Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fixed Penalty Notices for Cycling by end of year

1…5681011…14

Comments

  • #212
    Raam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,318 ✭✭✭✭Raam


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

    I suppose that it is claimed as a result of one or more of these: laziness, ignorance, a lack of confidence.


  • #213
    Idleater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,176 ✭✭✭Idleater


    lennymc wrote: »
    dont allways assume they will stop.

    Had a coach accelerate around me to go through the pedestrian lights crossing outside heuston station yesterday. Only to pull in to the bus stop.
    That was a tight squeeze between the lane of traffic to the right and the taxi on the left.


  • #214
    bambergbike
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 342 ✭✭bambergbike


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

    Well, me too, but given the number of them that seem to be around the place it would make sense to:

    A) Give errant cyclists penalty points as well as fines

    and

    B) Let them off the penalty points again (within reason) if they do Bikeability training.

    Raam wrote: »
    I suppose that it is claimed as a result of one or more of these: laziness, ignorance, a lack of confidence.

    Training won't make people less lazy - fines might help with that - but it might make them less ignorant and more confident.


  • #215
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,570 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    bambergbike wrote: »
    Well, me too, but given the number of them that seem to be around the place it would make sense to:

    A) Give errant cyclists penalty points as well as fines

    and

    B) Let them off the penalty points again (within reason) if they do Bikeability training.

    What happens when they have racked up a load of penalty points?


  • #216
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,549 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    I'm always amazed at these people who claim they need to break lights and cycle on the footpath in order to cycle safely.
    If you know the section of road from harolds cross up to terenure village, its narrow and full of parked cars. For an adult its fine but a 12yr old cycling to school its not, especially just before the garville road junction. What would you tell your 12 yr old, cycle on the road or for those sections on the path taking care.
    Walking is worse, kid is all over the place and likely to take your ankle off with a straying pedal


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,285 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Gerry T wrote: »
    What would you tell your 12 yr old, cycle on the road or for those sections on the path taking care.

    Haven't we done this already? The age of criminal responsibility is 14.

    So younger kids are fine on the footpad.


  • #218
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,549 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    Lumen wrote: »
    Haven't we done this already? The age of criminal responsibility is 14.

    So younger kids are fine on the footpad.

    Its not a question of punishment, kids may not be criminally responsible but their parents are responsible for them. Its about what's safe and what's not safe. The law should reflect that and unless they say u14 can use paths responsibly then they shouldn't and I suppose as a responsible parent the kid should walk and not cycle if the only safe thing to do is use the path.


  • #219
    Hmmzis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,004 ✭✭✭Hmmzis


    Gerry T wrote: »
    If you know the section of road from harolds cross up to terenure village, its narrow and full of parked cars. For an adult its fine but a 12yr old cycling to school its not, especially just before the garville road junction. What would you tell your 12 yr old, cycle on the road or for those sections on the path taking care.
    Walking is worse, kid is all over the place and likely to take your ankle off with a straying pedal

    It's not that narrow there, that segment is part of my daily commute. The biggest hazards there by far are the petrol station and the junction after the grayhound stadium where you have the risk of being cut accross by a right turning car and that risks is vastly increased when you would be on the footpath. Lots of people cycle that route and the vast majority of drivers are quite used to cyclists there.


  • #220
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,285 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Gerry T wrote: »
    Its not a question of punishment, kids may not be criminally responsible but their parents are responsible for them. Its about what's safe and what's not safe. The law should reflect that and unless they say u14 can use paths responsibly then they shouldn't and I suppose as a responsible parent the kid should walk and not cycle if the only safe thing to do is use the path.

    The law should reflect what? What is and isn't safe for kids to do? That would be absurd.

    Is it legal for kids to climb trees, or sit on fences? My daughter broke her arm recently falling off a gate. Should she be prosecuted? Or should I?

    How about we just leave people to exercise their judgement about what their kids can and cannot do?


  • #221
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,276 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Gerry T wrote: »
    If you know the section of road from harolds cross up to terenure village, its narrow and full of parked cars. For an adult its fine but a 12yr old cycling to school its not...

    I know it well, cycle it a few times a week. I'm not talking about children, I'm talking about adults making excuses on safety grounds.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,549 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    I know it well, cycle it a few times a week. I'm not talking about children, I'm talking about adults making excuses on safety grounds.

    No reason for an adult to use a path or break a red light, unless your avoiding being hit. You just need to keep your wits about you and remember you won't win a fight with a car no matter if you have the right of way !

