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

magicbastarder

Deedsie wrote: »

Does this mean cyclists are now obliged to use cycle lanes where available?

no, it's only a proposed change and would appear to apply to keeping cyclists out of the pedestrian section of shared lanes.

tomasrojo

jon1981 wrote: »

the traffic act says this:

Think that's the old statutory instrument. It was changed a few years back, and in general cycle tracks are not compulsory to use now.

jon1981

tomasrojo wrote: »

Think that's the old statutory instrument. It was changed a few years back, and in general cycle tracks are not compulsory to use now.

right I see, I was looking for the most recent information, my Google powers are weak this morning

tomasrojo

No FPN for not having a bell anyway. The reflector requirement is at least by and large complied with.

Tenzor07

Deedsie wrote: »

What's wrong with the reflector one?

I believe that bicycles which are "adapted for racing" are exempt from having reflectors anyway..

Don't see any issue with it for standard/commuting type bicycles though..

Beasty

Threads merged

Deedsie

Tenzor07 wrote: »

I believe that bicycles which are "adapted for racing" are exempt from having reflectors anyway..

Don't see any issue with it for standard/commuting type bicycles though..

I use a road bike, I took off the rear reflector. I'll just pop it back on. No big deal really?

Beasty

As already highlighted in the original thread (now merged), there are no new offences being introduced - this is simply a better way of enforcing existing law

Buchaill_Mor

Would a removable rear light with in built reflector cover the point?? Most rear lights have reflectors in them.

Tenzor07

Deedsie wrote: »

I use a road bike, I took off the rear reflector. I'll just pop it back on. No big deal really?

I think it's silly though, on my road/racing bike I have a rear light that costs €85, much more effective that a reflector costing €2, and certainly would not be fitting reflectors onto the MTB's...

Deedsie

Tenzor07 wrote: »

I think it's silly though, on my road/racing bike I have a rear light that costs €85, much more effective that a reflector costing €2, and certainly would not be fitting reflectors onto the MTB's...

Well I assume a rear light would trump a reflector?

tomasrojo

Pretty sure that you still technically need a reflector, no matter how good your rear light is, unless it also presents a reflective surface of sufficient area to meet the legal requirements.

I'm also pretty sure this FPN will almost never be issued, except against people who are poorly lit at night or not lit at all. You'd never really notice the absence of a reflector on a well-lit bike, unless you were obsessed with the particular FPN.

JBokeh

Wouldn't most saddle bags or the over the clothes type jerseys have a bit of 3M reflective stuff on them anyway?

Most of that stuff wouldn't bother me, but I don't like using the cycle lanes with the really energy sapping surface in them,looks like tarmac but feels like treacle.

There should be something for passing someone indicating left on their nearside, IMO that would do the most for safety

looksee

I'm just interested, what is the problem about a reflector on the back of a bike? Why would you take one off? If your rear light failed would you not be better with a reflector to give you at least half a chance if a car came up behind you?

07Lapierre

looksee wrote: »

I'm just interested, what is the problem about a reflector on the back of a bike? Why would you take one off? If your rear light failed would you not be better with a reflector to give you at least half a chance if a car came up behind you?

In my case..that's where the second rear light, the reflective strips on my Shoes, Overshoes, saddle bag and jacket kick in.

tomasrojo

It's worse in the UK: they have a mandatory (at night) pedal reflector regulation, and have been fighting for years to get it removed. There's a thread about it on a CTC forum.

Deedsie

tomasrojo wrote: »

Pretty sure that you still technically need a reflector, no matter how good your rear light is, unless it also presents a reflective surface of sufficient area to meet the legal requirements.

I'm also pretty sure this FPN will almost never be issued, except against people who are poorly lit at night or not lit at all. You'd never really notice the absence of a reflector on a well-lit bike, unless you were obsessed with the particular FPN.

I suppose it could be argued that the reflector would be an additional safety measure, in case the light failed for some reason? I can't see it as a big deal really.

Macy0161

looksee wrote: »

I'm just interested, what is the problem about a reflector on the back of a bike? Why would you take one off? If your rear light failed would you not be better with a reflector to give you at least half a chance if a car came up behind you?

