Rogue cyclists set to face on-the-spot fines MOD WARNING in first post

Grandpa Hassan · 15-07-2015 9:19am

S. Goodspeed wrote: »

I was cycling through a part of Dublin yesterday at a relatively quiet time of day. Came to a set of red lights and slowly came to a stop. Another cyclist overtook me and without missing a beat dismounted his bike at pretty high speed and ran through the junction on his cleats, once he got through he swung his leg over the bike again and away he went. It was the lycra version of something out of a wild west movie. I did my usual, look left/right, made sure no one was coming (car or pedestrian) and then cautiously made my way through the same red light (guilty as charged your honour).

There is something seriously wrong with a legal system that deems what the other cyclist did legal (and by inference safe/safer?) and what I did illegal. Maybe what he did was still illegal (i honestly don't know) but in fairness to him he is obviously trying to be a law abiding citizen

Ha I'd have liked to have seen that! I pull the same manoeuvre all the time, but not at that speed. Get up to the lights. Walk 4 or 5 steps across them, or round the left turn, and am off on my way again. Once he's on foot I don't see what law could possibly apply to him....it would be an interesting discussion with a Garda about whether he got off his bike too fast! He is a law abiding citizen as far as I can tell....

seamus · 15-07-2015 9:20am

^^
Not strictly legal, especially if it was a pedestrian crossing, but this guy was obviously looking for an excuse to get some CX practice in on his commute.

Grandpa Hassan · 15-07-2015 9:23am

seamus wrote: »

^^
Not strictly legal, especially if it was a pedestrian crossing, but this guy was obviously looking for an excuse to get some CX practice in on his commute.

Why? He's on foot, pushing his bike. Same as what I do, but seems like it was faster

cython · 15-07-2015 9:31am

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Why? He's on foot, pushing his bike. Same as what I do, but seems like it was faster

Road Traffic Act says following:

Pedestrians crossing roadway

36.—(1) When crossing a roadway a pedestrian shall remain on the roadway only for so long as is necessary.

(2) At a road junction where traffic is controlled either by traffic lights or by a pointsman, a pedestrian shall cross the roadway only when traffic going in the direction in which the pedestrian intends to cross is permitted (by the lights or pointsman) to proceed, and shall yield the right of way to any traffic turning in front of the pedestrian.

(3) At a point on a road where traffic is controlled by a pointsman, a pedestrian shall cross the roadway only when permitted to do so by the pointsman.

(4) For the purposes of this bye-law, each carriageway of a dual carriageway shall be deemed to be a separate roadway, and where there is a traffic refuge on a roadway the portion of the roadway on each side of the refuge shall be deemed to be a separate roadway.
Pedestrian lights

37. A pedestrian about to cross a roadway at a place where pedestrian lights have been provided shall do so only when a lamp of the pedestrian lights facing him is lit and green.

The bolded sections are relevant here - if there were ped lights they may have been green in the direction in which he crossed, in which case it may be ok, but otherwise it seems highly unlikely either your or his approaches are fully legal.

It just happens that enforcement of traffic legislation for pedestrians is probably even worse than enforcement of same for cyclists, so people don't cope this

seamus · 15-07-2015 9:44am

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Why? He's on foot, pushing his bike. Same as what I do, but seems like it was faster

As cython says, if there was a pedestrian crossing there which was red, then he was breaking the law.

Another thread way back also discovered that pushing your bike (or any vehicle) on a road is technically illegal except in an emergency. You either cycle it on the road or wheel it along the path. Of walk on the road carrying it.

That's all technicalities though. If there was a green ped light, I have no ethical objection to the guy's cyclocross manouver.

tomasrojo · 15-07-2015 9:45am

coolbeans wrote: »

Selon elle, l'expérimentation des panneaux de « cédez le passage cycliste au feu rouge » a montré que « le passage cycliste au feu rouge n'est pas accidentogène » et qu'il « évite certains conflits entre les cyclistes et les véhicules arrêtés au feu, notamment l'angle mort ».

Rather taken by this word. Sounds like one of Jean Michel Jarre's less successful albums.

coolbeans · 15-07-2015 9:56am

tomasrojo wrote: »

Rather taken by this word. Sounds like one of Jean Michel Jarre's less successful albums.

