Gardi to tackle cycle menaces

Gambas

fedor.2. wrote: »

Ya, never mind the gang war thats going on in dublin, lets get the cyclists

Yeah, lets ignore everything else and just get the gangs.

cournioni

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

I can't find any Irish statistics, but certainly in the UK a pedestrian on the footpath is over 100x more likely to be killed by a car than a bike.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two people mown down on the footpath next to the Malahide Road. No one seems to be able to come up with a single Irish case of pedestrian killed by cyclist on the footpath (or, indeed, at all).

If a car is driven on a footpath and it is witnessed by Gardai, you can bet your arse that the driver will be prosecuted. The same cannot be said for cyclists who can potentially seriously injure a pedestrian. This thread is about cyclists, not motorists.

Undercover Elephant

cournioni wrote: »

If a car is driven on a footpath and it is witnessed by Gardai, you can bet your arse that the driver will be prosecuted.

That is untrue. I reported one last month. Driver cautioned; no prosecution.

The same cannot be said for cyclists who can potentially seriously injure a pedestrian. This thread is about cyclists, not motorists.

This thread is about a supposed Garda crackdown on supposedly dangerous cyclists. I think it is reasonable to point out that the behaviour being complained about is not as dangerous as it is made out to be, and that resources can be used more effectively.

reprazant

cournioni wrote: »

This thread is about cyclists, not motorists.

So you can use claims about motorist to back up your statements, but if anyone shows the fallacy of these claims then the thread reverts back to only being about cyclist and nobody else?

monument

cournioni wrote: »

If a car is driven on a footpath and it is witnessed by Gardai, you can bet your arse that the driver will be prosecuted. The same cannot be said for cyclists who can potentially seriously injure a pedestrian. This thread is about cyclists, not motorists.

Rolling around laughing at that one!

Seriously, what part of the country do you live in where cars parked on footpaths isn't an issue which is out of control and hardly ever policed?

You're also not dealing with his point: Cars which crash end up on the footpath all the time and sadly kill people who think they were safely walking along.

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

I can't find any Irish statistics, but certainly in the UK a pedestrian on the footpath is over 100x more likely to be killed by a car than a bike.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two people mown down on the footpath next to the Malahide Road*. No one seems to be able to come up with a single Irish case of pedestrian killed by cyclist on the footpath (or, indeed, at all).


EDIT - actually five mown down, in an incident in November 2009. One killed, one seriously injured, two with minor injuries, one unharmed.

Good point:

Even when motorists crash one the road there's high chance that they'll end up on the footpath and there's a load of case of people getting killed by cars on the footpath.

seamus

cournioni wrote: »

Very good seamus, a two word retort. How about being constructive and actually coming up with some suggestions of how to solve the problem of "cycle menaces" as the thread title suggests.

Nobody has yet convinced me that there is such a problem. Or at least that any new problem exists which is specific to cyclists.

Some road users break the law. That's the problem. The solution is to enforce it. Job done.

What I actually regard to be a bigger problem is the massive level of anger some people seem to have pent up and are willing to release against people who have never done anything against them.
That's the actions of someone with psychological issues.

desertcircus

cournioni wrote: »

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

I can't find any Irish statistics, but certainly in the UK a pedestrian on the footpath is over 100x more likely to be killed by a car than a bike.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two people mown down on the footpath next to the Malahide Road. No one seems to be able to come up with a single Irish case of pedestrian killed by cyclist on the footpath (or, indeed, at all).

If a car is driven on a footpath and it is witnessed by Gardai, you can bet your arse that the driver will be prosecuted. The same cannot be said for cyclists who can potentially seriously injure a pedestrian. This thread is about cyclists, not motorists.

A car is twenty times the weight and twice the speed, and is pretty much guaranteed to hit any pedestrian on a path anything less than ten feet wide. In addition, the closed nature and weight of a car means that almost all the energy in a collision is borne by the pedestrian, while a cyclist will be thrown off their bike and take nearly half the force of the hit. A thread about the dangers cyclists present is meaningless without a discussion of related dangers - like cars.

cournioni

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

That is untrue. I reported one last month. Driver cautioned; no prosecution.


This thread is about a supposed Garda crackdown on supposedly dangerous cyclists. I think it is reasonable to point out that the behaviour being complained about is not as dangerous as it is made out to be, and that resources can be used more effectively.

You were right to, well at least they were dealt with. If a cyclist had been reported the Gardai would have laughed at you.

So you're saying that knocking pedestrians down, going through red lights and cycling the wrong way up one or two way streets isn't dangerous? Fantastic.

