cycling on a pedestrian bridge

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Actually he / she isn't. An 8 year old is below the age of criminal responsibility. Unless you can post a link to a child that was prosecuted for cycling on a footpath?



Perhaps, I love to walk with my son. But asking him to walk a 14km round trip that we'd cycle is a tad unreasonable.

So as they are below the age of responsibility, it falls on you as a parent, someone call social services

dubscottie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

They can't. A child of the ages discussed here (7 or 8) is below the age of criminal responsibility. So they can't be prosecuted.

Could not in Scotland but the parents could.. I biked a 4 miles round trip, 363 days of the year in all weathers for 4 years doing my paper-round.

Was on first name terms with some local cops as I was pulled for one-way streets etc..

Had a final warning and my dad was going to get done because of my actions.

tipparetops

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Lol I don't care how big you are, you wouldn't step in front of my child if he was cycling to the shop on the pavement.

here we go.
Why take it so personally, its boards.ie
What am I supposed to post, oh No you wouldnt.

Pinch Flat

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You do realise I am the OP right? A small child going to the shops is a HUGE difference to some bell end flying over a pedestrian bridge in the city center.

I was in agreement with your OP - the guy was a d!ck. And I'm saying that as a cyclist.

My own son cycles regularly around the footpaths of our estate -as do other kids. He was hit by an older child on a bike last friday while walking on the path with my wife. Took a few knocks and bruises, nicked his jacket when he fell - nothing too major. What did I do? go on the internet and vent my rage? See a solicitor? Call to the parents and demand compensation?

Nah, just put it down to one of those things. Kids will be kids. All part of growing up.

dubscottie

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You do realise I am the OP right? A small child going to the shops is a HUGE difference to some bell end flying over a pedestrian bridge in the city center.

Sorry!! Crossed replies!

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

So as they are below the age of responsibility, it falls on you as a parent, someone call social services

So we have some posters suggesting the parents of children who are allowed to cycle on road should have the guards or social services called, and the same for children who have to cycle on footpaths because there's no cycle lanes.

Where exactly are children meant to cycle then?I guess I'll have to wait for that knock on the door then.More hysteria.

RecordStraight

Spook_ie wrote: »

OMG Something else to be provided for free to cyclists, unbelievable, do you think there's anything that cyclists should bear the cost of?

Uh...the insurance suggested is being provided free for pedestrians, in case they get hurt on the pavements.

Shemale

I hope you shouted timberrrrrrrr as he was heading for the deck.

A lot of people on bikes are douchebags, twice guys have sped up and cycled at me on footpaths expecting me to move, both have ended up on the deck and both opted to start mouthing off.

It maddens me daily, they are doing up to 30mph on a footpath on something made of metal and could cause someone a serious injury but it's never their fault and the ones with the cameras on their helmets appear to be the most aggressive, like the camera is their safety net should they get a smack off someone. One of the lads that cycled into me started shouting about having recorded the whole thing, oddly enough the abuse stopped when I said that was your fault and you keep roaring at me the last thing you will record on your camera is your hand picking up your teeth before I take your helmet and bike off you for being an obnoxious prick. Even a middle aged woman who saw the incident gave me a knowing smile.

I wonder what cyclists would make of pedestrians with helmet cams walking in cycle lanes calling cyclists names?

Spook_ie

RecordStraight wrote: »

Uh...the insurance suggested is being provided free for pedestrians, in case they get hurt on the pavements.

No that's the councils own liability insurance, nothing to do with being hit by someone elses child cycling on a footpath, or are you saying that the council are responsible for it rather than the child and its parents?

Shemale

dubscottie wrote: »

So that's fine then.. Who is going to pay my medical bills when being hit by 10 of these "little darlings on bikes" feck my ankles/feet???

If it wasn't deliberate their parents contents insurance covers liability to others.


How high are your ankles/feet, I would be more concerned with handles bars in the nuts.

dubscottie

Shemale wrote: »

I hope you shouted timberrrrrrrr as he was heading for the deck.

A lot of people on bikes are douchebags, twice guys have sped up and cycled at me on footpaths expecting me to move, both have ended up on the deck and both opted to start mouthing off.

