Fixed Penalty Notices for Cycling by end of year

Spook_ie · 18-07-2013 10:29PM

monument wrote: »

Nobody is looking for 100ms on front of them to be kept clear. But overtaking cyclists just to pull in a short distance in front of them is daftness.

For some cyclists, 100ms is a very short distance. For example: Sometimes many cyclists can easily hit 30-40km/h.

Even at 35km/h, 100ms is traveled in ~10 seconds. A car -- even traveling at above 35km/h -- which is overtaking a cyclists just to pull in 100ms ahead will have to slow down when turning.

You do the math on that one.

I did

kenmc · 18-07-2013 10:37PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

And if a cyclist is travelling at 10 m/s 36 Kph and is overtaken by a vehicle 15 m/s 54 Kph that slows to turn then it will take approx. 100/(15-10) or ~20 seconds for them to meet again, more than sufficent time and distance to complete the manouvre, even if for some reason the vehicle fails to complete the turn due to some unforseen obstacle such as a pedestrian crossing you still have ample time to take independant action

Wrong, the cyclist will cover the 100m in 10 seconds if they are travelling at 10m/s. As soon as the vehicles speed drops below that of the cyclist, the begin to converge. The earlier the vehicle brakes, the earlier they will converge, so it will be less than 10 seconds.

Scuba_Scoper · 18-07-2013 10:38PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

I did

poorly....
go back and recalculate with the vehicle slowing down at a constant rate of deceleration to take a left handed turn at 15km/h. within 75 meters of travel.
you can keep your initial speeds and the turn is coming up in 100m

Interested in hearing your findings.;)

ps In the majority of urban areas, you do realise, your vehicle is breaking the speed limit m'kay

Hmmzis · 18-07-2013 11:08PM

Scuba_Scoper wrote: »

In a word (or two), 'inappropriate' filtering will be a fineable offence. Weaving in and out of traffic or passing between lanes of stationary traffic at too high a speed will give the 'member' appropriate leeway to give you at, the very least a dressing down. IMO

It's still too broad to call anything on it.

'Inappropriate filtering' - what's the definition of that in the regulations, is there a definition for that? If not, who is going to decide if a particular filtering attempt was appropriate or not and what basis could that possibly be decided? It would need a judge and a court to establish a good set of precedence cases at the very least. Also, that would have most likely a consequence to motorbikers, since a 250-350kg impactor with some protection is far more damaging to a car than a 90-100kg impactor with no protection.

'too high a speed' - again, what's that for a pushbike. The current speed limits aren't even applicable to pushbikes.

If a fine is to be introduced, then it has to be for a fairly clear cut offence, like the red light jumping and footpath cycling. Very little to argue there, it's either you're on the path or not and it's either you went through the red or not.

Darkglasses · 19-07-2013 12:13AM

http://www.dttas.ie/pressRelease.aspx?Id=815

Note - No mention of unsafe overtaking in this press release. Rather, the third offense is listed as "Failure to yield right of way at a ‘Yield’ sign."

teddyhead · 19-07-2013 12:16AM

cdaly_ wrote: »

Or you could, like, wait behind the left turning truck and go when the light changes to green...

Not if,like, the truck/van comes along beside you.

CramCycle · 19-07-2013 12:20AM

elfy4eva wrote: »

Because even I at the best of times find road cycling intimidating. Even the most experienced cyclists are vulnerable on roads. Many drivers have absolutely no time or respect for cyclists (an opinion which has been voiced many times on this forum)

But thats not really something a cyclists should be punished for. Its like someone beeping me for doing the speed limit, its asshat behaviour, its not my fault, if they don't have time (ill prepared) or respect (lack of decency IMO) then they should be forced of the roads by the AGS, not me.

Why wouldn't this be serious, this legislation will undoubtedly lead to more bad cyclists on the roads and therefore more accidents leading to deaths.

