Cyclists should do a theory test!

MadDog76 · 22-06-2015 12:43pm

ezra_pound wrote: »

No. But alcohol is a recreational drug.

But they're not really the same thing .....

MadDog76 · 22-06-2015 12:46pm

rubadub wrote: »

They are both recreational drugs, 1 E would be a full dose, so you could compare 1/6th or 1/8th of an E to a single pint. Most sensible doctors would consider alcohol the worse of the 2, if it was in fact MDMA you were taking.

The problem with your logic (or lack thereof) is that you simply cannot compare the two ......... for obvious reasons.

rubadub · 22-06-2015 12:48pm

MadDog76 wrote: »

But they're not really the same thing .....

neither is heroin or crack cocaine, iboprufen or aspirin, LSD or magic mushrooms. I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.

If a thread started off in the reverse of many here, "I am a cyclist and I cannot understand why motorists keep breaking lights" I would expect a huge amount of people to come in and say "ehhh, cyclists break lights all the time too, you hypocrite, can you really not get your head around it, are you that fcuking stupid?".

And then you would get lads like yourself still saying "shut up you, this thread is about motorists, not cyclists, now back on topic".

Its a mind-dumbling pathetic dodgy tactic.

MadDog76 wrote: »

The problem with your logic (or lack thereof) is that you simply cannot compare the two ......... for obvious reasons.

They CAN be compared and are frequently compared by medical professionals, for obvious reasons. Christ almighty, get your head out of the fcuking sand...

MadDog76 · 22-06-2015 12:51pm

rubadub wrote: »

neither is heroin or crack cocaine, iboprufen or aspirin, LSD or magic mushrooms. I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.

If a thread started off like many here do, "I am a cyclist and I cannot understand why motorists keep breaking lights" I would expect a huge amount of people to come in and say "ehhh, cyclists break lights all the time too, you hypocrite, can you really not get your head around it, are you that fcuking stupid?".

And then you would get lads like yourself still saying "shut up you, this thread is about motorists, not cyclists, now back on topic".

Its a mind-dumbling pathetic dodgy tactic.

Anybody who tries to say heroin or crack is in the same vein as vodka or beer has already lost touch with reality .......

Maximus Alexander · 22-06-2015 1:03pm

rubadub wrote: »

Maybe they have actually bothered their fucking hole to read up about the subject and feel they are safer without a helmet while commuting.

There's not really any need to be so arsey about it.

rubadub · 22-06-2015 1:11pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

There's not really any need to be so arsey about it.

there is no need to infer people are stupid or idiots or somewhat mentally deficient with phrases like "What is going on in these peoples' minds?"

rubadub · 22-06-2015 1:19pm

MadDog76 wrote: »

Anybody who tries to say heroin or crack is in the same vein as vodka or beer has already lost touch with reality .......

yeah, those lads in the lancet who compare them must be clueless. I would hold the opinion of MadDog76 in much higher regard than that of Professor David Nutt...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet

The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is one of the world's oldest and best known general medical journals,[1] and has been described as one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world

Maximus Alexander · 22-06-2015 1:27pm

rubadub wrote: »

there is no need to infer people are stupid or idiots or somewhat mentally deficient with phrases like "What is going on in these peoples' minds?"

It's a reasonable question, since I had no idea what was going on in their minds. Some other folks here have explained in a more... measured fashion.

RainyDay · 22-06-2015 2:42pm

steamengine wrote: »

Do you need a Masters in experimental Physics and read a thesis on whether Light consists of waves or particles before you switch on your lights at home at night ?

Yes, that's exactly the point I was making. Thanks for confirming it.

steamengine wrote: »

Everyone is out of step - really ?

Everyone who says 'Oh everyone should wear helmets and they should be mandatory' is way out of step with evidence - that's for sure.

steamengine · 22-06-2015 2:56pm

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Faceplants are way more common. No helmet to protect against those. I've never had a friend come off and land on their head. But I know a few who have come off over the handlbars onto their face, or face-first into the side of a van / car when it has pulled out in front of them.

