Fixed Penalty Notices for Cycling by end of year

I have serious issue with fines being handed out for "dangerous overtaking". This could easily be misinterpreted. Quite often taxis will stop abruptly, cars will cut across you...a dangerous overtake is the only way you avoid being thrown headfirst into a rear windscreen.

If these fines are to be handed out, I'm in favour of them, but I'd like to see it being supported on the other side by on the spot fines for dangerous overtaking by cars (where it's seen), parking on cycle lanes, etc.

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Bo11ox! If i had to jump off the bike each time the cycle lane was blocked by a truck/bus/van then i might as well just walk!! Hoping up onto the kerb for a few seconds is preferable to trying to move out and get clipped by another lane of passing traffic, with the usual beeping... Sure it's only a bicycle eh??

In that case the fine is a risk you choose to take.
Seriously overtaking stopped cars isn't that much hassle, you indicate and move into a gap, which you are already aware of if you're observing correctly. If there's none just act like a car and wait for one.

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Jeezus, letter of the law much?

my point is that the traffic light system in Ireland, apart from the Canal cycle lane is specifically designed for motorised vehicles, and most are not easily triggered by a bicycle wheel. I certainly won't be stopping at an empty pedestrian crossing light in the middle of no-where, esp. if there are dodgy scrots hanging around..

Bo11ox! If i had to jump off the bike each time the cycle lane was blocked by a truck/bus/van then i might as well just walk!! Hoping up onto the kerb for a few seconds is preferable to trying to move out and get clipped by another lane of passing traffic, with the usual beeping... Sure it's only a bicycle eh??

As for the fine for over taking, the amount of times i have overtaking a slower moving cyclist only to find half way through my manouvere that some cnut has come flying up behind me beeping furiously, no way i will be fined for that!!

Well that is the law.

Yeah, most traffic lights are not calibrated to detect a bicycle. However, most junctions have a set sequence and pedestrian lights stay green unless there is a pedestrian. There is never an excuse for breaking a red light (I do it a lot of the time). Some junctions, i.e. in housing estates, require a car to be present, you could make a case in that instance, you'd lose tho.

I hop up on the path in one or two places but it is to avoid a bad road surface and I don't see the need to annoy other road users. If there is an obstruction, you just move out and overtake it. No need to use the path. You are taking the risk.

I assumed you were talking about two people cycling two abreast to have a conversation. Yeah, if you are overtaking then I don't see the issue at all.

kenmc wrote: »

Maybe a bit leftfield here, but if someone is not capable of overtaking a parked car, perhaps the correct place for them is actually the path. With stabilizers. and one of these.

Seriously, yes.

I learnt to ride a bike in May and I can over-take parked vehicles without going on the path.

How is it difficult? It is mildly annoying but it's hardly difficult or dangerous - those are two different things.

Tenzor07 you might find http://www.cyclecraft.org/ helpful. I really did. It's an excellent book on how to cycle in traffic.

Potatoeman wrote: »

The lane from Fairview to Clontarf on the path disappears and if you go on the cyclelane on the road you are heading directly into traffic on the wrong side of the road. Its a short distance but forces the cyclist onto the footpath.

You're going the wrong way. That's a lane from Clontarf to Fairview, not the other way around...

bren2001 wrote: »

Yeah, most traffic lights are not calibrated to detect a bicycle.
Some junctions, i.e. in housing estates, require a car to be present, you could make a case in that instance, you'd lose tho.

The lights at the end of my road only change for a car on the sensor pad. If I press the pedestrian button, the lights will change to pedestrian lights and then back to green for the main road. I won't get a green for my road until a car appears. I have, on one or two occasions' run that light but there is allowance made for a 'stalled' light.

Diarmuid wrote: »

I had the misfortune of hearing Tina Koumarianos the social editor of Image Magazine who was on Radio 1, on the John Murray show (Miriam really). this morning. I'd recommend giving it a listen when it here (6 minutes in http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A10164788%3A4502%3A18%2D07%2D2013%3A)

Among things, she complained about being forced to perform dangerous overtaking maneuvers that only affect those living "down the country" (ie working in Dublin, living in Wicklow). She called cyclists arrogant, which is rich from someone complaining about being held up for 20 seconds.

But the best part was calling cyclists "good organ donars" and that everybody (in cars) "say to each other 'I felt like running them off the road'" A real classy woman. Naturally Miriam didn't challenge her.

