistered written off car, so it couldn't be traced.

If, by some stretch of the imagination, this did actually happen, and its not just your usual need to defend and justify all bad behaviour by cyclists, then the odds of a car being an unregistered write off and unidentifiable, is very, very small.

Whereas EVERY cyclist is unregistered and unidentifiable.

Weak excuse.

magicbastarder

AulWan wrote: »

Whereas EVERY cyclist is unregistered and unidentifiable.

i know non-cyclists have a tendency to lump all cyclists into one ur-cyclist, but we don't all look identical, you know. except those of us who have removed our faces to evade identification.

micar

AulWan wrote: »

If, by some stretch of the imagination, this did actually happen

Here are three clips where a passenger was recorded pushing a cyclist into a ditch


https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/video-news/video-shocking-footage-shows-cyclist-being-pushed-off-bike-by-man-in-passing-car-31409104.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1647108/Video-Shocking-moment-man-car-slows-push-cyclist-ditch.html

https://youtu.be/_QWLt6twxMw

Time

07Lapierre wrote: »

If only the Gardai would accept video evidence from GoPro’s...it could then be enforced by everyone.

Imagine how many convictions Angela Fahy would be responsible for then!

AulWan

magicbastarder wrote: »

i know non-cyclists have a tendency to lump all cyclists into one ur-cyclist, but we don't all look identical, you know. except those of us who have removed our faces to evade identification.

Yes because the gardai have such an extensive and easily accessible data base of photos of cyclist faces they can check in the event of incidents to identify who the cyclists are - almost as extensive as the register of motor vehicles. :rolleyes:

AulWan

Context, people.

The whole point of my original post was in response to another a poster who asked how cyclists could be identified when they cause accidents, or damage, and the fact is they can't be. Unlike cars, where ownership of same are (usually) on a database.

Of course, then some cyclist had to come back with a typical smart ass post about an unregistered write off, which frankly, I don't believe ever happened.

The bottom line is, the owner of a car involved in any incident it much more likely to be identified then a cyclist. Cyclists can pretty much scrape up your car with their bike's handlebars, or knock off your side mirror and ride away, without fear of detection or consequences.

magicbastarder

AulWan wrote: »

The bottom line is, the owner of a car involved in any incident it much more likely to be identified then a cyclist. Cyclists can pretty much scrape up your car with their bike's handlebars, or knock off your side mirror and ride away, without fear of detection or consequences.

i suspect the regulars on this forum are tired of me mentioning this to provide context.
i once cycled at pretty much full tilt into the back of a car; a taxi, as it turned out. the damage i did was little enough that the taxi driver drove me home and seemed relieved that i was not more badly injured than i was (six stitches in my chin, and tetanus injection, as it turned out, was the medical intervention required).

if i had done the same, at the same speed, in a car, it's quite likely that one or both vehicles would have been a write-off.
i.e. if i'd been driving, i'd have probably done a five figure sum of damage. being on a bike, i did - at a stretch - a three figure sum of damage.

motorists forget that - unlike motorists - cyclists, to do damage to other vehicles, usually have to injure themselves.

cyclists are identifiable, and (under the law) can have their bikes seized by gardai who are not convinced that they've adequately identified themselves.
if you can provide figures relating to how much damage cyclists do in situations where they cycle off leaving motorists out of pocket, please do.

AulWan

07Lapierre wrote: »

If only the Gardai would accept video evidence from GoPro’s...it could then be enforced by everyone.

And likewise, dash cams.

Anyone who attempts to drive in Dublin without one is nuts.

AulWan

magicbastarder wrote: »

i suspect the regulars on this forum are tired of me mentioning this to provide context.
i once cycled at pretty much full tilt into the back of a car; a taxi, as it turned out. the damage i did was little enough that the taxi driver drove me home and seemed relieved that i was not more badly injured than i was (six stitches in my chin, and tetanus injection, as it turned out, was the medical intervention required).

if i had done the same, at the same speed, in a car, it's quite likely that one or both vehicles would have been a write-off.
i.e. if i'd been driving, i'd have probably done a five figure sum of damage. being on a bike, i did - at a stretch - a three figure sum of damage.

motorists forget that - unlike motorists - cyclists, to do damage to other vehicles, usually have to injure themselves.

cyclists are identifiable, and (under the law) can have their bikes seized by gardai who are not convinced that they've adequately identified themselves.
if you can provide figures relating to how much damage cyclists do in situations where they cycle off leaving motorists out of pocket, please do.