Full face protection is the only way forward....something like Bane in batman would probably work

Perhaps something along the lines of a hurling helmet would fit the bill nicely then, helmets will evolve like everything else. I've had my head slapped off concrete and therefore have no hesitation in avoiding that sensation and pain by wearing a helmet. That was not even at a level to induce concussion.

steamengine · 22-06-2015 3:03pm

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, that's exactly the point I was making. Thanks for confirming it.

Thought so alright :rolleyes:

Everyone who says 'Oh everyone should wear helmets and they should be mandatory' is way out of step with evidence - that's for sure.

Including the RSA, not a lot of difference between recommending helmet use and it being mandatory. So the RSA have it wrong too - really !

Everyone out of step except my Johnny !

RainyDay · 22-06-2015 3:31pm

steamengine wrote: »

Including the RSA, not a lot of difference between recommending helmet use and it being mandatory. So the RSA have it wrong too - really !

So you don't see much difference between the HSE encouraging people to stop smoking, and the Government banning smoking and making it illegal then?

diomed · 22-06-2015 3:36pm

It is almost a mantra with car drivers
"cyclists break red lights"
"cyclists break red lights"
"cyclists break red lights"

This thread is the same flavour.
"Cyclist don't know the Rules of the Road and a theory test will prove it, unlike us impeccably behaved car drivers."

But it is still drivers who kill cyclists.

Jawgap · 22-06-2015 3:37pm

steamengine wrote: »

Thought so alright :rolleyes:

Including the RSA, not a lot of difference between recommending helmet use and it being mandatory. So the RSA have it wrong too - really !

Everyone out of step except my Johnny !

The RSA like to shift the potential blame away from motorists - that's why they make such a big deal about helmets, hi-viz and my own favourite bit of their advice to cyclists.....

....don’t get into shouting matches with motorists;

......as well as other nuggets of wisdom that suggest it's the more vulnerable road user's fault if they get ploughed by a car or other motor vehicle.

That_Guy · 22-06-2015 3:45pm

Was walking across the road on O'Connell Street towards Abbey Street. Lights are green for pedestrians and this fella on a bike comes speeding by, is inches away from slamming into me and my girlfriend.

Meanwhile a Garda just stands there observing the whole thing.

If that was a car running a red light as pedestrians are crossing the road, you can be sure as hell he'd have done something about it then.

Instead, he swiftly attends to tourists looking for directions.

steamengine · 22-06-2015 3:49pm

RainyDay wrote: »

So you don't see much difference between the HSE encouraging people to stop smoking, and the Government banning smoking and making it illegal then?

Not really, just a different form of singing from the same hymnsheet.

Obviously there are two different hymnsheets available in the cycling world and you and some of your buddies here are not singing from the RSA one.

What makes me so curious is the extent of the contrarian logic. Practically all the safe cycling norms are being contested.

Red lights - ok to break them, it helps traffic flow.
Helmets - can cause brain injury.
Hi Viz - can't be seen in sun light.
Any cycling misdemeanour - cars do it too.

I'm just starting to burst my sides laughing it's so ludicrous.

RainyDay · 22-06-2015 4:04pm

steamengine wrote: »

Not really, just a different form of singing from the same hymnsheet.

Tks for clarification, so just to make sure I really understand where you're coming from, you'd be reasonably happy if the Government banned smoking today? You wouldn't be bothered about how the Prohibition era in the States was the foundation of organised crime there or anything like that. You think a ban would be a good idea?

steamengine wrote: »

Obviously there are two different hymnsheets available in the cycling world and you and some of your buddies here are not singing from the RSA one.

What makes me so curious is the extent of the contrarian logic. Practically all the safe cycling norms are being contested.

Red lights - ok to break them, it helps traffic flow.
Helmets - can cause brain injury.
Hi Viz - can't be seen in sun light.
Any cycling misdemeanour - cars do it too.

I'm just starting to burst my sides laughing it's so ludicrous.

Sorry to dissapoint you, but there are no hymnsheets at all. I've never said that it's OK to break red lights. I may have noted the development in Paris where it is OK to break red lights, but I've never said that it is OK here. Some posters may have said this, and I may not agree with them, because there is no hymn sheet.

I've never said that helmets can cause brain injury. I have a huge concern about mandatory helmet laws, as they will more than likely make cycling more dangerous for the reduced number of cyclists, but I've never suggested that helmets cause injury. Other posters may have said this, and I may not agree with them, because there is no hymn sheet.

