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

Grassey

lennymc wrote: »

Were you drunk??

Is that illegal now too!

shansey

Jawgap wrote: »

The "High Visibility Patrol" has started - cyclists without hi-viz will be ticketed!!!

https://twitter.com/gardatraffic/status/623972859594047488

I think that girl in the second photo was let off with a warning because she was wearing yellow

Is Grafton St not pedestrianized? Are segways not illegal there??

adrian522

lennymc wrote: »

Were you drunk??

Probably, I don't remember!

CramCycle

shansey wrote: »

Is Grafton St not pedestrianized? Are segways not illegal there??

A garda isn't subject to the restrictions of the road traffic act in the pursuit of their duties AFAIK.

droidus

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I've just come back from holidays in Austria and Germany - spent plenty of time around gorges, high alpine walks, fast flowing rivers and lots of bikes interacting with pedestrians and cars in towns and cities around the region - I struggled to see a single hi vis. And life seemed to be proceeding pretty normal without a massive body count

Which is ironic seeing as these are the kinds of environments where hi-vis would actually be useful - as anyone who has ever been involved in a mountain rescue could tell you.

check_six

CramCycle wrote: »

A garda isn't subject to the restrictions of the road traffic act in the pursuit of their duties AFAIK.

Also, the segway lads and their bicycle guard mates show just how quickly you can scoot around city streets (pedestrianised or not) and footpaths without causing the predicted bloodbath!

Maybe they have some kind of special superpowers to allow them to do that? Maybe the magic is contained within their hi-vis jackets?
Maybe it's just because bikes and segways are inherently small and manoeuvrable enough to do this with ease without causing chaos?

magicbastarder

shansey wrote: »

Is Grafton St not pedestrianized? Are segways not illegal there??

i've often seen cop cars on grafton street. it'd be ludicrous if they couldn't drive down it; 'i'll respond to that robbery call as soon as i find a free parking space on stephen's green'.

tomasrojo

mojesius wrote: »

Sorry if it has been answered but do you have to wear high vis in daylight now?

Not legally required at night either.

tomasrojo

Darkglasses wrote: »

Walking through Wexford Town's pedestrianized main street this afternoon I saw some childminders in charge of a couple of children each. Every single one of the children had a big adult-size high viz vest on, and each one locked and leashed to one of the adults. Maybe it's my inner teenager talking, but life's a bit stupid sometimes.

This was pointed out to me yesterday by someone.
http://rethinkingchildhood.com/
Interesting pushback against "zero risk", controlling style of parenting/child minding.

Pinch Flat

droidus wrote: »

Which is ironic seeing as these are the kinds of environments where hi-vis would actually be useful - as anyone who has ever been involved in a mountain rescue could tell you.

Fair enough. But of the hundreds of climbers and walkers I saw heading up the high alpine walks, not one had hi-vis, maybe they use alternative gps equipment? I know some ski wear comes with these built in

Edit - just passed what looked like a group of schools kids getting if the dart at grand canal station - about 20 or so decked out in hi vis including the adults leading them. Looked utterly ridiculous. I think there should be a plan to gradually turn everything around us hi vis - a sea of hi vis

tomasrojo

LpPepper wrote: »

Are reflectors really necessary? I have one light on bars, one on fork and one on front of the helmet. I then have one red under the seat and one on rear of the helmet... Surely I couldn't be fined for not having a flimsy reflector ?

You can't be issued a fixed-penalty notice in the short term, because it isn't listed as one of the seven offences. Similarly to the bell requirement, you are not too likely to be brought to court over it as a sole issue, especially if you have lights. However, your chances would be higher for it than the bell requirement, since it's a better known requirement.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

This was pointed out to me yesterday by someone.
http://rethinkingchildhood.com/
Interesting pushback against "zero risk", controlling style of parenting/child minding.

