Gardi to tackle cycle menaces

seamus · 03-10-2012 02:30PM

I did the maths before in relation to emissions and worked out that if you were to add cyclists into the motor tax pool on the basis of emissions, each cyclist would be liable for the princely sum of 1c.

magicbastarder · 03-10-2012 02:35PM

seamus wrote: »

I did the maths before in relation to emissions and worked out that if you were to add cyclists into the motor tax pool on the basis of emissions, each cyclist would be liable for the princely sum of 1c.

i've seen reports that it's generally accepted that the health benefits from cycling outweigh the health risks by a factor of 10, or even 20 in some reports.

there's no way the government is going to induce people to give up exercise in favour of a taxation regime which would probably cost as much to administer as it would raise.

Undercover Elephant · 03-10-2012 02:36PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

if you link motor/road/cycle tax to the maintenance of roadways, you're on a bit of a loser.
an engineer once told me (and if there are any listening, please correct me if i have this wrong) that the damage a vehicle does to the road surface is proportional to the cube of the weight per wheel. so a car, which has a mass of 400kg per wheel, will do one thousand times more damage to the road surface, per wheel, than a cyclist with a mass of 40kg per wheel.

I understand it's the fourth power of axle weight. So a car with 800kg per axle compared to a bike with (probably more like) 50kg per axle will do > 65,000 times the damage to the road.

Both are negligible compared to trucks.

RustyNut · 03-10-2012 02:53PM

AhInFairness wrote: »

How about a cycle tax then??

I really hope it's not emission based or ill have to give up the Guinness and vindaloo's.

Skrynesaver · 03-10-2012 02:53PM

seamus wrote: »

I did the maths before in relation to emissions and worked out that if you were to add cyclists into the motor tax pool on the basis of emissions, each cyclist would be liable for the princely sum of 1c.

But does the carbon you ingest come from sustainable sources or do you eat crude oil?

magicbastarder · 03-10-2012 02:55PM

may have been posted already; bbc article about this topic:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607

Logical_Bear · 03-10-2012 02:56PM

AhInFairness wrote: »

How about a cycle tax then?? You want to use the road as a vehicle, pay tax like other road users. Insurance should also be mandatory, just like other vehicles, given the damage bikes can cause to people.

who gave you access to the internet.

NOBODY PAYS ROAD TAX!!!!!

any vehicle with a motor has to to pay motor tax...think about it...

magicbastarder · 03-10-2012 03:00PM

Contrary to what one might be led to believe from auto driver anecdotes, bikes running red lights barely played a role in the accident statistics. Instead, the single biggest cause of vehicle-bicycle accidents is bikes popping up where they are not expected: on sidewalks or riding the wrong direction on bike paths.

this is from an official report into cycling fatalities in berlin.

http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/report-claims-bicyclists-responsible-for-most-biking-fatalities-in-berlin.html

07Lapierre · 03-10-2012 03:01PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've seen reports that it's generally accepted that the health benefits from cycling outweigh the health risks by a factor of 10, or even 20 in some reports.

there's no way the government is going to induce people to give up exercise in favour of a taxation regime which would probably cost as much much more to administer as it would raise.

fixed that for ya!

charlietheminxx · 03-10-2012 03:18PM

I've already made my point earlier in this thread.

But let me just put this out here. To everyone who has dismissed suggestions for cycle hemets, hi-vis gear, cycle tax, gardai enforcing the rules of the road for cyclists and whatever else has been suggested.... What do you suggest?

Should cyclists just be left to do what they please? Is it ok to break the rules of the road?

I don't understand why people are so resistant to any change that might save even one life on our roads this year, even if that ONE change is that the rules, already in place for everyone to try and keep our roads safe, are enforced more

RobbieTheRobber · 03-10-2012 03:24PM

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I've already made my point earlier in this thread.

But let me just put this out here. To everyone who has dismissed suggestions for cycle hemets, hi-vis gear, cycle tax, gardai enforcing the rules of the road for cyclists and whatever else has been suggested.... What do you suggest?

Should cyclists just be left to do what they please? Is it ok to break the rules of the road?

I don't understand why people are so resistant to any change that might save even one life on our roads this year, even if that ONE change is that the rules, already in place for everyone to try and keep our roads safe, are enforced more

How would a cycling tax help save lives again?
I must have missed that bit in your last post.

reprazant · 03-10-2012 03:24PM

Who has dismissed the idea that gardai should be enforcing the rules of the road for cyclists?

If anything, it has been encouraged by cyclists in this thread.

magicbastarder · 03-10-2012 03:25PM

it's always been a contentious issue. it rubs cyclists up the wrong way when the whole cycling community (if it can be called such) is so often branded as dangerous and reckless, and that the burden of improving cyclist's safety falls exclusively on the cyclist.

charlietheminxx · 03-10-2012 03:35PM

I'm not supporting a cycle tex, just merely saying EVERY suggestion has been knocked and torn apart so far in the thread.

What would you suggest?