I can provide you with a copy of the receipt for the €400 that I had to pay to replace a wing mirror, if you'd like to give me your address. The cyclist who knocked it off and didn't bother his arse stopping, didn't appear to have hurt himself doing it. I was stopped at the time, he was weaving through traffic lanes.

I'd be delighted if you could tell me how he could be legally identified, so I could send the bill on to him.

CramCycle

AulWan wrote: »

I can provide you with a copy of the receipt for the €400 that I had to pay to replace a wing mirror, if you'd like to give me your address. The cyclist who knocked it off and didn't bother his arse stopping, didn't appear to have hurt himself doing it. I was stopped at the time, he was weaving through traffic lanes.

I'd be delighted if you could tell me how he could be legally identified, so I could send the bill on to him.

Sex/Height/Clothes/Description of bike/time of day/Date etc.

You actually get more useful info from a cyclist because a car you would need most of the same plus a reg, and a hope the driver actually admits being there and was caught on camera if they don't. A cyclist you can actually ID the person, most are habitual, ride the same routes, on reasonably unique bikes when a brief description is added.

I imagine you didn't do anything, and the Gardai seen it as a waste of time. If you think your treatment would have been better had it been a car or motorbike, I almost pity your naivety.

The issue is resources, and lack of them from Gardai.

I once waited when a car pulled out on me, took his wing mirror off. He pulled out in front of me, and nearly killed me, I had a few injuries. Ended up paying 400euro rather than go through the courts even though he hit me. Hence I got a camera.

Long story short, in a you said, they said story like yours, I can only wonder how much fault was actually attributable to each party if we were being honest.

magicbastarder

i'm dreadfully sorry that this happened to you, but i know of 4 people at a minimum - myself included - where a wing mirror was destroyed (and in my case, the driver's window damaged too) in a situation where it was another motorist to blame. and as you mention, without dashcam footage there's no comeback.
i would also love to be able to send the bill on; as would my friends, whose wing mirror was taken off by a camper van in cork two months ago, at a cost of nearly €600 to them.
perhaps we should campaign for dashcams to be made mandatory as a priority way higher than somehow tagging cyclists in a way that makes them identifiable? weirdly, cars seem to be able to do damage to other cars at a rate cyclists can only scratch their heads at.

AulWan

CramCycle wrote: »

Sex/Height/Clothes/Description of bike/time of day/Date etc.

Are you actually serious with this?

CramCycle wrote: »

Long story short, in a you said, they said story like yours, I can only wonder how much fault was actually attributable to each party if we were being honest.

If the opposite was true, would you be wondering how much blame to attribute to the cyclist? Like hell you would. But nice try.

THIS attiude is why people so many people have nothing good to say about cyclists.

tomasrojo

AulWan wrote: »

Are you actually serious with this?

It's how they identfiy people on foot who commit crimes and misdemeanours. Which is a much bigger category than people on bike who commit crimes and misdemeanours.

AulWan

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm dreadfully sorry that this happened to you, but i know of 4 people at a minimum - myself included - where a wing mirror was destroyed (and in my case, the driver's window damaged too) in a situation where it was another motorist to blame. and as you mention, without dashcam footage there's no comeback.
i would also love to be able to send the bill on; as would my friends, whose wing mirror was taken off by a camper van in cork two months ago, at a cost of nearly €600 to them.
perhaps we should campaign for dashcams to be made mandatory as a priority way higher than somehow tagging cyclists in a way that makes them identifiable? weirdly, cars seem to be able to do damage to other cars at a rate cyclists can only scratch their heads at.

You see, this is what annoys me about cyclists. I tell you about a very straightforward incident where my car was damaged by a cyclist, and while initially trying to appear empathetic, you then try to turn it around and make it about the fact that drivers damage cars all the time - as if that somehow excuses the actions of the cyclist who damaged my car. It doesn't.

So, I guess I'm done.

AulWan

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's how they identfiy people on foot who commit crimes and misdemeanours. Which is a much bigger category than people on bike who commit crimes and misdemeanours.

People on foot are not usually moving as quickly as someone on a bike. You rarely get to see their face either, usually just their back as they cycle away.

But carry on.

tomasrojo

AulWan wrote: »

You see, this is what annoys me about cyclists. I tell you about a very straightforward incident where my car was damaged by a cyclist, and while initially trying to appear empathetic, you then try to turn it around and make it about the fact that drivers damage cars all the time - as if that somehow excuses the actions of the cyclist who damaged my car. It doesn't.