I've never said that hi-vis can't been seen in sun light. I did note that some cases arose in the UK recently where hi-vis was suspected as a contributory factor to collisions with cyclists in daylight - no more, no less. It seems that this isn't enough for you, so you exaggerate my position greatly to give yourself something to disagree with.

It's strange how you seem unable to engage or debate with the actual issues, so you prefer to back off and take broadside pot-shots instead. Pity...

diomed · 22-06-2015 4:09pm

Cyclists do not as a group advocate breaking traffic regulations. It is a very small minority. I have two "cars breaking red lights" on my car dashcam from the past week. It just proves that some cyclists and some car drivers break the rules.

In the last few minutes I wrote to the RSA about their bad advice to cyclists. On Sunday when getting my car NCT test I read their cyclist advice booklet. On page 2 there was terrible advice about bike size. The RSA were saying that too large or too small a bike is dangerous, then the RSA gave dangerous advice.

steamengine · 22-06-2015 4:30pm

RainyDay wrote: »

Tks for clarification, so just to make sure I really understand where you're coming from, you'd be reasonably happy if the Government banned smoking today? You wouldn't be bothered about how the Prohibition era in the States was the foundation of organised crime there or anything like that. You think a ban would be a good idea?

Sorry to dissapoint you, but there are no hymnsheets at all. I've never said that it's OK to break red lights. I may have noted the development in Paris where it is OK to break red lights, but I've never said that it is OK here. Some posters may have said this, and I may not agree with them, because there is no hymn sheet.

I've never said that helmets can cause brain injury. I have a huge concern about mandatory helmet laws, as they will more than likely make cycling more dangerous for the reduced number of cyclists, but I've never suggested that helmets cause injury. Other posters may have said this, and I may not agree with them, because there is no hymn sheet.

I've never said that hi-vis can't been seen in sun light. I did note that some cases arose in the UK recently where hi-vis was suspected as a contributory factor to collisions with cyclists in daylight - no more, no less. It seems that this isn't enough for you, so you exaggerate my position greatly to give yourself something to disagree with.

It's strange how you seem unable to engage or debate with the actual issues, so you prefer to back off and take broadside pot-shots instead. Pity...

I don't take potshots, everything I've stated is from this thread. It's a summary of how some posts read collectively. Read down through the posts and you'll see I'm only repeating what I've read. Pity when people are debating, and it's not going their way, suddenly foul is called.

Jawgap · 22-06-2015 4:33pm

That_Guy wrote: »

Was walking across the road on O'Connell Street towards Abbey Street. Lights are green for pedestrians and this fella on a bike comes speeding by, is inches away from slamming into me and my girlfriend.

Meanwhile a Garda just stands there observing the whole thing.

If that was a car running a red light as pedestrians are crossing the road, you can be sure as hell he'd have done something about it then.

Instead, he swiftly attends to tourists looking for directions.

Yeah, because there's feck all else for the Guards to be doing at that junction.

No doubt if he collared the miscreant cyclist his sergeant would have been delighted to see it as a productive use of his time......

........but not have as delighted as the local dealers and junkies that infest the place would have been

An of course he would would have done something about a car running a red light while pedestrians are crossing because that's actually hazardous, instead of irritating.

MadDog76 · 22-06-2015 4:39pm

rubadub wrote: »

yeah, those lads in the lancet who compare them must be clueless. I would hold the opinion of MadDog76 in much higher regard than that of Professor David Nutt...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet

Heroin is not Heineken ....... only a moron would believe they are comparable

MadDog76 · 22-06-2015 4:41pm

diomed wrote: »

It is almost a mantra with car drivers
"cyclists break red lights"
"cyclists break red lights"
"cyclists break red lights"

This thread is the same flavour.
"Cyclist don't know the Rules of the Road and a theory test will prove it, unlike us impeccably behaved car drivers."

But it is still drivers who kill cyclists.

I don't think we're allowed do that ........ *fingers crossed* ........ are we?

RainyDay · 22-06-2015 5:07pm

steamengine wrote: »

I don't take potshots, everything I've stated is from this thread. It's a summary of how some posts read collectively. Read down through the posts and you'll see I'm only repeating what I've read. Pity when people are debating, and it's not going their way, suddenly foul is called.

