Fixed Penalty Notices for Cycling by end of year

NeedMoreGears

steamengine wrote: »

Further along in the Howth direction, the cycle lane is intermittently obstructed with parked cars from the Bull Bridge to the end of Mount Prospect Avenue. Because of this I often cycle on the opposite footpath, either slowing up or stopping when passing pedestrians. What is the story here ? - I take it it's as illegal for cars to be parked on cycle lanes as it is to be cycling on footpaths.

I cycle that route almost every day and I find no problems with the parked cars. I sit about 1.25m from the side of cars, I don't move to the left until I am pretty much at Mount Prospect Road. I find it makes it more predictable from the cars viewpoint and and overtaking manoeuvre requires the vehicle to partially move over to the other side of the road. There is no real room for close shaves unless the vehicle is playing chicken with on-coming traffic and moves a only a small bit tryign to make a gap between me and the on-coming traffic. I've never been beeped or otherwise harassed by cars as it doesn't take too long to pass all the cars and traffic (at least when I'm on that section of road) isn't going much faster than I am anyway.

NeedMoreGears

Quick Question

I'm cycling on a single lane section of the road with a parked car up ahead that I wish to go around

(i) Do I need to indicate (i'm not changing lane just moving within the lane)?

(ii) If there's a car coming up from behind me which, if it continued at the same speed, would reach the parked car at the same time as me, who has right of way? Me or the car?

Higher Level Questions

Same scenario but theres a cycle lane marked on the left of the road - que pasa?

cdaly_

teddyhead wrote: »

Not if,like, the truck/van comes along beside you.

Which is why I take up a safe position in the middle of the left-turn lane in the first place so they have to stop behind me...

quozl

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

Quick Question

I'm cycling on a single lane section of the road with a parked car up ahead that I wish to go around

(i) Do I need to indicate (i'm not changing lane just moving within the lane)?

(ii) If there's a car coming up from behind me which, if it continued at the same speed, would reach the parked car at the same time as me, who has right of way? Me or the car?

Higher Level Questions

Same scenario but theres a cycle lane marked on the left of the road - que pasa?

i) You don't need to signal IMO, you look over your shoulder, make sure you have room and then move over.

ii) You have right of way but that doesn't matter in the slightest. You need to negotiate with the driver. Indicate, ensure they're slowing down and then move over. If they don't let you go then slow down and let them go first even if you have right of way.

Doesn't matter if there's a cycle lane marked on the left of the road or not.

Lumen

(i) Yes, it's always a good idea to indicate before a change of road position that may affect other road users.

(ii) You have right of way on account of being in front.

cdaly_

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

Quick Question

I'm cycling on a single lane section of the road with a parked car up ahead that I wish to go around

(i) Do I need to indicate (i'm not changing lane just moving within the lane)?

(ii) If there's a car coming up from behind me which, if it continued at the same speed, would reach the parked car at the same time as me, who has right of way? Me or the car?

Higher Level Questions

Same scenario but theres a cycle lane marked on the left of the road - que pasa?

(i) I often indicate when changing position within the lane. More likely to indicate if there's traffic behind me.

(ii) By the time you both reach the parked car, you'll already have moved out in the lane and will have been in front of the car for a while.

Higher Level Answer:

Cycle lane? So what?

More detailed answer, it's not clear in law whether a cycle lane constitutes a separate traffic lane with the associated rights and obligations. I treat a road with painted cycle lane the same as I treat one without.

NeedMoreGears

Thanks for the answers folks, which accord with my understanding - I had a feeling things were a bit grey from a legal perspective when there's a cycle lane involved. Hopefully I never get to test that for real.

FWIW - yeah I always look, move early and generally signal. I prefer to try to ensure the driver knows what I am doing rather than relying on my having the right of way alone.

irishmotorist

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

Quick Question

I'm cycling on a single lane section of the road with a parked car up ahead that I wish to go around

(i) Do I need to indicate (i'm not changing lane just moving within the lane)?

(ii) If there's a car coming up from behind me which, if it continued at the same speed, would reach the parked car at the same time as me, who has right of way? Me or the car?

Higher Level Questions

Same scenario but theres a cycle lane marked on the left of the road - que pasa?

Don't forget that indicating doesn't give you right of way, it just lets you tell others in an agreed manner what you're intending to do.

