Rogue cyclists set to face on-the-spot fines MOD WARNING in first post

Lemming

dlb_cycles wrote: »

all sounds ok to me, they are more thinking of safety not really about fashion. and there are straps, 3M reflective clothes, etc. not only HI-VIS.

TBH, as good as some of it sounds; the reality is that whilst visbility will curb some incidents of other road users not spotting cyclists, a lot of road accidents are down to lack of observation/driving without due care for whatever reason or bad habit is responsible; thus cyclists will still need to cycle defensively and/or do things that might seem "wrong" to car drivers but are with cyclist safety in mind.

I mentioned a near collision that I exeprienced a few months ago involving a van that came short of t-boning me full side-profile on whilst attempting to enter a roundabout that I was on and he was not. All the reflective material or lights in the world would not have stopped that because it was in broad daylight and he was either not paying attention and/or inclined to aggressive & wreckless driving behaviour.

Don't get me wrong, "some" is better than "none", but it's not a silver bullet by any stretch of the imagination and does nothing to address bad habits/attitudes/lack of enforcement of existing road law.

Pinch Flat

Lemming wrote: »

TBH, as good as some of it sounds; the reality is that whilst visbility will curb some incidents of other road users not spotting cyclists, a lot of road accidents are down to lack of observation/driving without due care for whatever reason or bad habit is responsible; thus cyclists will still need to cycle defensively and/or do things that might seem "wrong" to car drivers but are with cyclist safety in mind.

I mentioned a near collision that I exeprienced a few months ago involving a van that came short of t-boning me full side-profile on whilst attempting to enter a roundabout that I was on and he was not. All the reflective material or lights in the world would not have stopped that because it was in broad daylight and he was either not paying attention and/or inclined to aggressive & wreckless driving behaviour.

Don't get me wrong, "some" is better than "none", but it's not a silver bullet by any stretch of the imagination and does nothing to address bad habits/attitudes/lack of enforcement of existing road law.

I've said it before but there's a cohort of motorists out there for which the mere presence of a cyclist (or anything else) is an affront to them. No amount of lights or hi vis is going to prevent them running you off the road.

Both times I was knocked off my bike from the rear was with two extremely bright lights (about €100 worth - so not some crappy ones found in lidl) on the rear of my bike. Also with a hi vis bag cover. Both times both drivers claimed to not have seen me. In fact the last incident the driver suggest I came out of nowhere and somehow planted myself in front of him.

My mistake? Not riding defensively and allowing space for both these idiots to cut in left in front of me. It's now a very rare scenario that I allow a situation arise where a driver will cut in front of me.

odyssey06

pedro_colnago wrote: »

I don't think that new laws will work, there are enough laws there anyway to cover everything. Enforcement of what's there is already is difficult. It's just idiot politicians sounding off with "new" laws and pandering to idiot motorists. The best way to solve it is self police it and think ok I'm not going to cycle or drive like an idiot today. If everyone did that we would be a lot safer on the roads.

Isn't the whole point of FPNs to make enforcement easier? What offences has it introduced that were not previously illegal?

CramCycle

odyssey06 wrote: »

Isn't the whole point of FPNs to make enforcement easier? What offences has it introduced that were not previously illegal?

Precisely, while there could be new offences in the legislation, it seems unlikely based on the wording by the department saying "offences already in legislation", which I take to mean no new offences for cyclists are being proposed.

pedro_colnago

odyssey06 wrote: »

Isn't the whole point of FPNs to make enforcement easier? What offences has it introduced that were not previously illegal?

We barely have enough guards not no mind new laws, it's easy for a politician to enact new laws with thinking how it will be enforced. Guards stopping motorists who are smoking if there's a child in a car being an obvious example.
As regards cycling the law already is in place for lights and states you should have strips of reflective material to the bike, white to the front and red to the back, also a reflective armband and a Sam Browne reflective belt or vest. If that was properly enforced there'd be no need for new laws

RainyDay

odyssey06 wrote: »

Isn't the whole point of FPNs to make enforcement easier? What offences has it introduced that were not previously illegal?

