Gardi to tackle cycle menaces

Spook_ie

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Gardai and RSA have NEVER run a campaign to target how other road users behave around cyclists.

Maybe they rely more on the UK to give people guidence

However they do target other road users in general such as this one
http://vimeo.com/39833559#

http://rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/

opti0nal

magicbastarder wrote: »

the implication is that cars should yield to pedestrians when making turns - is that a suggestion from ROTR, or a breach of the law?

the ROTR suggestion is that motor vehicles should 'always yield to pedestrians' - is this considered realistic on any level?

It's law in a number of situations:

SI 182/1997 para 8.
(2) When starting from a stationary position a driver shall yield the right of way to other traffic and pedestrians.
(3) A driver of a vehicle approaching a road junction shall yield the right of way to another vehicle which has commenced to turn or cross at the junction in accordance with these Regulations and to a pedestrian who has commenced to cross at the junction in accordance with these Regulations.
(4) A driver of a vehicle entering a public road from a place which is not a public road shall yield the right of way to all vehicles and pedestrians proceeding in either direction along the public road.
(5) A driver of a vehicle approaching a road junction by a road which is not a major road shall, notwithstanding that there is no traffic sign indicating that the last mentioned road is a major road, yield the right of way to traffic and pedestrians on the major road.
(6) A driver approaching a road junction to which sub-article (5) does not apply shall yield the right of way to traffic and pedestrians approaching the junction from the right by another road.

These regulations need enforcing.

Padkir

Without meaning to get every cyclist giving out to me, why do many (not all but a lot) insist on cycling out on the main lane when there is a hard shoulder there to accommodate them? Or cycling 2 or 3 abreast on narrow roads? It seems to be happening more often recently. Was going down the N17 the last day which had a hard shoulder at least 8 foot wide and in good condition, but a cyclist decided it was a good idea to cycle out in the main part just to the right of the broken yellow line.

Nearly caused a pile up as people came up on him very quick and couldn't pass due to oncoming traffic. Then he had the ignorance to stick up his finger to people hooting at him.

It's not an isolated incident either, have seen it happening a lot lately.

kerry4sam

Padkir wrote: »

Without meaning to get every cyclist giving out to me, why do many (not all but a lot) insist on cycling out on the main lane when there is a hard shoulder there to accommodate them? Or cycling 2 or 3 abreast on narrow roads? It seems to be happening more often recently. Was going down the N17 the last day which had a hard shoulder at least 8 foot wide and in good condition, but a cyclist decided it was a good idea to cycle out in the main part just to the right of the broken yellow line.

Nearly caused a pile up as people came up on him very quick and couldn't pass due to oncoming traffic. Then he had the ignorance to stick up his finger to people hooting at him.

It's not an isolated incident either, have seen it happening a lot lately.

Having a hard-shoulder there to accommodate cyclists does not mean it is actually suitable for cyclists tbh. Some of those alleged cycling paths in my area are just short of a joke. It's got to the point where I think that whoever designated some of them as such seem to hold cyclists with contempt to put cyclists in there.
Some of those cycling paths have un-even surfaces worse than the main-roads, potholes and even shards of glass. I've had 2 punctures now in 3 weeks due to cycling in them. It's a joke! Just because you see them being sign-posted as cycling paths does not mean they are even remotely suitable for cycling. If I find it safer to cycle on the main road as opposed to those jokes of cycle-paths, then that is what I will do. I am not risking injury cycling in there for the sake of having drivers wait for a very brief period before over-taking me on the main road

magicbastarder

Padkir wrote: »

Without meaning to get every cyclist giving out to me, why do many (not all but a lot) insist on cycling out on the main lane when there is a hard shoulder there to accommodate them? Or cycling 2 or 3 abreast on narrow roads? It seems to be happening more often recently. Was going down the N17 the last day which had a hard shoulder at least 8 foot wide and in good condition, but a cyclist decided it was a good idea to cycle out in the main part just to the right of the broken yellow line.

i'm possibly wrong, but i suspect it's against the rules of the road to cycle in the hard shoulder. and as has been pointed out above, the hard shoulder is not swept of detritus the way the main lane is.

as regards cycling 2 or 3 abreast on a narrow road - if you cannot overtake two cyclists abreast on a narrow road, you should not be overtaking one cyclist. it's either safe to overtake or it's not.

