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

eeeee · 02-12-2015 12:10AM

roverrules wrote: »

If someone couldn't pay a FPN because at the moment of the FPN funds were low, would that increase or decrease the likelihood of someone giving a false name and address? Therefore would it not be logical ( in the absence of pay now facilities ), to legislate for all road traffic to carry either personal ID or a license plate?

The same FPN rules apply to cyclists as they do to motorists and rightly so. Given the consequences are worse for giving the wrong details I think the incentive is to give the correct details.

The same argument about licensing can also stand for pedestrians, does every pedestrian have to get a license and carry ID in case they break a law which requires them to pay a FPN?

You will ALWAYS get people who do not take part in systems. Always. Motorists, bikers, cyclists etc. etc. etc. You cannot legislate for those people because they will never participate in any system put in place. Most people do. It's worked so far, there is no reason to believe in a sudden, overnight degradation in this.

RainyDay · 02-12-2015 12:20AM

ThisRegard wrote: »

Brother of Killian Scott no less, who played Tommy in Love/Hate, and grandson of a man who once stole a load of money from Gay Byrne.

Didn't realise that bit - nice to see that someone in the family has good taste.

check_six wrote: »

I am in that constituency. I got a flyer in the door from the headphones TD guy from last week that stated that they were enthusiastic about prosecuting cyclists to the full extent of the law for any infraction, and also that his party introduced the Dublin Bike Scheme (I thought it was JCDecaux, but I suppose there had to have been a political edge too). There was also a photo of the TD with a Dublin Bike in his shirt sleeves and no extraneous equipment (and certainly no headphones). The flyer was sending me some conflicting messages, I think.

In fairness, it was spearheaded by Andrew Montague, and voted through at the time when Labour were the largest party on DCC.

PaulieC wrote: »

What an eejit. His offices are in Ranelagh, under the LUAS bridge

and just beside the mandatory cycle lane that is frequently blocked by cars pulling into the coffee shop, or Supervalue.

roverrules · 02-12-2015 12:56AM

gadetra wrote: »

The same FPN rules apply to cyclists as they do to motorists and rightly so. Given the consequences are worse for giving the wrong details I think the incentive is to give the correct details.

The same argument about licensing can also stand for pedestrians, does every pedestrian have to get a license and carry ID in case they break a law which requires them to pay a FPN?

You will ALWAYS get people who do not take part in systems. Always. Motorists, bikers, cyclists etc. etc. etc. You cannot legislate for those people because they will never participate in any system put in place. Most people do. It's worked so far, there is no reason to believe in a sudden, overnight degradation in this.

But do the same laws apply? If a Garda wants to issue a FPN to a car driver he checks the registration plate on the computer, asks for your address and if they tally he's convinced, with a cyclist we would just have to sound convincing, hardly the same

Don't believe there are any FPNs for pedestrians, rather like there weren't any for cyclists until recently, so that's not really an argument.

eeeee · 02-12-2015 02:18AM

roverrules wrote: »

But do the same laws apply? If a Garda wants to issue a FPN to a car driver he checks the registration plate on the computer, asks for your address and if they tally he's convinced, with a cyclist we would just have to sound convincing, hardly the same

Don't believe there are any FPNs for pedestrians, rather like there weren't any for cyclists until recently, so that's not really an argument.

And 100% of drivers have a license? Never drive on bans? Have correct license/ID? No. The same would be true of any system you implement.

As it stands you can get your bike impounded for going the wrong details. Yes there is a case for abuse of the system, the same want here is a case for abuse of any system. You are relying a lot on the guard being a good judge of character etc. It's not perfect, but it's hardly grounds for compulsory ID.

Also I think you nee dot take into consideration the relativity of bike crime v driver crime. Drivers kill hundreds of people every year and injure and maim many more. The proportional risk of a motor vehicle behaving in an illegal way is far, far, far greater than that of a bike, therefore the cost of implementing a licensing scheme and compulsory ID for cyclists vastly outweighs the benefits, financially, and in terms of resources (garda time) before you get into the practicalities of it etc.

ezra_pound · 02-12-2015 02:50AM

Agree with above poster. More resources needed to ensure that motorists are insured, licensed etc. Rather than wasting resources on bike ATM hikes.

roverrules · 02-12-2015 03:08AM

gadetra wrote: »

And 100% of drivers have a license? Never drive on bans? Have correct license/ID? No. The same would be true of any system you implement.

