Gardi to tackle cycle menaces

Bradidup

Cyclists should be exempt from all nieucance traffic lights. Nothing worse than badly synchronised lights or pedestrian lights when there is no one crossing the road.

It is pointless having to put all your energy into building up a bit of momentum and then having to waste it a minute later.

Undercover Elephant

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

• http://www.metro.co.uk/news/719063-cyclist-is-jailed-for-killing-by-1861-law
• http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=8700349
• http://dcist.com/2012/06/woman_dies_after_being_hit_by_cycli.php

I'm sure there are others

There are. I believe it's an average of 2-3 pedestrians a year in the UK. At that rate you'd expect maybe one fatality in Ireland every 5-7 years.

CucaFace

I just hope they mainly target those hippy cycle couriers who zip around the city thinking they own the place.

Countless times I have seen them barely avoiding a pedestrian at high speed, which would really have done a serious injury.

Vojera

babaracus wrote: »

If cyclists disobey the rules they endanger nobody but themselves by doing so, I don't see why that should be a priority in a stretched Garda service.

As someone who has been knocked down by a cyclist breaking a red light, I can tell you that is not true. No, I wasn't seriously injured, but had I been a child or a person with a baby in a pram it may have been a different story.

Not saying all cyclists are bad (same as all motorists aren't bad drivers), but some need to learn that red means stop!

maggy_thatcher

babaracus wrote: »

How many people, other than themselves, have cyclists killed in the past 10 years? Probably none. But nothing like the car drivers to get all high and mighty about cyclists breaking the rules of the road when they are driving around in cages which kill 300 people a year. If cyclists disobey the rules they endanger nobody but themselves by doing so, I don't see why that should be a priority in a stretched Garda service.

How about this as a reasonable compromise? If the cyclist breaks the law and gets injured / killed by anybody, there is zero recourse on whoever hits them? Run a red light and get T-boned - the cyclist (or the family if they're killed) is responsible for paying for the repairs to the car (+ any injuries in the car if any). No money for it - that's what public liability insurance is for.

Sound harsh/unfair? Probably - but if we don't enforce the laws that are there to protect people, then there needs to be a punishment of some sorts for those who disregard them.

doolox

.....you have a number plate and hence an identity. Ownership of a car implies that you have money which can be taken off you in terms of fines.

The government should seriously look at registering bikes and putting tags on them, could be chips like they do on pets now. This will enable cops to readily identify bikers and treat them the same way as other road users.

Perhaps a modest amount paid each year to cover insurance, accidents etc would be a good thing but you couldn't trust the govt not to milk it and charge too much.

I saw two cyclists ride into each other when one broke a red light and the other was turning right too soon before the filter arrow was on. The confrontation was something else to watch.

I also was stuck behind a biker giving out to a motorist at a green light, holding up all the traffic behind. Although I was sorely tempted to blow the horn I kept silent but the cars behind me let up a vertitable cacophony of horns, door banging and shouting more at home in a riot situation than on a public road.

The anger between motorists and bikes is at times palpable.

babaracus

Vojera wrote: »

As someone who has been knocked down by a cyclist breaking a red light, I can tell you that is not true. No, I wasn't seriously injured, but had I been a child or a person with a baby in a pram it may have been a different story.

Not saying all cyclists are bad (same as all motorists aren't bad drivers), but some need to learn that red means stop!

I don't advocate cyclists breaking the rules of the road and yes, the odd person will be hit by an errant cyclist but I suppose I am trying to point out the glaring issue here which is we have a limted Gardai Traffic Corps and there are 2 main groups of road users:

Group 1: Car drivers who kill c.300 people a year on average.
Group 2: Cyclists who don't kill anybody.

Why bother with cyclists?

Davyhal

Bradidup wrote: »

Cyclists should be exempt from all nieucance traffic lights. Nothing worse than badly synchronised lights or pedestrian lights when there is no one crossing the road.

It is pointless having to put all your energy into building up a bit of momentum and then having to waste it a minute later.

Please say this is being said ironically?