Nope, i'd rather a bad cyclists on the road where they won't hurt a pedestrian. They won't learn skill or manners by staying on the footpath.

monument · 19-07-2013 12:49AM

Spook_ie wrote: »

And if a cyclist is travelling at 10 m/s 36 Kph and is overtaken by a vehicle 15 m/s 54 Kph that slows to turn then it will take approx. 100/(15-10) or ~20 seconds for them to meet again, more than sufficent time and distance to complete the manouvre, even if for some reason the vehicle fails to complete the turn due to some unforseen obstacle such as a pedestrian crossing you still have ample time to take independant action

Doing a consistent 54km/h before the last second and slamming on the breaks and turning in? Is it a taxi being flagged down or what?

Even at that, there about three seconds for the cyclist to react before the turn, and even less time again if anything blocks the turn - that's a dangerous over take!

If you're trying to make out the cyclist needs to jam on the breaks directly after the overtake, that again is a dangerous over.

steamengine · 19-07-2013 09:25AM

Potatoeman wrote: »

I would agree in busy areas but without cyclelanes or proper facilities its what people will do. A few uninterupted cycle lanes would help too. People will go out of their way for a decent one the problem for many are the disappearing ones. Even those that are good have spots where they disappear.
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.

Further along in the Howth direction, the cycle lane is intermittently obstructed with parked cars from the Bull Bridge to the end of Mount Prospect Avenue. Because of this I often cycle on the opposite footpath, either slowing up or stopping when passing pedestrians. What is the story here ? - I take it it's as illegal for cars to be parked on cycle lanes as it is to be cycling on footpaths.

kenmc · 19-07-2013 09:29AM

steamengine wrote: »

Further along in the Howth direction, the cycle lane is intermittently obstructed with parked cars from the Bull Bridge to the end of Mount Prospect Avenue. Because of this I often cycle on the opposite footpath, either slowing up or stopping when passing pedestrians. What is the story here ? - I take it it's as illegal for cars to be parked on cycle lanes as it is to be cycling on footpaths.

Depends on the cycle lane. you always have the option of the road. you never have the option of the path. it's really very very simple.

bren2001 · 19-07-2013 09:36AM

steamengine wrote: »

Further along in the Howth direction, the cycle lane is intermittently obstructed with parked cars from the Bull Bridge to the end of Mount Prospect Avenue. Because of this I often cycle on the opposite footpath, either slowing up or stopping when passing pedestrians. What is the story here ? - I take it it's as illegal for cars to be parked on cycle lanes as it is to be cycling on footpaths.

Just because they broke the law doesn't give you the right too. Two wrongs don't make a right, an eye for an eye..... etc.

No Pants · 19-07-2013 10:38AM

steamengine wrote: »

Further along in the Howth direction, the cycle lane is intermittently obstructed with parked cars from the Bull Bridge to the end of Mount Prospect Avenue. Because of this I often cycle on the opposite footpath, either slowing up or stopping when passing pedestrians. What is the story here ? - I take it it's as illegal for cars to be parked on cycle lanes as it is to be cycling on footpaths.

Check over shoulder, signal and overtake. Most drivers will see the obstruction coming and will leave room for you to manoeuvre.

steamengine · 19-07-2013 10:39AM

bren2001 wrote: »

Just because they broke the law doesn't give you the right too. Two wrongs don't make a right, an eye for an eye..... etc.

I am aware of that, but let's see the two wrongs sorted simultaneously. A cycle lane continuously blocked by cars is pretty useless, especially on the Clontarf Road with its consistent stream of 60 kph traffic.

kenmc wrote: »

Depends on the cycle lane. you always have the option of the road. you never have the option of the path. it's really very very simple.

Fair enough but let's see the motorists option of parking on cycle lanes removed also, as part of the enforcement against cyclists. Simples too, one would think.

BrianHenryIE · 19-07-2013 10:45AM

teddyhead wrote: »

Certainly should be allowed jump red lights when safe.
For instance when taking a left turn. Its more sensible that cyclists get ahead of the traffic ,instead of waiting for the truck beside you to go left at the exact same time as you do.

Couldn't agree more. When I'm cycling in town and am stopped at a red light with loads of traffic around me, I'll always skip the red light when it's possible so I can pick up some speed safely and be visible to all the traffic going my way. I particularly notice this going from Tara Street to Amiens Street where the road markings are sparse and traffic is fast.