The press article referred to offences for not wearing hi-vis clothing.

Grandpa Hassan

RainyDay wrote: »

The press article referred to offences for not wearing hi-vis clothing.

I don't see that coming into force, because of Dublin bikes. Unless they are closed down after dark....

eeeee

pedro_colnago wrote: »

As regards cycling the law already is in place for lights and states you should have strips of reflective material to the bike, white to the front and red to the back, also a reflective armband and a Sam Browne reflective belt or vest. If that was properly enforced there'd be no need for new laws

Really? I did not know about the Sam Browne belt thing or reflective strips. I thought reflectors and front and back lights covered it?

Danjamin1

I'm on the bus one the way home from work (I bottled cycling today, so ashamed) and I've seen plenty of cyclists cycling on the footpath and drivers blocking junctions by following through red lights without a clear exit. I can tell you exactly which one is having more of an impact on the traffic. The sooner they start enforcing all traffic regulations the better, and not just for any one group of people!

As an aside I wish the guy behind me would stop f*cking coughing. I'll take the car or the bike over the bus any day! (Weather permitting)

odyssey06

pedro_colnago wrote: »

We barely have enough guards not no mind new laws, it's easy for a politician to enact new laws with thinking how it will be enforced... If that was properly enforced there'd be no need for new laws

Please explain how FPNs will mean guards have less time? The whole thinking behind it is about how the law is actually enforced. From the limited information we have, the majority - potentially all - the offences it covers are already offences. So primarily its scope relates to enforcement.

pedro_colnago

gadetra wrote: »

Really? I did not know about the Sam Browne belt thing or reflective strips. I thought reflectors and front and back lights covered it?

The wording is should tho, I know u can be summonsed for no reflectors as well as no lights.
My point about it is people have been cycling ages, there's always been laws regarding it. Enforcing it is the hard part.
It's just politicians bandwagoning it "look at me I'm great I'm bringing in new law I'm justifying my existence and it costs feck all" people will always do stupid things on bikes and in cars, sometimes u get caught, sometimes u get away with it.....sometimes somebody gets hurt then it becomes a visible problem ....

pedro_colnago

odyssey06 wrote: »

Please explain how FPNs will mean guards have less time? The whole thinking behind it is about how the law is actually enforced. From the limited information we have, the majority - potentially all - the offences it covers are already offences. So primarily its scope relates to enforcement.

When do I say it will leave guards less time? There isn't enough gardai to man patrol cars these days not to mind enforce specific road traffic laws. Traffic laws that are ALREADY in existence.
We need to get real in relation to how we use the roads. Take responsiblity for how we use the roads on a bike car or otherwise. New laws aren't the issue.
Read the rules of the road, pretty much every eventually is covered already in those.

odyssey06

pedro_colnago wrote: »

Traffic laws that are ALREADY in existence.
We need to get real in relation to how we use the roads. Take responsiblity for how we use the roads on a bike car or otherwise. New laws aren't the issue.
Read the rules of the road, pretty much every eventually is covered already in those.

So what, abolish all enforcement by guards of the traffic laws and leave it up to the citizenry? I don't see what kind of realistic solution or counterpoint you are proposing here... Guards are too busy, yeh, everyone knows that. What's that got to do with FPNs? Or do you mean they should just keep ignoring the laws that are being broken regardless of FPNs?

FPNs are about improving the enforcement of the rules of the road. Rules which are ignored on a daily basis.

