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

CramCycle

Macy0161 wrote: »

It was further back than that - between RTE and that school, including the u-turn/ cut out point. When it's gridlocked I wouldn't see an issue, but it was a morning it was kinda moving up that point. I personally would've stayed left and moved across later, but each to their own - I wouldn't say they were doing anything wrong, just something I wouldn't do. And that's the "worst" bit of cycling I've seen in recent weeks on the N11!

Nothing technically wrong if he is faster than the traffic but a bit stupid IMO, seems like an unnecessary risk TBH but technically wrong and stupid are two different things.
The worst bit of cycling on the N11 I see is a point where there is a pedestrian crossing between stillorgan and fosters avenue where there is a yield sign on the cyclepath but no sign or warning it is coming, I see cyclists fly through this even with pedestrians waiting to cross but it seems to be 1 in 10 cyclists who don't slow or stop and I have never seen a near miss.

JBokeh wrote: »

He'd be in the middle of the lane coming onto it, but by the first exit he'll be at the kerb. Don't know how i'd feel about giving him advice, sure then i'd be one of them people cyclists hate because i'm imparting my "wisdom" out the car window :pac:

I didn't mean you, it won't go that well I fear (although reading my post it does sound like I am saying you), I meant the Gardai if they see him, just let him know.

galwaycyclist

JBokeh wrote: »

Why don't they bring in some kind of fine for not cycling with your own safety in mind, A guy i see on my commute around once or twice a week takes the 3rd exit at a roundabout on the industrial estate where I take the second, but he hugs the kerb the whole way around it with the bike. Only for I know he does it every day I can anticipate it, what has saved him is the fact he goes through it about 45 minutes before the big 8am rush

That kind of thing should be addressed, while breaking reds is a dick move, it is nowhere near as dangerous as this, i'd rate his carryon as dangerous as passing cars at a junction on their left and not glancing over your shoulder when switching lanes, but rather than hand out fines people caught with no self preservation skills should be made sit through a long arduous presentation on how to look out for your self

Difficult one because sometimes what feels "safe" isn't. Another problem is that there is no legally specified tactic for negotiating roundabouts.

The RSA puts out various advice "use leftmost lane if going ahead" etc but this is not specified in any law to my knowledge.

If we want to make it safer for cyclists on roundabouts I would start by changing the law to forbid anyone from overtaking a cyclist in the immediate area of the entries and exits and on the roundabout itself.

As I interpret it, theoretically in law anyone in possession of the roundabout should have such priority but I would make it explicit in law for cyclists.

schemingbohemia

CramCycle wrote: »

The light sequences, the pinch points, the forced interaction with pedestrians (leeson st. bridge), the narrowing of the footpath to accomodate the lane so pedestrians lose more space, the light sequences which priortise the main road at Holles St. instead of priortising pedestrians. The several junctions where the lights encourage mingling and by default, d1ckish behaviour. To be honest, its a range of minor things that I feel could have been planned better but it is topped off by the ignorant and downright c***ish behaviour of many of the cyclists there, which has nothing to do with the cycle lane itself, but at no other junction in Dublin do I ever see why people hate cyclists made so clear.

Don't get me wrong, poor planning on the light sequences encourages poor behaviour from pedestrians at that junction, then poor behaviour by cyclists, followed by poor behaviour by motorists on the canal.

In theory it's great but a few minor changes when it was being built could have made it fantastic. Widen the footpath or remove car park spaces on the far side. At the pinch points, widen the footpath out towards the canal to lower areas of aggravation. ANPR cameras to stop people jumping the lights and parking essentially in pedestrian paths.

It seems to bring out the worst in all forms of transport, which to me says, there are issues that should have been addressed.

I think they've tried to address that but it's perhaps made things a bit more confusing by having separate pedestrian and cyclist lights - saw a load of cyclists ahead of me going through the red cycle light when the green pedestrian light came on the other day on my way back from the lunchtime cycle on Wednesday. The Amber lights mixed in at just one of the junctions also is a little confusing.

But I think generally it's mostly down to poor behaviour by people, though I think it's a great facility and way better than most cycle paths here.

CramCycle

schemingbohemia wrote: »

But I think generally it's mostly down to poor behaviour by people, though I think it's a great facility and way better than most cycle paths here.

It's a good facility but it could have been a great one was my point, there are a percentage of people who use it who also just turn me off using it altogether, so that's my problem I suppose.