Never came across it before myself but at the same time I didn't need to look it up.

laraghrider · 15-07-2015 10:48am

tomasrojo wrote: »

Rather taken by this word. Sounds like one of Jean Michel Jarre's less successful albums.

Now there is a musical reference I never expected to see on the cycling forum! Niche to say the least.

tomasrojo · 15-07-2015 11:01am

The remarkable thing is he's sold 80 million albums and played to the largest outdoor crowd in history.

mcgratheoin · 15-07-2015 11:17am

tomasrojo wrote: »

The remarkable thing is he's sold 80 million albums and played to the largest outdoor crowd in history.

Non-paying crowds, people will watch anything if it's free

rubadub · 15-07-2015 11:34am

tomasrojo wrote: »

The remarkable thing is he's sold 80 million albums

Some artists attract more law abiding fans who actually buy stuff. I figured thats why Enya managed to sell so many. They probably don't even jump red lights.

tomasrojo · 15-07-2015 12:01pm

Roger Whittaker was one that always fascinated me. Very consistent, multi-multi-million seller.

galwaycyclist · 15-07-2015 3:19pm

CramCycle wrote: »

I presume if you dismount and walk along the pavement you are OK?

Here is what it says in the traffic regulations

Rules for Pedestrians

46. (1) A pedestrian shall exercise care and take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians.

(2) A pedestrian facing a traffic light lamp which shows a red light shall not proceed beyond that light.

(2) A pedestrian facing a traffic light lamp which shows a red light shall not proceed to cross the roadway.”,

(3) A pedestrian about to cross a roadway at a place where traffic sign number RPC 003 or RPC 004 [pedestrian lights] has been provided shall do so only when a lamp of the facing pedestrian lights is lit and emits a constant green light.

(4) Subject to sub-article (5), save when crossing the roadway, a pedestrian shall use a footway if one is provided, and if one is not provided, shall keep as near as possible to the right edge of the roadway.

(5) At a road junction where traffic is controlled either by traffic lights or by a member of the Garda Síochána, a pedestrian shall cross the roadway only when traffic going in the direction in which the pedestrian intends to cross is permitted (by the lights or the member) to proceed.

(6) Within a pedestrian crossing complex [traffic sign number RPC 002] a pedestrian shall only cross the roadway at the location of traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing].

(7) On a roadway on which a traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing] has been provided, a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing, except by the crossing.

(8) For the purposes of this article, each carriageway of a dual carriageway shall be deemed to be a separate roadway, and where there is a traffic refuge on a roadway the portion of the roadway on each side of the refuge shall be deemed to be a separate roadway.

So, in my reading, if there is no pedestrian crossing, then pedestrians work off the same traffic signals as everyone else.

EDIT: You could argue that the situation where the pedestrian is turning left would not seem to be covered by this, since it only seems to apply where a roadway is being crossed. So being on the pavement might come under this. This was updated under SI 212/2012 to make it clear that a pedestrian may not pass a red light to cross a road. So turning left on the path looks ok.

But it seems to me, if you were dismounting at a red light and pushing your bike past a red light protecting a pedestrian crossing with a green light, then you would arguably be interfering with the lawful use of the crossing by people who want to cross your path.

I am not a lawyer.

galwaycyclist · 15-07-2015 7:28pm

While we are considering "rogue behaviour" and looking at what it says in the traffic regulations

It has this for pedestrians.

46. (1) A pedestrian shall exercise care and take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians.

Funnily enough, after a very quick scan, I can find no similar general statement directed at drivers - there are occasional references to not performing particular manouevres in way that cause inconvenience or danger.

However, the Irish traffic regulations do not appear to state any general duty on Irish drivers - does that strike anyone else as a bit strange?

(The roads acts do state a general duty on road users to avoid injury and damage to property)

It also seems that the regulations on parking contain do not appear to contain any specific prohibition on obstructing the movement of pedestrians only for blocking "traffic". (and traffic does not include pedestrians)

buffalo · 15-07-2015 8:24pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Does anyone here have examples of traffic lights that will not change for someone on a bicycle? There is a series of junctions in Galway that have been designed in a way that means they cannot detect, or change for, cyclists. There are other junctions where there are sensor loops but they dont pick up bikes. In both situations the lights will only change if a car etc comes along that happens to be going the same direction.