It maddens me daily, they are doing up to 30mph on a footpath on something made of metal and could cause someone a serious injury but it's never their fault and the ones with the cameras on their helmets appear to be the most aggressive, like the camera is their safety net should they get a smack off someone. One of the lads that cycled into me started shouting about having recorded the whole thing, oddly enough the abuse stopped when I said that was your fault and you keep roaring at me the last thing you will record on your camera is your hand picking up your teeth before I take your helmet and bike off you for being an obnoxious prick. Even a middle aged woman who saw the incident gave me a knowing smile.

I wonder what cyclists would make of pedestrians with helmet cams walking in cycle lanes calling cyclists names?

I am going to make a point of filming a junction near me to prove 99% of cyclists break red lights. Post it over the weekend..

RecordStraight

Spook_ie wrote: »

No that's the councils own liability insurance, nothing to do with being hit by someone elses child cycling on a footpath, or are you saying that the council are responsible for it rather than the child and its parents?

If the council wants to encourage healthy lifestyles, healthy kids, less traffic, less pollution, less CO2...then it seems a good investment. I've lived somewhere (on the continent where probably 50% of kids cycle to school, and it was never a problem, and the main benefit was the absence of a car for every kid on a bike.

RecordStraight

dubscottie wrote: »

I am going to make a point of filming a junction near me to prove 99% of cyclists break red lights. Post it over the weekend..

I look forward to it!

tipparetops

dubscottie wrote: »

I am going to make a point of filming a junction near me to prove 99% of cyclists break red lights. Post it over the weekend..

do it, but expect backlash from the cycling forum nerds.

Grandpa Hassan

dubscottie wrote: »

I am going to make a point of filming a junction near me to prove 99% of cyclists break red lights. Post it over the weekend..

My god you guys are taking this way too seriously!!

Shemale

dubscottie wrote: »

I am going to make a point of filming a junction near me to prove 99% of cyclists break red lights. Post it over the weekend..

The Leeson Street Stephen Green junction is a good place to start, the pedestrian lights go green for all crossings at the same time, I cross diagonally and the bikes are coming from all directions.

Shemale

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

My god you guys are taking this way too seriously!!

Let me guess, you drive to work?

tipparetops

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

My god you guys are taking this way too seriously!!

revenge and shame are coming, and they do not cycle

RecordStraight

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

My god you guys are taking this way too seriously!!

Well the claim is that 99% of cyclists break (all?) lights, and it would be good if we can see a video that proves that.

Pinch Flat

dubscottie wrote: »

I am going to make a point of filming a junction near me to prove 99% of cyclists break red lights. Post it over the weekend..

Someone has done that already - its around Phibsborough. It shows all road users breaking red lights - cyclists, cars, buses, trucks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Pe8otqTl7E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx7AmpDMFoU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEv_yyQdHRY

Be interested to see what you video.

wtlltw

dubscottie wrote: »

I am going to make a point of filming a junction near me to prove 99% of cyclists break red lights. Post it over the weekend..

I wouldn't bother

I was picking up a form in Irishtown Garda station today and in the ten minutes I was there I watched cyclists jump lights, cycle on the footpath, cycle down the wrong side of the road (junction at the Garda station). Looked at the guard and his reaction summed it up

MadDog76

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Someone has done that already - its around Phibsborough. It shows all road users breaking red lights - cyclists, cars, buses, trucks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Pe8otqTl7E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx7AmpDMFoU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEv_yyQdHRY

Be interested to see what you video.

One thing jumps out at me about those videos .......... the Guards could watch the videos and literally track down every road user who broke the red lights ........ they could fine/prosecute them all .......... all except the cyclists of course because there is no way to identify them and track them down.

RecordStraight

MadDog76 wrote: »

One thing jumps out at me about those videos .......... the Guards could watch the videos and literally track down every road user who broke the red lights ........ they could fine/prosecute them all .......... all except the cyclists of course because there is no way to identify them and track them down.

But they don't. I'd be more concerned about the guys driving a tonne of metal at 45mph than the guys on push-bikes - how about we deal with the most dangerous thing first?

dubscottie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Someone has done that already - its around Phibsborough. It shows all road users breaking red lights - cyclists, cars, buses, trucks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Pe8otqTl7E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx7AmpDMFoU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEv_yyQdHRY

Be interested to see what you video.

The person taking that needs to know what "breaking a red" is in terms of the RTA. That is a ridiculous short sequence. Just looked at the first vid.. first part pissing rain.. All the cars are right to keep going.. Slam on the brakes and BAMM someone has run into you.. Sure its in the rules of the road FFS..