In this scenario, it informs everybody who's looking what you intend on doing and the car should ease off due to the fact that you are in front and they know that you're going around the parked car. They could, of course, choose to pass you while you are passing the parked car if the other side is clear.

CramCycle

brian.henry wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. When I'm cycling in town and am stopped at a red light with loads of traffic around me, I'll always skip the red light when it's possible so I can pick up some speed safely and be visible to all the traffic going my way. I particularly notice this going from Tara Street to Amiens Street where the road markings are sparse and traffic is fast.

If they can't see you in front of them at the lights, it will be worse when they can't see you further down the road and have picked up speed.

Red lights are there for cars not bicycles. I treat them as yield signs.

Treat them as you want but they are not for cars, they are for all traffic on the road, including bicycles.

Heard the guy on Newstalk the other morning from Dublin cycling saying it was a bad idea, what was his name?

lennymc

cdaly_ wrote: »

Which is why I take up a safe position in the middle of the left-turn lane in the first place so they have to stop behind me...

dont allways assume they will stop. Many moons ago, a motorcycle instructor said that to me, and I applied it to my riding. I was stopped at a set of lights one day on the motorbike, and checked my mirrors, only to see a car that obviously wasnt going to stop! I managed to accelerate away, and sure enough the car didnt stop. Had I not checked my mirrors Im sure I would have been seriously injured. I suppose thats also an (extreme) example of where it may be safer to break a red light than not. Sure ye'd need eyes in the back of yer head.

Raam

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I'm always amazed at these people who claim they need to break lights and cycle on the footpath in order to cycle safely.

I suppose that it is claimed as a result of one or more of these: laziness, ignorance, a lack of confidence.

Idleater

lennymc wrote: »

dont allways assume they will stop.

Had a coach accelerate around me to go through the pedestrian lights crossing outside heuston station yesterday. Only to pull in to the bus stop.
That was a tight squeeze between the lane of traffic to the right and the taxi on the left.

bambergbike

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I'm always amazed at these people who claim they need to break lights and cycle on the footpath in order to cycle safely.

Well, me too, but given the number of them that seem to be around the place it would make sense to:

A) Give errant cyclists penalty points as well as fines

and

Let them off the penalty points again (within reason) if they do Bikeability training.

Raam wrote: »

I suppose that it is claimed as a result of one or more of these: laziness, ignorance, a lack of confidence.

Training won't make people less lazy - fines might help with that - but it might make them less ignorant and more confident.

TheChizler

bambergbike wrote: »

Well, me too, but given the number of them that seem to be around the place it would make sense to:

A) Give errant cyclists penalty points as well as fines

and

Let them off the penalty points again (within reason) if they do Bikeability training.

What happens when they have racked up a load of penalty points?

Gerry T

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I'm always amazed at these people who claim they need to break lights and cycle on the footpath in order to cycle safely.

If you know the section of road from harolds cross up to terenure village, its narrow and full of parked cars. For an adult its fine but a 12yr old cycling to school its not, especially just before the garville road junction. What would you tell your 12 yr old, cycle on the road or for those sections on the path taking care.
Walking is worse, kid is all over the place and likely to take your ankle off with a straying pedal

Lumen

Gerry T wrote: »

What would you tell your 12 yr old, cycle on the road or for those sections on the path taking care.

Haven't we done this already? The age of criminal responsibility is 14.

So younger kids are fine on the footpad.

Gerry T

Lumen wrote: »

Haven't we done this already? The age of criminal responsibility is 14.

So younger kids are fine on the footpad.

Its not a question of punishment, kids may not be criminally responsible but their parents are responsible for them. Its about what's safe and what's not safe. The law should reflect that and unless they say u14 can use paths responsibly then they shouldn't and I suppose as a responsible parent the kid should walk and not cycle if the only safe thing to do is use the path.

Hmmzis

Gerry T wrote: »

If you know the section of road from harolds cross up to terenure village, its narrow and full of parked cars. For an adult its fine but a 12yr old cycling to school its not, especially just before the garville road junction. What would you tell your 12 yr old, cycle on the road or for those sections on the path taking care.
Walking is worse, kid is all over the place and likely to take your ankle off with a straying pedal

It's not that narrow there, that segment is part of my daily commute. The biggest hazards there by far are the petrol station and the junction after the grayhound stadium where you have the risk of being cut accross by a right turning car and that risks is vastly increased when you would be on the footpath. Lots of people cycle that route and the vast majority of drivers are quite used to cyclists there.