Anyone have similar examples from other towns?

I got one today at Whitehall Road near the KCR - the northern end coming to the T with Kimmage Road West. Sat through a few minutes of red, then a pedestrian pushed the button for the crossing - they got the green man (all other lights red), and then it went green for Kimmage Road West again.

Had to get the car behind me to move up onto the sensor. I had been jumping up and down on my bike on it, but no joy.

Terry5135 · 16-07-2015 6:02pm

I've used the title of an Irish Times article from two weeks ago as the title of this thread, since I can't post links yet. I recommend looking it up if you haven't seen it. The piece was written by Conor Lally.

Apologies if the thread already exists. I'm dizzy from the multitudes of threads at this site and I'm still very unfamiliar with navigating around, etc.

The possibility of a 2,000 euro fine for being egregiously disobedient to the forces of law and order (and, I'm sure, for being too uppity to our masters) is ridiculous in the extreme and I hope not enforced - but once laws are there, and the following of them is whim, you can be sure the time will come.

But if you're honest to cops and such, it's not too too draconian. I still would think a propaganda campaign, such as presented to car drivers, would be a much better approach to the subject. It might take a generation, but it can be very effective. Of course, it costs AND doesn't bring in money.

I grew up with that sort of educative media programming. Especially when very young, I was bombarded with it, mostly in schools. And it does no harm. I'll come back to this in a second, but first the list of fine-able offenses:

Offences now the subject of €40 fines are:
1. Cyclist driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration.
2. No front lamp or rear lamp lit during lighting-up hours on a pedal cycle.
3. Cyclist proceeding into a pedestrianised street or area.
4 . Cyclist proceeding past traffic lights when the red lamp is illuminated.
5. Cyclist proceeding past cycle traffic lights when red lamp is lit.
6. Cyclist failing to stop for a School Warden sign.
7. Cyclist proceeding beyond a stop line, barrier or half barrier at a railway level crossing, swing bridge or lifting bridge, when the red lamps are flashing.

Now, what astonishes me about that is that there is nothing there about cycling two (or more) abreast. I can't imagine anything more hazardous to the cyclist him/herself or, indirectly, to car drivers in regard to cyclists.

What also astonishes me in the propaganda put out for drivers (I'm glad, btw, after years of speed being the only thing the witless could think of, that finally commercials are focusing on other very important things for drivers, like distance from cars in front, sight lines, etc) is that cyclists riding two or three abreast is something car drivers should be careful of, yet not a word about the nitwits doing it.

Especially on narrow country roads in rural areas, where often in Ireland, sight lines are a disaster because of the Irish compulsion to banish all light from their properties. And especially at curves. I often wonder if the nincompoops cycling thus have any concept of how incredibly dangerous it is.

Nonetheless, for all that, I'm still opposed to the draconian incentives put into law, even the relatively small fines. Education would do a far better job for all concerned.

kenmc · 16-07-2015 6:20pm

steady, you're 5 hours premature

CheGuedara · 16-07-2015 6:22pm

Cycling two abreast is perfectly legal [S.I. No. 294/1964 - Road Traffic General Bye-Laws, 1964]. Cycling three abreast is legal in the context of it being transient while one rider overtaking two or two overtaking one.

When riding two abreast on small/narrow/winding country roads the greatest hazard is indeed motorists travelling too fast for the road and outside of their required ability to stop within the distance they can see to be clear.

jjpep · 16-07-2015 6:25pm

There's a number of very good reasons for cyclists to go two abreast, or ride in the centre of a lane etc at different times in different circumstances.

If you have a quick flick through any if the multitude of driver vs cyclists threads you'll find some detailed explanations.

ted1 · 16-07-2015 6:39pm

Cycling 2 a Breast cyclists still take up less width than a car.

There's plenty of times when's it safer to go 2 a breast and plenty of times when it's not safer.

