Fixed Penalty Notices for Cycling by end of year

buffalo

Diarmuid wrote: »

And to top it off, here's a quality article by Tina. http://www.image.ie/Life-Work/Rant/Spandex-Bums/

Why, why did you have to link that? Full of far too many contradictions and outright inaccuracies... I just want to throttle her. Motorbikers are great because they've only got armoured leather between them and sudden death, yet the cyclist in nothing but lycra gets no love?

check_six

Diarmuid wrote: »

I had the misfortune of hearing Tina Koumarianos the social editor of Image Magazine who was on Radio 1, on the John Murray show (Miriam really). this morning. I'd recommend giving it a listen when it here (6 minutes in http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A10164788%3A4502%3A18%2D07%2D2013%3A)

Among things, she complained about being forced to perform dangerous overtaking maneuvers that only affect those living "down the country" (ie working in Dublin, living in Wicklow). She called cyclists arrogant, which is rich from someone complaining about being held up for 20 seconds.

But the best part was calling cyclists "good organ donars" and that everybody (in cars) "say to each other 'I felt like running them off the road'" A real classy woman. Naturally Miriam didn't challenge her.

I think Miriam wanted to talk about the fines for jumping lights but Tina didn't seem to be too interested. She wanted fines for riding 2 abreast, I guess there are no RLJs in Rathdrum

And to top it off, here's a quality article by Tina. http://www.image.ie/Life-Work/Rant/Spandex-Bums/

In that article I ticked off: "Road Tax", cycling two abreast, forced to overtake on a blind corner, number plates for bikes, cycling license test, drivers pay to use the road and cylists don't, and a weird rant about the dangers of bike trailers.

Should I shout "Bingo!", or "house!", or what?

Should I send an email reminding the writer to include footpads, hi-vis, and helmets for her next article?

Lumen

Who would have thought that a "Social Editor / Agony Aunt" could be such a mouth-breathing moron?

I'm shocked.

Jawgap

Tina's twitter image......



I'd be inclined to take her more seriously if she didn't look like she'd just headbutted and freshly painted wall........

creativedrinker

I do a cycle everyday about north county dublin, Balbriggan/lusk/rush/skerries. Each day I'm either over taken by a car who decides he wants to pull in or turn left 100m's up the road, Overtaken by bus eireann or dublin bus with under a foot in the distance between us where u can feel the air throwing u off course, or a car overtaking me very closley on a blind corner yet they want to do cyclists for "overtaking in a dangerous situation" :eek::eek::eek:

This country never ceases to amaze me!!

you would think they would go after people on their phones and other driving offences, and ban guards using phones too, a blutooth headset is very cheap these days!! and teach people how to drive aswell while their at it!

wil

Invincible wrote:

Cycling near Kilmacud last Saturday I noticed the disregard motorists have on cycling lanes, parking in them, forcing cyclists to dismount or head onto road.

average_runner wrote: »

Unless no parking sign up they can park there, stupid i know

You sure about that?
I thought the law (from memory) was unbroken line cycle lanes operate 24 hours unless otherwise signposted.
Broken line cycle lanes operate during typical bus lane hours as usually signposted.
And during the operating hours cars may not park there or drive in them.

What happens in practice is very much the opposite with cars regularly using them for undertaking, parking.
There was supposed to be points for these offences but I have never seen any aspect of these laws enforced even in some particularly hazardous situations.:(

As for red lights and that thorny issue, there should be a review of how these apply to cyclists as there are situations at some lights where cyclists are safer to traverse the stop line.
Separately, in the US they have "turn right on red" rules where cars can turn right through a red light in safe circumstances.
A similar rule for cyclists turning left on red (but giving absolute priority to pedestrians) would be a sensible one.
I still wouldn't trust cars to give priority to pedestrians when they can't even do that at pedestrian crossings right now.

grodge

ashleey wrote: »

Do they pay road tax?

it's car tax, not road tax

Jawgap

grodge wrote: »

it's car tax, not road tax

it's motor tax......

actually it's just tax - it all disappears into the same pot.

Gerry T

grodge wrote: »

it's car tax, not road tax

Well that's a little misleading. If the car is not on public roads (private land for example) then you don't have to pay a car tax. Or if you take the car off the public road there is a process for suspending the car tax payment.

It is effectively a tax to put a car (vehicle) onto a public road---its a road tax.
The idea was the money collected would go towards road maintenance, it doesn't so you won't get a politician saying it is, as they would know they would be on for a hiding.

Lumen

Gerry T wrote: »

Well that's a little misleading. If the car is not on public roads (private land for example) then you don't have to pay a car tax. Or if you take the car off the public road there is a process for suspending the car tax payment.