Lumen

Gerry T wrote: »

Its not a question of punishment, kids may not be criminally responsible but their parents are responsible for them. Its about what's safe and what's not safe. The law should reflect that and unless they say u14 can use paths responsibly then they shouldn't and I suppose as a responsible parent the kid should walk and not cycle if the only safe thing to do is use the path.

The law should reflect what? What is and isn't safe for kids to do? That would be absurd.

Is it legal for kids to climb trees, or sit on fences? My daughter broke her arm recently falling off a gate. Should she be prosecuted? Or should I?

How about we just leave people to exercise their judgement about what their kids can and cannot do?

Chips Lovell

Gerry T wrote: »

If you know the section of road from harolds cross up to terenure village, its narrow and full of parked cars. For an adult its fine but a 12yr old cycling to school its not...

I know it well, cycle it a few times a week. I'm not talking about children, I'm talking about adults making excuses on safety grounds.

Gerry T

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I know it well, cycle it a few times a week. I'm not talking about children, I'm talking about adults making excuses on safety grounds.

No reason for an adult to use a path or break a red light, unless your avoiding being hit. You just need to keep your wits about you and remember you won't win a fight with a car no matter if you have the right of way !

Years back i was in Australia and cycling late with no light (wouldn't do that now!) but the police stopped me and gave me a warning, he didn't take the bike as it was a residential area and quiet. But he let out the air from the tyres and I had a ****ty walk home. In latter years I thought that was a great idea.

Gerry T

Hmmzis wrote: »

It's not that narrow there, that segment is part of my daily commute. The biggest hazards there by far are the petrol station and the junction after the grayhound stadium where you have the risk of being cut accross by a right turning car and that risks is vastly increased when you would be on the footpath. Lots of people cycle that route and the vast majority of drivers are quite used to cyclists there.

Sorry Hmmzis that's the wrong section, if you cycle from the junction at the end of kenilworth park road (at the opel garage) up to Rathgar not terenure, my mistake, Its Rathgar Ave. Narrow sections with parked cars so drivers coming from opposite directions regularily take turns to get past each other.

hollypink

If a cyclist comes to a red light and the cyclist moves past the white line so as to be ahead of cars/trucks but without crossing the junction on red, do you think you'll get a fine for that? Strictly speaking, you're breaking the lights once you go past the line. That's at a junction where there's no advanced stop line for cyclists, although a lot of motorists just stop in those anyway so they're not always useful.

Chips Lovell

hollypink wrote: »

If a cyclist comes to a red light and the cyclist moves past the white line so as to be ahead of cars/trucks but without crossing the junction on red, do you think you'll get a fine for that?

I fecking hope so.

Gerry T

Lumen wrote: »

The law should reflect what? What is and isn't safe for kids to do? That would be absurd.

Is it legal for kids to climb trees, or sit on fences? My daughter broke her arm recently falling off a gate. Should she be prosecuted? Or should I?

How about we just leave people to exercise their judgement about what their kids can and cannot do?

Your missing my point or I'm not explaining it properly. I agree totally with you, if the law states that a person can't cycle on a path I think that will include kids --- and in my book that's wrong. A kid learning should use a path so if they swerve etc they won't get hit by a close passing car. The answer is not to stop the kids cycling but to get them out there doing things. So yes parents should be allowed to do just that--parent.
What I'm saying about the law is, if there is some law saying that bikes can't be used on paths then it should exclude kids--so they can do just that. I'm not suggesting that their be laws telling kids what they can do.

Darkglasses

hollypink wrote: »

If a cyclist comes to a red light and the cyclist moves past the white line so as to be ahead of cars/trucks but without crossing the junction on red, do you think you'll get a fine for that? Strictly speaking, you're breaking the lights once you go past the line. That's at a junction where there's no advanced stop line for cyclists, although a lot of motorists just stop in those anyway so they're not always useful.

You're right that it is technically RLJing, but I definitely don't think Gardai will give fines for that.

Whatever happens, there'll still be tonnes and tonnes of RLJing in Dublin, at least when this is first rolled out. It'll be totally impractical for Gardai to be that pedantic, I imagine the FPNs will only be given in very blatant and dangerous cases. But I'm just speculating.

beauf

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I fecking hope so.

