Gardi to tackle cycle menaces

seamus

I did the maths before in relation to emissions and worked out that if you were to add cyclists into the motor tax pool on the basis of emissions, each cyclist would be liable for the princely sum of 1c.

magicbastarder

seamus wrote: »

I did the maths before in relation to emissions and worked out that if you were to add cyclists into the motor tax pool on the basis of emissions, each cyclist would be liable for the princely sum of 1c.

i've seen reports that it's generally accepted that the health benefits from cycling outweigh the health risks by a factor of 10, or even 20 in some reports.

there's no way the government is going to induce people to give up exercise in favour of a taxation regime which would probably cost as much to administer as it would raise.

Undercover Elephant

magicbastarder wrote: »

if you link motor/road/cycle tax to the maintenance of roadways, you're on a bit of a loser.
an engineer once told me (and if there are any listening, please correct me if i have this wrong) that the damage a vehicle does to the road surface is proportional to the cube of the weight per wheel. so a car, which has a mass of 400kg per wheel, will do one thousand times more damage to the road surface, per wheel, than a cyclist with a mass of 40kg per wheel.

I understand it's the fourth power of axle weight. So a car with 800kg per axle compared to a bike with (probably more like) 50kg per axle will do > 65,000 times the damage to the road.

Both are negligible compared to trucks.

RustyNut

AhInFairness wrote: »

How about a cycle tax then??

I really hope it's not emission based or ill have to give up the Guinness and vindaloo's.

Skrynesaver

seamus wrote: »

I did the maths before in relation to emissions and worked out that if you were to add cyclists into the motor tax pool on the basis of emissions, each cyclist would be liable for the princely sum of 1c.

But does the carbon you ingest come from sustainable sources or do you eat crude oil?

magicbastarder

may have been posted already; bbc article about this topic:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607

Logical_Bear

AhInFairness wrote: »

How about a cycle tax then?? You want to use the road as a vehicle, pay tax like other road users. Insurance should also be mandatory, just like other vehicles, given the damage bikes can cause to people.

who gave you access to the internet.

NOBODY PAYS ROAD TAX!!!!!

any vehicle with a motor has to to pay motor tax...think about it...

magicbastarder

Contrary to what one might be led to believe from auto driver anecdotes, bikes running red lights barely played a role in the accident statistics. Instead, the single biggest cause of vehicle-bicycle accidents is bikes popping up where they are not expected: on sidewalks or riding the wrong direction on bike paths.

this is from an official report into cycling fatalities in berlin.

http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/report-claims-bicyclists-responsible-for-most-biking-fatalities-in-berlin.html

07Lapierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've seen reports that it's generally accepted that the health benefits from cycling outweigh the health risks by a factor of 10, or even 20 in some reports.

there's no way the government is going to induce people to give up exercise in favour of a taxation regime which would probably cost as much much more to administer as it would raise.

fixed that for ya!

charlietheminxx

I've already made my point earlier in this thread.

But let me just put this out here. To everyone who has dismissed suggestions for cycle hemets, hi-vis gear, cycle tax, gardai enforcing the rules of the road for cyclists and whatever else has been suggested.... What do you suggest?

Should cyclists just be left to do what they please? Is it ok to break the rules of the road?

I don't understand why people are so resistant to any change that might save even one life on our roads this year, even if that ONE change is that the rules, already in place for everyone to try and keep our roads safe, are enforced more

RobbieTheRobber

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I've already made my point earlier in this thread.

But let me just put this out here. To everyone who has dismissed suggestions for cycle hemets, hi-vis gear, cycle tax, gardai enforcing the rules of the road for cyclists and whatever else has been suggested.... What do you suggest?

Should cyclists just be left to do what they please? Is it ok to break the rules of the road?

I don't understand why people are so resistant to any change that might save even one life on our roads this year, even if that ONE change is that the rules, already in place for everyone to try and keep our roads safe, are enforced more

How would a cycling tax help save lives again?
I must have missed that bit in your last post.

reprazant

Who has dismissed the idea that gardai should be enforcing the rules of the road for cyclists?

If anything, it has been encouraged by cyclists in this thread.

magicbastarder

it's always been a contentious issue. it rubs cyclists up the wrong way when the whole cycling community (if it can be called such) is so often branded as dangerous and reckless, and that the burden of improving cyclist's safety falls exclusively on the cyclist.

charlietheminxx

I'm not supporting a cycle tex, just merely saying EVERY suggestion has been knocked and torn apart so far in the thread.

What would you suggest?

Who has dismissed the idea that gardai should be enforcing the rules of the road for cyclists?