Undercover Elephant

cournioni wrote: »

So you're saying that knocking pedestrians down, going through red lights and cycling the wrong way up one or two way streets isn't dangerous? Fantastic.

Honestly, is my writing that bad, that you could read this into it?

cournioni

seamus wrote: »

Nobody has yet convinced me that there is such a problem. Or at least that any new problem exists which is specific to cyclists.

Some road users break the law. That's the problem. The solution is to enforce it. Job done.

What I actually regard to be a bigger problem is the massive level of anger some people seem to have pent up and are willing to release against people who have never done anything against them.
That's the actions of someone with psychological issues.

Well having two people close to me injured by cyclists, one of them elderly with permanent injuries, you should understand why I think Gardai need to be enforcing the rules with cyclists.

Add that to the arrogance and complete disrespect of other road and footpath users by some cyclists coupled with the lack of enforcement by Gardai. I have to say that I can see why people have anger towards them also, but I don't think it is any worse than the anger thrown towards drivers or pedestrians.

cournioni

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

Honestly, is my writing that bad, that you could read this into it?

You're saying that cyclists breaking the rules aren't as dangerous as they're made out to be. This is complete bull as I've pointed out in my last post.

You are also saying that resources can be used more effectively... Like how?! The rules of the road need to be enforced collectively, for all road and footpath users, otherwise more people will be hurt and killed. This is currently not the case for cyclists as the thread title suggests.

magicbastarder

it's a worthwhile point to take the reductio ad absurdum route, and point out that if all motorists were to start cycling instead, the fatality rate would fall to near zero, but if all cyclists were to start driving, the fatality rate would possibly go up (the increased deaths due to more cars on the road potentially offset by fewer cyclists being killed!)

cournioni

monument wrote: »

Rolling around laughing at that one!

Seriously, what part of the country do you live in where cars parked on footpaths isn't an issue which is out of control and hardly ever policed?

You're also not dealing with his point: Cars which crash end up on the footpath all the time and sadly kill people who think they were safely walking along.

I'm not talking about parked anything, I'm talking about cyclists cycling on footpaths. If a car drove on a footpath, the Gardai would take action, the same cannot be said for cyclists at present. Cyclists cycling on a footpath pose a huge danger to pedestrians.

Cars that end up crashing on a footpath and killing somebody will be dealt with by the law. Nothing is being done about cyclists injuring or potentially people on footpaths. That is my point.

chickendinner

Not looking through 28 pages to see if it is a repost

This video will the be the only outcome of this new Gardai protocol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ

cournioni

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's a worthwhile point to take the reductio ad absurdum route, and point out that if all motorists were to start cycling instead, the fatality rate would fall to near zero, but if all cyclists were to start driving, the fatality rate would possibly go up (the increased deaths due to more cars on the road potentially offset by fewer cyclists being killed!)

... and the numbers for serious injuries to pedestrians inflicted by cyclists?

seamus

cournioni wrote: »

Well having two people close to me injured by cyclists, one of them elderly with permanent injuries, you should understand why I think Gardai need to be enforcing the rules with cyclists.

I don't disagree. I don't know anyone who's ever been injured by a cyclist, but also I think that the rules need to be enforced.

The thing I'm wondering about is why this even needs to be said. It's all anger directed towards cyclists, when surely the anger should be with the Gardai who don't enforce the rules? Human beings are inherently selfish. People break the rules that they can get away with breaking. If there's a problem with people breaking the rules, then the problem is not people, the problem is the enforcement.

I don't think it is any worse than the anger thrown towards drivers or pedestrians.

When's the last time there was a 400-post thread on After Hours about the scourge of pedestrians or about how car drivers should go play with their toys somewhere else and leave the roads to the rest of us?

There hasn't been, because some people seem to think that every cyclist is in cahoots with every other cyclist and it's all a grand conspiracy to screw over the guy in his car. It's arrogance of people (not just motorists it has to be said) who seem to feel that they are somehow better people because they don't cycle, that gets me.

magicbastarder

cournioni wrote: »

... and the numbers for serious injuries to pedestrians inflicted by cyclists?

hard to say. if there were no cars on the road, there would be less cause to cycle on footpaths.

Undercover Elephant

cournioni wrote: »

You're saying that cyclists breaking the rules aren't as dangerous as they're made out to be. This is complete bull as I've pointed out in my last post.

No, what you've done is drawn a target around your own set of statistics.

I know two people who have been shot (and one killed) by police marksmen. That statistic, on its own, is largely meaningless. It does not imply that we are at a particularly great risk of being shot by police marksmen.