Why?

Moving to the front can be done to avoid cars turning left without indicating. Which is a common hazard for cyclists. When a car sees a cyclists in front, its makes them think about checking their inside before turning left, and actually using their indicator.

beauf

elfy4eva wrote: »

You are 100% correct I have not done any research into cycling statistics I am saying what comes to me as common sense. However I would relish the chance to read over the research you have done that concludes "forcing crap cyclists on the roads makes roads safer."

Just because you believe the world is flat doesn't mean the world is actually flat.

Especially if you don't bother to read the research that's already been done.

Chips Lovell

beauf wrote: »

Why?

Moving to the front can be done to avoid cars turning left without indicating. Which is a common hazard for cyclists. When a car sees a cyclists in front, its makes them think about checking their inside before turning left, and actually using their indicator.

Because the white line is where you're ment to stop.

Going beyond it is breaking the lights. Besides the legalities:

a.) it creates a hazard by putting you in the path of oncoming traffic, something I see on a daily basis,

b.) it's dickish behaviour, since everyone else who stops where they're supposed to has to re-overtake them once the lights change.

You don't need to break the law to avoid left turning vehicles. If you're concerned about them position yourself in front of them (if you're first to the lights or if there's an advanced stop box, or positioning yourself behind them; rather than alongside them. Breaking the lights to cycle out into the junction is unnecessary and poor cycling.

beauf

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I know it well, cycle it a few times a week. I'm not talking about children, I'm talking about adults making excuses on safety grounds.

Experienced cyclists will know that on some Roads around Dublin and I assume elsewhere, you need to cycle at considerable speed to stay with the flow of traffic, and command your road space in traffic. Because many cars don't give any respect to cyclists, or others cars for that matter.

It really intimidates any one who can't cycle like that, be they old young, or in experienced. That's not the case in other countries where its expected that provision in the rules and infrastructure to facilitate as many people cycling as possible.

beauf

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Because the white line is where you're ment to stop.

Going beyond it is breaking the lights. Besides the legalities:

a.) it creates a hazard by putting you in the path of oncoming traffic, something I see on a daily basis,

b.) it's dickish behaviour, since everyone else who stops where they're supposed to has to re-overtake them once the lights change.

You don't need to break the law to avoid left turning vehicles. If you're concerned about them position yourself in front of them (if you're first to the lights or if there's an advanced stop box, or positioning yourself behind them; rather than alongside them. Breaking the lights to cycle out into the junction is unnecessary and poor cycling.

This is blind rule following without thinking if it makes sense or not. This is like the law about having to stay in a cycle lane if it exists, even where it was hazardous to do so. That law was changed. So does that mean that something has changed so the law was invalid or was the law incorrect and dangerous in the first place.

a) You can be in front of the line and not a hazard. If you're a hazard to oncoming traffic your on the wrong side of the road!

b) you've switched this from being in front of the line to queue jumping which is a different thing entirely. If there's a line of cyclists ahead of you, you don't need to command the lane because the sheer numbers will have the same effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling#Lane_control

steamengine

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I'm always amazed at these people who claim they need to break lights and cycle on the footpath in order to cycle safely.

I'm equally amazed at how no-one here appears to be bothered about parked cars in cycle lanes, hence prompting some cyclists to play safe and use an adjacent footpath.

Cycle safely goes with out saying, but a scenario like the particular section of Clontarf Road I've referred creates an unsafe environment for certain cyclists. No doubt there are many other examples around the city and country.

thesimpsons

why is it just cycling on footpaths that will incur the fines - regularly see skateboarders and rollerbladers coming along on paths too and they would be as lethal to pedestrians at cyclists.

Lumen

thesimpsons wrote: »

why is it just cycling on footpaths that will incur the fines - regularly see skateboarders and rollerbladers coming along on paths too and they would be as lethal to pedestrians at cyclists.

Skateboards and rollerbladers are wheeled pedestrians. Cyclists are not.

Don't ask me why, it just is. :pac:

thesimpsons

Lumen wrote: »

Skateboards and rollerbladers are wheeled pedestrians. Cyclists are not.

Don't ask me why, it just is. :pac:

i'm not sure if thats a case of " WTF " or "you learn something new every day "

beauf

steamengine wrote: »

I'm equally amazed at how no-one here appears to be bothered about parked cars in cycle lanes, hence prompting some cyclists to play safe and use an adjacent footpath. ....