OldBean

We barely have enough guards not no mind new laws

There's no new laws. Gardai can issue a fixed penalty on the spot, rather than spending a half day in court to issue a penalty.

pedro_colnago wrote: »

states you should have strips of reflective material to the bike, white to the front and red to the back, also a reflective armband and a Sam Browne reflective belt or vest. If that was properly enforced there'd be no need for new laws

The law asks for a front light, rear light and reflectors, no? I've never heard about wearing a Sam Brown vest before. Ever. Never mind an armband.

pedro_colnago

odyssey06 wrote: »

So what, abolish all enforcement by guards of the traffic laws and leave it up to the citizenry? I don't see what kind of realistic solution or counterpoint you are proposing here... Guards are too busy, yeh, everyone knows that. What's that got to do with FPNs? Or do you mean they should just keep ignoring the laws that are being broken regardless of FPNs?


FPNs are about improving the enforcement of the rules of the road. Rules which are ignored on a daily basis.

Okayyyyy Yeah that's what I'm saying ..... Rolls eyes
I'm saying there are rules already there, they have been there since people started cycling and driving, if the government were serious about enforcing road traffic laws they would increase garda numbers instead of bringing in "new" laws (the cheap option and the headline grabber)
Secondly my point is people break road traffic laws all the time, they give out when they are caught. If we cycled or drove with more personal responsibility we wouldn't have to rely solely on garda enforcement in the first place. The gardai act as a deterrent they can't be everywhere so when there not on every corner or road then personal responsibilty then comes into it. Does that clarify it a little more for you?

pedro_colnago

OldBean wrote: »

There's no new laws. Gardai can issue a fixed penalty on the spot, rather than spending a half day in court to issue a penalty.



The law asks for a front light, rear light and reflectors, no? I've never heard about wearing a Sam Brown vest before. Ever. Never mind an armband.

Read the rules of the road handbook it's all in there... section 17, it relates to pedal cycles. All in black and white

Macy0161

pedro_colnago wrote: »

Read the rules of the road handbook it's all in there... section 17, it relates to pedal cycles. All in black and white

Is it in the legislation though? Reflectors and lights are a legal requirement.

pedro_colnago

Macy0161 wrote: »

Is it in the legislation though? Reflectors and lights are a legal requirement.

That's what I said it states should wear these items in addition to the lights and reflectors which are a legal requirement

Grandpa Hassan

pedro_colnago wrote: »

That's what I said it states should wear these items in addition to the lights and reflectors which are a legal requirement

Wearing those items isnt a legal requirement. Rules of the road handbook is not legislation.

pedro_colnago

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Wearing those items isnt a legal requirement. Rules of the road handbook is not legislation.

It highlights the relevant road traffic legislation. That's why it's called the rules of the road. My point is that if people read the rules of the road there would be less accidents.

odyssey06

pedro_colnago wrote: »

I'm saying there are rules already there, they have been there since people started cycling and driving, if the government were serious about enforcing road traffic laws they would increase garda numbers instead of bringing in "new" laws (the cheap option and the headline grabber)
Secondly my point is people break road traffic laws all the time, they give out when they are caught. If we cycled or drove with more personal responsibility we wouldn't have to rely solely on garda enforcement in the first place. The gardai act as a deterrent they can't be everywhere so when there not on every corner or road then personal responsibilty then comes into it. Does that clarify it a little more for you?

I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have both. No one is saying that FPNs should be in lieu of actual Gardai. And if we don't have the resources for more Gardai right now (which is a totally separate discussion), legal devices such as FPNs that means Gardai can apply the laws more efficiently are to be encouraged.

If the primary purpose of the Gardai and laws is deterrence, then there's a game of bluff going on to some extent... and if the idea of FPNs helps awaken "a little policeman" in the head of cyclists to encourage them to obey the laws that exist, then they are a good thing.

Similarly, penalty points for motorists where they changed the application of the law on existing motoring offences (I agree with you about ridiculous ones like smoking) were primarily about this deterrence idea through better application. Now, they have a long way to go but they are a vast improvement on what was there before.

Finally, the state of enforcement of cycling laws is so poor in Dublin city centre right now, I don't think it would improve with twice the number of Gardai unless they get some indication from above that it's a priority. FPNs could be a step in that direction.