"Everyone out of step except my Johnny !" is a broadside potshot that avoids discussion on the actual issues.

What you did was take views that you heard from different people, and pulled them all together to make your 'hymnsheet'. But you're the only one who has a hymn sheet. The rest of us just have opinions.

And just in case you missed this bit;

RainyDay wrote: »

Tks for clarification, so just to make sure I really understand where you're coming from, you'd be reasonably happy if the Government banned smoking today? You wouldn't be bothered about how the Prohibition era in the States was the foundation of organised crime there or anything like that. You think a ban would be a good idea?

Icepick · 22-06-2015 5:09pm

angry fat people ITT

steamengine · 22-06-2015 5:33pm

RainyDay wrote: »

"Everyone out of step except my Johnny !" is a broadside potshot that avoids discussion on the actual issues.

What you did was take views that you heard from different people, and pulled them all together to make your 'hymnsheet'. But you're the only one who has a hymn sheet. The rest of us just have opinions.

And just in case you missed this bit;

Since when in any debate is the use of an analogy considered a broadside or potshot ? I use the RSA/majority opinion/commonsense hymnsheet - there's safety in numbers.

The missed bit : I would say no for cigarettes, but if it's proved conclusively that helmet use is definitely beneficial, then mandatory helmet use would just be a natural follow on. It already exists for motorcycle use, even slow moped type vehicles, which a racing bike might well overtake. Why the disparity ?

Mind you, that's just an opinion.

Grandpa Hassan · 22-06-2015 6:27pm

That_Guy wrote: »

Was walking across the road on O'Connell Street towards Abbey Street. Lights are green for pedestrians and this fella on a bike comes speeding by, is inches away from slamming into me and my girlfriend.

Meanwhile a Garda just stands there observing the whole thing.

If that was a car running a red light as pedestrians are crossing the road, you can be sure as hell he'd have done something about it then.

Instead, he swiftly attends to tourists looking for directions.

Was anyone hurt?

papu · 22-06-2015 8:38pm

That_Guy wrote: »

Was walking across the road on O'Connell Street towards Abbey Street. Lights are green for pedestrians and this fella on a bike comes speeding by, is inches away from slamming into me and my girlfriend.

Meanwhile a Garda just stands there observing the whole thing.

If that was a car running a red light as pedestrians are crossing the road, you can be sure as hell he'd have done something about it then.

Instead, he swiftly attends to tourists looking for directions.

Of course the cyclist was wrong to be going to the green man but if the lights just turned as he was coming through the crossing sometimes the pedestrian lights come on before the cyclist has made it all the way across, though I pass that junction every day it isn't the biggest but it isn't a small one either..
You have to remember that emergency braking on bikes is much more dangerous than it is in a car. Either way the green man isn't a sign that you should blindly step out onto the road anyway, just as a green light means proceed with caution , you should still be aware of traffic and look before crossing.
I can't count the amount of times I've been nearly cleaned out of it by pedestrians just stepping out onto the road , stepping out from behind busses and generally not paying attention if they don't see a car in their peripheral.

Spook_ie · 25-06-2015 7:00pm

Looks like the Cyclists of Ireland pressure groups Cyclists.ie and Dublincycling.ie don't fancy having FPNs foisted on them, because of the costs €50 even though some said they'd welcome them. Typical!

BTW Might be interesting to nail up your colors if you're a member of either of them or their regional groups when you post.

http://dublincycling.ie/sites/dublincycling.com/files/monetaryfinescyclistsoffences-paschaldonohoeletter-26-06-15.pdf

I am writing to you on behalf of Cyclist.ie –The Irish Cycling Advocacy Network - to express my concern about the high quantum of monetary fine mooted (€50) by your officials to deal with road traffic law infractions being made by some cyclists – as compared with the fines
faced by those driving motor vehicles-but please note that we do not oppose the concept of a fixed fine regime for cyclists.

I suppose they'd prefer it to be a €5 fine, but I've a much better idea, seeing as they are traffic offences ( red lights etc. ) and cyclists forever like to tell people that they are traffic ( when it suits them

) charge them as traffic offences and if they have a license put penalty points on them, if no license treat them the same as any unlicensed driver and hold them in abeyence until they get a license.