I use two lights front and rear when I'm cycling at night/ in the dark. My reflector fell off rather than being removed. Also, most of my cycling clothing has reflective detail, and I'd usually have reflective ankle bands on.

tomasrojo

Deedsie wrote: »

I suppose it could be argued that the reflector would be an additional safety measurement in case the light failed for some reason? I can't see it as a big deal really.

No, doesn't affect me. It doesn't seem a pressing enough problem to bother including in the FPN system either though. The regulation is really a throwback to the sixties or earlier, when reflectors were regarded as much more reliable than lights, which isn't the case anymore. They're certainly not anywhere near as reliably conspicuous from as large a range of angles.

Darkglasses

looksee wrote: »

I'm just interested, what is the problem about a reflector on the back of a bike? Why would you take one off? If your rear light failed would you not be better with a reflector to give you at least half a chance if a car came up behind you?

Because that's where your lights should be.

mcgratheoin

looksee wrote: »

I'm just interested, what is the problem about a reflector on the back of a bike? Why would you take one off? If your rear light failed would you not be better with a reflector to give you at least half a chance if a car came up behind you?

the problem is not with the reflector, the problem is with the potential that I would be fined for not having a more or less redundant piece of equipment on my bike. My road bike did not come with a rear reflector (so I didn't take one off), nor is there any easy place to mount it - I have two rear lights mounted on my seat post, one Exposure TraceR as a primary light and one 3 bulb LED as a secondary light and to cover the (ridiculous) legal requirement of having a light with a surface area of >2 square inches.

If my rear light fails, I have a spare, if both failed I would not cycle - I'd be calling someone to come and get me.

magicbastarder

mcgratheoin wrote: »

to cover the (ridiculous) legal requirement of having a light with a surface area of >2 square inches.

i would dearly love to know if there has ever been a cyclist - who had a light - but who got done for not having one of at least two square inches.

mcgratheoin

magicbastarder wrote: »

i would dearly love to know if there has ever been a cyclist - who had a light - but who got done for not having one of at least two square inches.

I would hope not, it's not really the reason I have that as a spare (it's because it's a cheap and cheerful backup that flashes while I have the TraceR on steady beam), I just mentioned it to point out how ridiculous the relevant legislation is

seamus

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Usually they will take the bike, used to happen a good bit when I was a courier back in the 90's for cycling around the path on the outside of Stephen's Green...

I would prefer it to be a little more than that though really. At the moment the Gardai can take the bike and then have to wait for a car to pick it up.
So people will find a "loophole" whereby they claim no ID and the Gardai will routinely say "feck it" and let them go. While good citizens with ID get FPNs.

So some kind of system whereby you surrender the bike and present yourself at the station local to the incident. Within 7 days and you just pay the fine. With in a month and you pay double. Within 3 months, you pay triple.
Failure to appear and claim a bike within 3 months and it's considered surrendered, and the Gardai sell it.

At the very least it means there's some "punishment" and it doesn't become a bureaucratic mess where the Gardai have a mountain of bikes lying in some yard somewhere.

Eamonnator

Tenzor07 wrote: »

I believe that bicycles which are "adapted for racing" are exempt from having reflectors anyway..

Don't see any issue with it for standard/commuting type bicycles though..

Partly correct.
Bicycles, which are adapted for racing are exempt from having reflector, while racing, or going to or from a race.

RainyDay

Eamonnator wrote: »

Partly correct.
Bicycles, which are adapted for racing are exempt from having reflector, while racing, or going to or from a race.

Commuter race?

magicbastarder

seamus wrote: »

I would prefer it to be a little more than that though really. At the moment the Gardai can take the bike and then have to wait for a car to pick it up.

my relatively unpopular opinion which i reckon would clean up driving overnight would be that every time you get X penalty points, you have to surrender the car for X days.
sod the financial penalty, it's meaningless to many people; taking their car away from them for a couple of days would hit them more; and be a much more equitable penalty.
plus, if it's a case of 'but it was my son driving my car'; sod it. you'll think twice of letting him borrow it again.

also, it'd be interesting to see the effect on commercial operators. at the moment, what's the brake on them pushing their drivers to meet deadlines or to get from A to B in as short a time as possible? it's the driver who gets penalised as a result of the pressure of his employer.
it'd be another thing entirely if (say) bus eireann had to withdraw a vehicle from the fleet because they were pushing their drivers too hard.

Beasty

Just looking back at the legislation thread, reflectors are required at all times, whereas lights are only required during lighting up hours. I guess that could be to cater for low visibility situations outside lighting up times (including dawn and dusk) when motor vehicles may be driving on dipped lights

magicbastarder

if they're driving on dips though, the reflectors wouldn't necessarily help?

Lumen

magicbastarder wrote: »

my relatively unpopular opinion which i reckon would clean up driving overnight would be that every time you get X penalty points, you have to surrender the car for X days.
sod the financial penalty, it's meaningless to many people; taking their car away from them for a couple of days would hit them more; and be a much more equitable penalty.

Or you could make them drive to Athlone. Nobody wants to do that.

Beasty

magicbastarder wrote: »

if they're driving on dips though, the reflectors wouldn't necessarily help?

Dipped lights are going to reflect off low level reflectors (the type you used to see fitted to mudguards a lot)

As already alluded to these rules were established in a different era and were catering for a very different traffic situation. They are probably long overdue an overhaul, but I suspect if that were to happen there would be a lot of people harping back to the good old days....

looksee

magicbastarder wrote: »

if they're driving on dips though, the reflectors wouldn't necessarily help?

If there was street lighting or approaching traffic a motorist would have a chance of seeing the cyclist anyway, if it was absolutely dark they would not be on dips. Can you be absolutely sure while you are on the bike that the lights are working? Why go looking for arguments against though?

I am really asking about the tendency of road users of all kinds, some pedestrians, some cyclists and some motorists, who seem to prefer to be less visible - pedestrians in dark clothing on country roads, cyclists with lights but no reflective gear - it is sometimes considerably easier to see a reflective belt than a small red light, motorists who do not put on their lights until full dark.

I just can't see why anyone would argue against maximum effort to be seen.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

my relatively unpopular opinion which i reckon would clean up driving overnight would be that every time you get X penalty points, you have to surrender the car for X days.

actually, i meant to say that you would have to surrender the car for as many days as penalty points are on your licence in total.

ec18

My biggest issue with cyclists is that some of them seem to have no awareness of their surroundings. While not a common occurrence I have seen a good few times cyclists just weaving into the middle of the road to pass a slower cyclist without checking for other vehicles around them. Or more common I see cyclists on the phone weaving across the road as they try steet with one hand and talk/Text on the phone with another. I'd like to see that type of behaviour targeted

mcgratheoin

looksee wrote: »

it is sometimes considerably easier to see a reflective belt than a small red light,

Bull. If your reflective belt is more visible than your light then it's your light that is the problem. Wearing a reflective belt will not make up for sub standard lighting and the focus on reflectors and high-vis (which is designed for daytime use) detracts from the responsibility to be adequately lit.

mcgratheoin

ec18 wrote: »

My biggest issue with cyclists drivers is that some of them seem to have no awareness of their surroundings. While not a common occurrence I have seen a good few times cyclists drivers just weaving into the middle of the road to pass a slower cyclist driver without checking for other vehicles around them. Or more common I see cyclists drivers on the phone weaving across the road as they try steet with one hand and talk/Text on the phone with another. I'd like to see that type of behaviour targeted

FYP

ec18

mcgratheoin wrote: »

FYP

and for drivers that behaviour is targeted especially phones. The point being that those actions are dangerous whether a cyclist or driver commits the offence so the punishment should be the same for whomever commits the offence.

magicbastarder

ec18 wrote: »

The point being that those actions are dangerous whether a cyclist or driver commits the offence so the punishment should be the same for whomever commits the offence.

does not compute.
'both dangerous' does not imply 'the punishment should be the same'. that's a completely illogical statement.

mcgratheoin

ec18 wrote: »

and for drivers that behaviour is targeted especially phones. The point being that those actions are dangerous whether a cyclist or driver commits the offence so the punishment should be the same for whomever commits the offence.

Do you believe the two actions are equally dangerous so? I would also dispute that drivers on phones are targeted or even adequately policed. I'm not suggesting cyclists shouldn't be held accountable, but these threads frequently descend into rants about minority behaviour, so let's nip that in the bud right now. It would have been sufficient to say - "I think cycling while on the phone should be subject to a FPN" rather than stating that you have issues with cyclists.

Deedsie

Anyone know when this will be made law? I presume there will be six months of faffing about before a Garda can actually use these new fines?

Beasty

Deedsie wrote: »

Anyone know when this will be made law? I presume there will be six months of faffing about before a Garda can actually use these new fines?