Padkir

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm possibly wrong, but i suspect it's against the rules of the road to cycle in the hard shoulder. and as has been pointed out above, the hard shoulder is not swept of detritus the way the main lane is.

as regards cycling 2 or 3 abreast on a narrow road - if you cannot overtake two cyclists abreast on a narrow road, you should not be overtaking one cyclist. it's either safe to overtake or it's not.

I'm finding it very hard to not lose my temper here, but that is the most ignorant thing I've heard in a long time. There are plenty of places where it would be safe to pass one cyclist, but not 2 side by side. Have a bit of feckin courtesy! Would you think it unreasonable for 2 or 3 joggers to run abreast on a narrow road?

Also, I've often pulled in to the hard shoulder to allow cars to pass and it's fine. I know some places don't have good quality hard shoulders, but it's perfect in the places I am mentioning.

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm possibly wrong, but i suspect it's against the rules of the road to cycle in the hard shoulder. and as has been pointed out above, the hard shoulder is not swept of detritus the way the main lane is.

as regards cycling 2 or 3 abreast on a narrow road - if you cannot overtake two cyclists abreast on a narrow road, you should not be overtaking one cyclist. it's either safe to overtake or it's not.

Not necessarily true, if the road is wide enough to accommodate a cyclist a 1.5 meter gap and a car then it is wide enough to overtake with reasonable caution, however that same road would not be suitable to accommodate cyclists 2 abreast showing inconsideration for other road users because they want a natter

magicbastarder

a cyclist does not want to be overtaken by a car in a situation where the difference between safe and dangerous is one metre. they don't want to be overtaken by a car which reckons that since they're only taking up half a lane, it's safe to overtake, and then have to make an emergency dive for the ditch because it wasn't so safe after all.
most cyclists will pull in every so often if there are cars stuck behind them - most cyclists also being motorists, they do it out of courtesy, but they also do it out of a sense of self-preservation because they don't want the rash overtaking manouevre described above.

Padkir

magicbastarder wrote: »

a cyclist does not want to be overtaken by a car in a situation where the difference between safe and dangerous is one metre. they don't want to be overtaken by a car which reckons that since they're only taking up half a lane, it's safe to overtake, and then have to make an emergency dive for the ditch because it wasn't so safe after all.
most cyclists will pull in every so often if there are cars stuck behind them - most cyclists also being motorists, they do it out of courtesy, but they also do it out of a sense of self-preservation because they don't want the rash overtaking manouevre described above.

Eh... a metre makes a big difference. Cop yourself on a bit and stop being so self-righteous.

magicbastarder

if it's not safe to use the oncoming lane to overtake, don't overtake.
if you're afraid something might come around the corner and you're too far out to pull in in time, you're still going to have to pull in to make way anyway - in the middle of an overtaking manouevre.

cyclists do this deliberately to control overtaking manoeuvres. as i mentioned, most cyclists are also motorists; they don't do it simply to be dicks, they do it because they don't like being hit by cars.

Darkglasses

The circle continues.

Perhaps there should be a sticky on this forum explaining the legality and logic behind cycling two abreast, the possible reasons for not using cycle lanes, and the fact that cyclists are not a homogeneous group, which can not individually be blamed for the rule-breaking of others?

humbert

Padkir wrote: »

Eh... a metre makes a big difference. Cop yourself on a bit and stop being so self-righteous.

I cycle on country roads a lot. There are places where the road is straight enough and wide enough for cars to pass a single cyclist safely but not two abreast. In these places drivers would be understandably irate to be stuck behind such cyclists.

However there are a lot of places where the road is not wide enough and there is not enough visibility to pass a single cyclist safely but in almost every case the driver will overtake. It's fine because the cyclist doesn't wobble and there is not an oncoming car around the corner.

That raises two problems.

1) One, the car has to overtake too close and something unexpected will cause a very serious accident.

2) The second is that it is not feasible for cyclists to be constantly assessing the road to determine whether a car could safely pass in this part and so fall into single file and then a couple of seconds later determine it would not be safe to pass and double up and continue doing this every half a minute for three hours so at the risk of needlessly inconveniencing a couple of drivers for a few minutes they stay two abreast (which they are legally entitled to do, for a good reason).

magicbastarder

humbert wrote: »

It's fine because the cyclist doesn't wobble and there is not an oncoming car around the corner.

i assume you mean 'if' rather than 'because'.

anyway, a situation where a cyclist will knowingly hold up traffic is very much the exception.
i know people who get annoyed at the very concept of cyclists cycling two abreast, regardless of the circumstances.