If not, and you actually think that it would be OK for cyclists to do this, why can't motorists do it? With the same logic, you could say what's the point in a motorist being parked at a red light wasting time and petrol when they could just judge themselves that there is nobody coming on the opposing route. Sure, why not throw in arguments like it would be better for the environment too due to lower emissions... There are flaws in every system, but it's the best we have. Abide by them. Better safe than sorry.

babaracus

doolox wrote: »

.....you have a number plate and hence an identity. Ownership of a car implies that you have money which can be taken off you in terms of fines.

Perhaps a modest amount paid each year to cover insurance, accidents etc would be a good thing but you couldn't trust the govt not to milk it and charge too much.

I can see the crack squads of enforcement officers dragging kids off their trikes and bikes in housing estates, shaking them down for tax, insurance and licence details before confiscating their barbie bike.

We need less regulation in this country, not more.

lardossan

Slurryface wrote: »

Good to see that at last the gardai are going to tackle the menace that are cyclists who think that the rules of the road only apply to other road users, hopefully plenty of bikes will be confiscated and summomes issued. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1002/1224324727714.html

You obviously failed to read the article you posted seeing as the menace are car users and the victims are mostly pedestrians and cyclists. I can just imagine the kind of person you are, it makes me very happy to think how much it must cost you to service your car.

pickarooney

Is it currently illegal to cycle through a red light for a pedestrian crossing when there are no pedestrians or to turn at a red light when traffic is stopped in all directions that use the route you're travelling? There are a lot of areas where strict application of a rule is brainless.

anncoates

Thread forecast: heavy front of whataboutery and hysteria moving in from the west.

Deise Vu

babaracus wrote: »

I don't advocate cyclists breaking the rules of the road and yes, the odd person will be hit by an errant cyclist but I suppose I am trying to point out the glaring issue here which is we have a limted Gardai Traffic Corps and there are 2 main groups of road users:

Group 1: Car drivers who kill c.300 people a year on average.
Group 2: Cyclists who don't kill anybody.

Why bother with cyclists?

And how many of the cyclists were killed because they were being reckless or stupid? I nearly had a cardiac arrest going though a set of traffic lights last night, narrowly avoiding a cyclist speeding his way though a red light and accross my path.

On the plus side, my kids now know the full lexicon of swear words and will be the coolest members of their gangs..

maggy_thatcher

babaracus wrote: »

I don't advocate cyclists breaking the rules of the road and yes, the odd person will be hit by an errant cyclist but I suppose I am trying to point out the glaring issue here which is we have a limted Gardai Traffic Corps and there are 2 main groups of road users:

Group 1: Car drivers who kill c.300 people a year on average.
Group 2: Cyclists who don't kill anybody.

Why bother with cyclists?

Firstly - that 300 people a year mostly includes themselves (or their passengers who know what they're getting into), so if you're including that, then you can't say that the cyclists don't kill anybody (as they do appear to kill themselves frequently).

Secondly - if there is little/no excess cost in keeping an eye on the cyclists while watching for bad drivers, then what's the harm in it?

Davyhal

pickarooney wrote: »

Is it currently illegal to cycle through a red light for a pedestrian crossing when there are no pedestrians or to turn at a red light when traffic is stopped in all directions that use the route you're travelling? There are a lot of areas where strict application of a rule is brainless.

Yes, it is illegal. You might not agree with it, but it is. Some people say that the fact that marajuana is illegal is brainless, but it's the law. Stick to it. If you have an issue with it, start a campaign and have the law overturned. Don't just break it.

Gran Hermano

doolox wrote: »

.....you have a number plate and hence an identity. Ownership of a car implies that you have money which can be taken off you in terms of fines.

The government should seriously look at registering bikes and putting tags on them, could be chips like they do on pets now. This will enable cops to readily identify bikers and treat them the same way as other road users.

Perhaps a modest amount paid each year to cover insurance, accidents etc would be a good thing but you couldn't trust the govt not to milk it and charge too much.

I saw two cyclists ride into each other when one broke a red light and the other was turning right too soon before the filter arrow was on. The confrontation was something else to watch.

I also was stuck behind a biker giving out to a motorist at a green light, holding up all the traffic behind. Although I was sorely tempted to blow the horn I kept silent but the cars behind me let up a vertitable cacophony of horns, door banging and shouting more at home in a riot situation than on a public road.