If anything, it has been encouraged by cyclists in this thread.

It has been said already in this thread that the Gardai have better things to be doing and cyclists breaking lights etc isn't dangerous anyway.

I agree, most cyclists are grand, but plenty of them are a menace on the roads... Likewise with many motorists and pedestrians.

I think cycling is great, and should be encouraged, but every road user should follow the rules of the road as much as possible.

Hungrycol

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I'm not supporting a cycle tex, just merely saying EVERY suggestion has been knocked and torn apart so far in the thread.

What would you suggest?



It has been said already in this thread that the Gardai have better things to be doing and cyclists breaking lights etc isn't dangerous anyway.

I's very very dangerous but more to the cyclist than anyone else. Cars plowing through a red or even amber is more dangerous to other road users.

I suggest enforcement of the ROTR equally to everyone.

RacoonQueen

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

In this particular instance, any motorist (car, van, truck etc.) who is caught parking in a cycle lane should face a fine of €100 with an increment for each subsequent offense. I also see this happening frequently and find it absolutely deplorable.

But they have to drop their kids off at school! :eek:

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

that is an exceedingly odd youtube channel.
there's a video on that channel called something along the lines of 'cyclist who claims to be a member of the labour party doesn't yield to pedestrians', and it shows a pedestrian crossing the road without looking.

Yeah but in all situations pedestrians should be yielded to

You must always yield to:

pedestrians already crossing at a junction,
pedestrians on a zebra crossing,
pedestrians on a pelican crossing when the amber light is flashing, and
pedestrians and traffic when you are moving off from a stationary position (for example from your position at a stop sign or a parking space).

To avoid doubt and in the interest of road safety a vehicle should always yield to pedestrians. You must also yield to:

traffic already turning at a junction,
traffic in another lane when you wish to change lanes, and
traffic on a public road when you are coming out of a private entrance.

Stop, look, listen, and look again. This is your duty when entering the roadway.

You see this is the kind of situation when you allow untrained ( unlicensed ) road users on the road, trained road users ( licensed ) are taught ( if they remember it is a different thing ) to allow for pedestrians

Spook_ie

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Where you wearing any high visibility clothing?
the RSA recommends that you do

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Pedestrians-and-Cyclists/Pedestrian-safety/

Ah Robbie at least post the whole bit...

Increase your visibility

More than two-thirds of fatal pedestrian collisions happen at night. Although you can hear a car coming and see its lights, the driver may not see you (and certainly won’t hear you).

To protect yourself make sure you:

Always wear a pair of reflective armbands, high-visibility belt or other reflective or fluorescent clothing which will help you to be seen from a distance
Carry a torch on country roads

humbert

Spook_ie wrote: »

trained road users ( licensed ) are taught ( if they remember it is a different thing ) to allow for pedestrians

Specious argument. The obvious reality is that drivers are no more willing to yield to pedestrians than cyclists.

Spook_ie

humbert wrote: »

Specious argument. The obvious reality is that drivers are no more willing to yield to pedestrians than cyclists.

Actually no I'd have to disagree there, how many times have you read cyclists saying how much more maneuverable than cars they are?

Fact is that a car ( assuming that they have seen the pedestrian ) will stop rather than try to swerve around them

AltAccount

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I've already made my point earlier in this thread.

But let me just put this out here. To everyone who has dismissed suggestions for cycle hemets, hi-vis gear, cycle tax, gardai enforcing the rules of the road for cyclists and whatever else has been suggested.... What do you suggest?

Should cyclists just be left to do what they please? Is it ok to break the rules of the road?

I don't understand why people are so resistant to any change that might save even one life on our roads this year, even if that ONE change is that the rules, already in place for everyone to try and keep our roads safe, are enforced more

Bring in Fixed Penalty Notices for cyclists, so Gardai can punish cyclists for breaking lights, riding on footpaths etc without having to bring the cyclist to court and spend the day in court themselves.

Make it easier for Gardai to enforce the laws, rather than bringing in new laws.

humbert

Spook_ie wrote: »

Actually no I'd have to disagree there, how many times have you read cyclists saying how much more maneuverable than cars they are?

Fact is that a car ( assuming that they have seen the pedestrian ) will stop rather than try to swerve around them

Ah, I thought you were implying that drivers were more likely to yield because the have been taught that they should. I completely agree that drivers are more likely to stop because they, being less manoeuvrable, find it more difficult to change direction. Hardly a great indication of willingness though.

rubadubduba

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.

Well they have been pulling these blitz on couriers for years and only motorbike couriers.
So its about bloody time they picked on someone else.

tiny_penguin

Hungrycol wrote: »

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I'm not supporting a cycle tex, just merely saying EVERY suggestion has been knocked and torn apart so far in the thread.