If the light is yellow you can go if your way is clear. He looks only at the light on the otherside of the junction.

I have done it on the N11 heading into town.. Doing 60kph on the motorbike with some tit on your tail.. Light goes yellow.. Am I stopping? No going.. If I hit the anchors I am dead.

Its in the rules of the road. Its allowed.

RecordStraight

dubscottie wrote: »

I have done it on the N11 heading into town.. Doing 60kph on the motorbike with some tit on your tail.. Light goes yellow.. Am I stopping? No going.. If I hit the anchors I am dead.

Its in the rules of the road. Its allowed.

So it's ok for cars and motorbikes to go through orange and red lights...but...

MarkAnthony

dubscottie wrote: »

The person taking that needs to know what "breaking a red" is in terms of the RTA. That is a ridiculous short sequence. Just looked at the first vid.. first part pissing rain.. All the cars are right to keep going.. Slam on the brakes and BAMM someone has run into you.. Sure its in the rules of the road FFS..

If the light is yellow you can go if your way is clear. He looks only at the light on the otherside of the junction.

I have done it on the N11 heading into town.. Doing 60kph on the motorbike with some tit on your tail.. Light goes yellow.. Am I stopping? No going.. If I hit the anchors I am dead.

Its in the rules of the road. Its allowed.

Amber means stop unless unsafe to do so.

At a pedestrian crossing the onus is on the driver to stop at any colour of light if needed.

You need a refresher on them rules :pac:

MadDog76

RecordStraight wrote: »

But they don't. I'd be more concerned about the guys driving a tonne of metal at 45mph than the guys on push-bikes - how about we deal with the most dangerous thing first?

Of course you want to ignore the cyclists breaking the red lights and just focus on those damn motorists!!!

News flash ......... they are all equally guilty of the same offence ....... the only difference is that the cyclists can't be tracked down because they are not Registered.

Pinch Flat

wtlltw wrote: »

I wouldn't bother

I was picking up a form in Irishtown Garda station today and in the ten minutes I was there I watched cyclists jump lights, cycle on the footpath, cycle down the wrong side of the road (junction at the Garda station). Looked at the guard and his reaction summed it up

I know. It's all down to enforcement. So surely you demanded they arrest these offending cyclists. Or did you just do nothing and post on the internet about it?

I sent a written compliant to the gardai (including photographs of the persistent offenders' cars) following persistent blocking of a cycle lane outside a school - it lead to an accident where a cyclist was struck while trying to move around these cars and into a busy lane. Here's the reply I received back:

"This is an issue which seems to occur outside many schools. The offending vehicles are often parents in situ a matter moments who move away when the Garda vehicle approaches.

As you can appreciate there are numerous areas of the city centre which require Garda attention regarding illegal parking and other traffic related issues. This is even more prevalent regarding illegal parking in the run up to Christmas period.

I will of course forward your most recent email to the Divisional Traffic Inspector concerned."

and this

"From experience of other schools where this problem prevails, however, the Garda issuing a fine etc has often proved to be merely a (very) short term solution.

Resolution of such issues at schools in the long term solution requires greater involvement and buy-in from the school authorities/principal with the parents to highlight that the parking concerned is not acceptable.

Short of permanently placing a Garda at the location, there are always those who will take the chance for ‘5 minutes’, and the chance of a monetary fine does not seem to outweigh the inconvenience of parking elsewhere.

Are you in a position within the school to suggest such involvement? I appreciate you may also be a normal motorist in the area who is like many of us is dismayed by the cavalier attitude of some motorists."

So, in a nut shell, nothing was done. I;d suggest this approach is taken with other road users, cyclists included, who break the law.

dubscottie

RecordStraight wrote: »

So it's ok for cars and motorbikes to go through orange and red lights...but...

Go read the rules of the road or better the Road Traffic Act..

Cyclists going on the green man after DCC spent a fortune putting up little red and green lights with a wee picture of a cyclist on them..

Still ignored.. and forcing pedestrians to jump out the way of said cyclists.

dubscottie

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Amber means stop unless unsafe to do so.

At a pedestrian crossing the onus is on the driver to stop at any colour of light if needed.

You need a refresher on them rules :pac:

Show me the section in the road traffic act.