The anger between motorists and bikes is at times palpable.

Hear, hear. With accountability comes responsibility. Motorists know anyone can take their reg and pass on a complaint to the gardai.
Cyclists old enough to cycle on the road should have to pass a basic ROTR test and receive a hi-vis vest with a unique ID number (much like a
reg number on a car).

WoollyRedHat

Haha, people make it sound like people who ride bikes are part of this illicit, underground gang, who are undermining the fabric of society.

Newsflash, cyclists can be drivers, drivers can be cyclists, and cyclists can be paedestrians. i.e we're all still people at the end of the day, and generalising a whole group of road users as crazy and irresponsible, is exactly that, crazy and irresponsible. Get a grip and grow up, some people act dangerously, reguardless of what method of transport they are using.

Undercover Elephant

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Firstly - that 300 people a year mostly includes themselves (or their passengers who know what they're getting into), so if you're including that, then you can't say that the cyclists don't kill anybody (as they do appear to kill themselves frequently).

Actually the evidence is that cyclists are not at fault in the majority of KSIs. When they are, it's typically getting themselves inside left-turning HGVs. I'm not aware of a single cyclist fatality in Ireland due to RLJing.

You're right to say that the majority of road deaths are drivers and passengers. However, I'm not aware of any statistics as to how many of those drivers were at fault, and how many were the innocent victims in multiple vehicle collisions.

Secondly - if there is little/no excess cost in keeping an eye on the cyclists while watching for bad drivers, then what's the harm in it?

I would agree with that. And there's no harm in randomly cracking down on low-level law-breaking either.

The problem with these sort of announcements is that they don't appear to have any sense of proportionality attached to them. They are based on the assumption that cycling is especially dangerous, which it isn't, and that cracking down on cyclists will significantly reduce KSIs, which it won't.

Logical_Bear

There's a thread in the legal forum about a cyclist asking where to pay a 100 € fine after getting caught breaking a red light so they are getting caught...

charlietheminxx

I have nothing against cyclists. However, I was nearly in a very serious car accident due to one breaking a light before and it left me incredible shaken.

The rules of the road are RULES, they need to be obeyed by everyone. People are saying bikes are harmless compared to a car - if we're all sharing one road, cyclists, motorists and pedestrians alike then we need to account for all factors.

Your bike may be relatively unlikely to damage someone, but if someone driving a 2 litre jeep or something has to swerve to avoid you when you break a light or fail to use proper cycling signals, then the damage could be phenomenal. I hate seeing drivers being inconsiderate to cyclists, but I also hate seeing cyclists taking chances that put everyone at risk.

I think cycling is a great thing, and we should definitely invest more in decent cycle lanes etc, but ALL road users have a responsibility. You can't just choose to ignore it because your vehicle is smaller than others.

Davyhal

Gran Hermano wrote: »

Hear, hear. With accountability comes responsibility. Motorists know anyone can take their reg and pass on a complaint to the gardai.
Cyclists old enough to cycle on the road should have to pass a basic ROTR test and receive a hi-vis vest with a unique ID number (much like a
reg number on a car).

I whole heartedly agree with your comment on the hi-vis jacket. I stated something very similar a while back in the cycling forum, and many cyclists were outraged... This particular comment comes to mind... I shall amend the poster's name as I have not seen him involved in this thread today and do not wish to drag him into a conversation that he is not currently debating...

CYCLIST wrote: »

Even if you were right about hi-vis making you more visible in the dusk, which is lacking in any evidential basis, there is a downside.

Dressing cyclists up in ugly gear that you would never wear anywhere else puts other people off cycling. It gives a message that it is an abnormal activity which is unreasonably dangerous.

This is a bad thing. The health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks 20 to 1. And furthermore, the single best way of reducing the risks of cycling is for there to be more people cycling - a doubling of numbers only leads to roughly a 60% increase in accidents.

Indirectly, hi-vis kills.

Many posters agreed with him... Am I in the wrong, or is this a very crazy way of thinking?!

reprazant

The article also says that Gardai are going to tackle the scourge of jaywalking also. Too right. Drive through town at night and the amount of idiots who think nothing of just walking out onto the road is unreal.