What would you suggest?



It has been said already in this thread that the Gardai have better things to be doing and cyclists breaking lights etc isn't dangerous anyway.

I's very very dangerous but more to the cyclist than anyone else. Cars plowing through a red or even amber is more dangerous to other road users.

I suggest enforcement of the ROTR equally to everyone.

The thing is, it may indeed just be te cyclists life they are putting at risk. But if that risk ends in their death or serious injury, say they break a light and get hit by a car at no fault of the driver, do you not think that driver will be affected? If it were me, I know I would spend my life angry at myself, blaming myself, wondering if there was something I could have done differently. Or if the cyclist pulls a dangerous manoeuvre that causes a driver to swerve, brake suddenly and causes another accident then they can be risking others safety and well being.

I agree that there are a huge amount of drivers that treat cyclists like they don't belong on the road, and that the majority of cyclists I see on the roads are responsible safe and capable. But I don't under stand the backlash to this reported crackdown! Surely it is nothing but a good thing. Reducing the amount of any sort of unsafe behaviour is a good thing. It prob wont amount to much but it may raise awareness that cycling like that is not safe.

JRant

Where is this mythical crackdown happening?
I cycle through the city centre every day of the week, 18km roundtrip, and have barely seen a single Garda!!!
Must be some sort of dastardly plan to fool the gangland boyoos into thinking they're not being watched
On a more serious note, there's an epidemic of Idiocy spreading across the nation. You see them everywhere, walking, cycling, driving, night or day it matters not.

bothyhead

John Franklin in his excellent book, Cyclecraft: The complete guide to safe and enjoyable cycling for adults and children. (Published by The Stationery Office) makes an interesting observation with regard to wearing helmets:

Cycle helmets attempt to limit the consequences of a crash. They do nothing to prevent a crash taking place; indeed, if not used properly or if their limitations are not appreciated, they may actually increase that risk.

It is a serious mistake to think that wearing a helmet is at all a substitute for having a safe bike and learning to cycle properly.

He advocates that it is far more important to learn proper bike handling techniques; develop good observation and anticipition skills; and adopt a proper road position than it is to depend on the minimal protection that a helmet offers.

For what it's worth, I do wear a helmet and hi-viz jacket when cycling.

irishmotorist

bothyhead wrote: »

He advocates that it is far more important to learn proper bike handling techniques; develop good observation and anticipition skills; and adopt a proper road position than it is to depend on the minimal protection that a helmet offers.

I don't think riding safely and wearing a helmet are mutually exclusive. How about we all do both? Then we're reducing the chance of something happening and if something does happen the consequences will hopefully be less severe.

JuliusCaesar

As a teenager, I ran across the road looking behind me (running for a bus) and collided with another pedestrian doing the same for a bus in the opposite direction. We both bounced off each other and both fell, but got up uninjured.

On another occasion, doing the same, I ran into a cyclist. He was a little more hurt than me, having slightly further to fall and more momentum.

I'd hate to be run into by a cyclist doing 50kph, though - even if he + bike and belongings only weigh 120kg. I think we'd both be injured; but I think he'd probably be worse off because of his momentum.

We all share the road, and we all have to be tolerant and careful. And obey the ROTR. Imagine how different Dublin would be if everyone stopped at an amber light. Or stopped shouting at each other. A bit of patience wouldn't go astray. Road users - and I'm including pedestrians - are of all abilities and ages and still have an equal right to be there.

magicbastarder

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I'd hate to be run into by a cyclist doing 50kph, though - even if he + bike and belongings only weigh 120kg.

50kph would be an unusually high speed for a cyclist in an urban situation - it's probably at the upper limit of what most commuters would manage in an intense burst. even 30kph would be considered a reasonable clip for an urban situation. but that's still plenty fast enough to do damage if you hit a stationary object. i'd know, i once cycled into the back of a taxi and my gps had me registered at 30kph to zero close to instantly. and it hurt.

Cookie_Monster

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've seen reports that it's generally accepted that the health benefits from cycling outweigh the health risks by a factor of 10, or even 20 in some reports.

there's no way the government is going to induce people to give up exercise in favour of a taxation regime which would probably cost as much to administer as it would raise.

Government don't think like that and certainly not the Irish bureaucracy...

Typical example, it's been proven mandatory helmet use reduces cycling numbers and therefore increase all the above mentioned health risks and health costs while reducing the benefits to the population as a whole yet some countries do it anyway.

cournioni

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.