By the end of the summer was mentioned earlier in the thread, so that could be any day now:pac:

ec18

magicbastarder wrote: »

does not compute.
'both dangerous' does not imply 'the punishment should be the same'. that's a completely illogical statement.

Ok, that's reasonable. I meant more so that both activities would essentially break the same law so there for they punishment should be the same (bar exceptional cases where serious bodily harm/death has occurred)

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Do you believe the two actions are equally dangerous so? I would also dispute that drivers on phones are targeted or even adequately policed. I'm not suggesting cyclists shouldn't be held accountable, but these threads frequently descend into rants about minority behaviour, so let's nip that in the bud right now. It would have been sufficient to say - "I think cycling while on the phone should be subject to a FPN" rather than stating that you have issues with cyclists.

That is fair, the only reason I specified issues with cyclists is is due rogue cyclists being the topic of the thread.

Deedsie

Beasty wrote: »

By the end of the summer was mentioned earlier in the thread, so that could be any day now:pac:

So they could be potentially active by August 31st? I remain sceptical yet hopeful.

magicbastarder

will there be an FPN for shoaling?

mcgratheoin

ec18 wrote: »

Ok, that's reasonable. I meant more so that both activities would essentially break the same law so there for they punishment should be the same (bar exceptional cases where serious bodily harm/death has occurred)

I can see what you mean, but it should be noted that they are not the same law at all - one deals with behaviour while in charge of a pedal cycle, one deals with behaviour while in charge of a motor vehicle. Legislation for these modes of transport is distinct and different, and punishment for breaches of the law should also be distinct and appropriate.

tomasrojo

Beasty wrote: »

Dipped lights are going to reflect off low level reflectors (the type you used to see fitted to mudguards a lot)

As already alluded to these rules were established in a different era and were catering for a very different traffic situation. They are probably long overdue an overhaul, but I suspect if that were to happen there would be a lot of people harping back to the good old days....

The situation in the UK originally had a requirement for white paint on the end of the mudguard, to which the requirement of a red reflector was added. You still see this on old roadsters/High Nellys that are still in circulation (a very convincing demonstration of what good bikes they were). Not sure we ever had the same regulation, but most bikes here were probably imported from the UK. Indeed, as Beasty said, these reflectors -- at the end of quite long mudguards -- are quite well situated for picking up dipped headlights. I put a reflective square on the end of my mudflaps, which works even better.

Ultimately the requirement for lights was added. During WWII, I think.

poochiem

Wondering if anyone knows how we could find out if a motorist has ever been cautioned for stopping in the advanced stop line area (bike box)? I haven't been able to find any mention of a prosecution. With that in mind I went back on my camera footage today and only saw a couple of boxes being observed correctly - surprisingly the one going east on Baggot st bridge junction which is normally totally ignored.

Buchaill_Mor

ec18 wrote:

and for drivers that behaviour is targeted especially phones. The point being that those actions are dangerous whether a cyclist or driver commits the offence so the punishment should be the same for whomever commits the offence.

Yeah. I mean the other day when I passed or was passed by 4 in every 6 cars where the driver was either on the phone or texting gives me great faith in these being enforced. The phone thing has been a massive success.

tomasrojo

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Bull. If your reflective belt is more visible than your light then it's your light that is the problem. Wearing a reflective belt will not make up for sub standard lighting and the focus on reflectors and high-vis (which is designed for daytime use) detracts from the responsibility to be adequately lit.

Well, hi-viz clothing, as most people now use the term, includes reflective stripes as well as fluorescent material. The latter is useful during daytime and at dawn/dusk, while the reflective stripes are effective at night.

I don't use hi-viz very much though, because I'm more than adequately visible without it. You have to draw the line somewhere, and I'm deciding where to draw it, not the RSA.

(I don't mind the emphasis on reflectors so much, as at least you don't have to carry them around while off the bike. The more things on the bike and not on you, the better, as far as I'm concerned).

wrt40

Deedsie wrote: »

So they could be potentially active by August 31st? I remain sceptical yet hopeful.

Summer ends on 23rd September.

I seriously doubt the Gardaí will be too happy with this. As if they have nothing better to do with their time. But I suppose, when was the last time you saw a guard walking the streets. It's more likely to be self regulated by good law abiding cyclists.