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

tomasrojo

buffalo wrote: »

Only some? How many were set in the future?

The ones relating to proceeding without reasonable consideration on a hoverboard.

galwaycyclist

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

Regarding cycling "without reasonable consideration", when cars are stopped at lights, is it generally considered okay to cycle past them to the front of the queue? If so, is that only on the left hand side (even though you never overtake on the left in a car), or on the right hand side (even though you probably normally cycle towards the left hand side of the lane, so you'd be doing a bit more weaving)?

Your main source of legal problems would likely lie in what you did when you get to the top of queue. If you deliberately pass the stop line at the traffic lights while the light is red then that is prohibited by the traffic regulations.

RainyDay

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Your main source of legal problems would likely lie in what you did when you get to the top of queue. If you deliberately pass the stop line at the traffic lights while the light is red then that is prohibited by the traffic regulations.

Indeed, it is prohibited to pass the stop line. Though it is recommended by many cycling experts, including John Franklin's CycleCraft as the best way to ensure that you are visible to other traffic.

ted1

Beasty wrote: »

If you've broken the law you face the consequences - what can be unfair about that? Obviously many will continue to get away with stuff, as also happens with motorists. So long as there is nothing discriminatory in the way the rules are applied I really cannot see how their application could be considered "unfair"

Well the law is written with motorists in mind, it was not thinking of the requirement of cyclists.

Let's look at an example the bike lane in the road that runs parallel to the luas from kimacud to stillorgan has T junction with Traffic lights, now the bike lane continues straight but you need to stop at red. There is really no need to stop at all as your in a private lane that cars shouldn't enter.
In other bike lanes with a similar setup they have moved the lights to the right of the lane meaning you don't have to stop.

So there is no joint up thinking.

Jawgap

ted1 wrote: »

Well the law is written with motorists in mind, it was not thinking of the requirement of cyclists.

Let's look at an example the bike lane in the road that runs parallel to the luas from kimacud to stillorgan has T junction with Traffic lights, now the bike lane continues straight but you need to stop at red. There is really no need to stop at all as your in a private lane that cars shouldn't enter.
In other bike lanes with a similar setup they have moved the lights to the right of the lane meaning you don't have to stop.

So there is no joint up thinking.

It's a red light - you stop.

If you don't stop and get done, don't complain.

Ask the local authority to relocate the light.

Simples.

Macy0161

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

Regarding cycling "without reasonable consideration", when cars are stopped at lights, is it generally considered okay to cycle past them to the front of the queue? If so, is that only on the left hand side (even though you never overtake on the left in a car), or on the right hand side (even though you probably normally cycle towards the left hand side of the lane, so you'd be doing a bit more weaving)?

Cyclists are allowed pass on the left. Also, many junctions have advanced stop lines to allow cyclists to safely position themselves at the front of the queue. I think they'd be a good case if someone was pulled for "without reasonable consideration" it a junction without an advanced stop line, given its a common road marking, and the reasons for it. I'd go to court anyway.

CramCycle

ted1 wrote: »

Well the law is written with motorists in mind, it was not thinking of the requirement of cyclists.

Let's look at an example the bike lane in the road that runs parallel to the luas from kimacud to stillorgan has T junction with Traffic lights, now the bike lane continues straight but you need to stop at red. There is really no need to stop at all as your in a private lane that cars shouldn't enter.
In other bike lanes with a similar setup they have moved the lights to the right of the lane meaning you don't have to stop.

So there is no joint up thinking.

Which junction are you on about? Is there an opportunity for cyclists coming onto the T junction to go into the lane you are in as they turn right?

galwaycyclist

RainyDay wrote: »

Indeed, it is prohibited to pass the stop line. Though it is recommended by many cycling experts, including John Franklin's CycleCraft as the best way to ensure that you are visible to other traffic.

Hmm source for this please if you don't mind?

My recollection is that Franklin tends to favour stopping one or two vehicles back from the top of the queue and expresses a particular caution about cyclists trying to use ASLs.

Chips Lovell

Agreed. You don't need to move to the head of the queue to make yourself more visible. Simply position yourself in the middle of the lane, behind the vehicle ahead of you.

tomasrojo

galwaycyclist wrote: »

My recollection is that Franklin tends to favour stopping one or two vehicles back from the top of the queue and expresses a particular caution about cyclists trying to use ASLs.