Yeah you do, but plenty of cyclists don't obey any rules of the road...

opti0nal

cournioni wrote: »

Yeah you do, but plenty of cyclists don't obey any rules of the road...

78% of motorists break urban speed limits.

Clearly, this must be the highest priority.

Speed is key, reduce it and reaction times improve, thus avoiding collisions. If collisions happen, the severity of the impact is lessened at lower speeds.

cournioni

opti0nal wrote: »

78% of motorists break urban speed limits.

Clearly, this must be the highest priority.

Speed is key, reduce it and reaction times improve, thus avoiding collisions. If collisions happen, the severity of the impact is lessened at lower speeds.

Yeah, just as dangerous as breaking red lights and cycling on footpaths knocking people over. At least motorists stick to the road.

SerialComplaint

cournioni wrote: »

Yeah, just as dangerous as breaking red lights and cycling on footpaths knocking people over. At least motorists stick to the road.

How many pedestrians and cyclists get killed by motorists each year? Compared to how many pedestrians get killed by cyclists on pavements?

Spook_ie

SerialComplaint wrote: »

How many pedestrians and cyclists get killed by motorists each year? Compared to how many pedestrians get killed by cyclists on pavements?

How many get killed/injured/scared by cyclists not yielding to pedestrians, as the figures aren't ( don't seem to be logged anywhere ) available we'll have to go by anecdotal evidence, which seems to point to the fact that cyclists are a load of unruly, law unto themselves thugs that think they are a cut above other road users because " We are cyclists and we matter more than other road users"

AltAccount

Spook_ie wrote: »

...which seems to point to the fact that cyclists are a load of unruly, law unto themselves thugs that think they are a cut above other road users because " We are cyclists and we matter more than other road users"

So sayeth the taxi driver...

Spook_ie

AltAccount wrote: »

So sayeth the taxi driver...

Yep but unlike cyclists if I were doing things like that and get caught or involved in an accident I have
a A license to be endorsed/suspended ( smug bit...yep it's clean! keeps fingers crossed to avoid tempting fate )
b Insurance

humbert

Spook_ie wrote: »

How many get killed/injured/scared by cyclists not yielding to pedestrians, as the figures aren't ( don't seem to be logged anywhere ) available we'll have to go by anecdotal evidence, which seems to point to the fact that cyclists are a load of unruly, law unto themselves thugs that think they are a cut above other road users because " We are cyclists and we matter more than other road users"

Actually the lack of data means that you can't say anything substantive. You've then just appended your own daft opinion which is amusingly consistent with the crap you'd expect from a stereotypical taxi driver.

BostonB

mitosis wrote: »

Which is just as likely to be down to the good driving skills of the motorists who manage to anticipate and avoid.

Maybe the reason there is only a small number of cyclist fatalities is not because the cyclists are not doing something endangering, but that motorists have adapted to expect them to behave recklessly.

The flaw in your logic is that all the stats and research indicates that motorists are at fault in the majority of cases, so good driving skills doesn't explain that.

mitosis wrote: »

The motorist is always at fault in a collision with a cyclist because she is supposed to expect the unexpected and react accordingly, because of the two, she is the one with training. Even when clearly not to blame, she is at fault. Like when a bike comes up the inside of a large vehicle at a left turn.

The research and stats don't say drivers are always at fault. So thats flawed also. It does find that cyclists can be at fault.

BostonB

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yeah, which is why I said that perhaps it's time that accidents involving cyclists were treated the same way as accidents involving motor vehicles, if there is an injury then the Gardai are required to be informed and the accident logged....

You have a problem with that?

Considering the whole thread is about the lack of enforcement of existing laws, I don't really see why adding more laws will change that.

BostonB

charlietheminxx wrote: »

...But let me just put this out here. To everyone who has dismissed suggestions for cycle hemets, hi-vis gear, cycle tax, gardai enforcing the rules of the road for cyclists and whatever else has been suggested.... What do you suggest?...

I suggest people read up on the subject before making suggestions that have been already tried and failed in other countries. Lots of information is in the thread, people just don't want to read it.

The Gardai should be enforcing the rules of the road for everyone. That shouldn't need a campaign, it should be normal business for them.

A cop positioned at any busy junction in Dublin would make a fortune in fines from cars and bicycles any morning of the week. But no fear of enforcement, mean people don't obey the rules.

opti0nal

cournioni wrote: »

Yeah, just as dangerous as breaking red lights and cycling on footpaths knocking people over. At least motorists stick to the road.

....only when they're not parking on the footpath or driving in cycle lanes.

How can you say that cyclists breaking read lights are 'just as dangerous'? That's simply not true. The facts say otherwise.

