Anti Cycling Legislators in Aus hit a new low.

Lemming

buffalo wrote: »

This seems relevant...

Not available for me :-/

What's the synopsis?

buffalo

Lemming wrote: »

Not available for me :-/

What's the synopsis?

Certain US politicians want to introduce mandatory voter ID to 'protect democracy', despite there being nearly zero evidence of voter fraud by this mechanism*. But hey, nothing to fear, nothing to hide, right?

The clip is much funnier though.


*It just so happens that those who are disenfranchised by the 'protection of democracy' happen to be the minority groups who vote Democrat. But that part of the metaphor doesn't really work for cycling.

Chips Lovell

In fairness, all cyclists are flaming pinkos.

Unknown Soldier

tomasrojo wrote: »

Fair enough. I'd rather not live in a society where people are executed for minor parking offences, but I guess compliance with minor rules is really important.

I was exaggerating, but compliance with rules is important, apparently. You deciding it is minor is irrelevant. What do you consider a major one?

gadetra wrote: »

<snip> It's anti-cyclist leglisation pure and simple. As another poster pointed out, it's not going to encourage people to get out on their bikes. ,snip>

I can't see a cyclist not cycling because of this. Maybe my brain works differently. How does this work in someones head? Logically?

"Oh I think Ill go for a cycle, no ... wait! There are issues...I might get a fine, becuase I don't conform.."

"never cycles again..."

What?

Jawgap wrote: »

this was on twitter a couple of days ago.....



.....some of the observations were pretty much on the money....





my favourite......

You brought a lot to the table.

Well done.

I've asked my cat to put together an appropriate response but she just looked at me with her "I'll put it on the list" or what could be her "Why does this slave human keep speaking to me in a high pitched ladyboy voice"

How does she even know what a ladyboy would sound like?!

That aside, society puts those lovely laws in place so we can all get along together (it's not that complicated) occasionally it goes pear shaped but in general everyone conforms anyways, so if they have decided to do this in Aus'land, fairplay.

Maybe it is not Anti-cyclist, maybe they have a problem with cyclist breaking red lights etc.

As mentioned previously, I wouldn't have any issues with these "laws"

I comply already. Only because I value my life.

It would seems people who don't comply have problems with them and try and find "saving carbon footprint" arguments to back themselves up.

We can't get to pick and chose the "laws" etc that suit us (cyclists). There is that whole pain in the ass "greater good" thing.

And it is always about the LOWEST common denominator.

Beasty

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

I can't see a cyclist not cycling because of this. Maybe my brain works differently. How does this work in someones head? Logically?

It's unlikely to encourage many to stop cycling, but can be expected to turn some people off the idea of starting. It's helps build an anti-cycling sentiment, encouraging the likes of George Hook to have continual digs. That results in some people who may otherwise be encouraged to start thinking they don't want to be associated with "that crowd"

Unknown Soldier

Beasty wrote: »

It's unlikely to encourage many to stop cycling, but can be expected to turn some people off the idea of starting. It's helps build an anti-cycling sentiment, encouraging the likes of George Hook to have continual digs. That results in some people who may otherwise be encouraged to start thinking they don't want to be associated with "that crowd"

Why?

Some questions.

"It's unlikely to encourage many to stop cycling, but can be expected to turn some people off the idea of starting."

Why?

No really... why? if I was starting cycling I wouldn't know any of this.
Why would anyone starting off?

Google? really? I'm not getting that. I didn't google when I started cycling. I just "did"



"It's helps build an anti-cycling sentiment, encouraging the likes of George Hook to have continual digs. That results in some people who may otherwise be encouraged to start thinking they don't want to be associated with "that crowd"

Why?

You have an issue with George Hook?

That what you brought to the table?

Is that it?

Really?

He hates cyclists, that is no reason to make this countries laws.

So...


eh...

Jawgap

It would certainly discourage casual cycling and it'd be goodbye to Dublin Bikes.

Hasn't Melbourne's Bike Scheme declined in usage

Cookie_Monster

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

I was exaggerating, but compliance with rules is important, apparently.

even if the rules are stupid and pointless?