Any specific cycling offences such as footpaths could well be then dealt with a lower fine

papu · 25-06-2015 7:11pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Looks like the Cyclists of Ireland pressure groups Cyclists.ie and Dublincycling.ie don't fancy having FPNs foisted on them, because of the costs €50 even though some said they'd welcome them. Typical!

BTW Might be interesting to nail up your colors if you're a member of either of them or their regional groups when you post.

http://dublincycling.ie/sites/dublincycling.com/files/monetaryfinescyclistsoffences-paschaldonohoeletter-26-06-15.pdf

I suppose they'd prefer it to be a €5 fine, but I've a much better idea, seeing as they are traffic offences ( red lights etc. ) and cyclists forever like to tell people that they are traffic ( when it suits them ) charge them as traffic offences and if they have a license put penalty points on them, if no license treat them the same as any unlicensed driver and hold them in abeyence until they get a license.

Any specific cycling offences such as footpaths could well be then dealt with a lower fine

This part especially makes no sense.

Grandpa Hassan · 25-06-2015 7:30pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

seeing as they are traffic offences ( red lights etc. ) and cyclists forever like to tell people that they are traffic ( when it suits them ) charge them as traffic offences and if they have a license put penalty points on them, if no license treat them the same as any unlicensed driver and hold them in abeyence until they get a license.

Any specific cycling offences such as footpaths could well be then dealt with a lower fine

What I like is that ridiculous plans like this will never see the light of day

Spook_ie · 25-06-2015 7:55pm

papu wrote: »

This part especially makes no sense.

I must have misread something somewhere, I was convinced that if you were ( for arguments sake ) under 17 and convicted of an offence that they held the points for you, maybe it used to be that way, because there were PPs for driving without a license as recently as 2010 but the present list of PP offences doesn't have it, whatever, it would still have a deterent effect on cyclists, after all according to some the number of cyclists who drive is very high

Spook_ie · 25-06-2015 8:01pm

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

What I like is that ridiculous plans like this will never see the light of day

So do you support Dr Mike and his letter, or are you another of these contributers that doesn't actually have anything to offer other than the usual rhetoric from cyclists?

SeanW · 25-06-2015 9:26pm

Jawgap wrote: »

N roads are N roads they are not motorways - urban or otherwise.

The speed limit on them is 100 km/hr - the N40 limit is 100km/hr is it not?

120km/hr is for motorways and cyclists are prohibited from those roads.

If you need to merge with fast moving traffic - take your time, and wait your turn and time your merge accordingly - you have no right of way or precedence over any other road user.

I'm sorry, are you seriously defending the cyclist in the post you quoted?

A merging lane is just that - for merging. Drivers are expected to accelerate to use it with the intention of joining the DC/Motorway at full speed. Additionally, I assume merging lanes are protected by the same ROTR as any other lane - traffic already in it has priority over traffic that wishes to enter it or cross it. Additionally, the motorist does not expect to see crossing traffic in a merging lane and will not be able to see it on some DCs where the vegetation/landscaping extends to the markings and limits the peipheral view. (See this for example) The hard shoulder does not continue into a merging lane it will always end with patterened white markings just before. A person or any road vehicle travelling in the hard shoulder should thusly yield, either merging into the mainline or yield to traffic in the merging lane.

What the cyclist did in the above post is either illegal or insane, or both.

Grandpa Hassan · 25-06-2015 9:37pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

So do you support Dr Mike and his letter, or are you another of these contributers that doesn't actually have anything to offer other than the usual rhetoric from cyclists?

My post history on this subject speaks for itself. I am a cyclist and a driver who supports better enforcement of the rules for all road users, including FPNs for cyclists. And policies which at the same time encourage bike use and discourage car use

But licencing, insurance, mandatory theory tests.....forget about it. Ineffective, prohibitively expensive and impractical when the cyclist demographic ranges from lycra clad dublin commuters, holidaying families on dublin bikes, and 8 year olds cycling down remote country lanes with their dad on a sunday morning outing.