Tenzor07

odyssey06 wrote: »

Finally, the state of enforcement of cycling laws is so poor in Dublin city centre right now, I don't think it would improve with twice the number of Gardai unless they get some indication from above that it's a priority. FPNs could be a step in that direction.

FYP

30kph and Bus zones?

pedro_colnago

odyssey06 wrote: »

I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have both. No one is saying that FPNs should be in lieu of actual Gardai. And if we don't have the resources for more Gardai right now (which is a totally separate discussion), legal devices such as FPNs that means Gardai can apply the laws more efficiently are to be encouraged.

If the primary purpose of the Gardai and laws is deterrence, then there's a game of bluff going on to some extent... and if the idea of FPNs helps awaken "a little policeman" in the head of cyclists to encourage them to obey the laws that exist, then they are a good thing.

Similarly, penalty points for motorists where they changed the application of the law on existing motoring offences (I agree with you about ridiculous ones like smoking) were primarily about this deterrence idea through better application. Now, they have a long way to go but they are a vast improvement on what was there before.

Finally, the state of enforcement of cycling laws is so poor in Dublin city centre right now, I don't think it would improve with twice the number of Gardai unless they get some indication from above that it's a priority. FPNs could be a step in that direction.

Good points raised. I do believe that cyclists aren't the problem the vast majority of times, I cycle most days, I encounter drivers that don't have a clue about how to drive a car not to mind how to deal with cyclists on the road. My point is if People drove as per the rules of the road there would never be actually be an accident. The vast majority of accidents are caused by driver (human) error. New laws or streamlined application of old laws won't unfortunately prevent people doing stupid things. It may prevent an idiot cyclist from going out on the road in the dark without taking sensible precautions as regards to reflectors or lights tho

OldBean

pedro_colnago wrote: »

Read the rules of the road handbook it's all in there... section 17, it relates to pedal cycles. All in black and white

The handbook you've mentioned is not the law, but appears to be the 'advice and tips' of the RSA handbook. Have a read of this link, which is the actual law: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html

Steo M

tunney wrote: »

I saw three cars and two vans run red lights at speed. Four drivers on mobile phones. But hey - lets obsess about the 100kg of bike and rider moving at 20kph.

And what if this 100kg bike & rider is hurtling at 20kpg along the path which they do, should we still obsess or turn a blind eye if we manage to jump out of the way on time?

pedro_colnago

OldBean wrote: »

The handbook you've mentioned is not the law, but appears to be the 'advice and tips' of the RSA handbook. Have a read of this link, which is the actual law:

pedro_colnago

OldBean wrote: »

The handbook you've mentioned is not the law, but appears to be the 'advice and tips' of the RSA handbook. Have a read of this link, which is the actual law:]

I'm well aware it's not the law thank you
At no stage did I say it's the law. I'm well aware of the road traffic legislation. The point I have made is if everyone applied the rules of the road there wouldn't be accidents. As I'm no doubt you are aware you must have a satisfactory knowledge of the rules of the road before you are deemed suitable to hold a full driving licence. You are not required to sit an exam as regards the irish statuettes in relation to road traffic law.
Perhaps you should refer to the rules of the road rather than the road traffic legislation before u either cycle or drive on a public road in Ireland in future?

pedro_colnago

pedro_colnago wrote: »

OldBean wrote: »

The handbook you've mentioned is not the law, but appears to be the 'advice and tips' of the RSA handbook. Have a read of this link, which is the actual law


I'm well aware it's not the law thank you
At no stage did I say it's the law. I'm well aware of the road traffic legislation. The point I have made is if everyone applied the rules of the road there wouldn't be accidents. As I'm no doubt you are aware you must have a satisfactory knowledge of the rules of the road before you are deemed suitable to hold a full driving licence. You are not required to sit an exam as regards the irish statuettes in relation to road traffic law to get a driving licence.
Perhaps you should refer to the rules of the road rather than the road traffic legislation before u either cycle or drive on a public road in Ireland in future?