Driving a car and not feeling confident around other road users is not safe.

brianomc · 16-07-2015 6:43pm

If you cant see 2 cyclists side by side going around a bend then you aren't going to see 1 by him/herself.
If you don't have time to react to those 2 cyclists then you were going too fast for the road conditions and if the road is as narrow as you say then you have probably knocked the single cyclist off their bike potentially killing them.
It doesn't even have to be a cyclist, it could be a family walking from the relatives house down the road, a farmer with some livestock, etc

roverrules · 16-07-2015 6:43pm

CheGuedara wrote: »

Cycling two abreast is perfectly legal [S.I. No. 294/1964 - Road Traffic General Bye-Laws, 1964]. Cycling three abreast is legal in the context of it being transient while one rider overtaking two or two overtaking one.

When riding two abreast on small/narrow/winding country roads the greatest hazard is indeed motorists travelling too fast for the road and outside of their required ability to stop within the distance they can see to be clear.

Not so sure about 2 overtaking 1, I thought overtaking cyclists were supposed to be single file?

(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.

CramCycle · 16-07-2015 6:49pm

Terry5135 wrote: »

I've used the title of an Irish Times article from two weeks ago as the title of this thread, since I can't post links yet. I recommend looking it up if you haven't seen it. The piece was written by Conor Lally.

MOD VOICE: Threads merged

Shep_Dog · 16-07-2015 8:09pm

roverrules wrote: »

Not so sure about 2 overtaking 1, I thought overtaking cyclists were supposed to be single file?

'Other traffic' would be slow-moving vehicles, such as tractors or even parked cars. The regulations for passing other cyclists have already been quoted in an earlier post. Three abreast is spcificly permitted, temorarily, if the cyclist on the outside is passing two other cyclists.

if it is to be held that cycling two abreast is an inconsiderate use of roadspace and incoveniences others, then, the same logic would have to apply to cars parked on a roadway.

Tony EH · 16-07-2015 8:49pm

Is there anything in law about cars overtaking bicycles who are overtaking a car/other vehicle?

I experience this with lamentable regularity and to my mind it's one of the most dangerous things I see motorists doing.

CramCycle · 16-07-2015 8:57pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Is there anything in law about cars overtaking bicycles who are overtaking a car/other vehicle?

I experience this with lamentable regularity and to my mind it's one of the most dangerous things I see motorists doing.

If nothing else its dangerous driving. Not sure if it needs more specificity than that. I often get people (motorists and cyclists) pulling out while I am mid overtake to do it themselves. First of all, FFS, look behind you or use your mirror, secondly, look be-Fin-hind you.

Terry5135 · 16-07-2015 9:42pm

CheGuedara wrote: »

Cycling two abreast is perfectly legal [S.I. No. 294/1964 - Road Traffic General Bye-Laws, 1964].

So what? Is this a law handed down from God through Moses? This is a non argument, it can still be idiotic.

Currently, in Co. Wicklow, the speed limit on the old N11 is 80 mph. And yet, on narrow winding side roads all around Wicklow and Wexford, with hedges and walls high and often to the edge of the road, the speed limit is 80 mph. And yet, the old N11 is far wider, usually has a hard shoulder, far straighter, and has sightlines that are vastly better. So it's very simple, either the speed on the old N11 is way too slow or the speed on most country roads is way too high. The latter, imo. But either way, these are legal speeds.

Please don't quote the law. Especially selectively, especially when it suits your bias.

Cycling three abreast is legal in the context of it being transient while one rider overtaking two or two overtaking one.

Please, I've come upon cycling groups that in part could be 3 or even 4 abreast and no one was passing anyone. It's suicidal. You can put that on a headstone - he was killed, but he was right, so sod the car driver.

When riding two abreast on small/narrow/winding country roads the greatest hazard is indeed motorists travelling too fast for the road and outside of their required ability to stop within the distance they can see to be clear.

This is a false dichotomy and a logical fallacy. Perhaps the greatest hazard is motorists, perhaps not. I don't care for this discussion. It's not an either/or.

I do happen to agree with you. As for required ability to stop within a distance that can be seen to be clear, well, that's ideal, but once in a while, it's just plain impossible. If you were a driver in the countryside, you'd realize this. But generally, yes, you are right. It's still irrelevant to the point.