They have removed the amber mixing at the first junction, presumably due to complaints, most are used to going through now anyway so it makes no difference. The footpath should have been wider. I like my mode of transport to be accommodated but I am also of the firm belief that no mode of transport should ever put out pedestrians any more than is strictly necessary. The foot path should be wider, the light sequence at certain junctions should rotate quicker, the red lights for cyclists should be more prominent and before the footpath intersection. At Leeson St. Bridge, they should have widened the foot path at the bridge and the pedestrian crossing rather than have a mixed area. The random ending at Richmond Row.

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.

buffalo

20,000 use loophole to dodge penalty points - http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/revealed-20000-use-loophole-to-dodge-penalty-points-31319517.html

Remember kids, people who ride bikes should have to have a licence and registration - once you're able to identify them, you can punish them for running red lights, etc. Just like the people who drive cars and break the law get punished...

check_six

buffalo wrote: »

20,000 use loophole to dodge penalty points - http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/revealed-20000-use-loophole-to-dodge-penalty-points-31319517.html

Remember kids, people who ride bikes should have to have a licence and registration - once you're able to identify them, you can punish them for running red lights, etc. Just like the people who drive cars and break the law get punished...

I'm still trying to get my head around that story. It says 72% of people convicted of driving offences dodged the points by not bringing their drivers licence to court.

Does this mean that they had declined to pay the original fine and points and opted to go to court, knowing they could dodge the points? Or does this mean they were in court for serious driving offences with mucho points and they left the licence at home?

I can't understand what is happening here. Surely if you get points, you get points? Do you have to get the thing stamped? Why can't the points be applied in the absence of the licence?

*does confused face*

Tenzor07

It's an offence not to produce a driving licence in court so I don't know how people would get away with it?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0025/sec0063.html

magicbastarder

Tenzor07 wrote: »

It's an offence not to produce a driving licence in court so I don't know how people would get away with it?

from the article:

Gardaí have not actively prosecuted the offence until now

so it must have been widely known that this was not being prosecuted.

check_six

magicbastarder wrote: »

so it must have been widely known that this was not being prosecuted.

20,000 people knew about this in the last year and a bit alone. How come nobody told me? I'm off on a rampage of driving over mini roundabouts and crossing over hatched lines. Who's with me?

Chips Lovell

It's been known about for ages. It was last in the news in November.

tomasrojo

I don't think this is a "loophole". The law is not being circumvented due to a technical defect in the law. The law enforcers are just allowing law breakers to evade penalties by either being too indifferent or too inadequately resourced to stop them breaking a second law.

tomasrojo

The Courts Service has said driving licences should be tied to vehicle ownership to resolve a loophole which resulted in 21,154 drivers escaping penalty points in the 18 months to last June.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/penalty-points-loophole-under-discussion-1.2009388

I rent cars because it's cheaper than owning one for me(*). What are they going to do there? I guess get my details from the rental agency.

EDIT: (*) Actually, to be honest, I don't like cars and only drive on sufferance. The lower price is what I adduce when I'm explaining why I don't have a car and don't want people to think I'm a lunatic.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't think this is a "loophole". The law is not being circumvented due to a technical defect in the law. The law enforcers are just allowing law breakers to evade penalties by either being too indifferent or too inadequately resourced to stop them breaking a second law.

Basically they didn't go down to the courthouse (which is a huge waste of Garda time) to arrest them after they failed to produce.
Most people are matched up by the licensing authority but a few get away due to differences in name spelling or not guarantee that they name/ID they matched up is the right one.

While they have 20,000 drivers down, I would be more interested in the numbers who later could not be matched by the licensing authority.

tomasrojo

So they're not exploiting a loophole (that would mean what they were doing was technically legal, but against the spirit of the law). They're flouting the law. Which is how it would be described if a couple of thousand cyclists did this kind of thing.

Lumen

Cyclists flying through lights all over my Dublin commute this morning. Not just bumbling through pedestrian lights or amber gambling, but several instances of riders flying through T-junctions on a stale red.

Turning right at the end of Parliament St at City Hall has become quite hazardous.

I wouldn't mind if they only risked killing themselves. It's one thing scraping the brains of some poor sap off your car bonnet, but I really don't fancy being t-boned by a Dublin bike at speed while riding my bike.

magicbastarder

are unicycles defined in law?
i.e. if i broke a red light while on a unicycle, could i claim that i broke no laws as the law specifies breaking a red on a bike?