My limited experience with children is that if they want to throw themselves of the couch, no matter what you do, they will either throw themselves of the couch (but more dangerously as you have been trying to stop it) or they will throw themselves of the coach.

I just let a loud "CAREFUL" comment, he looks around, assesses the situation and he throws himself of with ease and clarity but not in a way to hurt himself. When I tried to stop him, he would run at it and take no care, supermanning over the arm of the couch. I found the same with steps, if I hung around to close, he expected me to be there, when I let him know that i am too far away, a cautious approach is taken.

It's hard to do but oddly enough it was my daughter who told and taught me to do this.

tomasrojo

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Fair enough. But of the hundreds of climbers and walkers I saw heading up the high alpine walks, not one had hi-vis, maybe they use alternative gps equipment? I know some ski wear comes with these built in

If you are hiking with a bunch of people you know on a route that isn't hazardous on a calm day with no adverse weather forecast, the issue of a search-and-rescue team shouldn't come into your consideration really.

The problem of modern life, especially in the English-speaking world, is that people have jobs looking for safety problems, and no-one gets censured or fired for advocating more caution. If you point out that they've crossed the line into absurdity, they more often than not chide you, reminding you of the people who have DIED!!! because they weren't cautious.

Another problem, as with our own RSA, is the roles of analysis and campaigning end up mixed together, even if an agency didn't have a campaigning brief to begin with. Once you've become a campaigner in your own mind, you're probably not good at analysis anymore.

Pinch Flat

Garda hi vis patrol out again this morning - parked in at Christchurch. The Garda traffic corp jeep parked half on / half off the kerb, with the Garda officer blocking the cycle lane. I managed to evade detection for the hi vis again.

CramCycle

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Garda hi vis patrol out again this morning - parked in at Christchurch. The Garda traffic corp jeep parked half on / half off the kerb, with the Garda officer blocking the cycle lane. I managed to evade detection for the hi vis again.

How do they see you to give you hi vis if your not wearing it in the first place.

The mind boggles.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

How do they see you to give you hi vis if your not wearing it in the first place.

Quite.

(I've posted it before, I know.)

droidus

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Fair enough. But of the hundreds of climbers and walkers I saw heading up the high alpine walks, not one had hi-vis, maybe they use alternative gps equipment? I know some ski wear comes with these built in

Those brightly coloured walking/climbing jackets perform the same purpose, but I reckon most people just dont think about it that much, or if they do, they think about how to avoid accidents rather than how to be found when an accident happens.

Anyway, O/T. Sorry.

Pinch Flat

CramCycle wrote: »

How do they see you to give you hi vis if your not wearing it in the first place.

The mind boggles.

I obviously blinded him with my front strobe :pac:

NeedMoreGears

For me that image of the leaflet encapsulates the shoddy , lazy and half-assed approach to road safety where cycling is concerned.

1 - It confuses mandatory and non-mandatory requirements (hi viz and helmets vs. reflectors etc)

2 - No one bothered to proof the text ; 4 & 7 are the same

3 - It does not detail all the FPN offences

It smacks of "sure just get something out there - it doesn't matter if its misleading, poorly written and is missing half the offences becasue we probably won't enforce it anyway and it'll shut the motorists up for a while"

Couldn't they have just got it right?

oflahero

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

2 - No one bothered to proof the text ; 4 & 7 are the same

I read that as 4) stop at the main traffic lights that everyone uses, and 7) also stop at the special bike-only traffic lights such as on the canal bike lanes.

The use of 'lamp' for 'traffic light' has an odd ring to it (insert bell joke here).

horsebox7

I would second this comment! It shows a total half hearted approach to the issue whereby waters are muddied and nobody is any the wiser. I think it is something the RSA brought out to keep the motorists happy alright. I drive and cycle so I see both sides. When I first learned to drive there was very little focus on how to drive amongst cyclists and still to this day it remains the same. Is there much focus on fixed charges for motorists who are careless towards cyclists?