RecordStraight

MadDog76 wrote: »

Of course you want to ignore the cyclists breaking the red lights and just focus on those damn motorists!!!

Why?

MadDog76 wrote: »

News flash ......... they are all equally guilty of the same offence ....... the only difference is that the cyclists can't be tracked down because they are not Registered.

Right, but you just pointed out that none of them are being tracked down, so I don't really see the inequality here.

Pinch Flat

dubscottie wrote: »

The person taking that needs to know what "breaking a red" is in terms of the RTA. That is a ridiculous short sequence. Just looked at the first vid.. first part pissing rain.. All the cars are right to keep going.. Slam on the brakes and BAMM someone has run into you.. Sure its in the rules of the road FFS..

If the light is yellow you can go if your way is clear. He looks only at the light on the otherside of the junction.

I have done it on the N11 heading into town.. Doing 60kph on the motorbike with some tit on your tail.. Light goes yellow.. Am I stopping? No going.. If I hit the anchors I am dead.

Its in the rules of the road. Its allowed.

Amazing how drivers can defend evidence where they're blatantly breaking red lights. There's quote a few cyclists as well taking the mick, no excuse. It's aimed at all road users at this particular junction.

Anyway, looking forward to the video. Hope they pick a nice clear dry day, some great weather on the way, so that all the motorists will be able to stop safely at the reds, letting nothing but the cyclists sail through the red lights.

Ah you're right. There's nothing to see there in those videos. I'll go back and delete them. Mortified.:o

CramCycle

dubscottie wrote: »

The person taking that needs to know what "breaking a red" is in terms of the RTA. That is a ridiculous short sequence. Just looked at the first vid.. first part pissing rain.. All the cars are right to keep going.. Slam on the brakes and BAMM someone has run into you.. Sure its in the rules of the road FFS..

If the light is yellow you can go if your way is clear. He looks only at the light on the otherside of the junction.

I have done it on the N11 heading into town.. Doing 60kph on the motorbike with some tit on your tail.. Light goes yellow.. Am I stopping? No going.. If I hit the anchors I am dead.

Its in the rules of the road. Its allowed.

LOL, are you sure you have even read the ROTR (which by the way are a civil servants interpretation of the law, not the law).

Short sequence and raining is a reasonable excuse to run the lights? FFS are you kidding. No need to "drop anchor" just approach the junction sensibly, and if the light goes amber apply your brakes. If that will leave you stranded in the junction kep going, if you stop before the white line then stop. If the light is red when you get to the line and you are going to fast to stop, then you were driving too fast and without due consideration for other road users.

Lazy, sh1t driving with such bullsh1t excuses. Sorry Garda, I ran the red because, well, you never know if the driver behind me knows how to operate the brakes.

MarkAnthony

dubscottie wrote: »

Show me the section in the road traffic act.

Page 103 of the rules of the Road.

An amber light means that you must not go beyond the stop line or, if there is no stop line, beyond the light. However, you may go on if you are so close to the line or the light when the amber light first appears that stopping would be dangerous.

RecordStraight

dubscottie wrote: »

Go read the rules of the road or better the Road Traffic Act..

Why? Do different rules apply to cyclists? Because you have just justified cars and motorbikes breaking the lights.

MarkAnthony

CramCycle wrote: »

LOL, are you sure you have even read the ROTR (which by the way are a civil servants interpretation of the law, not the law.

They'd be given persuasive weight if needed as an interpretive aid as they are what are taught to drivers.

MadDog76

RecordStraight wrote: »

Why?

Right, but you just pointed out that none of them are being tracked down, so I don't really see the inequality here.

I didn't point that out .......... I pointed out that the only road users in the videos that can't be tracked down are the cyclists as they are not registered.

dubscottie

CramCycle wrote: »

LOL, are you sure you have even read the ROTR (which by the way are a civil servants interpretation of the law, not the law).

Short sequence and raining is a reasonable excuse to run the lights? FFS are you kidding. No need to "drop anchor" just approach the junction sensibly, and if the light goes amber apply your brakes. If that will leave you stranded in the junction kep going, if you stop before the white line then stop. If the light is red when you get to the line and you are going to fast to stop, then you were driving too fast and without due consideration for other road users.

Lazy, sh1t driving with such bullsh1t excuses. Sorry Garda, I ran the red because, well, you never know if the driver behind me knows how to operate the brakes.