It's time for motorists to move from denial and accept the need for change.

AltAccount

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yep but unlike cyclists if I were doing things like that and get caught or involved in an accident I have
a A license to be endorsed/suspended ( smug bit...yep it's clean! keeps fingers crossed to avoid tempting fate )
b Insurance

How does any of that relate to or explain your Thugs rant?

washiskin

Ok, I have one - happened just last night in fact.

I was heading into town at around 9.20pm and had taken Whitworth Rd.. The lights at the junction of Drumcondra Rd / Dorset St are set back a few meters so that Busses etc. can swing around the left turn safely; the lights change and I'm moving forward and had just reached the centre of the left lane when out of the corner of my eye I spot this feckin' moron on a white mountain bike hurtling towards me from Binns Bridge - through the red light. He had to brake so hard that the back of the bike practically wrapped itself around his neck. No lights, no helmet and a hoodie over his head so he had no hope of seeing the traffic on either side of him either.
Now there would have been quite a pause between the lights on Drm Rd / Dor St. turning red & me reaching the centre of the lane because of the way the junction is and I would have been going no more that 10-15kmph and but he paid no heed to the red lights & kept on going.
I would have loved to hear his explaination for nearly ending up in the rear driver's side door and if he had hit me....well I reckon he would have seriously injured himself, if not worse.

cournioni

opti0nal wrote: »

....only when they're not parking on the footpath or driving in cycle lanes.

How can you say that cyclists breaking read lights are 'just as dangerous'? That's simply not true. The facts say otherwise.

It's time for motorists to move from denial and accept the need for change.

Bull****, I can think of two people straight off hand that have been injured by cyclists on the footpath where there wasn't any cars parked in the cycle lanes, one ran into the back of my girlfriends calf, and the other that knocked my grandmother over which left her with a leg injury that she hasn't been able to fully recover from since.

It is every bit as dangerous when cyclists break red lights and knock pedestrians over! You very rarely see motorists at it, yet you almost always see cyclists breaking red lights where pedestrians have the right of way.

cournioni

... and another thing. The amount of bikes that I have seen recently coming in the wrong direction or on my side of the road is just as dangerous. If I hit the cyclist, it is not only their life ruined, but mine too. So cyclists, cop on, get those chips off your shoulder and start obeying some rules.

steve9859

washiskin wrote: »

Ok, I have one - happened just last night in fact.

I was heading into town at around 9.20pm and had taken Whitworth Rd.. The lights at the junction of Drumcondra Rd / Dorset St are set back a few meters so that Busses etc. can swing around the left turn safely; the lights change and I'm moving forward and had just reached the centre of the left lane when out of the corner of my eye I spot this feckin' moron on a white mountain bike hurtling towards me from Binns Bridge - through the red light. He had to brake so hard that the back of the bike practically wrapped itself around his neck. No lights, no helmet and a hoodie over his head so he had no hope of seeing the traffic on either side of him either.
Now there would have been quite a pause between the lights on Drm Rd / Dor St. turning red & me reaching the centre of the lane because of the way the junction is and I would have been going no more that 10-15kmph and but he paid no heed to the red lights & kept on going.
I would have loved to hear his explaination for nearly ending up in the rear driver's side door and if he had hit me....well I reckon he would have seriously injured himself, if not worse.

Yet another 'this thing happened to me the other day and therefore all cyclists are ****s' post.

magicbastarder

BostonB wrote: »

A cop positioned at any busy junction in Dublin would make a fortune in fines from cars and bicycles any morning of the week. But no fear of enforcement, mean people don't obey the rules.

and jaywalking? you'd be happy to be fined for jaywalking?

Canis Lupus

cournioni wrote: »

Bull****, I can think of two people straight off hand that have been injured by cyclists on the footpath where there wasn't any cars parked in the cycle lanes, one ran into the back of my girlfriends calf, and the other that knocked my grandmother over which left her with a leg injury that she hasn't been able to fully recover from since.

It is every bit as dangerous when cyclists break red lights and knock pedestrians over! You very rarely see motorists at it, yet you almost always see cyclists breaking red lights where pedestrians have the right of way.

I can't think of any, maybe they're exceptions?

As I've said previously in this thread it's legal here in Queensland, Australia to cycle on footpaths and everyone seems to get on just fine. There aren't pedestrians strewn in the gutter all over the place from cyclists mowing them down.

I ultimately get your point that it's currently illegal to do it in Ireland but out of all the complaints people level at cyclists I never quite understand the footpath one.

seamus

cournioni wrote: »

get those chips off your shoulder

The irony.