It is effectively a tax to put a car (vehicle) onto a public road---its a road tax.
The idea was the money collected would go towards road maintenance, it doesn't so you won't get a politician saying it is, as they would know they would be on for a hiding.

So in summary:

- The money doesn't get spent on the roads
- It doesn't apply to all road users
- It's called "motor tax".
- But it's a road tax.

Riiiiight.

grodge

Jawgap wrote: »

it's motor tax......

actually it's just tax - it all disappears into the same pot.

tell me more about the location of this said pot

RV

Jawgap wrote: »

I doubt even the thickest, most bogger Guard ....

I think that's just needlessly offensive to AGS.

DirkVoodoo

After seeing that photo her rant suddenly makes sense to me.

How on Earth does someone like that manage to get behind the wheel of a car? I mean, if I was a member of a gun club and started going on about how much I hate my neighbours and I'd love to blow their heads off before having a stand-off with the police, I'd probably have my gun taken off me.

But somehow she can get on the radio and demonstrate her complete dislike of a group she has a duty of care to on the roads, call them "organ donors" and nothing happens.

I think the hair dye might have killed off most of her brain cells, so I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and just assume she is thick as a plank.

wil

grodge wrote: »

tell me more about the location of this said pot

Its a hole.
Anyway who cares what its called, if you have a motorised vehicle, you have to pay a tax with some arbitrary name on it. Cars require a lot of infrastructure, are environmentally detrimental and constitute a measurable risk to life and limb.

Fixed penalty notices on cyclists is effectively another tax as is clamping cars in many instances (out of the mouth of a clamper).
Its a tax on a behaviour deemed to be undesirable or chargeable.

Gerry T

Lumen wrote: »

So in summary:

- The money doesn't get spent on the roads
- It doesn't apply to all road users
- It's called "motor tax".
- But it's a road tax.

Riiiiight.

-It should be spent on the roads.
-I think it applies to all motor vehicle road users, maybe there are some special exemptions but I'm not sure. Ok if you cycle you don't pay, how would you administer that--give bike lisences and have bike check points !!! so bikes don't pay tax-generally they don't damage the road.
-Its a tax for motor vehicles that use public roads, if its a car tax, why would people with cars on private land not pay ?
- You have to be on a public road to pay the tax, so if its a motor tax, what's it for ?

Dowee

Gerry T wrote: »

-It should be spent on the roads.
-I think it applies to all motor vehicle road users, maybe there are some special exemptions but I'm not sure. Ok if you cycle you don't pay, how would you administer that--give bike lisences and have bike check points !!! so bikes don't pay tax-generally they don't damage the road.
-Its a tax for motor vehicles that use public roads, if its a car tax, why would people with cars on private land not pay ?
- You have to be on a public road to pay the tax, so if its a motor tax, what's it for ?

I hope you're sitting down because this might blow your mind.

I'm a cyclist. I cycle every weekday and at the weekends.

I also own a car, so guess what tax i pay?

beauf

Not really. One is a tax the other a fine. You can avoid the latter, in theory.

Gerry T

Dowee wrote: »

I hope you're sitting down because this might blow your mind.

I'm a cyclist. I cycle every weekday and at the weekends.

I also own a car, so guess what tax i pay?

Crap you have me there, let me think....its Motor Bike tax ! simple really :rolleyes:

ashleey

grodge wrote: »

it's car tax, not road tax

Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
Baldrick: Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron.

Lumen

Gerry T wrote: »

-It should be spent on the roads.
-I think it applies to all motor vehicle road users, maybe there are some special exemptions but I'm not sure. Ok if you cycle you don't pay, how would you administer that--give bike lisences and have bike check points !!! so bikes don't pay tax-generally they don't damage the road.
-Its a tax for motor vehicles that use public roads, if its a car tax, why would people with cars on private land not pay ?
- You have to be on a public road to pay the tax, so if its a motor tax, what's it for ?

You're being obtuse.

It is called "motor tax" simply because it is a tax on the use of motorised vehicles on the public road. What they've done is taken the most important words, "motor" and "tax", and put them together in a simple, idiot-proof term.

It doesn't cover all motor vehicles, or all things with motors, in the same way that "property tax" is not levied on all of the other possessions which you consider your "property", and "income tax" is not levied on all your sources of income.

Jawgap

RV wrote: »

I think that's just needlessly offensive to AGS.

Not really - two brothers, a brother-in-law and a couple of friends who are Guards 'members' so I hear the stories......enough to make wonder if O'Brien's Sergeant Pluck and Policeman MacCruiskeen aren't based on real people still serving.......

