Gardi to tackle cycle menaces

07Lapierre

kylith wrote: »

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.

+1...You'll like this video so!

Kurz

reprazant wrote: »

What is you opinion on horses?

They're pretty. Thread is about cycling laws btw.

RacoonQueen

Clever thread title.

SerialComplaint

geeky wrote: »

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?

If a cyclist does something unsafe which then initiates a fatal road accident, is it indeed fair to blame the cyclist. But why are the victims (cyclists) the first ones to be blamed. Why not blame those who directly cause the injuries/killings by driving into the cyclists?

Bradidup wrote: »

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

Wheere did you get that from? People don't cycle because they are poor. Many people cycle because they don't have time to waste sitting round in traffic. Research in other countries show that cyclists generally have higher disposable incomes than car drivers, and many of them have a taxed car sitting in their driveway. Why would Ireland be any different?

BostonB

Deise Vu wrote: »

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..

Go find some stats then compare them.

Then ask yourself why are ye targeting the group with the lowest stats.

BostonB

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

Worldwide you found 3. Even if there is more, its a tiny speck on the stats compared to other road users. So you have to ask why target such a low group. it makes no sense. Other than moaning about cyclists is popular and gets attention. Which sells newspapers and gets headlines.

Slurryface

SerialComplaint wrote: »

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.


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...



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?

We see hundreds of thousands of them recieve penalty points and fines, while cyclists, who contribute no a cent to the upkeep of the roads seem to believe that they own them and can cycle as dangerously as they want with impunity!

RacoonQueen

Slurryface wrote: »

We see hundreds of thousands of them recieve penalty points and fines, while cyclists, who contribute no a cent to the upkeep of the roads seem to believe that they own them and can cycle as dangerously as they want with impunity!

Are cyclists exempt from paying taxes then? If so, can I have a link to the form etc as I have years worth of taxback to claim.

BostonB

geeky wrote: »

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?

Fine. But in the vast majority of cases its not the cyclist. So its makes sense to target the biggest group.

The graph above shows that in the majority of all incidents where cyclists were killed, the driver was held to be solely to blame. This is not the case amongst cyclists under the age of 25 - particularly with regard to children. However, for adults aged 25-39 52% of deaths were deemed to be solely the fault of the driver, while in a further 17%, both the cyclist and the driver had faults attributed to them.

In the case of deaths of cyclists between 40-54, the drivers' share is even higher: 70% drivers alone, 8% jointly at fault and only 23% the sole fault of the cyclist.

When it comes to injuries, rather than deaths, the relationship is even more skewed, with responsibility for the vast majority of crashes laid at the drivers' door.

So next time you hear someone blaming cyclists for their own injuries, you can respond that 80% of all injuries to 25+ cyclists are, according to the police officer recording the incident, either solely or partly the responsibility of the driver...

http://beta.ctc.org.uk/blog/chris-peck/whos-to-blame-in-crashes-between-cyclists-and-motorists

BostonB

Slurryface wrote: »

We see hundreds of thousands of them recieve penalty points and fines, while cyclists, who contribute no a cent to the upkeep of the roads seem to believe that they own them and can cycle as dangerously as they want with impunity!

Its going to blow your mind. But I cycle and pay tax on cars, and other tax beside that. How do you get the idea that cyclists don't pay tax. :rolleyes:

iregk

Slurryface wrote: »

while cyclists, who contribute no a cent to the upkeep of the roads seem to believe that they own them and can cycle as dangerously as they want with impunity!

Wow I'm due a shed load of money so. I'm a cyclist, pay almost €700 a year in motor tax (that's MOTOR TAX by the way not road tax) and also pay paye, income tax etc... If cyclists don't need to pay this how do I go about claiming?

opinion guy

Slurryface wrote: »

We see hundreds of thousands of them recieve penalty points and fines, while cyclists, who contribute no a cent to the upkeep of the roads seem to believe that they own them and can cycle as dangerously as they want with impunity!

I'm pretty sure most cyclists are aware that if they cycle dangerously they are far more likely to be killed than a motorists. I hardly think you describe that as 'without impunity'

alphabeat

crackdown, me hole
... hey wait a minute

galwaycyclist

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. Cyclist.ie the National Cycling Lobby Group is pushing for things like free left turns for cyclists at red traffic lights. As far as I know there are something like 5000 traffic signals where this applies in Germany. In the US it is common for all vehicles. There are also other circumstances where cyclists could be given an exemption with the little potential for conflict with turning or crossing motor vehicles.