As it stands you can get your bike impounded for going the wrong details. Yes there is a case for abuse of the system, the same want here is a case for abuse of any system. You are relying a lot on the guard being a good judge of character etc. It's not perfect, but it's hardly grounds for compulsory ID.

Also I think you nee dot take into consideration the relativity of bike crime v driver crime. Drivers kill hundreds of people every year and injure and maim many more. The proportional risk of a motor vehicle behaving in an illegal way is far, far, far greater than that of a bike, therefore the cost of implementing a licensing scheme and compulsory ID for cyclists vastly outweighs the benefits, financially, and in terms of resources (garda time) before you get into the practicalities of it etc.

I'll probably get back in more detail on some of the points but what costs are involved in cyclists carrying ID?

JBokeh · 02-12-2015 10:28AM

gadetra wrote: »

As it stands you can get your bike impounded for going the wrong details. Yes there is a case for abuse of the system, the same want here is a case for abuse of any system. You are relying a lot on the guard being a good judge of character etc. It's not perfect, but it's hardly grounds for compulsory ID.

Is it for giving the wrong details, or if the Guard isn't convinced that you've given the right details? Maybe people are giving legit details of some one of their neighbours or friends, they get the fine notice, and fire it back saying it wasn't them and it pretty much disappears

I got caught for speeding on the continent, I ended up paying cash on the spot. From what I could understand of the cop, I think if I didn't pay there and then I'd be arrested or detained until I could pay. I got no receipt or anything like that, so he could have pocketed it for all I know. Maybe marching people to ATMs will be reserved for extracting money from tourists in the same way

tomasrojo · 02-12-2015 10:36AM

JBokeh wrote: »

Maybe marching people to ATMs will be reserved for extracting money from tourists in the same way

There was a problem with speeding and other forms of careless/reckless driving by tourists in France (maybe in other countries too) -- they made up a disproportionate amount of offences on the road -- and it was decided that the usual system of fines wasn't a sufficient deterrent, because the tourists just went home and didn't bother paying the fine. So they introduced this system of on-the-spot payments for people who were resident outside France, in a country that didn't cooperate in collecting fines across borders.

The only reason you might apply such a system to cyclists is to satisfy a desire to see people who annoy you being humiliated.

And it's already been shot down by Paschal Donohoe, so I think we can take it that that's the end of it.

CramCycle · 02-12-2015 10:37AM

I have seen on the Garda traffic twitter feed them seizing bicycles when they were wary of the ID given so it does happen, they also put up a pic of the bike, ya know, in case it wasn't actually belonging to the person they fined.

Seemed simple and not a huige time waste or drain on resources unlike the other ridiculous suggestions.

Considering the data on compliance seems non existent at this point, I won't get too stressed.

tomasrojo · 02-12-2015 10:38AM

roverrules wrote: »

I'll probably get back in more detail on some of the points but what costs are involved in cyclists carrying ID?

If the current system is adequate for identifying cyclists (and we haven't heard any indication that it doesn't work in that sense), there is no need to impose a cost of processing and pursuing further offences (the cost to the cyclist is negligible, if that's what you mean, but there are other costs to society, and not just monetary, necessarily).

02-12-2015 10:39AM

roverrules wrote: »

I'll probably get back in more detail on some of the points but what costs are involved in cyclists carrying ID?

The costs are imposed on every individual who gets on a bike, and they are real enough. Nipping round to a friends house for a cup of tea - but you have to first find your ID. Or cycling to school, will children need ID? Is it photo ID, or can I just grab a friend's credit card or bank card?

And for the guards - what is the severity of 'cycling without appropriate identification'? How many resources are required to either compel compliance or prosecute? If they stop someone who then does not have ID, presumably they need to establish their ID in some way. Do they detain them? Accompany them home? That's a huge cost right there.

btw, if we were going down that road we might want to first ask what the 'costs' are of the offences FPNs are intended to reduce - and I suspect the answer would be 'very little', but we'll let that slide.

