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

ElChe32

magicbastarder wrote: »

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

rubadub

Unbelievably astonishing incompetence from these idiots. Still reposting this crap, a fcuking embarrassment to the country if word gets out...

Conor ‏@Conchobar2 8h8 hours ago
@GardaTraffic Bad enough that this graphic was put up once. But it's daft to repeatedly post it. You've been told how misleading it is
1 retweet 0 favorites
Reply Retweet1 Favorite
More

An Garda Síochána ‏@GardaTraffic 8h8 hours ago
@Conchobar2 Please read the leaflet and the comments on the post, .The 7 offences are listed

Conor ‏@Conchobar2 8h8 hours ago
@GardaTraffic Comments on the post just make it clear how misleading the graphic is.

tomasrojo

It's possible that the misleading impression that people will be fined for not wearing helmets and hi-viz is deliberate: a feature of the campaign, not a bug.

I remember a friend who was buying a bike asking the shop owner about helmets, and the shop owner saying they weren't mandatory, but a Garda had told him to tell customers that they were.

Shep_Dog

rubadub wrote: »

Still reposting this crap

You'd hardly expect the Gardai to admit making a mistake or to publishing incorrect information?

magicbastarder

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Gardai: Strava Division

because of this, i had, as an earworm on todays (short cycle), 'strava police' to the tune of 'karma police'.

strava police
arrest this man
his red light jumping
is making me feel ill
and he has crashed in to a car


etc. etc.

tomasrojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Also thinking about the "blind as a bat" driver above. There are certainly drivers with uncorrectable vision defects on the road who are allowed to continue out of compassion. This is misplaced compassion.

Hundreds of motorists have had their driving licence revoked after failing roadside eye tests under new police powers, figures have shown.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/26/cassies-law-609-drivers-lose-licence-after-tougher-police-power-on-eye-tests

This sounds like a reasonable initiative. Alternatively, we can dress everything up in lime-green and reflective stripes.

RainyDay

CheGuedara wrote: »

Cycling two abreast is perfectly legal [S.I. No. 294/1964 - Road Traffic General Bye-Laws, 1964]. Cycling three abreast is legal in the context of it being transient while one rider overtaking two or two overtaking one.

When riding two abreast on small/narrow/winding country roads the greatest hazard is indeed motorists travelling too fast for the road and outside of their required ability to stop within the distance they can see to be clear.

AGS on Facebook is now quoting the ROTR text of "must not cycle in a
manner likely to create an obstruction for other users" - does this have any legal basis or impact?

tomasrojo

In the company of one or more cyclists you must have due regard to other users of the road, and you must take full account of prevailing road conditions. On occassion it may be safe to cycle two abreast, but you must not cycle in a manner likely to create an obstruction for other users

http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_cycling-safely.html

The use of "must not" implies a law of some kind, but the RSA is so slipshod, maybe not. Probably a general traffic law, if I had to guess, not specific to cyclists.

(Funny spelling of "occasion" there. Also, it should read, from what cyclists who do cycle in groups on interurban routes say, "it may be safer".)

tomasrojo

98.—(1) A person shall not do any act (whether of commission or omission) which causes or is likely to cause traffic through any public place to be obstructed.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0098.html#sec98

Maybe?

Qualitymark

tomasrojo wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0098.html#sec98

Maybe?

Does that mean all those utter swines who don't use their indicators will face on-the-spot fines? And the ones who think you should indicate at the same time as turning?

galwaycyclist

tomasrojo wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0098.html#sec98

Maybe?

I am not a lawyer but throwing this to the mix

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0014/sec0067.html#sec67

Road users' duty of care.

67.—(1) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take reasonable care for his own safety and for that of any other person using the public road.

(2) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take all reasonable measures to avoid—
(a) injury to himself or to any other person using the public road,
(b) damage to property owned or used by him or by any other person using the public road.

It seems to me that the legal duty to avoid injury and damage to property outweighs any other requirement to grant free passage.

So yes you may not obstruct another road user without due cause, but if granting free passage would create a personal danger for you or your property then the need to avoid injury takes precedence.

Or more simply you are not required to endanger yourself for the convenience of others.

tomasrojo

New version tweeted by cyclist.ie


There! They do listen. Point 7 corrected.

Shep_Dog

RainyDay wrote: »

AGS on Facebook is now quoting the ROTR text of "must not cycle in a
manner likely to create an obstruction for other users" - does this have any legal basis or impact?

Same legal basis as the prohibition on parking on street that impedes the flow of traffic. And probably, after the initial burst of zeal on August 1, enforced just as often

RainyDay

tomasrojo wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0098.html#sec98

Maybe?

