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

jon1981

By the way, how does one enforce an on the spot fine? I assume they don't expect you to pony up 50 euro or whatever the amount will be on the spot, also assuming you have no ID or proof of address on you, what is the course of action? You could give any aul name, no?

endacl

Pedalling using the arch of the foot, with the saddle six inches too low should result in on the spot confiscation.
:pac:

Captain Chaos

jon1981 wrote: »

By the way, how does one enforce an on the spot fine? I assume they don't expect you to pony up 50 euro or whatever the amount will be on the spot, also assuming you have no ID on you, what is the course of action?

Exactly, unless they enforce mandatory requirement for ID on your person at all times then these fines won't work. And there is nothing to stop a cyclist from getting away either.

Tenzor07

jon1981 wrote: »

By the way, how does one enforce an on the spot fine? I assume they don't expect you to pony up 50 euro or whatever the amount will be on the spot, also assuming you have no ID or proof of address on you, what is the course of action? You could give any aul name, no?

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...

magicbastarder

afaik if the garda has reasonable suspicion that you're not telling the truth about your identity, (s)he can impound the bike.
would be interested to know if i'm right about that though.

tomasrojo

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Exactly, unless they enforce mandatory requirement for ID on your person at all times then these fines won't work. And there is nothing to stop a cyclist from getting away either.

The UK has an operational FPN regime for cyclists and they don't have compulsory carrying of ID. Can't remember how it works in practice, but it's not an insurmountable obstacle.

Deedsie

awec wrote: »

Most of them seem fair enough and common sense.

Except the reflector one.

What's wrong with the reflector one?

Does this mean cyclists are now obliged to use cycle lanes where available? I don't use the cycle lane at donnybrook as the surface is a disgrace inbound and outbound. Will I now be obliged to use the lane?

I saw a motorbike Garda pulled in on the N11 southbound this morning between Sussex road and Leeson Street Upper. Not sure if he was policing cyclists but he didn't have a speed gun so it looked a bit different to the usual Garda checkpoint.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

afaik if the garda has reasonable suspicion that you're not telling the truth about your identity, (s)he can impound the bike.
would be interested to know if i'm right about that though.

That's what I think the UK does, but I couldn't swear to it.

tomasrojo

Deedsie wrote: »

Does this mean cyclists are now obliged to use cycle lanes where available? I don't use the cycle lane at donnybrook as the surface is a disgrace inbound and outbound. Will I now be obliged to use the lane?

I suspect that FPNs might be issued on this, since a lot of Gardaí think that cycle tracks are compulsory to use, but if you challenged the FPN it'll be voided, because, with a few exceptions such as contraflow cycle tracks, they're not compulsory to use.

jon1981

Deedsie wrote: »

Does this mean cyclists are now obliged to use cycle lanes where available? I don't use the cycle lane at donnybrook as the surface is a disgrace inbound and outbound. Will I now be obliged to use the lane?

the traffic act says this so I assume cyclists must use it where provided, but like you I avoid certain cycle lanes due to their condition:

Cycle tracks
28.—(1) Where a cycle track is provided on a stretch of road—

(a) every pedal cycle being driven on that stretch of road (in the direction in which traffic on the side of the road adjacent to the cycle track is required to travel) shall be driven on the cycle track only, and

(b) a vehicle other than a pedal cycle shall not be driven on the cycle track.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this bye-law, an invalid carriage not mechanically propelled may be driven on a cycle track, provided that it is driven in the direction in which pedal cycles are required to be driven.

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.