Spook_ie wrote: » I think 3 is a great idea. ( as a requirement to carry and produce when requested )
magicbastarder wrote: » regarding this, if a garda stops a cyclist who they believe has committed an offence, and the cyclist is unable to satisfy the garda that he or she has honestly identified themselves, the garda is allowed confiscate the bike. like many laws pertaining to road and traffic enforcement, i suspect this is rarely enforced.
Spook_ie wrote: » Probably the main reason it's rarely enforced is the sheer hassle of taking cyclist and cycle to station
07Lapierre wrote: » that's fine as most people carry a driving license etc. or if challenged, can be given 10 days to produce it at their local Garda station. But that info cant be caught via CCTV cameras at traffic lights.
3: be careful what you wish for. Do you really want every citizen to be required to display their ID details when out in public?
I think 3 is a great idea. ( as a requirement to carry and produce when requested )
Spook_ie wrote: » Yeah I know, that's why I always feel that it's a tad disingenuous when cyclists say bring in red light cameras, when they know full well that it wont affect their behavior, however, we weren't talking red light cameras then we were discussing
Hurrache wrote: » Either a failure of actual numbers and percentages supplied to you on a plate, or intentional trolling ignorance. The numbers of those breaking red lights were given.
1,296 cars in Dublin recorded breaking a red 24 times the rate of cyclists, 54 during that period. (There were only 5 times the amount of motorists surveyed, so don't try argue the number is higher for cars because there's more) So only 12% of cyclist were observed breaking red lights
TaurenDruid wrote: » Where are you getting the "There were only 5 times the amount of motorists surveyed" from?
TaurenDruid wrote: » Yes, 24 times 54 is 1,296. Well done.
TaurenDruid wrote: » Where are you getting the "only 12% of cyclist were observed breaking red lights" from? We can't know that without knowing the total number of cyclists observed breaking the lights.
TaurenDruid wrote: » Third time to ask, now. Give us the source.
Hurrache wrote: » The gardai. I can't take the credit, those numbers are from the gardai. The gardai. The gardai. Of course you can know that it's 12% without knowing the total number of cyclists, the gardai worked that out. I told you at the outset, the gardai. Look, you wouldn't believe there were actually surveys with facts and figures that would contradict your tunnel vision. You were given them, and predictably you won't take them at face value. Take it up with the gardai at this point.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Why are the anti-cycling people even bothering with this thread? I can't believe you're annoyed that much by bicycles that you'd post on this for weeks on end. They are good for society and harmless.
ewc78 wrote: » Eh, the thread was originally about cyclists on footpaths. It was then hijacked by some cycling cult members who are unable to take any sort of criticism and constantly try to justify cyclists breaking the law. The thread would have died out weeks ago if it wasn't for you lot and your whataboutery..
TaurenDruid wrote: » Link to survey, please? I mean, I'm not doubting the figures, but then context is important. Andew's famous figures for Dublin are from a selectively presented Kerry cycling blog that clearly omits a lot of relevant data.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I've asked you before to detail what information you think is omitted from that article on the NTA camera findings. Can you clarify please?
Pinch Flat wrote: » I think it's fair to say that if someone starts a thread about cycling on a public forum that people who regularly cycle offer their own opinion. Thankfully we had "road tax", hi vis, red light breaking along the way. It's so rare these get discussed on boards when cycling comes up. Cult is a new one for me - previous reference to warriors and cycling brigade, so glad to see another catch all generalisation out there.
Chiparus wrote: » Dont forget bike nazis.
Spook_ie wrote: » Probably the main reason it's rarely enforced is the sheer hassle of taking cyclist and cycle to station and then just releasing them when ID is confirmed, so much easier if the charge was not carrying the ID at all, arrest, ID, charged. court if required.
Hurrache wrote: » The Nazis nicked them all back in their day!
SeanW wrote: » Oh dear! One old couple lets their car go down some rocks! How horrible! [sarcasm]STOP PRESSES! Yes, this is so reflective of Irish drivers as a whole and proves your point that all Irish drivers are horrible, all Irish cars need hi-vis and, and totally counters all the international evidence that road deaths in Ireland are relatively rare[/sarcasm] :rolleyes:
SeanW wrote: » Did Hitler ever ride a bike? That might explain a lot. :pac::D (Andrew already Godwinned the thread so it's OK)
SeanW wrote: » Again, which safely puts Ireland well within the bottom 20 for road fatalities. Clearly, correct decisions are being made.
One of the headline concerns of the Dutch is that only 17% of primary ages children (5-12) now travel to school by bike completely independently of adults.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Sorry, but how do you 'let your car' do anything. Your car doesn't have a life of its own. It doesn't do things on its own. Drivers are supposed to be in control. If the driver is unable to control the vehicle, they shouldn't be in the driving seat.We really need regular retesting of drivers.
magicbastarder wrote: » just coming back to this, and i'm going to dig out my tired old cliche of the shark infested pool again.
in ireland, 2% of secondary school students cycle to school, in the netherlands, it's approx 75%. approx 70% of irish students are driven to school (42% car, 28% bus), and there are more female secondary school students driving to school than there are cycling.
so you can say the roads are safe, but it's a very facile way of looking at it, if they're safe because vulnerable road users have been driven (pun intended) away.
SeanW wrote: » Pedantry. "exceedingly rare" vs "unusual" there's not much difference. Now, as a pedestrian, I wish motorists would not jump reds just after the light changes because that often leaves them still on the junction when I've got the green man, but it doesn't change the fact that motorists RLJing a "stale" red are the exception, not the rule. And on the handful of occasions I did see a motorist doing that, they didn't cut off anyone.
Hurrache wrote: » On the same theme of hey, we keep the numbers using our roads that aren't driving low it's doing wonders for our stats....https://twitter.com/ccferrie/status/1273160919724556292?s=19