Red lights are there for cars not bicycles. I treat them as yield signs.

RobertFoster · 19-07-2013 10:46AM

steamengine wrote: »

I am aware of that, but let's see the two wrongs sorted simultaneously. A cycle lane continuously blocked by cars is pretty useless, especially on the Clontarf Road with its consistent stream of 60 kph traffic.

Fair enough but let's see the motorists option of parking on cycle lanes removed also, as part of the enforcement against cyclists. Simples too, one would think.

Aren't the people who park there living there?

steamengine · 19-07-2013 10:50AM

No Pants wrote: »

Check over shoulder, signal and overtake. Most drivers will see the obstruction coming and will leave room for you to manoeuvre.

On that particular stretch, because of the frequency of the car parking, it is actually best to stay out on the road leaving an 'open car doors distance' to ensure an adequate safety margin. A safe cycle lane is only a few metres away and can't be used.

kenmc · 19-07-2013 10:58AM

steamengine wrote: »

On that particular stretch, because of the frequency of the car parking, it is actually best to stay out on the road leaving an 'open car doors distance' to ensure an adequate safety margin. A safe cycle lane is only a few metres away and can't be used.

Well you certainly seem to know exactly how you should cycle that stretch, so all's well that ends well.

steamengine · 19-07-2013 11:20AM

RobertFoster wrote: »

Aren't the people who park there living there?

Possibly so, and I see it from their point of view too, but that begs the question should the pretence of a cycle lane be allowed to continue on, if it can't be used other than in an intermittent fashion. Either have a relatively clear cycle lane at that point or none at all. That would clear up the confusion.

steamengine · 19-07-2013 11:33AM

kenmc wrote: »

Well you certainly seem to know exactly how you should cycle that stretch, so all's well that ends well.

I've done it a few times and learned the meaning of a 'close shave' hence the footpath option. Illegal it might be but in the light of dodgy cycle lanes masquerading as proper cycle lanes then that's a reasonable choice to make in my book.

Chips Lovell · 19-07-2013 11:37AM

I'm always amazed at these people who claim they need to break lights and cycle on the footpath in order to cycle safely.

NeedMoreGears · 19-07-2013 11:48AM

steamengine wrote: »

Further along in the Howth direction, the cycle lane is intermittently obstructed with parked cars from the Bull Bridge to the end of Mount Prospect Avenue. Because of this I often cycle on the opposite footpath, either slowing up or stopping when passing pedestrians. What is the story here ? - I take it it's as illegal for cars to be parked on cycle lanes as it is to be cycling on footpaths.

I cycle that route almost every day and I find no problems with the parked cars. I sit about 1.25m from the side of cars, I don't move to the left until I am pretty much at Mount Prospect Road. I find it makes it more predictable from the cars viewpoint and and overtaking manoeuvre requires the vehicle to partially move over to the other side of the road. There is no real room for close shaves unless the vehicle is playing chicken with on-coming traffic and moves a only a small bit tryign to make a gap between me and the on-coming traffic. I've never been beeped or otherwise harassed by cars as it doesn't take too long to pass all the cars and traffic (at least when I'm on that section of road) isn't going much faster than I am anyway.

NeedMoreGears · 19-07-2013 11:54AM

Quick Question

I'm cycling on a single lane section of the road with a parked car up ahead that I wish to go around

(i) Do I need to indicate (i'm not changing lane just moving within the lane)?

(ii) If there's a car coming up from behind me which, if it continued at the same speed, would reach the parked car at the same time as me, who has right of way? Me or the car?

Higher Level Questions

Same scenario but theres a cycle lane marked on the left of the road - que pasa?

cdaly_ · 19-07-2013 11:57AM

teddyhead wrote: »

Not if,like, the truck/van comes along beside you.

Which is why I take up a safe position in the middle of the left-turn lane in the first place so they have to stop behind me...

quozl · 19-07-2013 11:59AM

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

Quick Question

I'm cycling on a single lane section of the road with a parked car up ahead that I wish to go around

(i) Do I need to indicate (i'm not changing lane just moving within the lane)?