Who has dismissed the idea that gardai should be enforcing the rules of the road for cyclists?

If anything, it has been encouraged by cyclists in this thread.

It has been said already in this thread that the Gardai have better things to be doing and cyclists breaking lights etc isn't dangerous anyway.

I agree, most cyclists are grand, but plenty of them are a menace on the roads... Likewise with many motorists and pedestrians.

I think cycling is great, and should be encouraged, but every road user should follow the rules of the road as much as possible.

Hungrycol · 03-10-2012 03:43PM

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I'm not supporting a cycle tex, just merely saying EVERY suggestion has been knocked and torn apart so far in the thread.

What would you suggest?

It has been said already in this thread that the Gardai have better things to be doing and cyclists breaking lights etc isn't dangerous anyway.

I's very very dangerous but more to the cyclist than anyone else. Cars plowing through a red or even amber is more dangerous to other road users.

I suggest enforcement of the ROTR equally to everyone.

RacoonQueen · 03-10-2012 03:43PM

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

In this particular instance, any motorist (car, van, truck etc.) who is caught parking in a cycle lane should face a fine of €100 with an increment for each subsequent offense. I also see this happening frequently and find it absolutely deplorable.

But they have to drop their kids off at school! :eek:

Spook_ie · 03-10-2012 06:00PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

that is an exceedingly odd youtube channel.
there's a video on that channel called something along the lines of 'cyclist who claims to be a member of the labour party doesn't yield to pedestrians', and it shows a pedestrian crossing the road without looking.

Yeah but in all situations pedestrians should be yielded to

You must always yield to:

pedestrians already crossing at a junction,
pedestrians on a zebra crossing,
pedestrians on a pelican crossing when the amber light is flashing, and
pedestrians and traffic when you are moving off from a stationary position (for example from your position at a stop sign or a parking space).

To avoid doubt and in the interest of road safety a vehicle should always yield to pedestrians. You must also yield to:

traffic already turning at a junction,
traffic in another lane when you wish to change lanes, and
traffic on a public road when you are coming out of a private entrance.

Stop, look, listen, and look again. This is your duty when entering the roadway.

You see this is the kind of situation when you allow untrained ( unlicensed ) road users on the road, trained road users ( licensed ) are taught ( if they remember it is a different thing ) to allow for pedestrians

Spook_ie · 03-10-2012 06:06PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Where you wearing any high visibility clothing?
the RSA recommends that you do

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Pedestrians-and-Cyclists/Pedestrian-safety/

Ah Robbie at least post the whole bit...

Increase your visibility

More than two-thirds of fatal pedestrian collisions happen at night. Although you can hear a car coming and see its lights, the driver may not see you (and certainly won’t hear you).

To protect yourself make sure you:

Always wear a pair of reflective armbands, high-visibility belt or other reflective or fluorescent clothing which will help you to be seen from a distance
Carry a torch on country roads

humbert · 03-10-2012 06:12PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

trained road users ( licensed ) are taught ( if they remember it is a different thing ) to allow for pedestrians

Specious argument. The obvious reality is that drivers are no more willing to yield to pedestrians than cyclists.

Spook_ie · 03-10-2012 06:22PM

humbert wrote: »

Specious argument. The obvious reality is that drivers are no more willing to yield to pedestrians than cyclists.

Actually no I'd have to disagree there, how many times have you read cyclists saying how much more maneuverable than cars they are?

Fact is that a car ( assuming that they have seen the pedestrian ) will stop rather than try to swerve around them

AltAccount · 03-10-2012 07:25PM

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I've already made my point earlier in this thread.

But let me just put this out here. To everyone who has dismissed suggestions for cycle hemets, hi-vis gear, cycle tax, gardai enforcing the rules of the road for cyclists and whatever else has been suggested.... What do you suggest?

Should cyclists just be left to do what they please? Is it ok to break the rules of the road?

I don't understand why people are so resistant to any change that might save even one life on our roads this year, even if that ONE change is that the rules, already in place for everyone to try and keep our roads safe, are enforced more

Bring in Fixed Penalty Notices for cyclists, so Gardai can punish cyclists for breaking lights, riding on footpaths etc without having to bring the cyclist to court and spend the day in court themselves.

Make it easier for Gardai to enforce the laws, rather than bringing in new laws.

humbert · 03-10-2012 07:48PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Actually no I'd have to disagree there, how many times have you read cyclists saying how much more maneuverable than cars they are?

Fact is that a car ( assuming that they have seen the pedestrian ) will stop rather than try to swerve around them

Ah, I thought you were implying that drivers were more likely to yield because the have been taught that they should. I completely agree that drivers are more likely to stop because they, being less manoeuvrable, find it more difficult to change direction. Hardly a great indication of willingness though.

rubadubduba · 03-10-2012 08:12PM

The King of Moo wrote: »

Are they also going to crack down on drivers and pedestrians who break the law and act recklessly around roads?

It seems bizarre to just focus on cyclists when all road users are capable of stupid behaviour.

Well they have been pulling these blitz on couriers for years and only motorbike couriers.
So its about bloody time they picked on someone else.

tiny_penguin · 03-10-2012 08:47PM

Hungrycol wrote: »

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I'm not supporting a cycle tex, just merely saying EVERY suggestion has been knocked and torn apart so far in the thread.

What would you suggest?

It has been said already in this thread that the Gardai have better things to be doing and cyclists breaking lights etc isn't dangerous anyway.

I's very very dangerous but more to the cyclist than anyone else. Cars plowing through a red or even amber is more dangerous to other road users.

I suggest enforcement of the ROTR equally to everyone.

The thing is, it may indeed just be te cyclists life they are putting at risk. But if that risk ends in their death or serious injury, say they break a light and get hit by a car at no fault of the driver, do you not think that driver will be affected? If it were me, I know I would spend my life angry at myself, blaming myself, wondering if there was something I could have done differently. Or if the cyclist pulls a dangerous manoeuvre that causes a driver to swerve, brake suddenly and causes another accident then they can be risking others safety and well being.

I agree that there are a huge amount of drivers that treat cyclists like they don't belong on the road, and that the majority of cyclists I see on the roads are responsible safe and capable. But I don't under stand the backlash to this reported crackdown! Surely it is nothing but a good thing. Reducing the amount of any sort of unsafe behaviour is a good thing. It prob wont amount to much but it may raise awareness that cycling like that is not safe.

JRant · 03-10-2012 09:44PM

Where is this mythical crackdown happening?
I cycle through the city centre every day of the week, 18km roundtrip, and have barely seen a single Garda!!!
Must be some sort of dastardly plan to fool the gangland boyoos into thinking they're not being watched

On a more serious note, there's an epidemic of Idiocy spreading across the nation. You see them everywhere, walking, cycling, driving, night or day it matters not.

bothyhead · 03-10-2012 09:51PM

John Franklin in his excellent book, Cyclecraft: The complete guide to safe and enjoyable cycling for adults and children. (Published by The Stationery Office) makes an interesting observation with regard to wearing helmets:

Cycle helmets attempt to limit the consequences of a crash. They do nothing to prevent a crash taking place; indeed, if not used properly or if their limitations are not appreciated, they may actually increase that risk.

It is a serious mistake to think that wearing a helmet is at all a substitute for having a safe bike and learning to cycle properly.

He advocates that it is far more important to learn proper bike handling techniques; develop good observation and anticipition skills; and adopt a proper road position than it is to depend on the minimal protection that a helmet offers.

For what it's worth, I do wear a helmet and hi-viz jacket when cycling.

irishmotorist · 03-10-2012 09:58PM

bothyhead wrote: »

He advocates that it is far more important to learn proper bike handling techniques; develop good observation and anticipition skills; and adopt a proper road position than it is to depend on the minimal protection that a helmet offers.

I don't think riding safely and wearing a helmet are mutually exclusive. How about we all do both? Then we're reducing the chance of something happening and if something does happen the consequences will hopefully be less severe.

JuliusCaesar · 03-10-2012 10:03PM

As a teenager, I ran across the road looking behind me (running for a bus) and collided with another pedestrian doing the same for a bus in the opposite direction. We both bounced off each other and both fell, but got up uninjured.

On another occasion, doing the same, I ran into a cyclist. He was a little more hurt than me, having slightly further to fall and more momentum.

I'd hate to be run into by a cyclist doing 50kph, though - even if he + bike and belongings only weigh 120kg. I think we'd both be injured; but I think he'd probably be worse off because of his momentum.

We all share the road, and we all have to be tolerant and careful. And obey the ROTR. Imagine how different Dublin would be if everyone stopped at an amber light. Or stopped shouting at each other. A bit of patience wouldn't go astray. Road users - and I'm including pedestrians - are of all abilities and ages and still have an equal right to be there.

magicbastarder · 03-10-2012 10:10PM

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I'd hate to be run into by a cyclist doing 50kph, though - even if he + bike and belongings only weigh 120kg.

50kph would be an unusually high speed for a cyclist in an urban situation - it's probably at the upper limit of what most commuters would manage in an intense burst. even 30kph would be considered a reasonable clip for an urban situation. but that's still plenty fast enough to do damage if you hit a stationary object. i'd know, i once cycled into the back of a taxi and my gps had me registered at 30kph to zero close to instantly. and it hurt.

Cookie_Monster · 03-10-2012 10:12PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've seen reports that it's generally accepted that the health benefits from cycling outweigh the health risks by a factor of 10, or even 20 in some reports.

there's no way the government is going to induce people to give up exercise in favour of a taxation regime which would probably cost as much to administer as it would raise.

Government don't think like that and certainly not the Irish bureaucracy...

Typical example, it's been proven mandatory helmet use reduces cycling numbers and therefore increase all the above mentioned health risks and health costs while reducing the benefits to the population as a whole yet some countries do it anyway.

Gardi to tackle cycle menaces

Comments