None of this in any way excuses cycling on the footpath, and I hope the cyclists who injured your friends / relatives had the book thrown at them.

You are also saying that resources can be used more effectively... Like how?! The rules of the road need to be enforced collectively, for all road and footpath users, otherwise more people will be hurt and killed. This is currently not the case for cyclists as the thread title suggests.

Where do you get this idea that law enforcement is (disproportionately) not applied to cyclists?

As to the thread title, read the second paragraph of the article. Cracking down on cyclists is part of the "casualty reduction plan". The clear implication is that it will reduce casualties. It will do no such thing. Rather, it will divert resources away from dealing with what actually causes the casualties.

Undercover Elephant

cournioni wrote: »

I'm not talking about parked anything, I'm talking about cyclists cycling on footpaths. If a car drove on a footpath, the Gardai would take action, the same cannot be said for cyclists at present.

How do you park on a footpath without driving on it?

cournioni

seamus wrote: »

I don't disagree. I don't know anyone who's ever been injured by a cyclist, but also I think that the rules need to be enforced.

The thing I'm wondering about is why this even needs to be said. It's all anger directed towards cyclists, when surely the anger should be with the Gardai who don't enforce the rules? Human beings are inherently selfish. People break the rules that they can get away with breaking. If there's a problem with people breaking the rules, then the problem is not people, the problem is the enforcement.

When's the last time there was a 400-post thread on After Hours about the scourge of pedestrians or about how car drivers should go play with their toys somewhere else and leave the roads to the rest of us?

There hasn't been, because some people seem to think that every cyclist is in cahoots with every other cyclist and it's all a grand conspiracy to screw over the guy in his car. It's arrogance of people (not just motorists it has to be said) who seem to feel that they are somehow better people because they don't cycle, that gets me.

I totally agree. I also think that a lot of the anger may come from cyclists denial of any wrong doing and siege mentality among cyclists as you can see from this thread. Not saying that motorists are angels, just pointing out what I see as the problem with cyclists.

seamus

cournioni wrote: »

siege mentality among cyclists

Which is surely understandable when posts like your last one make general sweeping statements like "the problem with cyclists"

The reason it becomes a sticking point is not because I want to defend all cyclists, but because I want to defend myself and not be lumped into the same category as the skanger who cycles wherever he likes and shouts abuse at anyone who dares challenge him.

Any phrase that begins with "all cyclists", is as irritating and pointlessly inflammatory as "All Irish people are...".

BostonB

cournioni wrote: »

I totally agree. I also think that a lot of the anger may come from cyclists denial of any wrong doing and siege mentality among cyclists as you can see from this thread. Not saying that motorists are angels, just pointing out what I see as the problem with cyclists.

Thats simply wrong. Theres lot of cyclists on this thread pointing out the issues with cyclists who don't obey the law and all for enforcement of it. The main issue people have with all this, is an grossly disproportional of the focus on the cyclists, who aren't the main cause of these accidents.

At this point it suggests people are deliberately ignoring the known facts and statistics simply to have an irrational rant.

BeanBeanGreen

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"

Here's a video of Serialcomplaint in action!!!

magicbastarder

what's he doing wrong in that video?

BostonB

cournioni wrote: »

Well having two people close to me injured by cyclists, one of them elderly with permanent injuries, you should understand why I think Gardai need to be enforcing the rules with cyclists.

Most are not disputing that accidents are caused by cyclists. Just they are very low in number relative to the attention cyclists get, or the main causes of accidents.

cournioni wrote: »

... but I don't think it is any worse than the anger thrown towards drivers or pedestrians.

If you notice these stories are about a number of different groups of road uses. Yet almost all the comments, the headlines, are about the cyclists. This thread is a perfect example. Why did this need a thread. Cyclist aren't the cause of the majority of these accidents.

Ye are buying a biased and badly researched, written, article hook line and sinker. Which is why they wrote it like that. It doesn't matter if its true, it just matters if its popular.

humbert

magicbastarder wrote: »

what's he doing wrong in that video?

In that situation, technically, he should yield. A car would yield because most drivers are reluctant to murder pedestrians whereas a cyclist can avoid the pedestrian (and actually telling the pedestrian to be more careful, while unsolicited advice, may be no harm). However some posters will suggest that drivers are more responsible, because they stop.

BeanBeanGreen

magicbastarder wrote: »

what's he doing wrong in that video?

The pedestrian was continuing on a straight trajectory, while the cyclist was making a turn at the junction, so really the cyclist should have yielded. From ROTR "To avoid doubt and in the interest of road safety a vehicle should always yield to pedestrians"

magicbastarder

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?

reprazant

What is you obsession with Serialcomplaint?