The pedestrian crossing issue is more problematic - in part because in the country cycling campaigners are also the main pedestrian lobby. So moves to exempt cyclists in those circumstances are unlikely to get much support in the near term.

However the fundamental problem is that in this country traffic engineers often appear to use pedestrian crossings as a means of managing and controlling pedestrians for the benefit of motor traffic. The crossings are installed to remove priority from people who walk and give it to cars. The result is that pedestrians ignore the traffic signals. The solution in many cases would be to remove the traffic lights and replace them with a zebra crossing.

If you think these are things you would like to campaign for then send me a PM.

Yakult

I think its a good idea. Many (not all) cyclists think they can do what they want and when they want to, endangering their lives and the lives of others. Would definitely like to see the law come down on those who don't abide the rules. Tarnishes the good cyclists which I do encounter every now and again.

zagmund

omega666 wrote: »

Waiting at traffic light on the N11 yesterday and there was a traffic cop jeep in the lane next to me, Cyclist overtakes both of us and straight through the junction/red light. Looked over at the traffic cop to see if he was going to do anything. Not a budge out of him.

Was thinking if i drove off now through the red light i wonder would i get away with it!

This is a big gripe of mine. I've seen traffic corps vehicles sitting at lights when cars go baling through red lights and continuing to just sit there. It really makes me wonder what needs to happen before the traffic corps pull someone up.

I saw some reference recently to X% (where X is a large number) of cars on the M50 being deficient in tax or insurance, and the proposal was to use the toll or speed cameras to detect offenders. This was to be followed up by the very, very efficient (ha !) process of sending them a letter in the post.

Or we could form a special body of people who are charged with upholding the traffic laws. We could give them a uniform and cars with flashing lights. Then all they would need to do would be to stop traffic coming off the motorways & hit them with a fine straight away. They could even use the fancy cameras to detect the offending vehicles and just stop those ones instead of everyone. If we had such a group of people, what would we call them ? Traffic corps, maybe ?

z

ejmaztec

Cycle tax, cycle insurance, cycle licence, cyclists' cycling test, cycling theory test, fines for defective cycles, annual road-worthiness testing, blah blah blah.

i.e. Another sh1tload of money for the gubberment.:(

Jawgap

BostonB wrote: »

Its going to blow your mind. But I cycle and pay tax on cars, and other tax beside that. How do you get the idea that cyclists don't pay tax. :rolleyes:

Cyclists get a 40% tax break on purchasing a bike - car owners' paying VRT subsidise that

reprazant

Kurz wrote: »

Overthrow wrote: »

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.

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.

So do you believe then that bicycles should not be allowed on roads?

reprazant

Jawgap wrote: »

Cyclists get a 40% tax break on purchasing a bike - car owners' paying VRT subsidise that

In what way is the different from the car scrappage schemes of old?

fasttalkerchat

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

As a cyclist attitudes like that genuinely concern me. A bicycle is classed, by the law, as a vehicle. While on the road I behave just like that. I position myself on the road as a car, I don't skip red lights, I don't cycle on footpaths and I don't weave in-between traffic. I'm not alone.

I treat everyone who uses the road with respect and only have a problem when someone acts out of line. I don't automatically decry any class of road user simply for the means that they use to get around.

As I said, an attitude like that displayed above genuinely concerns me for my welfare while on the road and others like me.

I don't like the way he phrased it but classing a bike as a vehicle is absurd when quads and small mini-mopeds are banned from the road!

Piliger

SerialComplaint wrote: »

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.

What a completely insane and dumb idea.

dutopia

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Delighted with this news, cyclists are mostly clowns who have nothing but a blatant disregard for the rules of the road.

Here's an idea, raise some much needed govt money but making ever take a written exam to get a bicycle license. €5 a pop. And fine people €500 for not wearing a helmet. I cannot understand why a person would get on a bicycle without a helmet. And yea sure feck it, same fine for not wearing a seatbelt in a vehicle & talking/texting on the phone.