    Years back i was in Australia and cycling late with no light (wouldn't do that now!) but the police stopped me and gave me a warning, he didn't take the bike as it was a residential area and quiet. But he let out the air from the tyres and I had a ****ty walk home. In latter years I thought that was a great idea.


  • #223
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,549 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    Hmmzis wrote: »
    It's not that narrow there, that segment is part of my daily commute. The biggest hazards there by far are the petrol station and the junction after the grayhound stadium where you have the risk of being cut accross by a right turning car and that risks is vastly increased when you would be on the footpath. Lots of people cycle that route and the vast majority of drivers are quite used to cyclists there.

    Sorry Hmmzis that's the wrong section, if you cycle from the junction at the end of kenilworth park road (at the opel garage) up to Rathgar not terenure, my mistake, Its Rathgar Ave. Narrow sections with parked cars so drivers coming from opposite directions regularily take turns to get past each other.


  • #224
    hollypink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭hollypink


    If a cyclist comes to a red light and the cyclist moves past the white line so as to be ahead of cars/trucks but without crossing the junction on red, do you think you'll get a fine for that? Strictly speaking, you're breaking the lights once you go past the line. That's at a junction where there's no advanced stop line for cyclists, although a lot of motorists just stop in those anyway so they're not always useful.


  • #225
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,276 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    hollypink wrote: »
    If a cyclist comes to a red light and the cyclist moves past the white line so as to be ahead of cars/trucks but without crossing the junction on red, do you think you'll get a fine for that?

    I fecking hope so.


  • #226
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,549 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    Lumen wrote: »
    The law should reflect what? What is and isn't safe for kids to do? That would be absurd.

    Is it legal for kids to climb trees, or sit on fences? My daughter broke her arm recently falling off a gate. Should she be prosecuted? Or should I?

    How about we just leave people to exercise their judgement about what their kids can and cannot do?

    Your missing my point or I'm not explaining it properly. I agree totally with you, if the law states that a person can't cycle on a path I think that will include kids --- and in my book that's wrong. A kid learning should use a path so if they swerve etc they won't get hit by a close passing car. The answer is not to stop the kids cycling but to get them out there doing things. So yes parents should be allowed to do just that--parent.
    What I'm saying about the law is, if there is some law saying that bikes can't be used on paths then it should exclude kids--so they can do just that. I'm not suggesting that their be laws telling kids what they can do.


  • #227
    Darkglasses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,526 ✭✭✭✭Darkglasses


    hollypink wrote: »
    If a cyclist comes to a red light and the cyclist moves past the white line so as to be ahead of cars/trucks but without crossing the junction on red, do you think you'll get a fine for that? Strictly speaking, you're breaking the lights once you go past the line. That's at a junction where there's no advanced stop line for cyclists, although a lot of motorists just stop in those anyway so they're not always useful.

    You're right that it is technically RLJing, but I definitely don't think Gardai will give fines for that.

    Whatever happens, there'll still be tonnes and tonnes of RLJing in Dublin, at least when this is first rolled out. It'll be totally impractical for Gardai to be that pedantic, I imagine the FPNs will only be given in very blatant and dangerous cases. But I'm just speculating.


  • #228
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    I fecking hope so.

    Why?

    Moving to the front can be done to avoid cars turning left without indicating. Which is a common hazard for cyclists. When a car sees a cyclists in front, its makes them think about checking their inside before turning left, and actually using their indicator.


  • #229
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    elfy4eva wrote: »
    You are 100% correct I have not done any research into cycling statistics I am saying what comes to me as common sense. However I would relish the chance to read over the research you have done that concludes "forcing crap cyclists on the roads makes roads safer."

    Just because you believe the world is flat doesn't mean the world is actually flat.

    Especially if you don't bother to read the research that's already been done.


  • #230
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,276 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    beauf wrote: »
    Why?

    Moving to the front can be done to avoid cars turning left without indicating. Which is a common hazard for cyclists. When a car sees a cyclists in front, its makes them think about checking their inside before turning left, and actually using their indicator.

    Because the white line is where you're ment to stop.

    Going beyond it is breaking the lights. Besides the legalities:

    a.) it creates a hazard by putting you in the path of oncoming traffic, something I see on a daily basis,

    b.) it's dickish behaviour, since everyone else who stops where they're supposed to has to re-overtake them once the lights change.

    You don't need to break the law to avoid left turning vehicles. If you're concerned about them position yourself in front of them (if you're first to the lights or if there's an advanced stop box, or positioning yourself behind them; rather than alongside them. Breaking the lights to cycle out into the junction is unnecessary and poor cycling.


  • #231
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    I know it well, cycle it a few times a week. I'm not talking about children, I'm talking about adults making excuses on safety grounds.