Yeah, that's what I do (stopping behind vehicles queueing, positioning myself fairly centrally), and I assume I got it from Franklin. Couldn't swear it though.

coolemon

tunney wrote: »

Jaywalking is not an offense in ireland though is it?

Only if one jay walks within something like 100 meters of a Zebra crossing.

There are not many Zebra crossings in Ireland so jaywalking is essentially allowed.

Wanderer78

when is ireland gonna introduce mandatory use of helmets with on the spot fines?? no brainer!!!

Chips Lovell

It isn't.

It isn't going to happen. And it isn't a no brainer. All helmet discussion is located here. Worth a reading before jumping in.

Wanderer78

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

It isn't.

It isn't going to happen. And it isn't a no brainer. All helmet discussion is located here. Worth a reading before jumping in.

thank you for that. i ll read it later when i have the time. helmets are a no brainer. they save lives end of. yes the cycling issue is much greater than helmets but as said....

mikhail

Wanderer78 wrote: »

when is ireland gonna introduce mandatory use of helmets with on the spot fines?? no brainer!!!

It's not really a no-brainer. It seems very sensible, and I've always worn a helmet myself, but in fact helmeted cyclists are no safer when you measure outcomes. All you'd actually be doing is selling helmets and collecting fines.

Chips Lovell

Rather than start at the start all over again, go read the thread. Suffice to say, if it were a "no brainer", there wouldn't be such extensive study and debate.

On reviewing the evidence you could well still come down on the side of helmets, but you could hardly argue that its an indisputable position.

Wanderer78

mikhail wrote: »

It's not really a no-brainer. It seems very sensible, and I've always worn a helmet myself, but in fact helmeted cyclists are no safer when you measure outcomes. All you'd actually be doing is selling helmets and collecting fines.

fair point but after getting serious about mountain biking last couple of years, protection is at the forefront of my mind. yes mountain biking is a different story but we have to start protecting cyclists out there. im getting sick of hearing about cyclists being injured or killed. its a fantastic pastime and everything else that goes with it but saving lives should always be a priority. the fines could be used to educate both drivers and cyclists of the dangerous of it all but this being ireland, some chance of all that happening. i believe the helmet debate is similar in the motor biking world but id rather have helmets on people. maybe your right in saying they dont make much difference but im yet to be convinced

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: All helmet discussion to the helmet thread, it will derail this thread, if you wish to discuss it, do it there, that goes for all posters in this thread

Located here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057030568

Any issues please PM me, do not discuss in thread

monument

coolemon wrote: »

Only if one jay walks within something like 100 meters of a Zebra crossing.

There are not many Zebra crossings in Ireland so jaywalking is essentially allowed.

It's 15 metres from pedestrian crossings or zebra crossings.

magicbastarder

just out of curiosity, i kept an eye out for cycling offences (or bad practice) while on the bus crossing over from o'connell street and up d'olier street. in that short space of time, i saw cyclists on the footpath, cyclists cycling across pedestrian crossings against a red light, and one cyclist breaking a red. one was not wearing a helmet, and i think only one was wearing a hi-vis.

needless to say, the death toll was immense.

cython

magicbastarder wrote: »

just out of curiosity, i kept an eye out for cycling offences (or bad practice) while on the bus crossing over from o'connell street and up d'olier street. in that short space of time, i saw cyclists on the footpath, cyclists cycling across pedestrian crossings against a red light, and one cyclist breaking a red. one was not wearing a helmet, and i think only one was wearing a hi-vis.

needless to say, the death toll was immense.

What's the death toll from amber gambling, or running red lights? Probably pretty low as we are conditioned to expect it at this stage, but it doesn't mean the laws shouldn't be enforced. However it's also unreasonable to only ask for the laws that suit you to be enforced. Personally I'm in favour of FPNs for cyclists (and I commute from D15 to D2 by bike on a daily basis), as I find myself cringing at some of the stuff pulled by other cyclists purely because they know no Garda could be arsed pursuing a prosecution even if they were to be caught. Only yesterday I saw a guy I used to work with cycle against the flow of traffic on the wrong side of O'Connell Bridge, for example.

magicbastarder

cython wrote: »

What's the death toll from amber gambling

i'd be surprised if it's above zero, but how many prosecutions are there from breaking an amber light?
what struck me earlier was the notion that the guy doing maybe 5mph on a footpath on his bike could (clarification required on whether this is an FPN offence) be considered a danger to life or limb.