Does this mean that all those cars that hold me up while I'm cycling in heavy urban traffic will be prosecuted now?

drdeadlift

Im away in Norway right now.People are allowed to cycle on the footpath but do so with care.
I think this is for the safety of the cyclist.
When at home in Dublin i only cycle on the road but i cant for the bloody life of me understand why we cant cycle on the footpath with care taken.

tomasrojo

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96388450&postcount=135

Thought I'd add a note to the thread about legislation. Let me know what I got wrong and I'll fix it.

cdaly_

RainyDay wrote: »

AGS on Facebook is now quoting the ROTR text of "must not cycle in a manner likely to create an obstruction for other users" - does this have any legal basis or impact?

There's also the question of what constitutes 'obstruction'. Does traffic have to be unable to proceed (eg. parked car means road becomes too narrow for opposing vehicles to pass) or is traffic slowed to your pace 'obstructed'? It's certainly not the case that 5kph tailback traffic is causing an 'obstruction' in the sense of it being prosecutable so why should a bicycle (or two)...

wingnut

drdeadlift wrote: »

When at home in Dublin i only cycle on the road but i cant for the bloody life of me understand why we cant cycle on the footpath with care taken.

I would say it is because of the sheer number of Irish people who cannot take care. So they legislate for the lowest common denominator.

rubadub

Shep_Dog wrote: »

You'd hardly expect the Gardai to admit making a mistake or to publishing incorrect information?

+1, this is the danger of giving them the vague term "reasonable consideration".

Some ignorant & stubborn garda might not back down when he says its illegal to have no helmet and use this rather than admit he is wrong. It might get thrown out of court but there would be needless hassle.

tomasrojo

rubadub wrote: »

+1, this is the danger of giving them the vague term "reasonable consideration".

Some ignorant & stubborn garda might not back down when he says its illegal to have no helmet and use this rather than admit he is wrong. It might get thrown out of court but there would be needless hassle.

I think it would get thrown out of court, for sure, but you'd have to be pretty determined and pretty sure you were right to pursue the option of going to court and risk a much bigger fine. A lot of people who don't wear helmets, for example, wouldn't be 100% sure that there isn't a law.

Pinch Flat

wingnut wrote: »

I would say it is because of the sheer number of Irish people who cannot take care. So they legislate for the lowest common denominator.

Irish people can also tend to be reckless - the news reports about the Croagh Patrick pilgrimage over the weekend being a recent example.There's is a culture here to blame others and shirk from personal responsibility. So legislators have to legislate for the worst of idiots out there, rather than taking a more pragmatic approach.

I usually holiday in continental Europe - just got back from Austria and Southern Germany. The general vibe and demeanour of people in general is different - cycling with happily be intermingled with pedestrianized areas, but people don';t behave like complete idiots when they're on foot or 2 wheels.

Although there does seem to be an element of pragmatism from the recent news reports.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/cyclists-who-use-footpaths-will-not-be-fined-31342974.html

I was always in 2 minds about cycling on footpaths - with my 8 year old- yes, with a club ride no. The roads have become so hostile in places here that I can perfectly understand why people do it - so I would personally prefer to see a pensioner cycle on the footpath when going to the shops for errands, rather than taking the car.

mcgratheoin

cdaly_ wrote: »

It's certainly not the case that 5kph tailback traffic is causing an 'obstruction' in the sense of it being prosecutable .

Yes it is http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/tractor-driver-banned-over-7km-traffic-tailback-1.2177126

tomasrojo

I presume if you pull in at a stage reasonably convenient to everyone (or at least turn up in court) you can avoid this. But I am getting a bit concerned about the very elastic offence being included in the FCN system ("driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration").

check_six

To reinforce the message on the RSA leaflets I'd like to suggest a couple of small edits:



I think this small redesign would clear up some of the confusion that the original design threw up.

Am I legally required to wear a bike helmet and hi-vis? If you are being menaced by a 50ft tall nuclear powered rampage-a-saur a polystyrene bike hat is no longer a primary concern.

Do I need mismatched spoke reflectors in the wrong colour? Again, the laser-toting tyrannosaur is the priority here.

Should I pass "illuminated" or "lit" red lights? You should stop at both, so it's still worth mentioning each one. However if you are being chased by an atomic super-monster I will leave it at your discretion if you would like to carefully edge through a red while trying to escape the blast zone.

Tony EH

Ah, now it's all clear. Thanks Check_six.

lgk

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Irish people can also tend to be reckless - the news reports about the Croagh Patrick pilgrimage over the weekend being a recent example.

Did you see the conditions? The classification of the hundreds who did complete it as reckless is in the same league as thinking high-vis, helmets and reflectors are the cure for all cycling woes. If people can't be trusted to make a call on whether or not they have the skills and ability to walk up a mountain in the rain without other jumping to the conclusion that those who decide to go ahead are simply reckless, then are we moving towards a culture where banning cycling in the rain or winds gusting above say 20km/h becomes acceptable?