Lumen

magicbastarder wrote: »

are unicycles defined in law?
i.e. if i broke a red light while on a unicycle, could i claim that i broke no laws as the law specifies breaking a red on a bike?

The law usually uses the term "pedal cycle" which includes unicycles.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057136579

I also draw your attention to the requirement that your unicycle has one braking device unless it was designed for use by a child not more than seven years of age.

check_six

Lumen wrote: »

The law usually uses the term "pedal cycle" which includes unicycles.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057136579

I also draw your attention to the requirement that your unicycle has one braking device unless it was designed for use by a child not more than seven years of age.

Well, all my unicycles have a front and rear brake, and a bell, and a flag.

jon1981

Here are some of the offences for on the spot fines being considered beyond cycling on the path:

Officials in the Department of Transport have drawn up 15 cycling-related road traffic offences to be covered by new on-the-spot fines.

1. No lights after the hours of darkness
2. Running red lights
3. Cycling on footpaths or pedestrianised streets
4. Cycling on Luas tram lanes
5. Cycling or attempting to cycle while under the influence of an intoxicant.

There will also be a fine for cycling “without reasonable consideration”, which is not well-defined in law.

6. Cycling more than two abreast
7. Not cycling in single file when overtaking traffic
8. Having no brakes on your bicycle
9. Failing to stop for a school warden
10. Holding on to a vehicle which is in motion.

Future possible offences:

11. No rear reflector on a pedal cycle;
12. Failure to drive a pedal cycle on the left-hand side of each lane on a two-way cycle track;
13. Failure to drive a pedal cycle on the designated cycle lane of a shared track for pedal cycles and pedestrians
14. Driving a pedal cycle on a motorway.
15. Proceeding beyond a ‘No Pedal Cycles’ sign

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/new-on-the-spot-fines-for-cyclists-will-initially-cover-15-offences/


I can't say I disagree with most of them. I gather reasonable consideration for example means it's not an offence to cycle without a reflector in daylight but at night time you run the risk of a fine. So there is leeway under these potential offences.

It would be nice to introduce some exceptions, for example I don't mind stopping at a red light, i do it all the time, however there are times were it is quite safe to proceed when no pedestrians are around or whatever. I don't believe cars and bicycles should be considered 100% equal. Some lessons to be learned from other countries on this I think.

Buchaill_Mor

jon1981 wrote:

12. Failure to drive a pedal cycle on the left-hand side of each lane on a two-way cycle track; 13. Failure to drive a pedal cycle on the designated cycle lane of a shared track for pedal cycles and pedestrians

I use the Grand Canal Greenway a lot and often use these shared track while just getting about. So, what happens when the lane your are now legally required to be in is populated with pedestrians (as they usually are. I am of the opinion that joggers tend to do this most frequently, but that is personal opinion and not backed up by any stats), have we to wait behind them??

jon1981

Buchaill_Mor wrote: »

I use the Grand Canal Greenway a lot and often use these shared track while just getting about. So, what happens when the lane your are now legally required to be in is populated with pedestrians (as they usually are. I am of the opinion that joggers tend to do this most frequently, but that is personal opinion and not backed up by any stats), have we to wait behind them??

Yeah I see lots of blockers to this law being introduced. If you want this to work you got to penalise both pedestrians and cyclists right? This is marked as a possible future offence, I'd say it will go nowhere.


My pet peeve is when cycling up the coast on the cycle lane, why do walkers/joggers have to walk/jog so damn close to the white line separating the cycle lane, also the damn pedestrian lane is wider than the cycle lanes (is my perception anyway) with fecking bushes and stuff growing out from the walls, it reduces the usable width of the cycle lane.

mcgratheoin

Aren't most of these laws already?

jon1981

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Aren't most of these laws already?

I should have added, these will now result in on the spot fines. Edited OP.

Fian

jon1981 wrote: »

I can't say I disagree with most of them. I gather reasonable consideration for example means it's not an offence to cycle without a reflector in daylight but at night time you run the risk of a fine. So there is leeway under these potential offences.

It would be nice to introduce some exceptions, for example I don't mind stopping at a red light, i do it all the time, however there are times were it is quite safe to proceed when no pedestrians are around or whatever. I don't believe cars and bicycles should be considered 100% equal. Some lessons to be learned from other countries on this I think.

Can't really disagree with any of these offences.

Cycling without reasonable consideration is analagous to the equivalent "driving without reasonable consideration".