    Experienced cyclists will know that on some Roads around Dublin and I assume elsewhere, you need to cycle at considerable speed to stay with the flow of traffic, and command your road space in traffic. Because many cars don't give any respect to cyclists, or others cars for that matter.

    It really intimidates any one who can't cycle like that, be they old young, or in experienced. That's not the case in other countries where its expected that provision in the rules and infrastructure to facilitate as many people cycling as possible.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    Because the white line is where you're ment to stop.

    Going beyond it is breaking the lights. Besides the legalities:

    a.) it creates a hazard by putting you in the path of oncoming traffic, something I see on a daily basis,

    b.) it's dickish behaviour, since everyone else who stops where they're supposed to has to re-overtake them once the lights change.

    You don't need to break the law to avoid left turning vehicles. If you're concerned about them position yourself in front of them (if you're first to the lights or if there's an advanced stop box, or positioning yourself behind them; rather than alongside them. Breaking the lights to cycle out into the junction is unnecessary and poor cycling.

    This is blind rule following without thinking if it makes sense or not. This is like the law about having to stay in a cycle lane if it exists, even where it was hazardous to do so. That law was changed. So does that mean that something has changed so the law was invalid or was the law incorrect and dangerous in the first place.

    a) You can be in front of the line and not a hazard. If you're a hazard to oncoming traffic your on the wrong side of the road!

    b) you've switched this from being in front of the line to queue jumping which is a different thing entirely. If there's a line of cyclists ahead of you, you don't need to command the lane because the sheer numbers will have the same effect.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling#Lane_control


  • #233
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


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

    I'm equally amazed at how no-one here appears to be bothered about parked cars in cycle lanes, hence prompting some cyclists to play safe and use an adjacent footpath.

    Cycle safely goes with out saying, but a scenario like the particular section of Clontarf Road I've referred creates an unsafe environment for certain cyclists. No doubt there are many other examples around the city and country.


  • #234
    thesimpsons
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,696 ✭✭✭thesimpsons


    why is it just cycling on footpaths that will incur the fines - regularly see skateboarders and rollerbladers coming along on paths too and they would be as lethal to pedestrians at cyclists.


  • #235
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,285 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    thesimpsons wrote: »
    why is it just cycling on footpaths that will incur the fines - regularly see skateboarders and rollerbladers coming along on paths too and they would be as lethal to pedestrians at cyclists.

    Skateboards and rollerbladers are wheeled pedestrians. Cyclists are not.

    Don't ask me why, it just is. :pac:


  • #236
    thesimpsons
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,696 ✭✭✭thesimpsons


    Lumen wrote: »
    Skateboards and rollerbladers are wheeled pedestrians. Cyclists are not.

    Don't ask me why, it just is. :pac:

    i'm not sure if thats a case of " WTF " or "you learn something new every day "


  • #237
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    steamengine wrote: »
    I'm equally amazed at how no-one here appears to be bothered about parked cars in cycle lanes, hence prompting some cyclists to play safe and use an adjacent footpath. ....

    Have to say there are very few parked cars on my commuting routes. So its not something I think of that much.

    That said you have the case of Lesson St Lwr out of town which is bus only. (no cycles) but lovely and quiet and no parked cars. Forcing cyclists to use Baggot Street Lower which has every cycling hazard known to man on it, Trucks buses, taxi's, no cycle lanes, delivery trucks, lots of jaywalkers and a surface with more potholes than the moon. Oh and lots of Parked cars.


  • #238
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 78,458 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    brian.henry wrote: »

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

    You're exactly the type of cyclist that needs the rules enforcing. Hopefully fixed penalties will make such enforcement easier and you may start to appreciate the laws of the land are not optional.


  • #239
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,285 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Beasty wrote: »
    You're exactly the type of cyclist that needs the rules enforcing. Hopefully fixed penalties will make such enforcement easier and you may start to appreciate the laws of the land are not optional.

    That is an astonishingly sanctimonious post. 10/10. :D


  • #240
    BrianHenryIE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 221 ✭✭BrianHenryIE


    Beasty wrote: »
    You're exactly the type of cyclist that needs the rules enforcing. Hopefully fixed penalties will make such enforcement easier and you may start to appreciate the laws of the land are not optional.

    When it's safe to go, I go. The idea of fining people just to uphold the principle of "the laws of the land" is bs.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Squidgy Black
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,741 ✭✭✭✭Squidgy Black


    Have we found a poster boy in brian.henry for the first ad for the fines? A glorious example of why they need to be brought in to stop nodders floating through lights without a care for those around them.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement