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

Jawgap

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

What relevance does this have to the point? I just see it as deflecting to be honest with you. The relationship between cars and bikes is very different to the one between cars and lorrys; that is the bottom line.

I'm simply asking if a HGV overtaking a car on a motorway by using the outside lane is committing an offence under road traffic legislation?

The 'relationship' between cars and bikes is defined by the various road traffic acts and associated statutory instruments - where does it say that bikes or cars have a general priority over the other?

The obligation on any road user is to use the roads safely and in compliance with the law - if you come up against another road user legitimately using the road but inconveniencing you - tough! You wait to overtake when it's safe and legal to do so.

MayoAreMagic

Danjamin1 wrote: »

To be fair the whole subject of separating different modes of transport doesn't have much relevance to the point of the thread either, no one's acting illegally by cycling amongst other traffic.

To be fair, I made the point that the underlying problem between drivers and cyclists is that their mode of transportation is very different in nature, and was told it was no more different than a car and a truck. To be fair, I was just illustrating how that point was nonsense... Fair enough for you?

MayoAreMagic

Jawgap wrote: »

The 'relationship' between cars and bikes is defined by the various road traffic acts and associated statutory instruments - where does it say that bikes or cars have a general priority over the other?

Who said there was priority? I made a point of stating that this wasn't the case, if you had read what was said you would know that.

Jawgap wrote: »

The obligation on any road user is to use the roads safely and in compliance with the law - if you come up against another road user legitimately using the road but inconveniencing you - tough! You wait to overtake when it's safe and legal to do so.

Indeed. But if it was that simple there wouldn't be any threads of this nature, would there? The point is, regardless of what is now in law and deemed legitimate, there is an underlying mismatch in the nature of each mode of transport that has one another at loggerheads. Simply hiding behind 'what is legitimate' is just like closing your eyes and covering your ears to the bigger picture. Being legitimate doesn't make it right, plenty of things are legitimate but also wrong.

Jawgap

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Who said there was priority? I made a point of stating that this wasn't the case, if you had read what was said you would know that.



Indeed. But if it was that simple there wouldn't be any threads of this nature, would there? The point is, regardless of what is now in law and deemed legitimate, there is an underlying mismatch in the nature of each mode of transport that has one another at loggerheads. Simply hiding behind 'what is legitimate' is just like closing your eyes and covering your ears to the bigger picture. Being legitimate doesn't make it right, plenty of things are legitimate but also wrong.

Well you're right - I'd say about 80% of the roads in and around Dublin were not laid out with motorised traffic in mind, and the figure approaches, in my estimate, about 95% in and around the city centre.

Cars, trucks etc are the arrivistas, not bikes - so if there is a mismatch, perhaps it has been caused by the more recently developed modes of transport?

Plus, regardless of legalities, legitimacy etc, most problems in road sharing could be readily fixed by a all road users showing a degree of respect and maturity towards other road users. Unfortunately in Ireland our driving culture shows no signs of evolving in that direction.

CramCycle

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

To be fair, I made the point that the underlying problem between drivers and cyclists is that their mode of transportation is very different in nature,

But its not, the underlying problem between cyclists and drivers isn't an underlying problem between cyclists and drivers. Its an issue between one muppet and someone, or between someone and some muppet or in some incidences, two muppets.

99.9% of motorists I interact with as a cyclist are really pleasant or just non events that neither of us remember milliseconds later.

99.9% of cyclists I interact with are either really pleasant or just non-events that neither of remember milliseconds later.

Today I seen a car run a red light 5 seconds after it had changed, I had stopped on it as it turned, every other motorist had to slam on brakes coming from the adjoining road. Yesterday I seen a car had to slam on brakes turning onto Northumberland road because a DB had run the lights.

In both cases the hostility and shock was to do with one person with no control or intelligence i.e. a muppet. It had nothing to do with transport type, it had everythingto do with being a muppet.

Chips Lovell

Thread topic is FPNs for road traffic offences.

It's not a venue for airing your grievances on what cyclists should or shouldn't be allowed do, such as obliging them to wear helmets or banning them from riding two abreast. We've already issued warnings on this.

If you haven't already read the charter, please do so now.

MayoAreMagic

Jawgap wrote: »

Plus, regardless of legalities, legitimacy etc, most problems in road sharing could be readily fixed by a all road users showing a degree of respect and maturity towards other road users. Unfortunately in Ireland our driving culture shows no signs of evolving in that direction.

Id agree. But I think a big part of the problem is the attitude people have. Straight away we seen the old fail-safe of 'well this is legitimate and Im entitled to do so' wheeled out and used as a safety blanket. The truth is we are still learning as we go as regards the best way of integrating cyclists and motorists, and that includes the lawmakers. If we had less of the 'Im doing x because I am well within my rights' and more of 'Im doing y because it is the safest thing to do for me and everyone else in this situation' we would be much better off.

Macy0161

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

What relevance does this have to the point?

It does have a something of a relevance to the thread though, as many have been quick to make out only cyclists flout the law. HGV's in the overtaking lane is as common place as cyclist red light jumping imo, and probably even less prosecuted. Similarly the numbers of unaccompanied learners on "normal" roads, never mind the numbers on motorways (where they aren't legally allowed even accompanied), and the lack of outrage compared to even perfectly safe and legal road use by cyclists we've seen in this thread and others is stark.

tunney

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

To be fair, I made the point that the underlying problem between drivers and cyclists is that their mode of transportation is very different in nature, and was told it was no more different than a car and a truck. To be fair, I was just illustrating how that point was nonsense... Fair enough for you?

Tractor and a car
Horse and cart and a car
Bike and car

Go to the countryside, the proper countryside not Wicklow, and see how cyclists are treated with more respect. Why? Because people understand that there are other types of road users than just cars and all are equally valid. Also that speed limits are limits not targets and if other road users impede that then thats life, not a legitimate grievance.

Danjamin1

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

To be fair, I made the point that the underlying problem between drivers and cyclists is that their mode of transportation is very different in nature, and was told it was no more different than a car and a truck. To be fair, I was just illustrating how that point was nonsense... Fair enough for you?

It's fair, it's just not clear what it has to do with FPN's & enforcing the existing road legislation.

Hermy

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

...'Im doing y because it is the safest thing to do for me and everyone else in this situation'...

Unfortunately too many road users think they know what the safest thing to do is when in reality their notion of safety is quite wide of the mark.

ROK ON

Hermy wrote: »

Unfortunately too many road users think they know what the safest thing to do is when in reality their notion of safety is quite wide of the mark.

The I've driven for years and never had a crash thus I must be a safe driver.

Hermy

ROK ON wrote: »

The I've driven for years and never had a crash thus I must be a safe driver.

Exactly.

Kinet1c

I commute on my bike to/from work an hour before and after rush hour and there's still a huge amount of traffic offences and risks taken by everyone on the road, I can only imagine what rush hour is like. In the 10 months I've been taking this route, I've never seen any presence of gardai along the 11k route and these would be very busy roads.

FPN appear to be a good way forward but enforcement needs to be tackled too. If you start spouting enforcement to the gardai, they'll start spouting resources to the government.

In the past 2 days I've seen cars and bikes break lights, cars parked in cycle lanes, bikes without lights when it's dark, cars pulling in to my lane without regard for my safety and bikes cycling waywardly from side to side (yes it's been windy but this was not a windy road). It's everyone on the road who's at fault but if people see rules and laws being enforced they will start being more careful.

morana

I would like to see FPN's for pedestrians who cross on red! Bloody red light walkers!!!

Being serious I think its a good idea but I amnt unduly worried because lets be honest the only way you will be caught is if you are stupid enough not to notice a law enforcement officer standing at the lights etc.

Even despite this good idea cars will still be causing injury and death to cyclists.

Tenzor07

Interesting article, I know it's from America, but we have similar "infrastructure" and mix of Motorised and non-motorised traffic:

lets-talk-seriously-about-why-cyclists-break-traffic-laws

pedro_colnago

Most people are idiots, there are idiot cyclists, idiot drivers, idiot pedestrians. Lots of idiots have opinions and don't think about other people's perspectives. Ive met idiot drivers when cycling and ive met idiot cyclists when driving. Il admit ive done daft things myself on my bike and in a car. The thing is tho that Not everyone cycles a bike but lots of people drive, because of that there are a higher percentage of idiots driving who don't understand where cyclists are coming from and what it's like to be on a bike. The higher percentage of driver idiots means they give there opinion more. Hence idiots like George hook Ivan Yates and finiian McGrath get to preach their opinions.
My point is there are idiots who are idiots whether they drive or cycle, the roads are where u often have to interact with these idiots. That will never change. I'm sure we have all done stupid things on bikes or in our cars at some point yet we think ahhh I'm grand tho I knew what I was doing.
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.

Qualitymark

@pedro I've even met idiot cyclists when cycling, like the man in black who nearly crashed into me as he raced to enter a one-way the wrong way the other day.

Lemming

pedro_colnago wrote: »

The thing is tho that Not everyone cycles a bike but lots of people drive, because of that there are a higher percentage of idiots driving who don't understand where cyclists are coming from and what it's like to be on a bike..

TBH, I suspect that a significant portion of those drivers who rage about cyclists would most likely take umbrage with anybody on the road who they perceive as getting "in the way" for whatever reason; could be a cyclist, a bus pulling over for passengers to alight or get on, a pregnant quadroplegic (sp?) granny with blind kittens crossing arm-in-arm with the Pope at a pedestrian crossing, or just really heavy traffic, etc. It wouldn't really matter I suspect. That it's a cyclist rather than a driver only makes them that little bit more memorable when next said "fine upstanding driver" decides to have a rant.

dlb_cycles

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.

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.