......and interestingly some of the more boggerish Guards come from Dublin - Templemore will do that to you.......

Lest we forget, this is the police force who let the notorious driver Prawo Jazdy rampage through this country racking up ticket after ticket..........

Jawgap

beauf wrote: »

Not really. One is a tax the other a fine. You can avoid the latter, in theory.

You can avoid both legitimately - you can evade neither legally.

It's a contribution to state revenue so would fall into the broad definition of tax, in the same way any state levied charge would.

buffalo

Jawgap wrote: »

You can avoid both legitimately - you can evade neither legally.

It's a contribution to state revenue so would fall into the broad definition of tax, in the same way any state levied charge would.

So a fine for a RLJ is really just a charge for the extra convenience of not obeying the rules of the road?

Spook_ie

creativedrinker wrote: »

I do a cycle everyday about north county dublin, Balbriggan/lusk/rush/skerries. Each day I'm either over taken by a car who decides he wants to pull in or turn left 100m's up the road, Overtaken by bus eireann or dublin bus with under a foot in the distance between us where u can feel the air throwing u off course, or a car overtaking me very closley on a blind corner yet they want to do cyclists for "overtaking in a dangerous situation" :eek::eek::eek:

This country never ceases to amaze me!!

you would think they would go after people on their phones and other driving offences, and ban guards using phones too, a blutooth headset is very cheap these days!! and teach people how to drive aswell while their at it!

Try as much as I did, I couldn't let this one slip by...

So now some cyclists would like a 1.5 meter space to the side AND a 100 meters to the front.

Gerry T

Lumen wrote: »

You're being obtuse.

It is called "motor tax" simply because it is a tax on the use of motorised vehicles on the public road. What they've done is taken the most important words, "motor" and "tax", and put them together in a simple, idiot-proof term.

It doesn't cover all motor vehicles, or all things with motors, in the same way that "property tax" is not levied on all of the other possessions which you consider your "property", and "income tax" is not levied on all your sources of income.

While I totally agree with you that the tax is for driving a motorised vehicle on a public road there's no need to say I'm dim witted. Some posters are debating that motor tax is exactly what it says---motor tax. I'm just pointing out that if that was the case all motors would be taxed, so the private land would best prove that its actually a tax for motorised vehicles on public roads-a road tax. The money collected is spent on roads--is that difficult for you ?
If they had a means of taxing cyclists for "motor tax" for using roads they probably would and probably will one day.

buffalo

Gerry T wrote: »

While I totally agree with you that the tax is for driving a motorised vehicle on a public road there's no need to say I'm dim witted. Some posters are debating that motor tax is exactly what it says---motor tax. I'm just pointing out that if that was the case all motors would be taxed, so the private land would best prove that its actually a tax for motorised vehicles on public roads-a road tax. The money collected is spent on roads--is that difficult for you ?
If they had a means of taxing cyclists for "motor tax" for using roads they probably would and probably will one day.

The money collected is not spent on roads, it goes into the public kitty. Money from the public kitty is spent on roads.

If it were a road tax, it would probably be levied based on how much one used the roads, like say, a toll. Instead it's levied based on the emissions from the motor. So if cyclists were to pay motor tax, I think you'd still complain because they'd pay a couple of euro a year at most, for breathing extra hard and producing more CO2 than a non-exercising person.

Jawgap

beauf wrote: »

Not really. One is a tax the other a fine. You can avoid the latter, in theory.

buffalo wrote: »

So a fine for a RLJ is really just a charge for the extra convenience of not obeying the rules of the road?

You could look at that way - a glorified toll!! Although unless you win the lotto forking out 50 notes a pop for not having to stop at red lights is a bit extreme, leaving aside the extra risk!

Unlike with a car where if you rack up enough points you get to lose the privilege of driving, or illegal parking when you get clamped or towed and suffer the inconvenience of no car, the same isn't true for RLJing and fixed penalties. Beyond the financial penalty there's no consequence.

The game changes somewhat if you brought up before a judge!

Ray Palmer

average_runner wrote: »

Unless no parking sign up they can park there, stupid i know

What??
Then what is the deal with the regs saying you can only park in them if you are loading or unloading? I understand you can't park in them

beauf

Jawgap wrote: »

You can avoid both legitimately - you can evade neither legally.

It's a contribution to state revenue so would fall into the broad definition of tax, in the same way any state levied charge would.

IMO its not useful to generalise like that. You can use a fine like a tax, but that's really a miss-use of the term. Likewise you can use a tax like a fine. But they are just stealth taxes. A fine should be used to influence behaviour or punish.