Pinch Flat

pedro_colnago wrote: »

OldBean wrote: »

The handbook you've mentioned is not the law, but appears to be the 'advice and tips' of the RSA handbook. Have a read of this link, which is the actual law:]

I'm well aware it's not the law thank you
At no stage did I say it's the law. I'm well aware of the road traffic legislation. The point I have made is if everyone applied the rules of the road there wouldn't be accidents. As I'm no doubt you are aware you must have a satisfactory knowledge of the rules of the road before you are deemed suitable to hold a full driving licence. You are not required to sit an exam as regards the irish statuettes in relation to road traffic law.
Perhaps you should refer to the rules of the road rather than the road traffic legislation before u either cycle or drive on a public road in Ireland in future?

When a guard pulls you over if you're brealing the law, it'll be the relevant aw room you're being charged under that will be in the charge, not the rilea of the road.

pedro_colnago

Pinch Flat wrote: »

pedro_colnago wrote: »

When a guard pulls you over if you're brealing the law, it'll be the relevant aw room you're being charged under that will be in the charge, not the rilea of the road.

No s**t Sherlock?

Eamonnator

pedro_colnago wrote: »

As regards cycling the law already is in place for lights and states you should have strips of reflective material to the bike, white to the front and red to the back, also a reflective armband and a Sam Browne reflective belt or vest. If that was properly enforced there'd be no need for new laws

The law states no such thing.

pedro_colnago

Eamonnator wrote: »

The law states no such thing.

Read it again. It says the law relates to lights and reflectors this should according to the rules of the road be accompanied with reflective clothing.

Lights and reflectors on bike = law
Sam brown belt etc = RSA recommendations

pedro_colnago

pedro_colnago wrote: »

Read it again. It says the law relates to lights and reflectors this should according to the rules of the road be accompanied with reflective clothing.

Lights and reflectors on bike = law
Sam brown belt etc = RSA recommendations

I know it's law because I was done for having no lights or reflectors on the bike when I was kid years ago.

CramCycle

pedro_colnago wrote: »

No s**t Sherlock?

MOD VOICE: Play nice.

Eamonnator

You are breaking no law, in Ireland, nor are you committing an offence of any kind, if you are not wearing a Sam Browne or Hi-viz jacket or have no reflective material on your bike.

odyssey06

Tenzor07 wrote: »

FYP

30kph and Bus zones?

Please do not fix my posts with whataboutery.

Darkglasses

pedro_colnago wrote: »

Read it again. It says the law relates to lights and reflectors this should according to the rules of the road be accompanied with reflective clothing.

Lights and reflectors on bike = law
Sam brown belt etc = RSA recommendations

It would have been helpful to make that distinction in your earlier post, you seemed to imply that both were law.

Eamonnator

We appear to be at cross purposes.
As I stated in an earlier post, you must, at all times. have a rear reflector on a bike, which must be red.
This is completely different to reflective material.
If as you stated, you were done for no front reflector, you were wrongly convicted.

tomasrojo

pedro_colnago wrote: »

It highlights the relevant road traffic legislation. That's why it's called the rules of the road. My point is that if people read the rules of the road there would be less accidents.

You have to read them critically though, as they're written very much from the point of view of the driver of a car. Blindly following the recommendations in the Rules of the Road as a cyclist could get you badly hurt. For example, they recommend to always use cycle tracks where provided; they don't point out that the ones that lead you straight through a junction while leaving you inside the left-turn lane for motorised traffic are better ignored, or at least used with extreme caution.

The relevancy and efficacy of conspicuity aids themselves are discussed in the hiviz megathread.

OldBean

pedro_colnago wrote: »

I'm well aware it's not the law thank you
At no stage did I say it's the law. I'm well aware of the road traffic legislation. The point I have made is if everyone applied the rules of the road there wouldn't be accidents.

pedro_colnago wrote: »

As regards cycling the law already is in place for lights and states you should have strips of reflective material to the bike, white to the front and red to the back, also a reflective armband and a Sam Browne reflective belt or vest.