You have gone to a whole lot of effort to make him look bad.

cournioni

seamus wrote: »

Which is surely understandable when posts like your last one make general sweeping statements like "the problem with cyclists"

The reason it becomes a sticking point is not because I want to defend all cyclists, but because I want to defend myself and not be lumped into the same category as the skanger who cycles wherever he likes and shouts abuse at anyone who dares challenge him.

Any phrase that begins with "all cyclists", is as irritating and pointlessly inflammatory as "All Irish people are...".

Apologies, I'm at work, so don't expect my writing on here to be word for word perfect, of course I don't mean to generalise. It would be daft to suggest that any group of people are clones and that every aspect of their personality are the same.

seamus

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?

Actually the law requires that when you make a turn from one road onto another, you must yield to any pedestrians already crossing that road.
In the video above, without a 3rd party perspective it's impossible to make a call on it as it's not clear whether the cyclist was already turning before the pedestrian started crossing, and the lack of any observation on the part of the pedestrian before stepping onto the road also puts him in equal breach of the law.

cournioni

BostonB wrote: »

Most are not disputing that accidents are caused by cyclists. Just they are very low in number relative to the attention cyclists get, or the main causes of accidents.



If you notice these stories are about a number of different groups of road uses. Yet almost all the comments, the headlines, are about the cyclists. This thread is a perfect example. Why did this need a thread. Cyclist aren't the cause of the majority of these accidents.

Ye are buying a biased and badly researched, written, article hook line and sinker. Which is why they wrote it like that. It doesn't matter if its true, it just matters if its popular.

I disagree, there are lots of threads about motorists breaking rules etc. I believe there was one recently about young male drivers that received a lot of attention.

Korvanica

reprazant wrote: »

What is you obsession with Serialcomplaint?

You have gone to a whole lot of effort to make him look bad.

I'd like to know this aswell. I asked earlier in the thread but it was ignored.

Which one of Serials videos do you feature in "Mr 4 Posts BeanBeanGreen account set up to target a single individual"

magicbastarder

seamus wrote: »

Actually the law requires that when you make a turn from one road onto another, you must yield to any pedestrians already crossing that road.

that's fair enough - but i was of a similar opinion to you that if the cyclist was already making the turn, he'd have ROW.

BostonB

cournioni wrote: »

I disagree, there are lots of threads about motorists breaking rules etc. I believe there was one recently about young male drivers that received a lot of attention.

The difference is they are usually in broadly in line with statistics or research.

With cyclists they doing the exact opposite of what the research and statistics would suggest.

That is the main point that is being made.

BeanBeanGreen

reprazant wrote: »

What is you obsession with Serialcomplaint?

You have gone to a whole lot of effort to make him look bad.

Because he is the personification of the arrogant self-righteous cyclist stereotype. I have't made him look bad - he did this himself. His videos are a catalogue of, amongst other things: refusing to use provided cycle tracks just to make some obscure point, stopping in yellow boxes when the exit route is not clear, not stopping at stop signs, cycling in the middle of the road for no other reason than to provoke a confrontation, speeding towards hazards like a lunatic, not yielding to pedestrians, aggressively confronting and intimidating motorists including lone females, posting videos of people on youtube accusing them of illegal/irresponsible road use (when usually he has caused the problem), poor road etiquette, having a total lack of anything resembling common sense, refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing on his own part, demonstrating an irrational hatred of Gardai and Taxi drivers (in fact motorists in general).

One or two of these things by themselves might be forgivable - a genuine error or misjudgment. But he seems to be on some illogical-paranoid crusade against other road users. He accuses others of dangerous road use while clearly being a dangerous road user himself - so he's a hypocrite. And he's also a coward, posting up other peoples faces and reg numbers but safe behind the keyboard himself. He seems like an accident waiting to happen.

I've no problem with road users (or other people posting here on Boards) once they act in a reasonable, safe, and courteous manner. Correct me if Im wrong, but you seem slightly hostile to me criticizing serialcomplaints cycling. It's not an issue of motorists vs cyclists or anything. At the end of the day, its between safe road users vs dangerous/irresponsible road users. Why anyone would choose to defend his behaviours on the roads is beyond me...

Im not in any of his videos btw (in reply to Korvanica)

reprazant

I'm not hostile to you criticising him. I am curious as to what he did to offend you so much that you felt the need to create a youtube account containing numerous videos showing him in a bad light and then to create a boards account with the sole intention of posting links to these videos.

I find it pretty sad, petty and pretty vindictive. Each to their own though I guess.