RainyDay · 25-06-2015 9:40pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Looks like the Cyclists of Ireland pressure groups Cyclists.ie and Dublincycling.ie don't fancy having FPNs foisted on them, because of the costs €50 even though some said they'd welcome them. Typical!

BTW Might be interesting to nail up your colors if you're a member of either of them or their regional groups when you post.

http://dublincycling.ie/sites/dublincycling.com/files/monetaryfinescyclistsoffences-paschaldonohoeletter-26-06-15.pdf

I suppose they'd prefer it to be a €5 fine, but I've a much better idea, seeing as they are traffic offences ( red lights etc. ) and cyclists forever like to tell people that they are traffic ( when it suits them ) charge them as traffic offences and if they have a license put penalty points on them, if no license treat them the same as any unlicensed driver and hold them in abeyence until they get a license.

Any specific cycling offences such as footpaths could well be then dealt with a lower fine

The lack of proportionality in relation to the risks involved is a serious point. But you're right, a €5 fine wouldn't be any kind of deterrent. I'd suggest keeping the cyclist fines around the €50-€100 mark, depending on the offence, and pushing up the motorist fines to €250-€500 depending on the offence, parking fines at the lower end and speeding and dangerous driving at the higher end.

But just to clarify, if I'm being held in abeyance, do I need to bring a sleeping bag?

Spook_ie · 25-06-2015 10:31pm

RainyDay wrote: »

The lack of proportionality in relation to the risks involved is a serious point. But you're right, a €5 fine wouldn't be any kind of deterrent. I'd suggest keeping the cyclist fines around the €50-€100 mark, depending on the offence, and pushing up the motorist fines to €250-€500 depending on the offence, parking fines at the lower end and speeding and dangerous driving at the higher end.

But just to clarify, if I'm being held in abeyance, do I need to bring a sleeping bag?

Typical obfuscation, you know full well that it's points being referred to as being held in abeyance not the actual driver/cyclist.

As to the fines, problem is you already have the disproportionality of motorists losing their license for offences, as I said perhaps if a cyclist had a driving license then as they are traffic offences and cyclists like to think themselves as traffic, then they should be subject to points on their driving licenses.

I was fairly sure that there was a system of holding onto the points on a virtual license until a real license was obtained but this seems to have been whittled down to holders of foreign licenses, shame really, as I'm sure that as with the majority of motorists, the majority of cyclists would fear the losing of their driving licenses above the financial penalty.

RainyDay · 25-06-2015 11:21pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Typical obfuscation, you know full well that it's points being referred to as being held in abeyance not the actual driver/cyclist.

Aw, no sense of humour today then?

Spook_ie wrote: »

As to the fines, problem is you already have the disproportionality of motorists losing their license for offences, as I said perhaps if a cyclist had a driving license then as they are traffic offences and cyclists like to think themselves as traffic, then they should be subject to points on their driving licenses.

Yes, it's a reasonable proposal, assuming that the points would be in proportion to the risk involved. I guess you could weight the risk based on the ratio of deaths caused by cyclists to deaths caused by motorists (so a 0:200 ratio) or maybe the relative momentum of the average bike to the average car (1:1000 ratio) - or something like that.

Spook_ie · 26-06-2015 12:06am

RainyDay wrote: »

Aw, no sense of humour today then?

Yes, it's a reasonable proposal, assuming that the points would be in proportion to the risk involved. I guess you could weight the risk based on the ratio of deaths caused by cyclists to deaths caused by motorists (so a 0:200 ratio) or maybe the relative momentum of the average bike to the average car (1:1000 ratio) - or something like that.

Don't think so, you are either obeying traffic laws or your not, perhaps you think that if someone robs a pensioner of a €10 note he should be treated more leniently than if he shop lifted a €500 laptop?

papu · 26-06-2015 7:46am

Spook_ie wrote: »

Don't think so, you are either obeying traffic laws or your not, perhaps you think that if someone robs a pensioner of a €10 note he should be treated more leniently than if he shop lifted a €500 laptop?

Pedestrians get fines and PPs too then? How much do they get fined , do people in wheelchairs need licenses? What about buggies? Who gets the PPs the mother or the baby or is it split?