So, I guess I'm done.

Yeah, I have to say I can't fake empathy. I found your story sort of boring, and I don't know you from Adam, and being €400 out of pocket isn't really a big tragedy.

tomasrojo

AulWan wrote: »

People on foot are not usually moving as quickly as someone on a bike. You rarely get to see their face either, usually just their back as they cycle away.

You're not going to see a tiny registration plate either, or whatever nonsense you're proposing.

AulWan

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, I have to say I can't fake empathy. I found your story sort of boring, and I don't know you from Adam, and being €400 out of pocket isn't really a big tragedy.

Ah, but I'd bet your attitude would be different if a car hit your bike and caused €400 worth of damage.

But thanks, you've just given me a perfect display of the kind of hypocritical attitude I'm talking about, well done.

Goodnight now.

tomasrojo

AulWan wrote: »

Ah, but I'd bet your attitude would be different if a car hit your bike and caused €400 worth of damage.

But thanks, you've just given me a perfect display of the kind of hypocritical attitude I'm talking about, well done.

Goodnight now.

No, it wouldn't really. Obviously, I would personally be put out by it, but I wouldn't be boring people on the internet about it, and then demanding society be restructured.

AndrewJRenko

Time wrote: »

Imagine how many convictions Angela Fahy would be responsible for then!

Check out Cycling Mikey on Twitter - he has achieved hundreds of convictions of motorists, mostly for mobile phone use (6 penalty points a pop) by submitting helmet camera footage. The much more streamlined process makes it feasible.

CramCycle

AulWan wrote: »

Are you actually serious with this?

Yes, it is how good policing works.Christ on a bike, if you wanted to put in the effort you probably would have had a good chance of doing it on your own without the cops. Depends how you value €400, but I imagein where no one was injured physically, it would not be a major priority for most.

If the opposite was true, would you be wondering how much blame to attribute to the cyclist? Like hell you would. But nice try.

Of course I would, in fact in every collision where someone comes up with a completely one sided story, my spidey senses start tingling. I could be wrong but it is always worth asking.

THIS attiude is why people so many people have nothing good to say about cyclists.

The opinons of people who lump everyone in together based on one flimsy common denominator typically aren't high on my list of concerns.

AulWan wrote: »

Ah, but I'd bet your attitude would be different if a car hit your bike and caused €400 worth of damage.

But thanks, you've just given me a perfect display of the kind of hypocritical attitude I'm talking about, well done.

Goodnight now.

You hit someone on a bike and cause €400 worth of damage, there is a good chance you have seriously physically injured them unless it is a very expensive pair of wheels. That is why I would expect someone to stop, basic decency, nowt to do with the €400.

It is sometimes hard for people without this empathy you mention to realise, but that is the concern, not the €400, but the person. I have hit a car before, 100% my fault. I stopped, it depends on the person, nothing to do with the vehicle they are using.

Let me guess you have a solution for this non issue that you have picked up on. I can assure you, unless you are about to reinvent the wheel, it has been thought of and there is a good reason it is not being done.

tomasrojo

Now I think about it, someone -- in a car, mind, with those amazing crime-stopping registration plates -- reversed over my parked bike years ago and drove off without leaving a note. For me at the time, it was a week's worth of money to fix all the damage they did. I don't think I've ever bothered mentioning it before. I don't think I'll bother mentioning it again. I certainly didn't start musing about what type of people "drivers" are.

magicbastarder

AulWan wrote: »

You see, this is what annoys me about cyclists. I tell you about a very straightforward incident where my car was damaged by a cyclist, and while initially trying to appear empathetic, you then try to turn it around and make it about the fact that drivers damage cars all the time - as if that somehow excuses the actions of the cyclist who damaged my car. It doesn't.

So, I guess I'm done.

the whole rationale for this 'cyclists should wear identifying information' argument is based purely on the 'well, cars need identifying information' basis. so the damage cars do is key to the debate, as the frequency and scale of the damage should be the primary focus for the debate. but cyclists so rarely damage cars that it'd be a laughably retrograde step to force them do wear whatever you'd like them to wear.

tomasrojo

This tone that comes up as well, "Something must be done:here's something! Oh, you say it's been tried and it's a waste of time. Well, that just sums up why everyone hates you!"