BostonB

Padkir wrote: »

Without meaning to get every cyclist giving out to me, why do many (not all but a lot) insist on cycling out on the main lane when there is a hard shoulder there to accommodate them? Or cycling 2 or 3 abreast on narrow roads?....

There isn't one answer. Sometimes theres a valid reason and sometimes people are just being ignorant. Same with people hogging the lane on the M50.

Spook_ie

humbert wrote: »

I cycle on country roads a lot. There are places where the road is straight enough and wide enough for cars to pass a single cyclist safely but not two abreast. In these places drivers would be understandably irate to be stuck behind such cyclists.

However there are a lot of places where the road is not wide enough and there is not enough visibility to pass a single cyclist safely but in almost every case the driver will overtake. It's fine because the cyclist doesn't wobble and there is not an oncoming car around the corner.

That raises two problems.

1) One, the car has to overtake too close and something unexpected will cause a very serious accident.

2) The second is that it is not feasible for cyclists to be constantly assessing the road to determine whether a car could safely pass in this part and so fall into single file and then a couple of seconds later determine it would not be safe to pass and double up and continue doing this every half a minute for three hours so at the risk of needlessly inconveniencing a couple of drivers for a few minutes they stay two abreast (which they are legally entitled to do, for a good reason).

As a competent motorist you would be expected to constantly assess and reassess the road traffic and weather conditions regardless of the journey distance, so are you saying that cyclists are too lazy to assess the road conditions to decide if they should cycle in single file to allow people to overtake them safely?

As a road user of some considerable experience I would agree with you about certain aspects of overtaking but a competent road user will take things like that into consideration and "own" the road when required to do so and relinquishing it when control is no longer needed, typical example would be an HGV or bus turning right or left where more space on the road is needed, a good driver would position their vehicle to prevent people trying to jointly own the road they need to complete the maneuver.

Perhaps this reluctance to allow control of the road to pass to other users is the bone of contention , in that when cyclists have control they are reticent to give it back and instead hold up the traffic

magicbastarder

i drive very regularly on country roads (north county dublin) which are frequented by cyclists, and don't ever remember being held up unduly by them.
but i know drivers who use the same roads and hate it when cyclists cycle two abreast, even if they're held up for as little as 20 seconds.

humbert

Spook_ie wrote: »

As a competent motorist you would be expected to constantly assess and reassess the road traffic and weather conditions regardless of the journey distance, so are you saying that cyclists are too lazy to assess the road conditions to decide if they should cycle in single file to allow people to overtake them safely?

I'm sorry but you read the start of the sentence and choose to ignore the rest of it. It is not the assessment that isn't feasible, it's the perpetual repositioning.

Spook_ie wrote: »

As a road user of some considerable experience I would agree with you about certain aspects of overtaking but a competent road user will take things like that into consideration and "own" the road when required to do so and relinquishing it when control is no longer needed, typical example would be an HGV or bus turning right or left where more space on the road is needed, a good driver would position their vehicle to prevent people trying to jointly own the road they need to complete the maneuver.

This isn't relevant to cyclists on a country road. There is no one point at which they need to "own the road" it is constantly varying, in many cases simply constant.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Perhaps this reluctance to allow control of the road to pass to other users is the bone of contention , in that when cyclists have control they are reticent to give it back and instead hold up the traffic

Actually that you focus on who "controls the road" is IMO much more typical of a motorist, cyclists just want to be safe.

I'd like to add too that I and I think most other cyclists that I know would do their utmost to allow other motorist to pass when it is safe and I acknowledge that there are asshole cyclists who don't but you'll have to take my word for it that surprisingly few motorists will wait, or even slow down, until it is safe to pass.

You only need the odd idiot to skim past you half way round a blind turn before you are simply not willing to trust in the common sense of of motorists and leave the decision on whether to pass up to them.

It's the idiots on both sides that cause 99% of the animosity between motorists and cyclists.

Spook_ie

humbert wrote: »

I'm sorry but you read the start of the sentence and choose to ignore the rest of it. It is not the assessment that isn't feasible, it's the perpetual repositioning.