Another example of a bizarre and immature attitude towards cyclists. As a driver and a cyclist I find it hard to understand the animosity towards cyclists sometimes. There are bad drivers, there are also cyclists who don't follow the rules of the road like they should. To say cyclists are 'mostly clowns' is just silly.

Cyclists who don't wear helmets are putting their own safety at risk. Whether they should be mandatory or not maybe should be debated. You can't exactly compare wearing seatbelts to wearing a helmet though, motor vehicles can go much faster and carry passengers which can have more severe consequences for everyone inside the vehicle compared to a cyclist.

Deise Vu

BostonB wrote: »

Go find some stats then compare them.

Then ask yourself why are ye targeting the group with the lowest stats.

Has it occurred to you that enforcing the law with cyclists is actually for their own protection? The fact that some motorists are spared the horror of being involved in a tragedy is only incidental.

reprazant

Piliger wrote: »

What a completely insane and dumb idea.

AFAIK, Germany allows all cars to break the red light if turning left.

If turning left, the red light is considered like a flashing amber.

Open to correction on that though

tuxy

reprazant wrote: »

AFAIK, Germany allows all cars to break the red light if turning left.

If turning left, the red light is considered like a flashing amber.

Open to correction on that though

That's crazy, they drive on the right hand side of the road so this would cause lots of accidents!

reprazant

tuxy wrote: »

That's crazy, they drive on the right hand side of the road so this would cause lots of accidents!

I am mixing up my sides.

They can turn right (afaik, as opposed to left obviously)

opinion guy

reprazant wrote: »

So do you believe then that bicycles should not be allowed on roads?

Well what we should really be asking is should cars be allowed on certain roads ?
Personally I think a town or city centre should be pedestrians and cyclists only as much as possible bar public transport and maybe taxis

iregk

Piliger wrote: »

What a completely insane and dumb idea.

Germany and the US both do this for cars. What is insane and dumb about it?

BostonB

Deise Vu wrote: »

Has it occurred to you that enforcing the law with cyclists is actually for their own protection? The fact that some motorists are spared the horror of being involved in a tragedy is only incidental.

No because it doesn't. Drivers are causing the vast majority of accidents not cyclists.

Undercover Elephant

Deise Vu wrote: »

Has it occurred to you that enforcing the law with cyclists is actually for their own protection? The fact that some motorists are spared the horror of being involved in a tragedy is only incidental.

That is what we psychologists call "rationalisation".

Logical_Bear

Darkglasses wrote: »

Source.

post number 1

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056769053

BostonB

The simply fact is as the number of cyclists increase the rate of accidents is decreasing not increasing.

The issue here is the article is very badly written to draw negative attention to cyclists to get a reaction from those that won't read it properly.

SerialComplaint

Piliger wrote: »

What a completely insane and dumb idea.

Why? Do you really think that you know more about this issue than the traffic authorities in Paris?

Jawgap wrote: »

Cyclists get a 40% tax break on purchasing a bike - car owners' paying VRT subsidise that

Why do you choose VRT - why not garlic import tax? Or cider customs duty? Or Microsoft's few crumbs of corporation tax? Or the VAT paid by cyclists on bike purchases, repairs and equipment?

As it happens, the extra business created by the bike-to-work scheme has more than paid for itself in increased employment in the bike sector.

Slurryface wrote: »

We see hundreds of thousands of them receive penalty points and fines, while cyclists, who contribute no a cent to the upkeep of the roads seem to believe that they own them and can cycle as dangerously as they want with impunity!

Others have explained to you the dramatic news that cyclists pay tax. Research from the UK showed that cyclists have on average higher income than motorists.

But that's not the main issue - the main issue is that while indeed, hundreds of thousands of motoring offences do result in penalty points and fines, millions of motoring offences don't result in penalty points and fines. Just look around you on any urban road, and count the drivers speeding, phoning, texting, surfing, not-indicating etc. A registration system doesn't stop people from breaking the law.

What it might do, is deter people from cycling. So we'll have more obesity, more diabetes, more carbon emissions, and more cars on the road in front of you, holding you up. Be careful what you wish for.

Deise Vu

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

That is what we psychologists call "rationalisation".