In this case its to make people follow the rules. Now you can argue the case that other countries permit red light breaking on the same side turn so the rule may be flawed. But the issue there isn't the fine. Its the rule or law thats needs to be looked at.

Jawgap

beauf wrote: »

IMO its not useful to generalise like that. You can use a fine like a tax, but that's really a miss-use of it.

I know - next you'll be saying the Broadcasting Charge isn't tax, neither is the Household Charge.......

......nor the Universal Social Contribution

.....nor Pay Related Social Insurance

And in 2015 we're not paying Water Tax, we're paying Water Charges.....

"Tax" comes from Middle-French it means, among other things, to censure.

beauf

Jawgap wrote: »

Y...the same isn't true for RLJing and fixed penalties. Beyond the financial penalty there's no consequence....

Unless it causes harm to someone.

endacl

Gerry T wrote: »

-It should be spent on the roads.
-I think it applies to all motor vehicle road users, maybe there are some special exemptions but I'm not sure. Ok if you cycle you don't pay, how would you administer that--give bike lisences and have bike check points !!! so bikes don't pay tax-generally they don't damage the road.
-Its a tax for motor vehicles that use public roads, if its a car tax, why would people with cars on private land not pay ?
- You have to be on a public road to pay the tax, so if its a motor tax, what's it for ?

So, to extend your logic.....

If everybody who doesn't drive were allowed designate a portion of their annual tax bill to be diverted away from road maintenance, and spent on something else, what kind of state do you think the roads would be in after a year? If motor tax was ring fenced for the roads, why not ring fence everything else? What's so special about the roads as opposed to the hospitals?

That kind of thinking makes no sense.

BoardBanter

About time there doing this, some cyclists just fly out from side roads/off paths etc its ridiculous

endacl

BoardBanter wrote: »

About time there doing this, some cyclists just fly out from side roads/off paths etc its ridiculous

And some don't. What's your point?

BoardBanter

endacl wrote: »

And some don't. What's your point?

My point is some do and they should be fined for it!
Some drivers dont speed but the ones that do get fined, duh!

beauf

Jawgap wrote: »

I know - next you'll be saying the Broadcasting Charge isn't tax, neither is the Household Charge.......

......nor the Universal Social Contribution

.....nor Pay Related Social Insurance

And in 2015 we're not paying Water Tax, we're paying Water Charges.....

"Tax" comes from Middle-French it means, among other things, to censure.

Again your generalising. If the tax is to fund the water infrastructure or just general tax it is different. Likewise there is a difference in a flat fee for water (doesn't change behaviour) and a (metered charge which in theory should).

Beside none of this is the issue. The issue is, if RLJ is dangerous. Because thats the premise of the fine.

grodge

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What??
Then what is the deal with the regs saying you can only park in them if you are loading or unloading? I understand you can't park in them

Sign RRM 023 is broken white line, sign RRM 022 is continuous white line

from the road traffic act: A prohibition on the parking of a vehicle imposed by article 36 (2) (m) shall not apply to a vehicle parked in a cycle track, on the right hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 023 has been provided, while goods are being loaded in or on to it or unloaded from it for a period not exceeding thirty minutes from the commencement of such parking.


also: (5)(a) A mechanically propelled vehicle, other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair, shall not be driven along or across a cycle track on the right hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 022 has been provided, save for the purposes of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the cycle track or from a roadway to such a place.

ref: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0274.html
&
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html

creativedrinker

Spook_ie wrote: »

Try as much as I did, I couldn't let this one slip by...

So now some cyclists would like a 1.5 meter space to the side AND a 100 meters to the front.

What i ment was theres no reason to overtake a cyclist and then slow down and pull in infront of said cyclist, just a retarded idea, and when overtaking, if its a bus or truck and they have the space which they always do they can afford to move out more, if their travelling at 80km/hr theres a fair amount of displacement of air if their right beside you. I did my test for the D1 licence for busses and coaches and my instructor clearly stated when overtaking to keep a good distance out because the air displacement off such a large veichle can knock a cyclist off course.

Ray Palmer

grodge wrote: »

Sign RRM 023 is broken white line, sign RRM 022 is continuous white line

from the road traffic act: A prohibition on the parking of a vehicle imposed by article 36 (2) (m) shall not apply to a vehicle parked in a cycle track, on the right hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 023 has been provided, while goods are being loaded in or on to it or unloaded from it for a period not exceeding thirty minutes from the commencement of such parking.


also: (5)(a) A mechanically propelled vehicle, other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair, shall not be driven along or across a cycle track on the right hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 022 has been provided, save for the purposes of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the cycle track or from a roadway to such a place.

ref: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0274.html
&
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html

SO you don't need a no parking sign as stated!

wil

Spook_ie wrote: »

Try as much as I did, I couldn't let this one slip by...