Spook_ie

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Do you drive with blinkers on? You seem to only see faults relating to one particular group of road users.

Considering the thread title

Gardi to tackle cycle menaces

Why would I bring in other roadusers. Gardai already run campaigns on a regular basis to target other road users

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

Motorists stick to the road?! :eek:

AGAIN: Where you live must be different to the rest of Ireland where motorists parking on footpaths is rampant.

Not condoning it but ever thought that the reason they park on footpaths is to allow traffic ( including bikes ) to have more room on the road.

No I am not saying parking on footpaths is a good thing

Skrynesaver

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

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.

One last time, for the hard of thinking, the reason I don't use the shared facility from Finglas down to the Tolka valley is because I am going too fast and do not want to injure myself or other road users... It is the only cycling regulation I break and I break it because it's patently absurd.

BostonB

Spook_ie wrote: »

Considering the thread title

Why would I bring in other roadusers. Gardai already run campaigns on a regular basis to target other road users

Isn't that the point? Most of the focus is on cyclists when this campaign isn't about just cyclists.

some 76 per cent of those killed or seriously injured were defined as “vulnerable road users” such as pedestrians, cyclists and motorbikers;

Also its debatable if it makes any sense to group cyclists with those other groups. Its seems probably its done to provide a justification to target cyclists. As there's little case for it, if you look at cycling statistics on their own.

Spook_ie

BostonB wrote: »

Isn't that the point? Most of the focus is on cyclists when this campaign isn't about just cyclists.



Also its debatable if it makes any sense to group cyclists with those other groups. Its seems probably its done to provide a justification to target cyclists. As there's little case for it, if you look at cycling statistics on their own.

Other road users are targetted on a regular basis, HGV's, Car Drivers, Van Drivers, Taxi Drivers etc. I cannot see any reason why cyclists shouldn't be targetted in similar campaigns aimed at their shortcomings and their general flagrant disregard of traffic law

monument

cournioni wrote: »

I'm not talking about parked anything, I'm talking about cyclists cycling on footpaths. If a car drove on a footpath, the Gardai would take action, the same cannot be said for cyclists at present. Cyclists cycling on a footpath pose a huge danger to pedestrians.

Cars that end up crashing on a footpath and killing somebody will be dealt with by the law. Nothing is being done about cyclists injuring or potentially people on footpaths. That is my point.

How do you park a car on a footpath without driving on it? :pac:

Spending six months with walking a pram as my most used mode of transport cars parked on or driving up on footpaths was a much larger problem than cyclists on footpaths.

Same goes for red lights -- cyclists were annoying but overall cars and vans breaking red lights were much more annoying.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not condoning it but ever thought that the reason they park on footpaths is to allow traffic ( including bikes ) to have more room on the road.

No I am not saying parking on footpaths is a good thing

That looks like condoning to me. What else are you doing?

Footpaths are not for cars to park on or for cyclists to cycle on. It's as simple as that.

BostonB

Spook_ie wrote: »

Other road users are targetted on a regular basis, HGV's, Car Drivers, Van Drivers, Taxi Drivers etc. I cannot see any reason why cyclists shouldn't be targetted in similar campaigns aimed at their shortcomings and their general flagrant disregard of traffic law

Target them for disregard of traffic law that make good sense. Red lights etc. Using lights etc, staying off paths with pedestrians. I don't think many would argue against that.

Unfortunately some of the laws are not fit for purpose, and may indeed encourage unsafe cycling, like forcing cyclists into unsuitable cycle lanes or on to less safe routes.

BostonB

Be interesting to see how they enforce this one.

pedestrians who cross roads at unofficial crossing points should also prepare for a Garda interview and possible prosecution.

monument

BostonB wrote: »

Be interesting to see how they enforce this one.

It will be given that there's no law against crossing a road once you're 15 meters away from a crossings.

Undercover Elephant

BostonB wrote: »

Be interesting to see how they enforce this one.

I think it's high time that pedestrians are made to wear some kind of identifying number on hi-viz vests, or perhaps a QR code so that infringers can be readily identified by cameras.

BostonB

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

I think it's high time that pedestrians are made to wear some kind of identifying number on hi-viz vests, or perhaps a QR code so that infringers can be readily identified by cameras.

..and made to pay road/motor/pavement tax.

They can put the number on their mandatory helmets.

SerialComplaint

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why would I bring in other roadusers. Gardai already run campaigns on a regular basis to target other road users

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

RustyNut

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

I think it's high time that pedestrians are made to wear some kind of identifying number on hi-viz vests, or perhaps a QR code so that infringers can be readily identified by cameras.

Winner.