Tony EH · 16-07-2015 9:44pm

CramCycle wrote: »

If nothing else its dangerous driving. Not sure if it needs more specificity than that. I often get people (motorists and cyclists) pulling out while I am mid overtake to do it themselves. First of all, FFS, look behind you or use your mirror, secondly, look be-Fin-hind you.

A taxi nearly bashed into me today on the way home doing that.

I swear it's getting more and more dangerous.

Lumen · 16-07-2015 9:46pm

Terry5135 wrote: »

As for required ability to stop within a distance that can be seen to be clear, well, that's ideal, but once in a while, it's just plain impossible. If you were a driver in the countryside, you'd realize this.

Nonsense. I've driven all over the place and never had to break the rule, which is properly suffixed with "and likely to remain so".

CramCycle · 16-07-2015 9:52pm

Terry5135 wrote: »

So what? Is this a law handed down from God through Moses? This is a non argument, it can still be idiotic.

Currently, in Co. Wicklow, the speed limit on the old N11 is 80 mph. And yet, on narrow winding side roads all around Wicklow and Wexford, with hedges and walls high and often to the edge of the road, the speed limit is 80 mph. And yet, the old N11 is far wider, usually has a hard shoulder, far straighter, and has sightlines that are vastly better. So it's very simple, either the speed on the old N11 is way too slow or the speed on most country roads is way too high. The latter, imo. But either way, these are legal speeds.

Please don't quote the law. Especially selectively, especially when it suits your bias.

Its a limit not a target, if you ever drive a motor vehicle please try and remember that.

Please, I've come upon cycling groups that in part could be 3 or even 4 abreast and no one was passing anyone. It's suicidal. You can put that on a headstone - he was killed, but he was right, so sod the car driver.

3 or 4 abreast is illegal and you will find no one advocating it here.

This is a false dichotomy and a logical fallacy. Perhaps the greatest hazard is motorists, perhaps not. I don't care for this discussion. It's not an either/or.

I do happen to agree with you. As for required ability to stop within a distance that can be seen to be clear, well, that's ideal, but once in a while, it's just plain impossible. If you were a driver in the countryside, you'd realize this. But generally, yes, you are right. It's still irrelevant to the point.

Not an ideal, but a simple basis for safe driving, and far from impossible. If you find it impossible it might be time to switch to walking, lifts and public transport only.

Eamonnator · 16-07-2015 9:54pm

@Terry5135
I think you might be confusing mph and kph.

If you drive at 80kph in an 80kph zone, you are not breaking the speed limit,
however, it does not necessarily mean, you are not driving dangerously.

Terry5135 · 16-07-2015 9:57pm

jjpep wrote: »

There's a number of very good reasons for cyclists to go two abreast, or ride in the centre of a lane etc at different times in different circumstances.

Of course there are. So what?

ted1 wrote: »

Cycling 2 a Breast cyclists still take up less width than a car.

Well, of course. But there's a vast difference between the one getting tapped in the rear than for the other.

Driving a car and not feeling confident around other road users is not safe.

That's very helpful. Personally, I'm quite confident. And I haven't run down a cyclist for at least a month now.

brianomc wrote: »

If you don't have time to react to those 2 cyclists then you were going too fast for the road conditions and if the road is as narrow as you say then you have probably knocked the single cyclist off their bike potentially killing them.

That last bit doesn't follow. The first bit is true enough. That will comfort you no doubt as you lie in traction.

The bit above for those who don't have humour, about running down a cyclist, was a joke. In fact, in my life, I have done extensive cycling AND driving.

Part of the problem in this branch of the forum and with cyclists in general is this attitude of "us and them". A lot of this thread reeks of it. It makes it difficult to carry on a rational discussion. Too many false dichotomies, too many either/or's, too many irrelevancies.

Mainly I thought people would be interested in discussing the new laws regarding fines. Personally, I think they are somewhat ridiculous and would side with cyclists who felt that way - without, in an attempt to preempt the predictable come backs, being absolute about it.

coolbeans · 16-07-2015 10:11pm

With all your talk of logical fallacies and dichotomies etc your own bias is matched only by your ability to condescend. Quite amusing really. Happens a lot on this forum though. Someone'll learn you... l hope

tomasrojo · 16-07-2015 10:15pm

Terry5135 wrote: »

Part of the problem in this branch of the forum and with cyclists in general is this attitude of "us and them". A lot of this thread reeks of it. It makes it difficult to carry on a rational discussion. Too many false dichotomies, too many either/or's, too many irrelevancies.