Er.

pedro_colnago

Eamonnator wrote: »

We appear to be at cross purposes.
As I stated in an earlier post, you must, at all times. have a rear reflector on a bike, which must be red.
This is completely different to reflective material.

Without being pedantic but the word material implies to me a reflective object be it clothing or a plastic reflector. Why would anyone have material in the form of clothing attached to a bike?

tomasrojo

You said strips of reflective material. That usually means rolls of Scotchlite or something like that. A reflector is denoted by the term "reflector" not "strips".

pedro_colnago

OldBean wrote: »

Er.

Read the full post.....
Yawn.......

Eamonnator

To me "reflective material" is the stuff, some people stick on their bicycles.
Not cloth.

pedro_colnago

tomasrojo wrote: »

You said strips of reflective material. That usually means rolls of Scotchlite or something like that. A reflector is denoted by the term "reflector" not "strips".

Oh lord god....
I give up

Read the rules of the road it might prevent an accident or two

Leave the legal jargon to the barristers and the solicitors

Eamonnator

Apropos of absolutely nothing, I once prosecuted a motor cyclist for having no indicators on his motorbike. He was represented by a solicitor. He was convicted and fined.
Only afterwards, did I discover, that it wasn't an offence

tomasrojo

Even allowing you the dubious hairsplitting about a reflector being a "strip of reflective material", you still state that a white reflective entity of some sort at the front of the bike is a legal requirement, which is not true.

tomasrojo

pedro_colnago wrote: »

Oh lord god....
I give up

Read the rules of the road it might prevent an accident or two

Leave the legal jargon to the barristers and the solicitors

It's more clarity of language than legalese. Words actually mean specific things, you know.

odyssey06

pedro_colnago wrote: »

My point is if People drove as per the rules of the road there would never be actually be an accident. The vast majority of accidents are caused by driver (human) error. New laws or streamlined application of old laws won't unfortunately prevent people doing stupid things. It may prevent an idiot cyclist from going out on the road in the dark without taking sensible precautions as regards to reflectors or lights tho

A cyclist who goes out on the road in the dark without lights is stupid, but they are at least as dangerous to themselves as to others. Unfortunately, we don't seem to be able to rely on self preservation even in this situation. The law is already on the statute book. The introduction of FPNs backed by a high profile campaign might get through to them, either by appealing to their idea of self preservation, or via the deterrence effect. The stick and the carrot, so to speak.

In this specific topic, I am primarily thinking about a cycling travelling along a footpath at speed, or travel the wrong way down a 1-way street, or weaving through a junction as pedestrians cross at a green light.
Walk along Stephens Green towards Leeson Street and Earlsfort Terrace junction during any rush-hour morning, and you will see dozens of examples of the above. They are more dangerous to pedestrians (not implying they will come off unscathed free in a collision).
These people are already beyond the stage where we can rely on them to adhere to the rules of the road out of their own volition.
The appeal to self preservation is less strong here, if FPNs boost the deterrent effect of the existing laws, I am in favour.

So, my support for FPNs is based on the proposition that there is a range of activities (illegal, of various degrees of risk) susceptible to the deterrent effects of the law and police enforcement.

Now, below a certain level of enforcement and garda presence, the deterrent effect of any law is next to none. And instead we are relying on people to adhere to the rules of the roads thanks to the little policeman inside their heads. But if we don't have that, we've in trouble regardless. FPNs are a step in the right direction if backed up by everything else. I don't see how they can have a negative effect on enforcement or garda resourcing.

And please (this is not directed at Pedro but to boards in general) do not respond to my post describing cyclists breaking the law with whataboutery about all the laws broken by motorists or pedestrians, or skateboarders, or pilots, aviation or nautical. You've already lost the argument by abdication if you go down that route. My examples stand no matter how many counter examples are proposed.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: Drop it now, this is a pointless direction for the thread. Pedro, you implied everything in your first post was law, not all of them are, others were correcting you.
Last warning to play nice or cards will come out.