Deedsie

Why is death toll always the stat used for justifying poor cycling or running red lights on this forum. I saw a knobhead cycling in front of me going over the canal at lesson street run a red and crash into a pedestrian who had right of way to cross the road. The woman got an awful fright, knobhead cyclist basically scolded her for inconveniencing him by daring to cross the road on his way to wherever he was going. I was cycling behind him for about 5km and I was hoping a Garda would catch him.

laraghrider

Deedsie wrote: »

Why is death toll always the stat used for justifying poor cycling or running red lights on this forum.

To be fair I don't think it's ever used to justify it. I doubt you'd find many on this forum who would defend running red lights or poor cycling. Christ a lot of us race and some of the choice words we shout at each other when there is a bit of poor cycling in the group pale into comparison to what you hear on the road! That being said the reason some people throw out the death toll is that running red lights is often the stick used by drivers to beat cyclists with. Completely overlooking the amount of drivers that break reds at the same time. The difference being of course plenty of people have died at the hands of a car/van/lorry breaking a red light where as it stands at probably 0 in the case of a cyclist.

That's not to justify it at all but hopefully it explains it.

magicbastarder

is there an FPN for cycling on the footpath now?

Flatzie_poo

magicbastarder wrote: »

what struck me earlier was the notion that the guy doing maybe 5mph on a footpath on his bike could (clarification required on whether this is an FPN offence) be considered a danger to life or limb.

Of course it could, depending on the way the person you hit falls for example...

:rolleyes:

magicbastarder

joggers should be banned from paths so, as they carry more momentum and kinetic energy than a cyclist at 5mph.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

is there an FPN for cycling on the footpath now?

seems to be (at least) €50 for this.
driving a car on a footpath carries a €60 fine and one penalty point.

that's actually amusingly disproportionate.

Chinasea

magicbastarder wrote: »

just out of curiosity, i kept an eye out for cycling offences (or bad practice) while on the bus crossing over from o'connell street and up d'olier street. in that short space of time, i saw cyclists on the footpath, cyclists cycling across pedestrian crossings against a red light, and one cyclist breaking a red. one was not wearing a helmet, and i think only one was wearing a hi-vis.

needless to say, the death toll was immense.

While you were doing your research did you happen to have a look at the minute non existent space that cyclists are supposed to squish themselves onto in this lethal, treacherous area?

Flatzie_poo

magicbastarder wrote: »

seems to be (at least) €50 for this.
driving a car on a footpath carries a €60 fine and one penalty point.

that's actually amusingly disproportionate.

Agreed,

But as a cyclist, nothing annoys me more than waiting at a red light while another cycles on by on the path...

As a responsible cyclist I think the path fine is just, - but the cycle lane in question, should be widened & the car path fine/penalty points amount needs to change...

ted1

magicbastarder wrote: »

seems to be (at least) €50 for this.
driving a car on a footpath carries a €60 fine and one penalty point.

that's actually amusingly disproportionate.

My main issue is what happens on shared foot paths/ cycle lanes. Do they have a specific designation ? How are they classified in law?

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

seems to be (at least) €50 for this.
driving a car on a footpath carries a €60 fine and one penalty point.

that's actually amusingly disproportionate.

I think it's part of what Robert Davis of the Road Danger Reduction Form in the UK calls the "Even Stevens" philosophy of equal responsibility for road safety between all road users. It seems logical if you don't factor in that one of the parties has immensely more capacity to harm, and should have to shoulder a larger burden or responsibility (and not 20% more either).

check_six

ted1 wrote: »

My main issue is what happens on shared foot paths/ cycle lanes. Do they have a specific designation ? How are they classified in law?

Well that sign on the footpath makes everything okay, apparently. Cycle as fast as you can past pedestrians a hairsbreadth away from you. Do it at 5kph on a path with sign and it's gonna be a trip to the big house (or fine or whatever).