I worked in a job that required me to know the Road Traffic Act..

The rules of the road are not law.

CramCycle

dubscottie wrote: »

Go read the rules of the road or better the Road Traffic Act..

Cyclists going on the green man after DCC spent a fortune putting up little red and green lights with a wee picture of a cyclist on them..

Still ignored.. and forcing pedestrians to jump out the way of said cyclists.

You know they are not in any version of the Road traffic act. I know what they are and follow them but don't spout sh1t.

dubscottie wrote: »

Show me the section in the road traffic act.

You know it so well, find the bit about what right a green light gives you and in what scenario.

MarkAnthony

dubscottie wrote: »

I worked in a job that required me to know the Road Traffic Act..

The rules of the road are not law.

Worked as in don't work there any more, has that anything to do with you not knowing the ROTR or the RTAs :pac:

YOU opened the ROTR no one else, now you're back peddling. (No pun intended.)

CramCycle

dubscottie wrote: »

I worked in a job that required me to know the Road Traffic Act..

The rules of the road are not law.

At least we both agree on that, I suggest you re read the act as it seems to have gotten hazy in your memory.

RecordStraight

MadDog76 wrote: »

I didn't point that out .......... I pointed out that the only road users in the videos that can't be tracked down are the cyclists as they are not registered.

Right, so I'll point out that none of them are being tracked down, so the hows and the whys are a moot point.

tipparetops

We all know what has to be done.
1. Bicycle licence
2. register all bicycles
3. children under 18 must be accompanied by an adult cyclist at all times.
4. No bicycles allowed on footpaths
5. All cyclists must have insurance - children cycling must be included on their parents insurance.

RecordStraight

dubscottie wrote: »

I worked in a job that required me to know the Road Traffic Act..

The rules of the road are not law.

That's probably why, in the bit you quoted, he said:

LOL, are you sure you have even read the ROTR (which by the way are a civil servants interpretation of the law, not the law).

Pinch Flat

MadDog76 wrote: »

Of course you want to ignore the cyclists breaking the red lights and just focus on those damn motorists!!!

News flash ......... they are all equally guilty of the same offence ....... the only difference is that the cyclists can't be tracked down because they are not Registered.

Did you see my exchange earlier with the gardai about persistent parking in a mandatory cycling lane? Make, model and reg of car passed on in clear photographs. Nothing done. How do you think it'll be different with a cyclist wearing a reg plate on a hi-vis?

Look, I'm all for people in all modes of vehicles being prosecuted - but it's down to enforcement. There's simply little out there. You can have all the rules you like, cyclists wearing billboard sized numbers on their back / tattooed into their foreheads or embedded in chips or wherever, but unless it's backed up by enforcement nothing will happen and the behaviors will continue.

dubscottie

CramCycle wrote: »

At least we both agree on that, I suggest you re read the act as it seems to have gotten hazy in your memory.

And which part should I look over again?? Perhaps you should remind your cycling friends of the act also.

RecordStraight

tipparetops wrote: »

We all know what has to be done.
1. Bicycle licence
2. register all bicycles
3. children under 18 must be accompanied by an adult cyclist at all times.
4. No bicycles allowed on footpaths
5. All cyclists must have insurance - children cycling must be included on their parents insurance.

Yes, this will definitely happen. Sure look all over Europe, the whole place is becoming less and less tolerant of cyclists...

lol

CramCycle

RecordStraight wrote: »

That's probably why, in the bit you quoted, he said:

Giggle

Paz-CCFC

Article 30(2) of the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations 1997.

A driver of a vehicle approaching traffic lights in which a non-flashing amber light is illuminated, shall not drive the vehicle past the traffic lights, or past traffic sign number RRM 017 [stop line] when such sign is provided in association with the traffic lights, save when the vehicle is so close to the traffic lights that it cannot safely be stopped before passing the traffic lights or traffic sign number RRM 017.

Emphasis mine.

MadDog76

RecordStraight wrote: »

Right, so I'll point out that none of them are being tracked down, so the hows and the whys are a moot point.

How do you know none of them are being tracked down? You don't know that and neither do I .......... what we do know is that the cyclists can't be tracked down ........ this needs to be addressed.

Enforcement issues and lazy Guards are a separate issue entirely ........ but it's not unusual for cyclists to deflect from the actual issue when it suits.