And then you came along, bimodal Jesus.

CramCycle · 16-07-2015 10:21pm

Terry5135 wrote: »

Part of the problem in this branch of the forum and with cyclists in general is this attitude of "us and them". A lot of this thread reeks of it. It makes it difficult to carry on a rational discussion. Too many false dichotomies, too many either/or's, too many irrelevancies.

There is no us and them, most cyclists and motorists never even consider thinking that way. The only person in recent pages with that opinion would seem to be yourself.

My advice, follow the rules, don't be a dick, and leave early so you don't get annoyed over non issues.

Terry5135 · 16-07-2015 10:32pm

CramCycle wrote: »

Its a limit not a target, if you ever drive a motor vehicle please try and remember that.

Oh, I'll do my best. Speaking as a driver who does drive according to conditions and often have cars with ants in their pants coming up my arse.

3 or 4 abreast is illegal and you will find no one advocating it here.

Actually, there were several here who, while not specifically advocating 3 abreast, obfuscated the question with irrelevances about the legal legitimacy of passing two abreast. Let's not parse words, people paint pictures.

Not an ideal, but a simple basis for safe driving, and far from impossible. If you find it impossible it might be time to switch to walking, lifts and public transport only.

You're rather insulting. I ignored it in the first sentence, but now you're getting ridiculous.

My point had to do with cycling, not with driving. But nice job hijacking the subject of my own post(s) and creating a very specious false dichotomy.

It's obvious that cyclists are simply pig headed and hate motorists. Fine, I've said several times that I agree about motorists. To be more explicit, there are a lot of dangerous motorists out there.

All the more reason to avoid cycling two abreast. The reason it's a law in other countries is for the cyclist safety, not cyclist stifling.

This is culture clash. Had you been raised in a different mindset, my point about cycling two abreast would be obvious. But it's not, so it goes. But please, continue to be glib, righteous, and smart arsed. It's your arse out there on the road against two tonnes of steel. Good luck standing on your rights in that reality.

Terry5135 · 16-07-2015 10:34pm

Eamonnator wrote: »

@Terry5135
I think you might be confusing mph and kph.

If you drive at 80kph in an 80kph zone, you are not breaking the speed limit,
however, it does not necessarily mean, you are not driving dangerously.

That was my point, albeit the inverse of it. I agree - I would equally agree without the 'not'.

Terry5135 · 16-07-2015 10:35pm

coolbeans wrote: »

With all your talk of logical fallacies and dichotomies etc your own bias is matched only by your ability to condescend.

Yes, that's true.

Terry5135 · 16-07-2015 10:36pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

And then you came along, bimodal Jesus.

Aren't you lucky, then.

Terry5135 · 16-07-2015 10:37pm

CramCycle wrote: »

There is no us and them, most cyclists and motorists never even consider thinking that way. The only person in recent pages with that opinion would seem to be yourself.

Actually, a lot of cyclists think that way. Not on pages, perhaps, but on the road.

Terry5135 · 16-07-2015 10:40pm

CramCycle wrote: »

My advice, follow the rules, don't be a dick, and leave early so you don't get annoyed over non issues.

Good advice. Ok. I only came to discuss the new laws and fines. But these have not arrived. As usual, people seem more concerned with attitude than the subject.

Fine by me. I wish you all luck on the roads.

Beasty · 16-07-2015 10:45pm

Terry5135 wrote: »

It's obvious that cyclists are simply pig headed and hate motorists.

More comments like this any your access to the forum will be very short-lived

Terry5135 wrote: »

All the more reason to avoid cycling two abreast. The reason it's a law in other countries is for the cyclist safety, not cyclist stifling.

This thread is about new enforcement laws for existing offences. Talking about whether it's appropriate to ride 2 abreast is not only off-topic but has been done to death within the forum. If you wish to discuss the fact these laws can now be enforced via FPNs that's fine. Please refrain from going into other areas - this thread was on its last legs before you started a new one on the topic and going over old ground yet again is pointless and will in all likelihood result in the closure of the thread

Any questions PM me - do not respond in-thread

tomasrojo · 17-07-2015 9:14am

Cyclist.ie had a meeting with Gardaí.

