Fixed Penalty Notices for Cycling by end of year

ashleey · 18-07-2013 09:42AM

Lumen wrote: »

"Transport Minister Leo Varadkar now plans to introduce new regulations before the end of the year, which would allow gardai to impose fines for three offences - breaking a red light, cycling on a footpath and overtaking in a dangerous situation."

That last one is going to be interesting.

I've been overtaken dangerously by about a foot clearance by fast moving traffic while cycling this week in Donegal. Any chance of clamping down on that while they are at it?

ArseBurger · 18-07-2013 09:44AM

laraghrider wrote: »

I know this has been discussed before but what does this mean now to my son when he's playing outside on his bike going up and down the path? He due a nice €50 fine?

You're ok with your kid breaking the law? Fine parenting...

ThisRegard · 18-07-2013 09:47AM

Is there some sort of rapid alert system for the loons whenever such a thread is started on boards.ie ?

bren2001 · 18-07-2013 09:47AM

I've no issue with an on the spot fine being issued for breaking lights or cycling on the path.

However, there are a couple of small sections of road that I just cannot cycle on. They are full of potholes and are extremely bumpy. The road is tight enough since there are a lot of trucks on it so I usually pop up on the path for the 100m or so. Guess I will be cycling in the middle of the road now. I look forward to the beeping motorists now.

ashleey · 18-07-2013 09:47AM

ArseBurger wrote: »

You're ok with your kid breaking the law? Fine parenting...

He's a future ifsc banker in the making

Jawgap · 18-07-2013 09:48AM

I assume they mean dangerous overtaking - as in weaving in and out of traffic - which lead me to wonder how will they catch me........

If I'm zipping through the lines of stopped cars and a Guard judges that to be dangerous and he's on foot how will he catch me (I doubt I'd stop just because he shouts.....)

......if the Guard is in a car he won't be able to follow me

.....if he's on a motorbike, he might be able to follow, but if the traffic is locked up I reckon he'd struggle.

I suppose that only leaves the helicopter and these boys to worry about.....

Lumen · 18-07-2013 09:48AM

ArseBurger wrote: »

You're ok with your kid breaking the law? Fine parenting...

http://www.dcya.gov.ie/docs/Age_of_Criminal_Responsibility/167.htm

"On 16 October 2006, under the Children Act 2001, the age of criminal responsibility was effectively raised from 7 to 12 years. Under the new provisions, no child under the age of 12 years can be charged with an offence. An exception is made for 10 and 11 year-olds charged with very serious offences, such as unlawful killing, a rape offence or aggravated sexual assault. In addition, the Director of Public Prosecutions must give consent for any child under the age of 14 years to be charged. "

And if you disagree with this I'll send my 7 year old round to beat the crap out of you. :pac:

tomtucker81 · 18-07-2013 09:50AM

Brian? wrote: »

I'm wondering how this will be inforced. As there's no requirement to carry ID when cycling, it's basically relying on the honesty of the person stopped to give their correct name and address. Seems like a PR exercise more than anything.

There is no obligation under law for cyclists to carry id. However when someone breaks a road traffic law, id can be demanded off them for the purpose of verifying identity.
If a road user can not provide a name and address or provides details that are believed to be false or misleading, they can be arrested until such time as their proper identity is established.
Except with a cyclist where they can not be arrested for this. Instead, for want of a better way of describing it, the bike can be detained at a station until you come in with id. Strange law that cyclists are different
Basically if you dont break the law you wont need id with you. Anyway I always carry my wallet with id when cycling, either commuting or out for a proper cycle. But then will I need to have to show id to someone.....

seamus · 18-07-2013 09:50AM

"On 16 October 2006, under the Children Act 2001, the age of criminal responsibility was effectively raised from 7 to 12 years. Under the new provisions, no child under the age of 12 years can be charged with an offence. An exception is made for 10 and 11 year-olds charged with very serious offences, such as unlawful killing, a rape offence or aggravated sexual assault. In addition, the Director of Public Prosecutions must give consent for any child under the age of 14 years to be charged. "

If a child is over 14, they should be on the road anyway. Problem solved.

check_six · 18-07-2013 09:50AM

Lumen wrote: »

"Transport Minister Leo Varadkar now plans to introduce new regulations before the end of the year, which would allow gardai to impose fines for three offences - breaking a red light, cycling on a footpath and overtaking in a dangerous situation."

That last one is going to be interesting.

Yeah, what does that one mean? Is that like going up the wrong side of the road to go past a line of traffic? Or does it mean salmoning up the wrong way on a one-way street? Probably not, because they would have said that if it was.

Nothing for those shoaling cyclists who plonk themselves in front of you at the traffic lights?

Uriel. · 18-07-2013 09:51AM

laraghrider wrote: »

I know this has been discussed before but what does this mean now to my son when he's playing outside on his bike going up and down the path? He due a nice €50 fine?

Actually here is a question. If you're cycling in a cycle lane and a car in traffic is stopped pretty much blocking the entire lane. We've seen that many times. A cycling squeezing by clips the wing mirror or something. Does the car owner have any come back there? Reason I ask is I saw this happen coming through harrolds x a few weeks back. Cyclist clipped the wing mirror which smashed the glass, motorist went mental and told you shouldn't have been blocking the cycle lane.

Cyclist liable for the damage.
Motorist may have committed a wrong, but cyclist definitely did.

monument · 18-07-2013 10:03AM

dub_skav wrote: »

There is one piece of footpath that I cycle on when I'm bringing the baby to creche, it is to get to the LUAS crossing in Windy Arbour.

I could instead cycle the wrong way up the one way street at the same spot, seeing as that is not an on the spot finable (?) offence, I might be doing that instead.

DLR are planning contra-flow for there.

average_runner wrote: »

Unless no parking sign up they can park there, stupid i know

That's not true.

No parking is allowed on a solid while lined cycle track in hours of operation, or with no time plate. Half the time motorists also partly park on the footpath which is clearly illegal.

check_six · 18-07-2013 10:07AM

I've got to say that this scheme is a much better system than what went before. In case you're not au fait with it, it went as follows: you cycle through a red, or on the path, you were stopped by a guard, they took your details, and (maybe, maybe not, the guard could be wooly about what their intentions were) in six+ months time you got an invite to appear in court where you would be looking at a €200 fine, or more if you don't bother to appear. The Guard has to turn up in court too.

The new plan is far more transparent, you get stopped, they give you fine, end of story. Far better.

Getting fined for going through lights has always existed, so the fine is nothing new, the way it is done is new and is to be welcomed.

dub_skav · 18-07-2013 10:12AM

Lumen wrote: »

"Transport Minister Leo Varadkar now plans to introduce new regulations before the end of the year, which would allow gardai to impose fines for three offences - breaking a red light, cycling on a footpath and overtaking in a dangerous situation."

That last one is going to be interesting.

I presume that is to cover cyclists swerving suddenly in front of traffic to get around another cyclist.
Assuming motorists are driving with due care and attention there should be very few of these.

You do wonder where these 3 came from, the lights and path are obvious, but why this overtaking one specifically, why not salmoning for instance.

Lumen · 18-07-2013 10:17AM

dub_skav wrote: »

You do wonder where these 3 came from, the lights and path are obvious, but why this overtaking one specifically, why not salmoning for instance.

ThisRegard · 18-07-2013 10:22AM

dub_skav wrote: »

but why this overtaking one specifically,

You heard it here first. It'll be used as a way to prevent cycling two abreast. Hey mister cyclist, you're taking a very long time to get by that other cyclist. But mister garda, we're allowed to.
Less of the cheek sonny boy, you're failing to make progress with that overtaking manoeuvre and are making it very dangerous for the queue of traffic behind you've been holding up for what must be seconds. On the spot fine for you.

cdaly_ · 18-07-2013 10:28AM

Jawgap wrote: »

I assume they mean dangerous overtaking - as in weaving in and out of traffic - which lead me to wonder how will they catch me........

I'm hoping it only means things like overtaking 4 abreast and doesn't mean I have to sit in the bike lane drafting the commuter in front 'cos leaving the bike lane would be 'dangerous'...

thebionicdude · 18-07-2013 10:29AM

check_six wrote: »

Yeah, what does that one mean?

My guess is it means that cyclists should sometimes come to a stop before overtaking as opposed to simply veering to overtake an obstacle even if they are ahead of the car in the lane they move into. An example would be when a bus is pulled into a bus-stop or when a car is parked on a cycle-lane ... these are obstacles to cyclists that many find inconvenient. Assumedly, some ignorant cyclists overtake without paying attention to following traffic, which can be dangerous if the car has to brake suddenly or swerve right.

If they clamp down on us, I hope they clamp down on taxi-drivers (or just clamp them), arguably the most dangerous and obstructive of all road users.

cdaly_ · 18-07-2013 10:32AM

tomtucker81 wrote: »

There is no obligation under law for cyclists to carry id. However when someone breaks a road traffic law, id can be demanded off them for the purpose of verifying identity.
If a road user can not provide a name and address or provides details that are believed to be false or misleading, they can be arrested until such time as their proper identity is established.
Except with a cyclist where they can not be arrested for this. Instead, for want of a better way of describing it, the bike can be detained at a station until you come in with id. Strange law that cyclists are different
Basically if you dont break the law you wont need id with you. Anyway I always carry my wallet with id when cycling, either commuting or out for a proper cycle. But then will I need to have to show id to someone.....

The difference is that drivers of mechanically propelled vehicles are required to carry their driver's license while cyclists are not. Driver's license provides the ID (and the vehicle may be hard to impound).

Lumen · 18-07-2013 10:33AM

cdaly_ wrote: »

I'm hoping it only means things like overtaking 4 abreast and doesn't mean I have to sit in the bike lane drafting the commuter in front 'cos leaving the bike lane would be 'dangerous'...

Riding 4 abreast is not necessarily dangerous. It is probably illegal though, in the current law.

The new law is making something illegal on the basis that it's dangerous, which is interesting.

The bar on dangerous driving has always been very high because it's difficult to prove, hence lesser offences like "driving without due care and attention".

Jawgap · 18-07-2013 10:36AM

Glad to see they've the used the years of preparing for this legislation to good effect by making sure it's as clear as possible

cdaly_ · 18-07-2013 10:37AM

thebionicdude wrote: »

My guess is it means that cyclists should sometimes come to a stop before overtaking as opposed to simply veering to overtake an obstacle even if they are ahead of the car in the lane they move into. An example would be when a bus is pulled into a bus-stop or when a car is parked on a cycle-lane ... these are obstacles to cyclists that many find inconvenient. Assumedly, some ignorant cyclists overtake without paying attention to following traffic, which can be dangerous if the car has to brake suddenly or swerve right.

I reckon it means cyclists should merge into the line of traffic earlier and then control the speed of the line of traffic to ensure that their overtaking manoeuvre is no longer dangerous...

Hmmzis · 18-07-2013 10:42AM

cdaly_ wrote: »

I reckon it means cyclists should merge into the line of traffic earlier and then control the speed of the line of traffic to ensure that their overtaking manoeuvre is no longer dangerous...

That might be the most sensible interpretation of it. I've seen the odd time when a cyclist would pull out at the last second to go round a stopped bus. I've seen that less with parked cars or street furniture.

Potatoeman · 18-07-2013 10:47AM

Invincible wrote: »

Cycling near Kilmacud last Saturday I noticed the disregard motorists have on cycling lanes, parking in them, forcing cyclists to dismount or head onto road.

I hope the gardai use their cop on. There is nothing wrong with cycling on the path where there is room for a short distance if necessary as long as you are slow and cautious.

Potatoeman · 18-07-2013 10:47AM

Invincible wrote: »

Cycling near Kilmacud last Saturday I noticed the disregard motorists have on cycling lanes, parking in them, forcing cyclists to dismount or head onto road.

I hope the gardai use their cop on. There is nothing wrong with cycling on the path where there is room for a short distance if necessary as long as you are slow and cautious.

Interceptor · 18-07-2013 10:48AM

They'll have to catch me first. Slow rozzers lol

'c

ThisRegard · 18-07-2013 10:48AM

Potatoeman wrote: »

I hope the gardai use their cop on. There is nothing wrong with cycling on the path where there is room for a short distance if necessary as long as you are slow and cautious.

That's the point, there is something wrong with cycling on the path.

tomtucker81 · 18-07-2013 10:48AM

cdaly_ wrote: »

The difference is that drivers of mechanically propelled vehicles are required to carry their driver's license while cyclists are not. Driver's license provides the ID (and the vehicle may be hard to impound).

Sorry I thought that was conmon knowledge. Yes an mpv driver has to have a driving licence with them.
if they don't and no other method of id is available/satisfactory, then the driver is arrested to verify their identity.
With cyclists the rider can not be arrested in these circumstances, rather the bicycle is detained at the garda station pending the cyclist coming in with id.

monument · 18-07-2013 10:52AM

Potatoeman wrote: »

I hope the gardai use their cop on. There is nothing wrong with cycling on the path where there is room for a short distance if necessary as long as you are slow and cautious.

Sorry, but you could dismount.

Footpaths are for people walking, or in wheelchairs or prams.

amacca · 18-07-2013 11:02AM

penguin88 wrote: »

How does fining cyclists for offences disproportionally hit the poor?

It is a well known fact that poor people ride more than rich people :pac:

Fixed Penalty Notices for Cycling by end of year

Comments