Qualitymark · 02-12-2015 10:50AM

roverrules wrote: »

I'll probably get back in more detail on some of the points but what costs are involved in cyclists carrying ID?

I normally carry ID at all times; however, if it were made illegal not to do so, I would instantly stop carrying it. Feck that.

As for the on-the-spot fines, if gardaí are to be expected to collect these fines instantly, they'd have to be issued with those little portable credit card readers that people use in some markets, to be expected to issue official receipts, and to be trusted not to reprogram… well…

I'm sure this would be really effective in stopping those dastardly crimes of red-light running, cycling without lights, failing to have adequate headlights on a car, driving while on a mobile, etc. Will it work so well for the infective plague of violent rural burglaries, the thefts of entire herds of pedigree cattle and flocks of prize sheep, the smuggling of drugs, tobacco and even, now, aftershave, and the odd bank heist? Still, important, no?

ThisRegard · 02-12-2015 11:07AM

RainyDay wrote: »

Didn't realise that bit - nice to see that someone in the family has good taste.

I remember reading an article about him some time ago and apparently his grandfather was an accountant to the celebrities at the time and misappropriated money for himself from a few of them.

Anyway, on a more relevant note, some in the department of transport have found a new 2 wheeled bogeyman, those yokes you stand on that have 2 little wheels, like miniature segways, have been been banned for use in public places in Ireland.

Tenzor07 · 02-12-2015 11:28AM

Should be some sorta fine applied to those who have red light(s) on the front of there bicycles.. saw one guy with about 4 red lights on a dark cycle track, wasn't until I got closer and realised he was coming Towards me! :eek:

CramCycle · 02-12-2015 11:38AM

ThisRegard wrote: »

Anyway, on a more relevant note, some in the department of transport have found a new 2 wheeled bogeyman, those yokes you stand on that have 2 little wheels, like miniature segways, have been been banned for use in public places in Ireland.

To be fair, there were safety concerns flagged, not sure what they were though.

roverrules wrote: »

I'll probably get back in more detail on some of the points but what costs are involved in cyclists carrying ID?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQfdSBq7flw

If you don't have an ID already, the cost is having to get one. Passports are pretty expensive, some people do not drive, would the Garda except a birth cert?

It wouldn't bother me but to be honest, if you don't require pedestrians to carry one, why would you require a cyclists. Pedestrians break the law sometimes, it's rarely been flouted to have mandatory IDs and for historical reasons, it has always been shot down.

CramCycle · 02-12-2015 11:39AM

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Should be some sorta fine applied to those who have red light(s) on the front of there bicycles.. saw one guy with about 4 red lights on a dark cycle track, wasn't until I got closer and realised he was coming Towards me! :eek:

Same here, and they have white ones on the back sometimes, its all very idiotic.

traprunner · 02-12-2015 11:41AM

CramCycle wrote: »

Same here, and they have white ones on the back sometimes, its all very idiotic.

Has anyone asked why people do it?

check_six · 02-12-2015 11:41AM

ThisRegard wrote: »

I remember reading an article about him some time ago and apparently his grandfather was an accountant to the celebrities at the time and misappropriated money for himself from a few of them.

This was one of the earliest times that legendary stinge Gay Byrne lost all his money. Always found it darkly ironic that such a penny pincher would end up getting scammed so frequently. In more recent times he lost all his money again in the AngloIrish Bank shares fiasco.

ThisRegard wrote: »

Anyway, on a more relevant note, some in the department of transport have found a new 2 wheeled bogeyman, those yokes you stand on that have 2 little wheels, like miniature segways, have been been banned for use in public places in Ireland.

Saw a few people on a one wheel version scooting around near my house. I can't remember seeing the trail of destruction they left behind, so I presume they haven't been banned yet. They'll be banning rocket jetpacks next if we let them get away with it!

nomdeboardie · 02-12-2015 11:42AM

I wonder what happens currently re identification when people are fined for littering and non-poop-scoopering?

Oh, right...maybe these have never actually been implemented :pac:

* scrapes doggie doo from shoe * :P

check_six · 02-12-2015 11:44AM

traprunner wrote: »

Has anyone asked why people do it?