We certainly acknowledge the logic in tackling careless cycling. However, we are still very concerned that the more serious issues of motor vehicles exceeding speed limits, overtaking closely/dangerously and fly-parking in cycle tracks are not being addressed in a way that will make Irish roads safe and attractive environments in which to walk or cycle for people of all ages and abilities. We did get a clear sense that they are much more favourable to ignoring certain motor vehicle infractions (discretionary policing), in order to ‘keep business moving’, rather than considering the issue of a safer environments for all road users. They appear to have a very car-centric view of traffic management.

It was clear that FCNs are coming in on 1st August and will be fully implemented.

http://cyclist.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/GardaFCNMeeting-15-07-15_D%C3%93T-CR.pdf

cjt156 · 17-07-2015 9:18am

Terry5135 wrote: »

It's obvious that cyclists are simply pig headed and hate motorists.

Yep, we have to sign an affirmation to that effect in our own blood before we are allowed swing a leg over a saddle.

Or maybe, just maybe, most of us are cyclists and motorists? And pedestrians for that matter.
And while most of us (cyclists, motorists et al) try to adhere to the rules while on the roads, some of us are dickheads and do not. Some of us have a moment of madness and do something stupid they later regret.

Perhaps if we all try to stick to the laws pertaining to our chosen mode of transport we won't all seem so pig headed and hateful.

Whatchya reckon? Now com'ere give us a hug!

CramCycle · 17-07-2015 9:20am

cjt156 wrote: »

Yep, we have to sign an affirmation to that effect in our own blood before we are allowed swing a leg over a saddle.

MOD VOICE: The post you are responding to already has a mod warning, please do not respond to it in thread. Thanks.

tunney · 17-07-2015 9:28am

As its been said before its all in the enforcement. It will be big for a week or two and then back to nothing.

whisky_galore · 17-07-2015 9:35am

tunney wrote: »

As its been said before its all in the enforcement. It will be big for a week or two and then back to nothing.

There will be bugger-all enforcement, unless you (almost literally) run into a cop.

The only way to get people back into line is, like drink driving, make it socially unacceptable within cycling circles to break the law. I'll wager you can still drive 1000's of miles around the country day after day without ever coming across a Garda drink-driving checkpoint. The chances of getting caught are pretty slim. But people aren't going driving home with pints on board anymore, or at least it's very much frowned upon.

tomasrojo · 17-07-2015 10:03am

whisky_galore wrote: »

The only way to get people back into line is, like drink driving, make it socially unacceptable within cycling circles to break the law.

But what are "cycling circles"? It's not a confraternity. You can't issue an edict to the regional chapters, who pass it on to the members. It's just a big, disparate population of people who sometimes use bikes, many of whom don't even know many other people who ever use a bike.

whisky_galore wrote: »

I'll wager you can still drive 1000's of miles around the country day after day without ever coming across a Garda drink-driving checkpoint. The chances of getting caught are pretty slim. But people aren't going driving home with pints on board anymore, or at least it's very much frowned upon.

Off-topic, chances of you getting caught are pretty good in urban areas, where it is more strictly enforced. The amount of it going on in rural areas is hard to know.

tunney · 17-07-2015 10:09am

whisky_galore wrote: »

There will be bugger-all enforcement, unless you (almost literally) run into a cop.

The only way to get people back into line is, like drink driving, make it socially unacceptable within cycling circles to break the law. I'll wager you can still drive 1000's of miles around the country day after day without ever coming across a Garda drink-driving checkpoint. The chances of getting caught are pretty slim. But people aren't going driving home with pints on board anymore, or at least it's very much frowned upon.

Most of the people who break red lights are people who ride a bike to work, very different to members of "cycling circles".

If anything the simplicity of the FPN would make me more likely to break a red light.

km991148 · 17-07-2015 10:10am

Just curious.. presumably a pedestrian pushing a bike is not defined as a 'cyclist'?

i.e. if walking down grafton st for example with the bike I am not going to get some over zealous gardai looking to take 40 quid off me?

Rogue cyclists set to face on-the-spot fines MOD WARNING in first post

Comments