RecordStraight · 26-06-2015 8:02am

Spook_ie wrote: »

Don't think so, you are either obeying traffic laws or your not, perhaps you think that if someone robs a pensioner of a €10 note he should be treated more leniently than if he shop lifted a €500 laptop?

I think we also come back to the point of every pedestrian and cyclist having to wear a license plate and carry their photo ID with them all the time so that you can identify those breaking the law.

RainyDay · 26-06-2015 10:11am

Spook_ie wrote: »

Don't think so, you are either obeying traffic laws or your not, perhaps you think that if someone robs a pensioner of a €10 note he should be treated more leniently than if he shop lifted a €500 laptop?

Yep, that's a fairly well established principle in law that you're highlighting there, that the punishment fits the crime. Are you suggesting that the €10 robber and the €500 shop-lifter and the €10,000 bank-robber and the €500,000 embezzeller are all treated the same?

Spook_ie · 27-06-2015 1:22pm

RainyDay wrote: »

Yep, that's a fairly well established principle in law that you're highlighting there, that the punishment fits the crime. Are you suggesting that the €10 robber and the €500 shop-lifter and the €10,000 bank-robber and the €500,000 embezzeller are all treated the same?

Yes, because they are charged with what the actual crime is, not some fanciful notion of yours that the weight of the robber or some other stupid notion be taken into account

Spook_ie · 27-06-2015 1:23pm

RecordStraight wrote: »

I think we also come back to the point of every pedestrian and cyclist having to wear a license plate and carry their photo ID with them all the time so that you can identify those breaking the law.

I have no problem with carrying ID with me, do you?

Spook_ie · 27-06-2015 1:27pm

papu wrote: »

Pedestrians get fines and PPs too then? How much do they get fined , do people in wheelchairs need licenses? What about buggies? Who gets the PPs the mother or the baby or is it split?

Are any of those classes of people subject to traffic laws such as, keeping left, going the wrong way up one way streets, overtaking on either side, lights etc. or are you just being needlessy obfuscous

RecordStraight · 27-06-2015 1:59pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

I have no problem with carrying ID with me, do you?

On principle, yes, although that's another debate. But we are not even talking about carrying ID - if some arsehole knocks me over on the street, he's probably not going to stop to show me his ID. Therefore pedestrians (and cars and bikes, obviously) should be obliged to clearly show a registration number so that they can be reported to the cops and identified.

Spook_ie · 27-06-2015 2:06pm

RecordStraight wrote: »

On principle, yes, although that's another debate. But we are not even talking about carrying ID - if some arsehole knocks me over on the street, he's probably not going to stop to show me his ID. Therefore pedestrians (and cars and bikes, obviously) should be obliged to clearly show a registration number so that they can be reported to the cops and identified.

I have no problem with you wishing to have a barcode tatooed on your head ( if that's what you're into ) but I'm not sure why you're dragging this up. I do think that traffic offenders should be easily identifiable and easily traceable. You seem to think that it somehow equates to wanting transponders on people, how very Orwellian of you

RecordStraight · 27-06-2015 2:12pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

I have no problem with you wishing to have a barcode tatooed on your head ( if that's what you're into ) but I'm not sure why you're dragging this up. I do think that traffic offenders should be easily identifiable and easily traceable. You seem to think that it somehow equates to wanting transponders on people, how very Orwellian of you

A barcode isn't legible, and certainly not legible from a distance. Some sort of smock with your number on it over your clothes, or perhaps just a licence plate hung around your neck would be easier to read. How else can I identify the guy who knocked me over on the path, or whatever?

(I can't speak for everyone, but I've been bumped into many times by reckless walkers and runners, but never by a cyclist or a car)

Spook_ie · 27-06-2015 2:29pm

RecordStraight wrote: »

A barcode isn't legible, and certainly not legible from a distance. Some sort of smock with your number on it over your clothes, or perhaps just a licence plate hung around your neck would be easier to read. How else can I identify the guy who knocked me over on the path, or whatever?

(I can't speak for everyone, but I've been bumped into many times by reckless walkers and runners, but never by a cyclist or a car)

Still not sure why you want to drag the topic over to registrations for pedestrians ( seeing as they aren't liable for traffic offences in general ) perhaps it's because you don't believe cyclists should be classed as traffic. If that's the case, then fine, you just go against a multitude of SI's that do classify cyclists as traffic and subject to traffic law

EDIT Perhaps ( as you've never been bumped into by a car ), you're actually trying to advocate that cars need not be registered either, quite unsure of what you actually are trying to say!