Kurz

Overthrow wrote: »

It's attitudes like this that are the main problem. People who think they own the road and have a disregarding attitude to other road users are the type of people that cause the loss of life on our roads regardless of how they get around.

It's not a case of thinking you own the road, it's the fact that car drivers are hurling a huge motorised metal box around and bicycle owners are propelling themselves on the open road on top of a few metal bars with wheels. I've no gripe with cyclists fundamentally but the roads in most towns in Ireland aren't anywhere near a high enough standard to accommodate both cyclists and motorists safely.

VINCWM

WE NEED BETTER ROADS AND CYCLING PATHS!

Seriously...

MysticalRain

I Am Kong! wrote: »

Nice the way you just threw those three words in there.

That's not really what he was saying now was it?

It's not the Traffic Corps to pro-actively seek out gangland activity. Of course if they see something they've to intervene - they're the police!

Neither yourself or him actually understand the point of gardai patrolling the streets (pro-actively seeking out crime is half the point of patrols in the first place).

Traffic Corps and beat cops are often the first point of contact when it comes to dealing with gangland crime, whether they are patrolling or just manning checkpoints looking for wanted criminals.

You can twist my words whatever way you want to. But I find it comical that Gardai are chasing bicyclists around the place while our city centres are over run with open drug dealing. All at a time when Gardai are supposedly short on resources. Maybe there should be less Gardai assigned to traffic duties and more assigned to dealing with organised crime.

pickarooney

Davyhal wrote: »

Yes, it is illegal. You might not agree with it, but it is. Some people say that the fact that marajuana is illegal is brainless, but it's the law. Stick to it. If you have an issue with it, start a campaign and have the law overturned. Don't just break it.

I find it kind of worrying that people just accept things as right because they're the law. I'm much more pragmatic and prefer to act as I see fit and accept the consequences, i.e. when I know there will be none I consider it OK to proceed.

07734

I misread thread title as something to do with women's troubles.

reprazant

Kurz wrote: »

It's not a case of thinking you own the road, it's the fact that car drivers are hurling a huge motorised metal box around and bicycle owners are propelling themselves on the open road on top of a few metal bars with wheels. I've no gripe with cyclists fundamentally but the roads in most towns in Ireland aren't anywhere near a high enough standard to accommodate both cyclists and motorists safely.

Are motorcycles also toys which can't share a road with huge motorised metal boxes?

Kurz

reprazant wrote: »

Are motorcycles also toys which can't share a road with huge motorised metal boxes?

Are they the same as bicycles?

seamus

Gran Hermano wrote: »

Motorists know anyone can take their reg and pass on a complaint to the gardai.

And as we can see it's so effective at keeping motorists in line :rolleyes:

Cyclists old enough to cycle on the road should have to pass a basic ROTR test and receive a hi-vis vest with a unique ID number (much like a
reg number on a car).

And who, pray tell, will police this requirement? If your concern is that cyclists can break the law with abandon and not be punished for it, then what purpose does creating more laws serve?

ArmaniJeanss

"Must pass an exam, compulsory helmet, must have a hi-viz jacket with a visible number on it"
All these would do is get 95% of cyclists off the roads, making life immeasurably more dangerous for the remaining 5%.

Thankfully none of these ridiculous ideas proposed will ever get close to fruition.

mitosis

babaracus wrote: »

I don't advocate cyclists breaking the rules of the road and yes, the odd person will be hit by an errant cyclist but I suppose I am trying to point out the glaring issue here which is we have a limted Gardai Traffic Corps and there are 2 main groups of road users:

Group 1: Car drivers who kill c.300 people a year on average.
Group 2: Cyclists who don't kill anybody.

Why bother with cyclists?

Why bother with bike thieves?

Pickpockets?

Rapists

Does someone have to be killed for laws to be enforcable?

opinion guy

Right......

Can someone tell me something......why do motorists in particular get so annoyed about cyclists breaking red lights ?????

Personally as a driver I find jaywalkers a much bigger problem. Why dont' they crack down on that ?

....I just don't get why people go so mental about cyclists - I can only think it is jealousy on the part of motorists at being passed out by cyclists.