Have to say there are very few parked cars on my commuting routes. So its not something I think of that much.

That said you have the case of Lesson St Lwr out of town which is bus only. (no cycles) but lovely and quiet and no parked cars. Forcing cyclists to use Baggot Street Lower which has every cycling hazard known to man on it, Trucks buses, taxi's, no cycle lanes, delivery trucks, lots of jaywalkers and a surface with more potholes than the moon. Oh and lots of Parked cars.

Beasty

brian.henry wrote: »

Red lights are there for cars not bicycles. I treat them as yield signs.

You're exactly the type of cyclist that needs the rules enforcing. Hopefully fixed penalties will make such enforcement easier and you may start to appreciate the laws of the land are not optional.

Lumen

Beasty wrote: »

You're exactly the type of cyclist that needs the rules enforcing. Hopefully fixed penalties will make such enforcement easier and you may start to appreciate the laws of the land are not optional.

That is an astonishingly sanctimonious post. 10/10.

BrianHenryIE

Beasty wrote: »

You're exactly the type of cyclist that needs the rules enforcing. Hopefully fixed penalties will make such enforcement easier and you may start to appreciate the laws of the land are not optional.

When it's safe to go, I go. The idea of fining people just to uphold the principle of "the laws of the land" is bs.

Squidgy Black

Have we found a poster boy in brian.henry for the first ad for the fines? A glorious example of why they need to be brought in to stop nodders floating through lights without a care for those around them.

TheChizler

brian.henry wrote: »

When it's safe to go, I go. The idea of fining people just to uphold the principle of "the laws of the land" is bs.

Do you advocate this position for cars too?

CramCycle

brian.henry wrote: »

When it's safe to go, I go. The idea of fining people just to uphold the principle of "the laws of the land" is bs.

How do you know it's safe, who decides. You? The AGS? A nearby pedestrian who can confirm it for you?

This is Ireland, if you let people away on the pretense that if they deem it to be safe then they can do it, then you'll have the same problem that we have now, of people endangering themselves and others in some situations because they believe it is safe for them. I seriously doubt any RLJers do it thinking that it isn't safe for them. Legally it would be undo-able. Why not just follow the rules? It really won't delay you that much, it is safer, and it is what other road users should expect leading to improved safety for everyone.

Squidgy Black

brian.henry wrote: »

When it's safe to go, I go. The idea of fining people just to uphold the principle of "the laws of the land" is bs.

I've seen this attitude plenty of times. What happens is the cyclist thinks "great there's no one crossing at the lights here, I'll just beat the traffic," and the next hong you see is a young child running out ahead of his mother, blocked from view by the traffic in the right hand lane.

I've been unfortunate enough to see a young child about 5 years old be clattered by a man who was at least in his 40s, the child didn't seem to be too hurt, but the fella just cycled on.

Beasty

Lumen wrote: »

That is an astonishingly sanctimonious post. 10/10.

I'm currently in Florida where they seem to take road law enforcement very seriously. I couldn't work out why the coaches kept coming to a complete halt at deserted junctions with no traffic lights until I realised they were observing the stop signs (presumably under the threat of a hefty fine and possible loss of job).

Qualitymark

stetyrrell wrote: »

I've seen this attitude plenty of times. What happens is the cyclist thinks "great there's no one crossing at the lights here, I'll just beat the traffic," and the next hong you see is a young child running out ahead of his mother, blocked from view by the traffic in the right hand lane.

I've been unfortunate enough to see a young child about 5 years old be clattered by a man who was at least in his 40s, the child didn't seem to be too hurt, but the fella just cycled on.

This is so true. And in Rathmines, for instance, blind people can step out onto the pedestrian crossing in the faith that the traffic will have stopped for the pedestrian lights.

(A related child problem exists for drivers; increasingly I see drivers backing out of their driveways, unaware that a small child could be racing ahead of its parents - easily seen from the front of the car, but under the level of the back window.)

bren2001 wrote: »

I've no issue with an on the spot fine being issued for breaking lights or cycling on the path.

However, there are a couple of small sections of road that I just cannot cycle on. They are full of potholes and are extremely bumpy. The road is tight enough since there are a lot of trucks on it so I usually pop up on the path for the 100m or so. Guess I will be cycling in the middle of the road now. I look forward to the beeping motorists now.