RainyDay · 27-06-2015 5:22pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yes, because they are charged with what the actual crime is, not some fanciful notion of yours that the weight of the robber or some other stupid notion be taken into account

This is great, please do keep on digging a bigger hole for yourself here.

You really should get down to the Courts and tell the judges that all robbers should be getting the same sentance regardless of how much they took, given the wide disparity in sentancing today.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/nine-months-for-boy-who-stole-from-home-of-sleeping-mother-1.2263318

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/former-employee-who-stole-from-ibrc-avoids-jail-term-1.2261587
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-used-umbrella-in-robbery-attempt-hears-court-1.2238926

But perhaps you know better than all the judges...

Spook_ie wrote: »

Still not sure why you want to drag the topic over to registrations for pedestrians

Probably because pedestrians cause injuries too. On one of the two occasions I've come off my bike, it was because a pedestrian stupidly stepped out on the road in front of me. So she should have to wear a hi-vis registration plate on her back now and carry insurance, to prevent me being at a loss - right?

But on the broader issue, your touching and slightly naieve reliance on the registration system to allow people to track down drivers is misplaced. I was assaulted from a moving car a few years back, in a case not unlike this one, though with less consequences
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/man-who-pushed-boy-off-bicycle-sentenced-to-10-months-in-jail-1.2264289

When I went to the Gardai, they told me the car was a written-off banger, back on the roads illegally, and the driver could not be traced. So please stop assuming that a registration system means that drivers are actually traceable.

Spook_ie · 27-06-2015 5:55pm

RainyDay wrote: »

This is great, please do keep on digging a bigger hole for yourself here.

You really should get down to the Courts and tell the judges that all robbers should be getting the same sentance regardless of how much they took, given the wide disparity in sentancing today.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/nine-months-for-boy-who-stole-from-home-of-sleeping-mother-1.2263318

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/former-employee-who-stole-from-ibrc-avoids-jail-term-1.2261587
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-used-umbrella-in-robbery-attempt-hears-court-1.2238926

But perhaps you know better than all the judges...

Probably because pedestrians cause injuries too. On one of the two occasions I've come off my bike, it was because a pedestrian stupidly stepped out on the road in front of me. So she should have to wear a hi-vis registration plate on her back now and carry insurance, to prevent me being at a loss - right?

But on the broader issue, your touching and slightly naieve reliance on the registration system to allow people to track down drivers is misplaced. I was assaulted from a moving car a few years back, in a case not unlike this one, though with less consequences
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/man-who-pushed-boy-off-bicycle-sentenced-to-10-months-in-jail-1.2264289

When I went to the Gardai, they told me the car was a written-off banger, back on the roads illegally, and the driver could not be traced. So please stop assuming that a registration system means that drivers are actually traceable.

You really like grasping at straws and twisting like a fish on a hook to drag topics off.

Point one a crime is a crime, not all crimes are the same, not all punishments will be the same, however, the idea of FPN's is that all are treated the same for the same offence, i.e you jump a red light you get an FPN with a monetary sum to be paid, you go past a keep left sign on the right, you get an FPN, the sum of money may be different but you still get an FPN, now is my jumping a red light with due care or passing a keep left sign on the right with due care any different to a cyclist? If it's not then the cyclist should be paying the same as the motorist as it's an absolute offence rather than your " depends on the color of their hair/weight/number of wheels approach" approach

There would be nothing stopping you defacing the barcode on your head, so a pointless argument TBH.

As to pedestrians acting stupidly, some of them have a tendancy to do that, but suppose you had of been hurt, would the registration of pedestrians helped your case, if so then registration cyclists would also help pedestrians cases against stupid cyclists.

But again none of this is anything to do with cyclists being classed as traffic and as such are required to comply with Road Traffic Law, now if an offence carries a PP penalty ( such as passing a kep left sign on the right ) why shouldn't a cyclist who has a driving license receive the same fixed penalty as a motorist and the PPs.

Cyclists should do a theory test!

Comments