Edit: I see they will be cracking down on pedestrians also......with a stern talking too.... :rolleyes:

patrickbrophy18

Kurz wrote: »

Why they even allow people play with those toys on the same road as motor vehicles in the first place is puzzling. This is good news for everyone.

Couldn't have put it better myself! The article also mentions that the Garda are to get tougher on irresponsible pedestrians. I'm glad to hear this. Too many pedestrians and cyclists treat roads as a playground.

The law forbids people to step out in front of a moving trains. So, the same should apply to stepping out in front of moving cars, buses, trucks, ambulances, fire brigades and tractors.

Feeona

opinion guy wrote: »

Right......

Can someone tell me something......why do motorists in particular get so annoyed about cyclists breaking red lights ?????

Personally as a driver I find jaywalkers a much bigger problem. Why dont' they crack down on that ?

....I just don't get why people go so mental about cyclists - I can only think it is jealousy on the part of motorists at being passed out by cyclists.

I think it's because cyclists complain about the dangers on the roads, yet those going through red lights don't seem to be doing much to help themselves.

Reminds me of motorcyclists going at top speeds on crappy roads, but yet they expect everyone else to look out for their safety!

humbert

This is a publicity stunt. There'll be a week or two of action in a few arbitrary areas and then they will go back to scratching their arses.

Initiatives like this aren't what's needed, regular consistent enforcement of the road traffic laws to all road users is what's needed and it will be a long while before we see that.

reprazant

Kurz wrote: »

Are they the same as bicycles?

In that they are also few metal bars with wheels, yes.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

SerialComplaint

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

"Must pass an exam, compulsory helmet, must have a hi-viz jacket with a visible number on it"
All these would do is get 95% of cyclists off the roads, making life immeasurably more dangerous for the remaining 5%.

Thankfully none of these ridiculous ideas proposed will ever get close to fruition.

And most of those cyclists would switch back to using their cars, causing traffic chaos.

Kurz

reprazant wrote: »

In that they are also few metal bars with wheels, yes.

With an engine capable of keeping up with traffic, indicators, lights, mirrors and a licensed driver with tax/insurance and proper safety gear. No, bicycles and motorbikes aren't the same.

SerialComplaint

Davyhal wrote: »

Please say this is being said ironically?

If not, and you actually think that it would be OK for cyclists to do this, why can't motorists do it? With the same logic, you could say what's the point in a motorist being parked at a red light wasting time and petrol when they could just judge themselves that there is nobody coming on the opposing route. Sure, why not throw in arguments like it would be better for the environment too due to lower emissions... There are flaws in every system, but it's the best we have. Abide by them. Better safe than sorry.

No irony at all. Paris have recently passed a law to allow cyclists to break a red light when turning left. It avoid having a group of cyclists building up at a junction - great idea.

doolox wrote: »

.....you have a number plate and hence an identity. Ownership of a car implies that you have money which can be taken off you in terms of fines.

The government should seriously look at registering bikes and putting tags on them, could be chips like they do on pets now. This will enable cops to readily identify bikers and treat them the same way as other road users.

Ah yes, because that registration/insurance system works so well in preventing misbehaviours by motorists. We NEVER see anyone on their phone texting or surfing when driving. We NEVER see anyone breaking the speed limit. We NEVER see anyone turning without indicating.

Oh, hold on a minute...

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

• http://www.metro.co.uk/news/719063-cyclist-is-jailed-for-killing-by-1861-law
• http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=8700349
• http://dcist.com/2012/06/woman_dies_after_being_hit_by_cycli.php

I'm sure there are others

Maggie - We're talking about traffic laws in Ireland, not Dorset, San Francisco, or Washiington. How many people have been killed by cyclists in Ireland?

Capt'n Midnight

smash wrote: »

They target drivers 24/7...

The RSA free speed survey proves that the speed limit is generally ignored by drivers. Anyone got stats on the 30Km zones in the city centre ?

6% of all drivers are uninsured Ireland’s 2 million insured drivers are therefore paying an extra €30 per year on their premiums.