Unless, the shared cycle track/path has one of those signs which are not in the statute books. Surprisingly there are a number of signs which look official, but have essentially been "made-up" by the local county council and do not have any meaning in law. I can't recall which ones exactly but they were shared path/cycle track signs which enticed cyclists onto a path where they were not technically allowed to go. A "bait track" if you will. Perhaps this was the policy all along. Once the FPNs come in they'll be able to station some Guards there and start raking in the cash!

Perhaps someone will be good enough to post the "un-legal" sign.

tomasrojo

I think when they revised the regulation that made all cycle tracks compulsory, they brought a few of the Shared Use-style signs into law as well. General clean up of the regulations.

ardmacha

laraghrider wrote: »

To be fair I don't think it's ever used to justify it. I doubt you'd find many on this forum who would defend running red lights or poor cycling. Christ a lot of us race and some of the choice words we shout at each other when there is a bit of poor cycling in the group pale into comparison to what you hear on the road! That being said the reason some people throw out the death toll is that running red lights is often the stick used by drivers to beat cyclists with. Completely overlooking the amount of drivers that break reds at the same time. The difference being of course plenty of people have died at the hands of a car/van/lorry breaking a red light where as it stands at probably 0 in the case of a cyclist.

That's not to justify it at all but hopefully it explains it.

How does it explain it? On the contrary it is the typical nonsense.
Who has posted anything about cyclists running red lights who has in any way justified motorists running red lights. Please direct us to one single post or public comment that does this.

magicbastarder wrote:

joggers should be banned from paths so, as they carry more momentum and kinetic energy than a cyclist at 5mph.

Perhaps they should too be banned and sent off to some sports facility.
But one difference is that the joggers are not carrying metal bars with which to hit the other path users.

laraghrider

ardmacha wrote: »

How does it explain it? On the contrary it is the typical nonsense.
Who has posted anything about cyclists running red lights who has in any way justified motorists running red lights. Please direct us to one single post or public comment that does this.

Did you actually read my post or did you just take the last line and react? I never once said anyone posted anything that justified motorists running red lights. A poster asked a question regarding a statistic. I answered explaining what the comparison is often used in connection with the statistic. If you actually read my post you'd see where I said this: "I doubt you'd find many on this forum who would defend running red lights" Go back and re-read it again.

ardmacha

laraghrider wrote: »

Did you actually read my post or did you just take the last line and react? I never once said anyone posted anything that justified motorists running red lights. A poster asked a question regarding a statistic. I answered explaining what the comparison is often used in connection with the statistic. If you actually read my post you'd see where I said this: "I doubt you'd find many on this forum who would defend running red lights" Go back and re-read it again.

Your post contained the phrase "Completely overlooking the amount of drivers that break reds at the same time" which strongly suggests that you were implying that someone was justifying this. The point is that the law needs to be enforced for both groups.

clod71

I would justify a cyclist crossing a road with a red light in many occasions and have absolutely no problem with it. I often do it with caution, when it doesn't cause disruption to the traffic. I would never do it while driving a car.

laraghrider

ardmacha wrote: »

Your post contained the phrase "Completely overlooking the amount of drivers that break reds at the same time" which strongly suggests that you were implying that someone was justifying this. The point is that the law needs to be enforced for both groups.

So you took one comment, disregarded the context which surrounded it and based your angle from that. Nice. If it pleases you I also said: "car/van/lorry breaking a red light where as it stands at probably 0" You can take anything you like out of any comment ignoring the context and use that to make any argument you wish. Keep up the good work.

NeedMoreGears

For me the FPN is about stopping people acting like w****ers and being inconsiderate towards other road users.

I welcome them and I'm (possibly in vain) hoping for some actual enforcement.

Lemming

ardmacha wrote: »

Perhaps they should too be banned and sent off to some sports facility.
But one difference is that the joggers are not carrying metal bars with which to hit the other path users.

Just to throw your attempt at pedantry back at you, cyclists are not carrying metal bars. Unless of course .... a cyclist is actually carrying a metal bar on their person for some peculiar reason, in addition to cycling.

laraghrider

Lemming wrote: »

Just to throw your attempt at pedantry back at you, cyclists are not carrying metal bars. Unless of course .... a cyclist is actually carrying a metal bar on their person for some peculiar reason, in addition to cycling.