This isn't relevant to cyclists on a country road. There is no one point at which they need to "own the road" it is constantly varying, in many cases simply constant.

Actually that you focus on who "controls the road" is IMO much more typical of a motorist, cyclists just want to be safe.

I'd like to add too that I and I think most other cyclists that I know would do their utmost to allow other motorist to pass when it is safe and I acknowledge that there are asshole cyclists who don't but you'll have to take my word for it that surprisingly few motorists will wait, or even slow down, until it is safe to pass.

You only need the odd idiot to skim past you half way round a blind turn before you are simply not willing to trust in the common sense of of motorists and leave the decision on whether to pass up to them.

It's the idiots on both sides that cause 99% of the animosity between motorists and cyclists.

I didn't actually misread, if you are required to reposition yourself on the road then that is what you should be doing not hogging a bit of road like some M50 "I'm doing the speed limit so I can sit in this lane" driver and is even more relevant on a country road.

For cyclists to be safe on the road then they do indeed need to know when they need to control the road and when that control should be ceded

It's the idiots on both sides that cause 99% of the animosity between motorists and cyclists.

yeah and then throw in the pedestrians on the 3rd side for good measure

opti0nal

Spook_ie wrote: »

Perhaps this reluctance to allow control of the road to pass to other users is the bone of contention , in that when cyclists have control they are reticent to give it back and instead hold up the traffic

Or perhaps the expectation that other people will get out of your way is the problem?

humbert

Spook_ie wrote: »

I didn't actually misread, if you are required to reposition yourself on the road then that is what you should be doing not hogging a bit of road like some M50 "I'm doing the speed limit so I can sit in this lane" driver and is even more relevant on a country road.

There is no other lane here and "I" am not "required to". You are also suggesting that cyclists break into single file every time the road is wide enough for a 'hypothetical' motorist to pass.

If a motorist is stuck behind a pair of cyclists and there is the opportunity for the motorist to pass safely then I think the cyclists should go single file, however this is a courtesy, not a requirement, and should be treated as such.

Spook_ie

humbert wrote: »

There is no other lane here and "I" am not "required to". You are also suggesting that cyclists break into single file every time the road is wide enough for a 'hypothetical' motorist to pass.

If a motorist is stuck behind a pair of cyclists and there is the opportunity for the motorist to pass safely then I think the cyclists should go single file, however this is a courtesy, not a requirement, and should be treated as such.

No actually if the road is wide enough then there wouldn't be any need to drop into single file, besides which if a cyclist is actually paying attention to the road and other road users there wouldn't be a hypothetical car at all it would be a real one.

I note with great interest the

"I" am not "required to"

. defense coming into play

humbert

Spook_ie wrote: »

No actually if the road is wide enough then there wouldn't be any need to drop into single file, besides which if a cyclist is actually paying attention to the road and other road users there wouldn't be a hypothetical car at all it would be a real one.

I note with great interest the . defense coming into play

Good god, the way you're driving this discussion around in circles there can be little doubt you are a cabby.

Wide enough: Wide enough to pass a single cyclist safely.

I'm not really sure how paying attention to the road can bring hypothetical cars into existence.

I fear at this stage our bickering is contributing very little to the thread...

Spook_ie

you see this is where you get the difference between someone who's been taught to drive and someone who's excerting a "right" to cycle

SerialComplaint

Spook_ie wrote: »

you see this is where you get the difference between someone who's been taught to drive and someone who's excerting a "right" to cycle

Strangely enough, many cyclists are trained, licenced and qualified drivers too.

keith16

CatEyed92 wrote: »

Not really funny

Not trying to be funny. As a cyclist, and motorist, I can say that pedestrians are easily among the most stupid road users I have come across.

That clear things up for you?

Spook_ie

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Strangely enough, many cyclists are trained, licenced and qualified drivers too.

Licensed isn't the same as trained, perhaps the new requirements for a set number of approved instructer lessons might go someway to alleviating that but trained nah

kylith

I've long been of the opinion that it should be required for everyone to spend a year as a cyclist before they can obtain a driving licence. I think it would do a lot for raising awareness of how fragile cyclists actually are.

And it'd be interesting to see how many of the motorists giving out about cyclists jumping the lights would do exactly the same themselves, given half a chance.

allibastor

Just to say this, I was nearly hit by a squad car this morning.