Yes they should nail cyclists who go through a red light and cross the path of other traffic. There are a few who give the majority a bad name. But to suggest that traffic enforcement is anything other than random is ridiculous. Anyone got estimates on the number of cars on the M50 that are missing Tax / NCT / Insurance / L - plates ? A simple database cross reference could easily weed out a lot of people if they were serious about enforcement. ( L - drivers would be where a car is registered to someone who doesn't have a full license, then it's a check against the toll camera photos )

reprazant

Kurz wrote: »

With an engine capable of keeping up with traffic, indicators, lights, mirrors and a licensed driver with tax/insurance and proper safety gear. No, bicycles and motorbikes aren't the same.

Oh ok. How slow does a bike have to be for it to be considered a toy and for you to sneer at it and deem it unfit to join you on the road? A moped? An electric bike?

What is you opinion on horses?

allibastor

its easy to say that bikes should not go on paths and so on, or through red lights, but sometimes its not safe to do anything else. Bike lanes start and stop all over the place, so many times you end up pearched at the side of the road with fast moving heavy metal boxes whizzing past you.

also, going through red lights is stupid, but we shouls be allowed some measure of crossing a road as we do not have the take off spead of a car, and also many times the cycle lane is on the outside lane, so if you need to cross a road like a car can, you have no place to do so.

geeky

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Maggie - We're talking about traffic laws in Ireland, not Dorset, San Francisco, or Washiington. How many people have been killed by cyclists in Ireland?

Very few if any directly.

But if a cyclist does something unsafe which then initiates a fatal road accident, is it then not fair to blame the cyclist?

MajorMax

Yesterday I saw a fella on a bike turn left from a minor road to a major road on a T junction (Stop sign, no lights) in quite heavy traffic. He turned left without even looking right once, just pedalled away. No helmet or hi-viz vest.
Now this isn't remarkable in itself, as anyone who drives in Dublin sees this sort of risk-taking and worse every day.
What made me look twice was there was also a marked Gardai car stopped at the top of the junction, also turning left. neither copper did anything.

They can bring in any "Crackdown" they want, but everyone knows that the Guards are already stretched to breaking point and this crackdown is for publicity purposes

Bradidup

Logical_Bear wrote: »

There's a thread in the legal forum about a cyclist asking where to pay a 100 € fine after getting caught breaking a red light so they are getting caught...

€100 fines are far too much for cyclists to pay considering most of them are either students or those on the dole.

kylith

I'm a cyclist and a pedestrian, and I don't mind this crackdown at all. I stop at all traffic and lights and cycle as politely as I can.

My problem is that the roads and cycle paths around Dublin are an absolute disgrace, to the point where they make cycling safely very difficult. On a lot of roads they share space with cars, meaning that cycling on the cycle track blocks the cars behind you, and some roads are simply too narrow to accomodate cars and bikes. Cycle tracks in by the footpath are often in a terrible state of repair; full of broken glass, potholes, and shores/drains that mean that you can't use the cycle track without risking damaging your bike and/or falling off.

Cycle tracks on footpaths are completely unusable as they are not only also full of dangerous rubbish, but also full of pedestrians.

I'm not making excuses for bad, inconsiderate cyclists, I've nearly been killed by them myself a couple of times and I think it would be great for a clampdown on jumping lights, etc. I think that we, as a society, would do well to instill greater road sense in all the young people, and to model somewhere like Amsterdam when it comes to putting cycle paths in a city; it may be a bit terrifying to get used to it but everyone knows what part of the road they're supposed to be on and they know to stick to it.

Capt'n Midnight

seamus wrote: »

If your concern is that cyclists can break the law with abandon and not be punished for it, then what purpose does creating more laws serve?

Creating more unenforced laws means people are conditioned to ignore similar laws.

How often have you seen someone making a right hand turn NOT drive over the white box. That is one penalty point.

How often do you see people actually stop completely at a STOP sign ?

How often do you see people indicating left and driving in a bus lane ?


In the UK they found that roughly speaking the revenue from parking meters matched the costs of repairing footpaths damaged by illegal parking. This would suggest that clamping down on illegal parking would be more cost effective than patrolling meters.

Darkglasses

Bradidup wrote: »

€100 fines are far too much for cyclists to pay considering most of them are either students or those on the dole.

Source.