Why? Logic would suggest that the vast bulk of injuries caused when cyclists ignore the law will involve the cyclist or maybe a pedestrian, but almost certainly no injury to a motorist.

Viper_JB

Oh dear these threads drive me crazy so please excuse my rant I know there are decient cyclists who won't give a crap about someone enforcing these laws as they already follow them.

But why one with half a brain be against enforcing laws that stop "cyclists who go through red lights, cycle on footpaths or travel the wrong way on a one-way street", I don't understand how possibly enforcing these rules could be bad for the cyclist they're trying to save lives by enforcing the most basic of the rules of the road. Just because plenty of drivers get away with breaking ROTR it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be enforced for anyone else :S I just can't see the logic here. I mean unless you're actively going out and breaking these rules on a daily basis I can't see how these would effect you in anyway and if you are then you deserve to be caught and fined! It's like saying plenty of people get away with murder so lets not enforce any laws against assault!

BostonB

Deise Vu wrote: »

Why? Logic Guessing would suggest that the vast bulk of injuries caused when cyclists ignore the law will involve the cyclist or maybe a pedestrian, but almost certainly no injury to a motorist.

Corrected that for you.

Your premise is flawed. What vast bulk of injuries when cyclist ignore the law?

Jawgap

reprazant wrote: »

In what way is the different from the car scrappage schemes of old?

As a proportion of the purchase price, it's more than the scrappage schemes, and you get it without having to scrap something.

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Why do you choose VRT - why not garlic import tax? Or cider customs duty? Or Microsoft's few crumbs of corporation tax? Or the VAT paid by cyclists on bike purchases, repairs and equipment?

As it happens, the extra business created by the bike-to-work scheme has more than paid for itself in increased employment in the bike sector.


.

Why choose VRT? It stirs the AH pot more than income tax or VAT (or cider duty, or corporation tax!)

Logical Fallacy

The King of Moo wrote: »

Are they also going to crack down on drivers and pedestrians who break the law and act recklessly around roads?

It seems bizarre to just focus on cyclists when all road users are capable of stupid behaviour.

The article clearly states that pedestrians need to cop the **** on as well.

BostonB

Viper_JB wrote: »

......how possibly enforcing these rules could be bad for the cyclist they're trying to save lives by enforcing the most basic of the rules of the road. ...

You're making the assumption that its braking these laws that kills cyclists. Whereas you've not bothered to find out the actual main causes of accidents or death. You've just picked this out of your hat at random.

No ones against enforcing the laws where they make sense. Its like the law that requires you to keep left or in the cycle lane, but that not always the safest position.

Deise Vu

BostonB wrote: »

Corrected that for you.

Your premise is flawed. What vast bulk of injuries when cyclist ignore the law?

Ok you tell me. When a car and a cyclist collide who is more likely to come off worst?

Secondly, when is there more likely to be a collision: when the rules of the road are obeyed or when the rules are being ignored?

Everlong1

Long overdue. I used to cycle myself but the amount of kno* ends flying along the footpath is beyond a joke.

StephenHendry

intellectual dosser wrote: »

The “casualty reduction” plan, launched yesterday, will see “the full rigours of the law” applied to cyclists who go through red lights, cycle on footpaths or travel the wrong way on a one-way street facing increased levels of Garda enforcement.

A press release and initiative to announce that they are actually going to enforce the law. Congrats.

This thread however - is going to get out of hand :-)

i believe it when i see as we still don't have near enough gardai to cope with this type of enforcement not to mention the more serious stuff. i wonder what the penalties will be for pedestrians crossing at non-pedestrianed zones :pac:

StephenHendry

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

As a cyclist attitudes like that genuinely concern me. A bicycle is classed, by the law, as a vehicle. While on the road I behave just like that. I position myself on the road as a car, I don't skip red lights, I don't cycle on footpaths and I don't weave in-between traffic. I'm not alone.

I treat everyone who uses the road with respect and only have a problem when someone acts out of line. I don't automatically decry any class of road user simply for the means that they use to get around.

As I said, an attitude like that displayed above genuinely concerns me for my welfare while on the road and others like me.

thats similar to the other thread which criticises all young males as being boy racers and the good young drivers are so pisd with trying to defend themselves

BostonB

Deise Vu wrote: »

Ok you tell me. When a car and a cyclist collide who is more likely to come off worst?