I think Miriam wanted to talk about the fines for jumping lights but Tina didn't seem to be too interested. She wanted fines for riding 2 abreast, I guess there are no RLJs in Rathdrum

And to top it off, here's a quality article by Tina. http://www.image.ie/Life-Work/Rant/Spandex-Bums/

In that article I ticked off: "Road Tax", cycling two abreast, forced to overtake on a blind corner, number plates for bikes, cycling license test, drivers pay to use the road and cylists don't, and a weird rant about the dangers of bike trailers.

Should I shout "Bingo!", or "house!", or what?

Should I send an email reminding the writer to include footpads, hi-vis, and helmets for her next article?

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.

average_runner wrote: »

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

You sure about that?
I thought the law (from memory) was unbroken line cycle lanes operate 24 hours unless otherwise signposted.
Broken line cycle lanes operate during typical bus lane hours as usually signposted.
And during the operating hours cars may not park there or drive in them.

What happens in practice is very much the opposite with cars regularly using them for undertaking, parking.
There was supposed to be points for these offences but I have never seen any aspect of these laws enforced even in some particularly hazardous situations.:(

As for red lights and that thorny issue, there should be a review of how these apply to cyclists as there are situations at some lights where cyclists are safer to traverse the stop line.
Separately, in the US they have "turn right on red" rules where cars can turn right through a red light in safe circumstances.
A similar rule for cyclists turning left on red (but giving absolute priority to pedestrians) would be a sensible one.
I still wouldn't trust cars to give priority to pedestrians when they can't even do that at pedestrian crossings right now.

Gerry T wrote: »

Well that's a little misleading. If the car is not on public roads (private land for example) then you don't have to pay a car tax. Or if you take the car off the public road there is a process for suspending the car tax payment.

It is effectively a tax to put a car (vehicle) onto a public road---its a road tax.
The idea was the money collected would go towards road maintenance, it doesn't so you won't get a politician saying it is, as they would know they would be on for a hiding.

So in summary:

- The money doesn't get spent on the roads
- It doesn't apply to all road users
- It's called "motor tax".
- But it's a road tax.

Riiiiight.

Jawgap wrote: »

I doubt even the thickest, most bogger Guard ....

I think that's just needlessly offensive to AGS.

grodge wrote: »

tell me more about the location of this said pot

Its a hole.
Anyway who cares what its called, if you have a motorised vehicle, you have to pay a tax with some arbitrary name on it. Cars require a lot of infrastructure, are environmentally detrimental and constitute a measurable risk to life and limb.

Fixed penalty notices on cyclists is effectively another tax as is clamping cars in many instances (out of the mouth of a clamper).
Its a tax on a behaviour deemed to be undesirable or chargeable.

Gerry T wrote: »

-It should be spent on the roads.
-I think it applies to all motor vehicle road users, maybe there are some special exemptions but I'm not sure. Ok if you cycle you don't pay, how would you administer that--give bike lisences and have bike check points !!! so bikes don't pay tax-generally they don't damage the road.
-Its a tax for motor vehicles that use public roads, if its a car tax, why would people with cars on private land not pay ?
- You have to be on a public road to pay the tax, so if its a motor tax, what's it for ?

I hope you're sitting down because this might blow your mind.

I'm a cyclist. I cycle every weekday and at the weekends.

I also own a car, so guess what tax i pay?

Dowee wrote: »

I hope you're sitting down because this might blow your mind.

I'm a cyclist. I cycle every weekday and at the weekends.

I also own a car, so guess what tax i pay?

Crap you have me there, let me think....its Motor Bike tax ! simple really :rolleyes:

Gerry T wrote: »

-It should be spent on the roads.
-I think it applies to all motor vehicle road users, maybe there are some special exemptions but I'm not sure. Ok if you cycle you don't pay, how would you administer that--give bike lisences and have bike check points !!! so bikes don't pay tax-generally they don't damage the road.
-Its a tax for motor vehicles that use public roads, if its a car tax, why would people with cars on private land not pay ?
- You have to be on a public road to pay the tax, so if its a motor tax, what's it for ?

You're being obtuse.

It is called "motor tax" simply because it is a tax on the use of motorised vehicles on the public road. What they've done is taken the most important words, "motor" and "tax", and put them together in a simple, idiot-proof term.

It doesn't cover all motor vehicles, or all things with motors, in the same way that "property tax" is not levied on all of the other possessions which you consider your "property", and "income tax" is not levied on all your sources of income.