So now some cyclists would like a 1.5 meter space to the side AND a 100 meters to the front.

He made a valid point about dangerous overtaking.
It is not a right for motorists.

UK ROTR say to give as much space overtaking a cyclist as you would overtaking a car. Irish rotr are a bit crap and imprecise as usual.(you got to remember who made them).

Gerry T

buffalo wrote: »

The money collected is not spent on roads, it goes into the public kitty. Money from the public kitty is spent on roads.

If it were a road tax, it would probably be levied based on how much one used the roads, like say, a toll. Instead it's levied based on the emissions from the motor. So if cyclists were to pay motor tax, I think you'd still complain because they'd pay a couple of euro a year at most, for breathing extra hard and producing more CO2 than a non-exercising person.

How would they toll every road in the country, a usage scheme has to be measurable and they haven't come up with that system---yet. My understanding is in Australia they add a tax on petrol, which is to cover road tax AND 3rd party car insurance. So the more you drive them more you pay. Drive a 5L engine and pay more again. Its a great system, tourists in the country pay. No more people driving about without basic insurance or road tax. Sounds simple and easy to implement. Our prices are cheaper than the north so it shouldn't cause a rush up north.

I'm not complaining, I agree with road tax etc... I don't agree with "general" taxation such as PAYE, far better if you tax outgoings and not income. Provided you can keep the money in the country

Yakuza

ArseBurger wrote: »

You're ok with your kid breaking the law? Fine parenting...

So you're ok with a law that forces everyone onto the road, irregardless of their size or ability on a bike? Wanting your children to be safe is bad parenting? Give me a break.

They should put in an explicit exemption for children under 12 (or some sensible height, like they have for car seats) to get rid of the legal vacuum. Even though as pointed out elsewhere on this thread, there is a loopohole in that children under 12 can't be charged with a crime, I'm not in favour of this in general, as it gives 10/11 year old gurriers carte blanche, but exempting them from having to use the road is a sensible move.

If they can repeal (not sure if it's actually done, or still being mooted) the daft law that forces cyclists to use cycle lanes, irregardless of its condition, they can do something similar for the equally daft law that makes no distinction between an adult with 30 years' cyling experience and a 6 year old barely out of stabilisers.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Try as much as I did, I couldn't let this one slip by...

So now some cyclists would like a 1.5 meter space to the side AND a 100 meters to the front.

Nobody is looking for 100ms on front of them to be kept clear. But overtaking cyclists just to pull in a short distance in front of them is daftness.

For some cyclists, 100ms is a very short distance. For example: Sometimes many cyclists can easily hit 30-40km/h.

Even at 35km/h, 100ms is traveled in ~10 seconds. A car -- even traveling at above 35km/h -- which is overtaking a cyclists just to pull in 100ms ahead will have to slow down when turning.

You do the math on that one.

beauf

Had one this morning do that. Passed me out only to pull left into a entrance about 20m in front. Which they had to wait for a door to open.

califano

I dont like this, i dont like this one bit because im always running red lights(but only when its safe and doesnt impede others).

Darkglasses

Really quite pleased with this news. I think if more cyclists start acting like proper road users, we'll be treated like them more frequently.

kerry4sam

I don't forsee a one rule for all with these, but bring it on though is what I say!

This is going to be real interesting down my neck of the woods, unless their will be exemptions.

Some families I know cycle to work and school (adults and teens) and cycle on the road for the majority of journey. Their are sections though where they use pedestrian crossings to cross the two lanes of busy traffic and then complete the journey via the footpath & have done so for years!

Now, either exemptions or a blind-eye will be allowed in this instance as they never walk with their bikes on the footpath and have on occasion cycled on wrong-side of road facing on-coming traffic after crossing at said pedestrian crossings.

teddyhead

This isnt fair at all. Grand if you live in Dublin , where some provision is made for cyclists but here in Limerick city , there are hardly any credible cycle lanes. This piecemeal,populist approach is an insult to cyclists. If councils are negligent in their duties to cyclists , then they cant complain when cyclists are forced to improvise.

kenmc

Why does everyone assume that you have to have cycle lanes in order to cycle? They're a pretty recent invention, at least in Ireland, and we got on just fine without them, never ever remember seeing a single one during my first 20 or so years of cycling.

In fact you could possibly draw a parallel between the sporadic introduction of cycle tracks and the reduction in the numbers of people cycling.

ZeroThreat

ArseBurger wrote: »

You're ok with your kid breaking the law? Fine parenting...

there's a lot of dodgy scumbags on boards.ie tbh