I know people who struggle to remember which light goes on which end of the bike. I can't fathom why.

Qualitymark · 02-12-2015 11:48AM

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Should be some sorta fine applied to those who have red light(s) on the front of there bicycles.. saw one guy with about 4 red lights on a dark cycle track, wasn't until I got closer and realised he was coming Towards me! :eek:

Fines schmines. More to the point if other cyclists said to them "That's really dangerous - the red light is on the back so the drivers behind know you have your back to them, and on the front so they can see you're coming towards them", as I told my friend. "Ohhhh, really?" she said, eyes wide…

Tenzor07 · 02-12-2015 11:50AM

Qualitymark wrote: »

Fines schmines. More to the point if other cyclists said to them "That's really dangerous - the red light is on the back so the drivers behind know you have your back to them, and on the front so they can see you're coming towards them", as I told my friend. "Ohhhh, really?" she said, eyes wide…

Fines or some sorta telling off by the law, all you'll get is an "F-You" from most people if you point out that red lights are for the back of the bike only...

ThisRegard · 02-12-2015 11:51AM

CramCycle wrote: »

To be fair, there were safety concerns flagged, not sure what they were though.

I think it was down to, amongst others, inadequate lighting, braking and steering. And I'm sure licencing came into it too.

Qualitymark · 02-12-2015 11:53AM

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Fines or some sorta telling off by the law, all you'll get is an "F-You" from most people if you point out that red lights are for the back of the bike only...

Well, if people tell me "F-you" because I'm telling them something for their own safety, fine, let it burst in their mouth and let them live with the taste of it.

ThisRegard wrote: »

I think it was down to, amongst others, inadequate lighting, braking and steering. And I'm sure licencing came into it too.

And hi-viz, don't forget.

tomasrojo · 02-12-2015 12:06PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

Anyway, on a more relevant note, some in the department of transport have found a new 2 wheeled bogeyman, those yokes you stand on that have 2 little wheels, like miniature segways, have been been banned for use in public places in Ireland.

The latest Planet Money podcast was about them. Including about how there doesn't seem to be an official name for them, or even an original inventor. Good insight into the ecosystem of small-ish engineering and manufacturing firms in China too.

tomasrojo · 02-12-2015 12:09PM

I wouldn't bother telling most people anything about what they're doing. It's a mug's game.

I sometimes tell people that their lights are being obscured by their satchel/mudguard/backpack/whatever because I assume they'd want to know.

I did nearly pull out in front of an oncoming cyclist (I also was on a bike) because he had a red light to the fore. It's surprisingly effective at triggering the "Go!" part of your brain, and the white similarly effective at triggering the "Wait!" part of the brain.

(I apologise for the in-depth discussion of neurobiology.)

check_six · 02-12-2015 12:13PM

At night, all the red lights look like they are coming towards me! <outrageous commuter races claim>

nomdeboardie · 02-12-2015 12:16PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

I wouldn't bother telling most people anything about what they're doing. It's a mug's game.

I sometimes tell people that their lights are being obscured by their satchel/mudguard/backpack/whatever because I assume they'd want to know.

I did nearly pull out in front of an oncoming cyclist (I also was on a bike) because he had a red light to the fore. It's surprisingly effective at triggering the "Go!" part of your brain, and the white similarly effective at triggering the "Wait!" part of the brain.

(I apologise for the in-depth discussion of neurobiology.)

Especially if they're coming straight at you on the wrong side of the road/ wrong way on cycle track....play chicken silently or be sworn at

roverrules · 02-12-2015 12:17PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

If the current system is adequate for identifying cyclists (and we haven't heard any indication that it doesn't work in that sense), there is no need to impose a cost of processing and pursuing further offences (the cost to the cyclist is negligible, if that's what you mean, but there are other costs to society, and not just monetary, necessarily).

Do you seriously think that its cheaper and less resources to check someone who isn't carrying ID rather than someone who is?

CramCycle · 02-12-2015 12:31PM

You know what, lets just have some sort of barcoding system or chip everyone, would that be a nice solution?

or maybe, just maybe, when something is not an issue (and it really isn't one) we just don't do anything.

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

Comments