That offence is basically driving in a manner which, while not necessarily dangerous or careless, inconveniences others. Basically you have Dangerous driving > Careless driving (without due care and attention)> Driving without reasonable consideration.

So cycling without reasonable consideration essentially means cycling in a manner which unreasonably inconveniences others (be they drivers, pedestrians or other cyclists)


Driving without reasonable consideration.
51A. (1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place without reasonable consideration for other persons using the place.
(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.”


Sliding between pedestrians on a pedestrian crossing would, for example, constitute cycling without reasonable consideration (it could also be careless or dangerous of course). Technically so would persistent shoaling though I would be amazed if that were ever prosecuted. Taking the centre of a lane unnecessarily, preventing faster traffic from passing, could also be cycling without reasonable consideration, in the same way that a car holding the outside lane on a motorway without pulling in to let faster traffic pass can constitute the equivalent driving offence. If it were necessary to do so for safety that would be a defense, but if a prosecution were brought you would be starting on the back foot.

these offences seem reasonable, many of them are already offences of course - the innovation is the introduction of fixed penalty notices.

To add:

I would be annoyed if i was made subject to a FPN for proceedings beyond a "cyclists dismount" sign at roadworks. as far as i am concerned I am entitled to ignore those signs and continue to use the road in the same way as the cars are permitted to - those signs always irritate me. If cars were being diverted of course that would be different, but the idea that cars can continue on the road but cyclists should be obliged to dismount and wheel the bike is absurd.

magicbastarder

jon1981 wrote: »

11. No rear reflector on a pedal cycle

i know this is a potential future one, but it's not that helpful.
if you need a rear reflector, you really need a rear light. which makes the reflector redundant.

mcgratheoin

My 2 cents.

jon1981 wrote: »

1. No lights after the hours of darkness

Completely agree - should be a higher FPN amount imo although I'd like to see the law clarified and the minimum surface area of rear lights removed from the statutes. A clear reference to minimum lumens would be much easier to enforce and would go a lot further towards ensuring adequate lighting.

jon1981 wrote: »

2. Running red lights

Completely agree - although I'd like to see some form of alteration to the laws allowing cyclists to proceed through red lights in specific cases and showing due care and attention.

jon1981 wrote: »

3. Cycling on footpaths or pedestrianised streets

Agree with the footpaths, but pedestrianised streets should have some facility for bikes built in to them.

jon1981 wrote: »

4. Cycling on Luas tram lanes

Agree in general, but again some city centre tram lanes (some of which already allow traffic) should allow cyclists or should have cycle facilities built in.

jon1981 wrote: »

5. Cycling or attempting to cycle while under the influence of an intoxicant.

in principle, yes - but i'd welcome guidance on what the legal limits would be

jon1981 wrote: »

6. Cycling more than two abreast

Will an exemption be made for racing? Otherwise I'm happy with this, can't say I've ever seen cyclists 3 abreast.

jon1981 wrote: »

7. Not cycling in single file when overtaking traffic

no problem with this one

jon1981 wrote: »

8. Having no brakes on your bicycle

no problem here either

jon1981 wrote: »

9. Failing to stop for a school warden

should be higher FPN amount, inexcusable behaviour

jon1981 wrote: »

10. Holding on to a vehicle which is in motion.

Is this a regular occurrence? Assuming exemptions are made for racing then I have no issue with it.

jon1981 wrote: »

11. No rear reflector on a pedal cycle;

Ridiculous law once lighting up requirements are met, not a fan of this at all.

jon1981 wrote: »

12. Failure to drive a pedal cycle on the left-hand side of each lane on a two-way cycle track;

provided there's an exemption for overtaking

jon1981 wrote: »

13. Failure to drive a pedal cycle on the designated cycle lane of a shared track for pedal cycles and pedestrians

as above

jon1981 wrote: »

14. Driving a pedal cycle on a motorway.

yeah, fine with this

jon1981 wrote: »

15. Proceeding beyond a ‘No Pedal Cycles’ sign

fine with this, provided the use of "no pedal cycles" signs is clarified and restricted to ensure that it can't be used as a back door to mandatory-use cycle lanes

07Lapierre

mcgratheoin wrote: »

My 2 cents.



Will an exemption be made for racing?

Don't even go there!

awec

Most of them seem fair enough and common sense.

Except the reflector one.

Captain Chaos

I'd like to see cycling against the flow of traffic added. I see it often every day. It's shocking. It is common sense and should not need to be enforced but some people have death wishes out there.