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

Qualitymark

lgk wrote: »

Did you see the conditions? The classification of the hundreds who did complete it as reckless is in the same league as thinking high-vis, helmets and reflectors are the cure for all cycling woes. If people can't be trusted to make a call on whether or not they have the skills and ability to walk up a mountain in the rain without other jumping to the conclusion that those who decide to go ahead are simply reckless, then are we moving towards a culture where banning cycling in the rain or winds gusting above say 20km/h becomes acceptable?

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

They're not just putting themselves at risk. (And their children - a 14-year-old was stretchered to shelter with hypothermia and a 3-year-old was treated for the same.) They're also putting the rescue services at risk; if they go up the icy, slippy mountain in winds so high that the rescue helicopter can't land, a team are going to have to climb to help them. Personal responsibility includes responsibility towards others.

Deedsie

lgk wrote: »

Did you see the conditions? The classification of the hundreds who did complete it as reckless is in the same league as thinking high-vis, helmets and reflectors are the cure for all cycling woes. If people can't be trusted to make a call on whether or not they have the skills and ability to walk up a mountain in the rain without other jumping to the conclusion that those who decide to go ahead are simply reckless, then are we moving towards a culture where banning cycling in the rain or winds gusting above say 20km/h becomes acceptable?

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

People were not banned. They were advised correctly not to go up as the conditions were poor. The mass at the top was cancelled.

Pinch Flat

lgk wrote: »

Did you see the conditions? The classification of the hundreds who did complete it as reckless is in the same league as thinking high-vis, helmets and reflectors are the cure for all cycling woes. If people can't be trusted to make a call on whether or not they have the skills and ability to walk up a mountain in the rain without other jumping to the conclusion that those who decide to go ahead are simply reckless, then are we moving towards a culture where banning cycling in the rain or winds gusting above say 20km/h becomes acceptable?

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

Yep. Yellow warning by met eireann and unprecedented conditions at the top.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/pilgrims-persevere-in-croagh-patrick-climb-despite-weather-alert-1.2297680

Climbing this in these conditions is not only reckless and irresponsible, but also puts the people who might have to rescue to in potential danger as well. So hundreds managed to make it, but my own view would be they took some risks that if they materialised could have had severe consequences. a 14 year old was stretchered off and a 3 year old is suffering from hypothermia, so if that's the risk you're willing to take and exposure your family to then knock yourself out. Frankly, you'd deserve everything coming to you.

I did the Sean Kelly 160km last year - Mahon Falls was closed due to similar conditions (rain and high winds). There's nothing the organizers could have done to stop me heading up, but weighing up the risks and the potential to cause myself personal injury, as well as jeopardizing those who might have to rescue me, was the prudent decision.

Personal responsibility can mean weighing on the side of caution, not just 'ah sure feck it, we're here now lets get on with it".

mcgratheoin

lgk wrote: »

Did you see the conditions? The classification of the hundreds who did complete it as reckless is in the same league as thinking high-vis, helmets and reflectors are the cure for all cycling woes. If people can't be trusted to make a call on whether or not they have the skills and ability to walk up a mountain in the rain without other jumping to the conclusion that those who decide to go ahead are simply reckless, then are we moving towards a culture where banning cycling in the rain or winds gusting above say 20km/h becomes acceptable?

Qualitymark wrote: »

They're not just putting themselves at risk. (And their children - a 14-year-old was stretchered to shelter with hypothermia and a 3-year-old was treated for the same.) They're also putting the rescue services at risk; if they go up the icy, slippy mountain in winds so high that the rescue helicopter can't land, a team are going to have to climb to help them. Personal responsibility includes responsibility towards others.

I think it's a bit in the middle of these two. While I'm of the opinion that people need to make a judgement based on their personal abilities, the fact that there is an organised (or semi organised) event occurring can lead many people to think that they don't need to take appropriate precautions because there are services available if they get into difficulty. I don't have a problem with the rescue services advising that pilgrims shouldn't climb Croagh Patrick, nor do I have a problem with people deciding to climb anyway - provided they have the requisite experience and equipment. Whenever you get a mass participation event, you are going to have a large proportion of people who are not equipped to make an adequate risk assessment and will need to be informed that conditions are not suitable. Incidentally, having seen some of the pictures from the weekend, there were an awful lot of people who shouldn't have been on the mountain in those conditions in the gear they had brought for the day.
I don't think this is a specifically Irish problem though, there are plenty of examples of people who ignore advice based on the fact that they have been looking forward to this for ages, they've traveled a long way to get here and sure it'll be grand. Coastal activities frequently fall into this category as well - don't go swimming/near the cliffs/out on the pier etc.. I'm not sure exactly how to combat people who are this idiotic - somebody brought a 12 week old baby up Croagh Patrick on Saturday despite mountain rescue advising them not to.