Your logic is if a robber kills someone the problem is with the victim. So lets target the victims.

Deise Vu wrote: »

Secondly, when is there more likely to be a collision: when the rules of the road are obeyed or when the rules are being ignored?

When cycling? when the driver ignores the rules.

For cyclists its often safer to come out of the cycle lane (against the rules) at junctions into centre lane to stop cars cutting you up last minute.

Lesson St out of town is no entry for cyclists (for no good reason) Which is more dangerous cycling up lesson street or the legal alternative Baggot street where traffic is much faster, theres trucks and buses, lots of dubious parking, lots of pedestrians and a surface rougher than the moon.

Viper_JB

BostonB wrote: »

You're making the assumption that its braking these laws that kills cyclists. Whereas you've not bothered to find out the actual main causes of accidents or death. You've just picked this out of your hat at random.

Well getting hit by a car will kill a cyclist....braking a light won't directly kill them but will put them at much higher risk of being hit by a car as will going down the wrong way in a one way street I don't know why anyone would want to put themselves at risk by trying it anyways?....as for not cycling of foot paths, that's more of a common sense issue really - footpath empty then fine - footpath full of padestrians then no.

RobbieTheRobber

Viper_JB wrote: »

Well getting hit by a car will kill a cyclist....braking a light won't directly kill them but will put them at much higher risk of being hit by a car as will going down the wrong way in a one way street I don't know why anyone would want to put themselves at risk by trying it anyways?....as for not cycling of foot paths, that's more of a common sense issue really - footpath empty then fine - footpath full of padestrians then no.

Are you now suggesting cyclists break the law as long as it doesnt obstruct anyone?

SerialComplaint

Viper_JB wrote: »

Well getting hit by a car will kill a cyclist....braking a light won't directly kill them but will put them at much higher risk of being hit by a car as will going down the wrong way in a one way street I don't know why anyone would want to put themselves at risk by trying it anyways?....as for not cycling of foot paths, that's more of a common sense issue really - footpath empty then fine - footpath full of padestrians then no.

Viper_JB wrote: »

Oh dear these threads drive me crazy so please excuse my rant I know there are decient cyclists who won't give a crap about someone enforcing these laws as they already follow them.

But why one with half a brain be against enforcing laws that stop "cyclists who go through red lights, cycle on footpaths or travel the wrong way on a one-way street", I don't understand how possibly enforcing these rules could be bad for the cyclist they're trying to save lives by enforcing the most basic of the rules of the road. Just because plenty of drivers get away with breaking ROTR it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be enforced for anyone else :S I just can't see the logic here. I mean unless you're actively going out and breaking these rules on a daily basis I can't see how these would effect you in anyway and if you are then you deserve to be caught and fined! It's like saying plenty of people get away with murder so lets not enforce any laws against assault!

I don't think anyone has a particular problem with enforcement of traffic laws against cyclists, provided it comes with enforcement against other road users. This particular campaign is like blaming women who wear short skirts for being raped. If lots of cyclists are being injured by cars/trucks, then you might want to look at the behaviour of those driving the cars and trucks. Maybe they need to leave more space for cyclists when overtaking, and watch out for cyclists when joining major roads.

Of course, cyclists should have lights and should not be cycling on paths or breaking red lights. But this campaign is a distraction from the real issue - poor driving around cyclists by many motorists.

Darkglasses

Logical_Bear wrote: »

post number 1

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056769053

How is that a source for stating this?

most of them are either students or those on the dole.

BostonB

Viper_JB wrote: »

Well getting hit by a car will kill a cyclist....braking a light won't directly kill them but will put them at much higher risk of being hit by a car as will going down the wrong way in a one way street I don't know why anyone would want to put themselves at risk by trying it anyways?....as for not cycling of foot paths, that's more of a common sense issue really - footpath empty then fine - footpath full of padestrians then no.

So your logic is 5% of accidents are cause by something, it makes sense to target that rather than the 60% of accidents caused by something else.

I'm not defending breaking red lights. I'm against that. But not for the same reasons. But the argument it causes carnage on the roads is simply wrong. Take the canal about 70%+ cyclists (my guesstimate) break the lights along that route. There isn't daily carnage.