I am a cyclist, i was crossing at a pedestrian crossing on the road as i could not safely cross the main road as it was full with cars. i was not pedeling, i was pushing the bike with my feet while in the saddle. The lady guard was driving in the bus lane, on the phone , with no lights or siren on. how do people expect cyclists to be safe when the cops themselves are a danger

seamus

allibastor wrote: »

The lady guard was driving in the bus lane, on the phone , with no lights or siren on.

Ha, reminds me of the day a kid from CUS was knocked down on Leeson Street. He came out of the school, looked down the contra-flow bus lane before crossing and got hit by a squad car coming from the other direction down the bus lane

Not necessarily true, if the road is wide enough to accommodate a cyclist a 1.5 meter gap and a car then it is wide enough to overtake with reasonable caution, however that same road would not be suitable to accommodate cyclists 2 abreast showing inconsideration for other road users because they want a natter

Think about that logically for a second. In order to accomodate a 1.5m overtake, you at least need another 1m on the cyclist's left hand-side. Thefore the total space the cyclist requires is 1m + 0.5m (the width of the cyclist) + 1.5m = 3m. Which is about the maximum width of most traffic lanes in this country. In any case it will require you to cross the median, which requires the road to be clear of oncoming traffic.

A second cyclist will require another metre (0.5m clearance between the riders), which requires 4m clearance, which again requires you to cross the median, and for oncoming traffic to be clear.

So the point stands - if you cannot safely overtake two cyclists (i.e. if there is oncoming traffic), then you cannot safely overtake one.

On much narrower roads where there's barely enough space for two cars to pass eachother, it's not possible for cars to give cyclists enough room to overtake. So cyclists will move into single file or otherwise do their best to provide enough room for the vehicle to squeeze by when it is suitably safe to do so. Cyclists don't want vehicles stuck behind them any more than the vehicle wants to be there, so anyone claiming that cyclists cycling two abreast routinely hold up traffic on narrow country roads for no reason, is either lying or a complete moron.

SerialComplaint

Spook_ie wrote: »

Licensed isn't the same as trained, perhaps the new requirements for a set number of approved instructer lessons might go someway to alleviating that but trained nah

Yes, I'm aware that licensed isn't the same as trained. That's why I said 'licensed trained and qualified' drivers. In my case, it includes defensive driver training, advanced driver training, emergency vehicle driver training. Training while generally useful is not the real issue. Awareness and consideration of other road users is the issue.

Pawwed Rig

allibastor wrote: »

Just to say this, I was nearly hit by a squad car this morning.

I am a cyclist, i was crossing at a pedestrian crossing on the road as i could not safely cross the main road as it was full with cars. i was not pedeling, i was pushing the bike with my feet while in the saddle. The lady guard was driving in the bus lane, on the phone , with no lights or siren on. how do people expect cyclists to be safe when the cops themselves are a danger

I saw a Guard on Adelaide Road cycle through a red light there last week. Shouted at him that the light was red but he just cycled off. These are the guys tackling the 'cycle menace'

magicbastarder

i'm just wondering what penalty people think is fair for a cyclist running a red light.
a motorist will get a fine and i think two penalty points.

this morning, i was crossing over from the top of kildare street onto stephen's green, and crossed with the green man. after all the pedestrians cleared the crossing, a cyclist - who had been waiting at the lights for the pedestrians to clear - cycled through, against a red light (for him).
it's not a set of lights controlling a junction. what penalty do people think is fair here? the same as a motorist? less, if there is reduced danger involved given the vehicle involved?

seamus

€80 FPN or sacrifice your bike to be sold/destroyed.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

seamus

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

This is ridiculous..........

What's ridiculous about it?

Korvanica

seamus wrote: »

€80 FPN or sacrifice your bike to be sold/destroyed.

At least its an easy way to get rid of your old bikes that are too beat up to sell...

RobbieTheRobber

seamus wrote: »

What's ridiculous about it?

I know you know for a lot of the crap things cycled around as bikes this fine is more than double their value.

Korvanica wrote: »

At least its an easy way to get rid of your old bikes that are too beat up to sell...

Great way to get the BSO's off the road.
We could rename this fine the BSO scrappage scheme

JuliusCaesar

If you support a zero tolerance strategy, then that applies to everyone - motorist, motorcyclist, cyclist, pedestrian. Fines for jaywalking, crossing on the red man etc.