I've found that if you email Dublin City Council's roads department with photos of a dangerously potholed road, they'll mend them and email you back, especially if you email them back and thank them the first time.

penguin88 wrote: »

How does fining cyclists for offences disproportionally hit the poor?

Cyclists are disproportionally less rich than drivers.

I see two problems with this law (though I have suggested on-the-spot fines for cyclists breaking lights and cycling dangerously myself on boards.ie):

1) A €50 fine is too high; it will make middle-class people hate the Gardaí and become reluctant to co-operate with them. A €20 fine is fair and affordable, yet irritating enough that people will pay it and go off blushing without feeling that they've been scammed by the law.

2) Unless and until the epidemic of bicycle theft is tackled, these fines will feel completely unfair: "oh yeah, you're going to fine me when I break a light without a soul around, but when i went in to report my €1,000 bike stolen the Guard just shrugged at me, looked at the proffered CCTV, said 'ah yeh we know that guy nothing we can do' and went back to his doughnut and tea".

*If* the fine were €20, and *if* there were a well-publicised and effective, and continued, drive to catch bike thieves, publicise their faces, bring them to court, give them sentences such as a week's work mending the public's bicycles for free - and to return stolen bikes to their owners - then I'd be enthusiastically for it.

AltAccount

Qualitymark wrote: »

Cyclists are disproportionally less rich than drivers.

Just curious, do you have ANYTHING to back up this assertion?

Raam

AltAccount wrote: »

Just curious, do you have ANYTHING to back up this assertion?

Yeah, I almost spit my wad of fifties out of my mouth when I read his post!

Beasty

Qualitymark wrote: »

1) A €50 fine is too high; it will make middle-class people hate the Gardaí and become reluctant to co-operate with them. A €20 fine is fair and affordable, yet irritating enough that people will pay it and go off blushing without feeling that they've been scammed by the law.

Currently you could be fined €200 (or more) and have to take a day off work. €50 is not a fee for using the road - it's a penalty for misusing it - if you think the fine is more than the typical cyclist can afford the solution is entirely within the cyclist's hands

Dermot Illogical

Qualitymark wrote: »

Cyclists are disproportionally less rich than drivers.

I see two problems with this law (though I have suggested on-the-spot fines for cyclists breaking lights and cycling dangerously myself on boards.ie):

1) A €50 fine is too high; it will make middle-class people hate the Gardaí and become reluctant to co-operate with them. A €20 fine is fair and affordable, yet irritating enough that people will pay it and go off blushing without feeling that they've been scammed by the law.

2) Unless and until the epidemic of bicycle theft is tackled, these fines will feel completely unfair: "oh yeah, you're going to fine me when I break a light without a soul around, but when i went in to report my €1,000 bike stolen the Guard just shrugged at me, looked at the proffered CCTV, said 'ah yeh we know that guy nothing we can do' and went back to his doughnut and tea".

*If* the fine were €20, and *if* there were a well-publicised and effective, and continued, drive to catch bike thieves, publicise their faces, bring them to court, give them sentences such as a week's work mending the public's bicycles for free - and to return stolen bikes to their owners - then I'd be enthusiastically for it.

Cyclists are not "disproportionally less rich than drivers", and indeed some people are both.
€50 is about right, and here's the thing... If you don't break the law you won't have to pay anything at all!!! Simples.

And as for connecting it in to a push against bike theft....are you for real? You want to be able to continue breaking one law because some other law isn't getting enough attention for your liking?

bambergbike

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

And as for connecting it in to a push against bike theft... [...] You want to be able to continue breaking one law because some other law isn't getting enough attention for your liking?

I think the bike theft argument sounds like whataboutery. There is no direct connection between bike thieves and cyclist misbehaviour, just the very tenuous link that both involve cyclists and are dealt with (or not, as the case may be) by AGS.

But there IS a more direct connection between the offences committed day in, day out by motorists that deter cyclists from sharing space with them and the fact that some cyclists use illegal alternatives instead of sharing space with motorists. Speeding, dangerous overtaking, mobile phone use, parking in cycle lanes and so on. I have no objection to a crackdown on cyclists, but I do object to cyclists being portrayed as the only group or road users that are anything other than consistently law-abiding.