On one hand the government want more people cycling to work to reduce traffic congestion etc. and on the other hand there is very little in the way of investment in infrastructure for cycling. Many of the cycle lines I see commuting by car and by bicycle are only advisosy white dashed cycle lanes which often have parked cars in them. If the RSA and the GSC are going to launch a campaign it may be helpful to be clean about the message.

tomasrojo

horsebox7 wrote: »

If the RSA and the GSC are going to launch a campaign it may be helpful to be clean about the message.

This is their template for cycling information:

To begin:
It is essential to wear a helmet and hi-visibility clothing!!!

Insert actual message here. It's not important anyway.

poochiem

RobertFoster wrote: »

Have you a link to those UK figures? It was my understanding that the majority of fatalities at junctions were from getting getting crushed by (large) left turning vehicles. I've also read that getting rear-ended happens very infrequently, but I don't remember where I read it (I think it was seamus).

I was reading a few articles about it yesterday. The large vehicles turning left would be part of that 75% but it seems that they kill a disproportionate number of females...the thinking being that women are less inclined to jump lights and get ahead of the moving off traffic.

poochiem

Boom. Action at last.

rubadub

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've often seen cop cars on grafton street. it'd be ludicrous if they couldn't drive down it;

Yeah, it would be terrible if they had to walk to get their free mcdonalds. In many cases a lot of these otherwise illegal actions appear to be unnecessary, there appears to be no emergency. You see gardai causually cycling on footpaths. There was a garda car routinely parked on a cycle track on the N11 catching people in bus lanes. I often illegally cycled on the (empty) path to avoid this prick.

The garda really need to have someone with a little sense monitoring their twitter posts. They could at least not give ammo to people and try and set some example.


^^

Peter Oates ‏@hhf8 Jul 23
@GardaTraffic Has he missed the Cyclist and car breaking the law Behind? Car in Cycle box and Cyclist not

^^pedestrian comes around the corner -probably walks onto the road to avoid the obstruction.


^^ double "park here garda" lines. What the fcuk is he doing stopping someone on the actual road?!

horsebox7

You seem to have a problem with your keyboard settings. Your text appears to be a bit on the large side

Pinch Flat

rubadub wrote: »

Yeah, it would be terrible if they had to walk to get their free mcdonalds. In many cases a lot of these otherwise illegal actions appear to be unnecessary, there appears to be no emergency. You see gardai causually cycling on footpaths. There was a garda car routinely parked on a cycle track on the N11 catching people in bus lanes. I often illegally cycled on the (empty) path to avoid this prick.

The garda really need to have someone with a little sense monitoring their twitter posts. They could at least not give ammo to people and try and set some example.


^^


^^pedestrian comes around the corner -probably walks onto the road to avoid the obstruction.


^^ double "park here garda" lines. What the fcuk is he doing stopping someone on the actual road?!

That was my gripe earlier (the advance box at Christchurch is on my commute and routinely ignored by motorists - its abuse is clearly being ignored by the guards - surely if they're trying to hammer home a message, they might have a quiet word with the offending motorway in this scenario?). I appreciate there's a bit of give and take by the Gardai in enforcing, but targeting one group (in this case cyclists, sometimes dangerously as evidenced above and in my own observations this week) is a bit of a scatter gun approach. Anyway this will all die down them it'll be the turn of the next group - motorists breaking red lights, hgvs or pedestrians.

sconhome

Pinch Flat wrote: »

That was my gripe earlier (the advance box at Christchurch is on my commute and routinely ignored by motorists - its abuse is clearly being ignored by the guards -

They must be reading boards too!

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/624510014506573824

magicbastarder

maybe boards could approach the gardai with an idea for them joining the 'talk to' section.

Pinch Flat

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe boards could approach the gardai with an idea for them joining the 'talk to' section.

There's a member of AGS traffic corp on here

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2055735824/1/#post62942272