(ii) If there's a car coming up from behind me which, if it continued at the same speed, would reach the parked car at the same time as me, who has right of way? Me or the car?

Higher Level Questions

Same scenario but theres a cycle lane marked on the left of the road - que pasa?

i) You don't need to signal IMO, you look over your shoulder, make sure you have room and then move over.

ii) You have right of way but that doesn't matter in the slightest. You need to negotiate with the driver. Indicate, ensure they're slowing down and then move over. If they don't let you go then slow down and let them go first even if you have right of way.

Doesn't matter if there's a cycle lane marked on the left of the road or not.

Lumen · 19-07-2013 11:59AM

(i) Yes, it's always a good idea to indicate before a change of road position that may affect other road users.

(ii) You have right of way on account of being in front.

cdaly_ · 19-07-2013 12:02PM

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

Quick Question

I'm cycling on a single lane section of the road with a parked car up ahead that I wish to go around

(i) Do I need to indicate (i'm not changing lane just moving within the lane)?

(ii) If there's a car coming up from behind me which, if it continued at the same speed, would reach the parked car at the same time as me, who has right of way? Me or the car?

Higher Level Questions

Same scenario but theres a cycle lane marked on the left of the road - que pasa?

(i) I often indicate when changing position within the lane. More likely to indicate if there's traffic behind me.

(ii) By the time you both reach the parked car, you'll already have moved out in the lane and will have been in front of the car for a while.

Higher Level Answer:

Cycle lane? So what?

More detailed answer, it's not clear in law whether a cycle lane constitutes a separate traffic lane with the associated rights and obligations. I treat a road with painted cycle lane the same as I treat one without.

NeedMoreGears · 19-07-2013 12:30PM

Thanks for the answers folks, which accord with my understanding - I had a feeling things were a bit grey from a legal perspective when there's a cycle lane involved. Hopefully I never get to test that for real.

FWIW - yeah I always look, move early and generally signal. I prefer to try to ensure the driver knows what I am doing rather than relying on my having the right of way alone.

irishmotorist · 19-07-2013 01:36PM

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

Quick Question

I'm cycling on a single lane section of the road with a parked car up ahead that I wish to go around

(i) Do I need to indicate (i'm not changing lane just moving within the lane)?

(ii) If there's a car coming up from behind me which, if it continued at the same speed, would reach the parked car at the same time as me, who has right of way? Me or the car?

Higher Level Questions

Same scenario but theres a cycle lane marked on the left of the road - que pasa?

Don't forget that indicating doesn't give you right of way, it just lets you tell others in an agreed manner what you're intending to do.

In this scenario, it informs everybody who's looking what you intend on doing and the car should ease off due to the fact that you are in front and they know that you're going around the parked car. They could, of course, choose to pass you while you are passing the parked car if the other side is clear.

CramCycle · 19-07-2013 02:11PM

brian.henry wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. When I'm cycling in town and am stopped at a red light with loads of traffic around me, I'll always skip the red light when it's possible so I can pick up some speed safely and be visible to all the traffic going my way. I particularly notice this going from Tara Street to Amiens Street where the road markings are sparse and traffic is fast.

If they can't see you in front of them at the lights, it will be worse when they can't see you further down the road and have picked up speed.

Red lights are there for cars not bicycles. I treat them as yield signs.

Treat them as you want but they are not for cars, they are for all traffic on the road, including bicycles.

Heard the guy on Newstalk the other morning from Dublin cycling saying it was a bad idea, what was his name?

lennymc · 19-07-2013 02:30PM

cdaly_ wrote: »

Which is why I take up a safe position in the middle of the left-turn lane in the first place so they have to stop behind me...

dont allways assume they will stop. Many moons ago, a motorcycle instructor said that to me, and I applied it to my riding. I was stopped at a set of lights one day on the motorbike, and checked my mirrors, only to see a car that obviously wasnt going to stop! I managed to accelerate away, and sure enough the car didnt stop. Had I not checked my mirrors Im sure I would have been seriously injured. I suppose thats also an (extreme) example of where it may be safer to break a red light than not. Sure ye'd need eyes in the back of yer head.

Fixed Penalty Notices for Cycling by end of year

Comments