Nothing quite like a good cycling joust it has to be said.

Jawgap

laraghrider wrote: »

Nothing quite like a good cycling joust it has to be said.

EDIT: Note the complete disregard for anyone's safety - no helmets or hi-viz, but plenty of tweed!

magicbastarder

Deedsie wrote: »

Why is death toll always the stat used for justifying poor cycling or running red lights on this forum. I saw a knobhead cycling in front of me going over the canal at lesson street run a red and crash into a pedestrian who had right of way to cross the road. The woman got an awful fright, knobhead cyclist basically scolded her for inconveniencing him by daring to cross the road on his way to wherever he was going. I was cycling behind him for about 5km and I was hoping a Garda would catch him.

the reason death toll is used as a statistic, and not the sort of anecdote similar to yours, is that reports like yours remain anecdotes and aren't statistics. there's no recording of them.

Macy0161

ardmacha wrote: »

But one difference is that the joggers are not carrying metal bars with which to hit the other path users.

Those joggers in a relay are a menace though.

RainyDay

magicbastarder wrote: »

the reason death toll is used as a statistic, and not the sort of anecdote similar to yours, is that reports like yours remain anecdotes and aren't statistics. there's no recording of them.

And also because he fails to report/record the number of days that he cycles along the canal track without incident.

Deedsie

RainyDay wrote: »

And also because he fails to report/record the number of days that he cycles along the canal track without incident.

Monday to Friday every week. I usually see some poor behaviour from cyclists. I wouldn't say everyday because I try to leave early to avoid it. I could say with 99% certainty that if I was to cycle on the N11 between 8:30 and 9:30 any day during the week I would see some seriously stupid and reckless cycling. Any members of AGS reading, please call down for a look any morning. I'll cheer to myself as I cycle past.

CramCycle

RainyDay wrote: »

And also because he fails to report/record the number of days that he cycles along the canal track without incident.

To be fair, the canal track is a cluster f*ck of poor design, poor traffic management and the highest % of assh*les in terms of population density.

If people wanted a stick to beat cyclists with, that canal path would be it. Its not all cyclists fault but a large chunk of d1ckish behaviour in the area is perpetuated by cyclists. I for one really hope as they role out FPNs and red light cameras, they put some there.

There were so many ways it could have been done better and yet still, its like an engineer who flunked out of college got a job through nepotism and we are left with this sh1t.

Whoever designed it should be ashamed.

rubadub

check_six wrote: »

A "bait track" if you will. Perhaps this was the policy all along. Once the FPNs come in they'll be able to station some Guards there and start raking in the cash!

Perhaps someone will be good enough to post the "un-legal" sign.

I think it is not just the signs. I think there has to be a continous white line on one or both sides of cycletracks. In a lot of places these are worn away or never there in the first place.

If they do fine a single person in a "bait track", then word will get out and far more cyclists will stick to the road. I was saying motorist may seem pleased but may have journeys slowed a fair amount once cyclist start obeying the law to the letter.

I will be sticking to the roads now a lot more, on sections I used to cycle on cycletracks. There is a stretch between whites cross and foxrock church where you often have gangs of pedestrians walking in the cycletrack. There is a large grass verge beside them and then a footpath. I used to cycle onto the grass and sometimes the path to avoid them, now I would fear being done so will stick to the road. People have dogs on illegally long leads too walking on the cycletracks. And at the moment they are still littered with thick cable ties kindly left by the polictical party bastards.

RainyDay

CramCycle wrote: »

To be fair, the canal track is a cluster f*ck of poor design, poor traffic management and the highest % of assh*les in terms of population density.

If people wanted a stick to beat cyclists with, that canal path would be it. Its not all cyclists fault but a large chunk of d1ckish behaviour in the area is perpetuated by cyclists. I for one really hope as they role out FPNs and red light cameras, they put some there.

There were so many ways it could have been done better and yet still, its like an engineer who flunked out of college got a job through nepotism and we are left with this sh1t.

Whoever designed it should be ashamed.

My point was nothing really to do with the canal. It was to do with the difference between anecdotal evidence and real evidence.