In Germany, pedestrians will wait at a red man even if the road is empty in both directions. I can't see that ever happening here.

When it's the individual vs the common good, the individual always wins here.

kylith

seamus wrote: »

Think about that logically for a second. In order to accomodate a 1.5m overtake, you at least need another 1m on the cyclist's left hand-side. Thefore the total space the cyclist requires is 1m + 0.5m (the width of the cyclist) + 1.5m = 3m. Which is about the maximum width of most traffic lanes in this country. In any case it will require you to cross the median, which requires the road to be clear of oncoming traffic.

A second cyclist will require another metre (0.5m clearance between the riders), which requires 4m clearance, which again requires you to cross the median, and for oncoming traffic to be clear.

Not to mention that both the cyclist and car are moving forward, so the car and bike will need that 3m clearance from the kerb for however long it takes to overtake.

magicbastarder

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

In Germany, pedestrians will wait at a red man even if the road is empty in both directions. I can't see that ever happening here.

a colleague was recently fined €5 for jaywalking in dusseldorf. the cop had a credit card terminal, and it was an on the spot fine in the sense that he had to pay up on the spot.

Pawwed Rig

I may be wrong but afaik there is no jaywalking laws in Ireland

keith16 wrote: »

As a cyclist, and motorist, I can say that pedestrians are easily among the most stupid road users I have come across.

That is either the most ridiculous or cleverest post on this thread. Can't decide if the cleverness was intended or not :rolleyes:

Jawgap

seamus wrote: »

€80 FPN or sacrifice your bike to be sold/destroyed.

I'd have no problem with that (except that I think the fine should be more) - if you jump the light and are caught you provide the Guard with valid id and he / she gives you the FPN - no id, the bike is impounded and you bring proof of payment to wherever they keep your bike to get it back, once of course you've paid for the storage of it.

If you don't pay the fine (say within 28 days) the bike is sold.

A quick blitz and reasonable level of ongoing enforcement would sort things out quickly - plus people on DBs would get a double-whammy as they'd be liable for the excess hire charges if the bike was impounded instead of returned.

magicbastarder

€80 fine for pedestrians crossing at red lights too?

JuliusCaesar

magicbastarder wrote: »

€80 fine for pedestrians crossing at red lights too?

And your shoes confiscated!




(Jaywalking is illegal I think)

seamus

Jawgap wrote: »

If you don't pay the fine (say within 28 days) the bike is sold.

Even better, get rothar involved. They assess the bike - if they think it can be sold for €150 or more, they fix it up and take 30% of the sale. If they don't think it's worth €150, they can scrap/strip it.
Win-win - parts and cash for rothar, minimal administration costs for the Gardai.

magicbastarder

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

(Jaywalking is illegal I think)

i had thought it was too, but it was pointed out above that it's only illegal if done with 15m of a pedestrian crossing, if you disobey the lights at the crossing.

Pawwed Rig

Wow that gives fair amount of powers to the State to issue fines. There is way too much legislation in this country. If all of the legislation was enforced my weekly wage would go in fines.

I'm off to turn myself in to the authorities. I am obviously a dangerous criminal that needs incarceration for my own and everyone else's safety.

Undercover Elephant

seamus wrote: »

€80 FPN or sacrifice your bike to be sold/destroyed.

Our friends across the puddle have a £30 FPN, with a possible reduction if you take an online safe cycling course in 14 days. I think this is about right - enough to be really annoying but not enough that Plod will think twice about giving it out.

Some of the scheme for motorists in Ireland is bonkers, quite frankly. €80 for rolling slowly through a stop sign, but €60 for driving on the wrong side of the road??

SerialComplaint

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Wow that gives fair amount of powers to the State to issue fines. There is way too much legislation in this country. If all of the legislation was enforced my weekly wage would go in fines.

Or else you would change your behaviour and stop breaking the law, perhaps?

The current fine for a cyclist breaking the lights is €80 - seems about right to me.

Pawwed Rig

That's true. Everyone breaks the law though whether that is walking across the road when the amber man is there rather than the green man, not stopping before the line at a stop sign (by accident or purposely), not yielding properly at a roundabout, not using cycle lanes etc etc
There is so much legislation in this country it would be impossible to go through life without breaking some of it.
Generally if people behave in a safe manner on the road I think the odd infraction should be (and is) over looked.