I can't see a cyclist not cycling because of this. Maybe my brain works differently. How does this work in someones head? Logically?
"Oh I think Ill go for a cycle, no ... wait! There are issues...I might get a fine, becuase I don't conform.."
"never cycles again..."
What?

having to wear a helmet puts lots of people off, particularly when there are no benefits in doing so.
the excessive punishment likely if people happen to forget to wear will put people off.
having to break a light because the pressure sensor is not set-up to properly accommodate all road users and risking a huge fine will put a lot of people off.
having to get some form of ID so their 5 year old can go out cycling with them will put a lot of people off and they'll never even teach their kids.
kids won't cycle to school for same as above and another whole generation will miss out on cycling

I've asked my cat to put together an appropriate response but she just looked at me with her "I'll put it on the list" or what could be her "Why does this slave human keep speaking to me in a high pitched ladyboy voice"
How does she even know what a ladyboy would sound like?!

great contribution :rolleyes:

That aside, society puts those lovely laws in place so we can all get along together (it's not that complicated) occasionally it goes pear shaped but in general everyone conforms anyways, so if they have decided to do this in Aus'land, fairplay.

despite every other country in the world (apart from NZ) considering it a bad idea.

Maybe it is not Anti-cyclist, maybe they have a problem with cyclist breaking red lights etc.

maybe they do but education and enforcement is the key not massively disproportionate fines and draconian ID requirements.

As mentioned previously, I wouldn't have any issues with these "laws"

why, because you don't cycle?

We can't get to pick and chose the "laws" etc that suit us (cyclists). There is that whole pain in the ass "greater good" thing.

the greater good is being blatantly ignored though. Country after country and study after study shows helmet laws reduce cycling which in turn decreases overall national health and increases traffic. How can these laws possibly be in the greater good?

And it is always about the LOWEST common denominator.

Yep, protecting the roads for motorists at all costs. No different to the absurd high vis drive the RSA plug for cyclist and pedestrians etc. All designed to make it less appealing to be on the roads and hidden under the guise of H&S

eeeee

I know for a fact there are plenty of young women and men who would be a whole lot less keen to cycle if they ahd to wear a helmet for self conscious and/or 'cool' reasons. Plenty. For a start.

It also instils the idea of danger in people's heads, of cycling as a perilous task you can't get wrong or confused about because you'll get A BIG FINE. People who already cycle will continue to do, I agree with that alright, but as said it will most definitely put some off who don't already cycle. Proportional fines are fine, and I bet even if you put huge fines on RLJ-ing you will get the exact same level of compliance you already do, given the effort put in implementation. I don't believe helmets should be mandatory, although I wear one myself, and mandatory ID goes against every single one of my principles on and off the bike! The last two further remove the casual ease and convenience of cycling, which is one of its major advantages in getting people to do it.

tomasrojo

ID-checking laws, like stop-and-search laws, frequently end up being used to harass minorities. So I assume some who currently cycle in NSW will stop cycling because they get fed up being asked for ID all the time.

ID-checking laws (and stop-and-search laws) can be just and justified, but for cycling, it's just stupid. It's not an especially dangerous activity to others, and it isn't an activity associated with anything but the most minor forms of law-breaking.

Here's some example of using bike-related laws to harrass poor urban African-Americans from Florida:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/how-riding-your-bike-can-land-you-in-trouble-with-the-cops---if-youre-black/2225966

Especially vindictive:

One woman was walking her bike home after cooking for an elderly neighbor. She said she was balancing a plate of fish and grits in one hand when an officer flagged her down and issued her a $51 ticket for not having a light. With late fees, it has since ballooned to $90. She doesn't have the money to pay.

Fian

Mandatory ID for cyclists will ultimately lead to mandatory ID for everyone, if you are required to carry ID when you cycle why not when you walk or are present in a public place.

Personally I don't actually have an issue with mandatory ID cards, as long as you cannot be stopped and asked for your ID except by a Garda who has a reasonable suspicion that you have committed an offence or that it is necessary for the proper investigation of an offence to do so.

"Papers please" should not be allowed, but being required to establish who you really are rather than giving a false name in circusmtances where a garda has proper cause to demand it is not problematic imo. However that does not seem to be a popular view of things. Anyway the core of my point is that you cannot logically sustain mandatory ID for cyclists without also having mandatory ID for all.

Jawgap

Fian wrote: »

.....

"Papers please" should not be allowed, but being required to establish who you really are rather than giving a false name in circusmtances where a garda has proper cause to demand it is not problematic imo. However that does not seem to be a popular view of things. Anyway the core of my point is that you cannot logically sustain mandatory ID for cyclists without also having mandatory ID for all.

It's been tried before - only the it wasn't the cyclists who had to wear the cool helmets......:D

Cookie_Monster

Fian wrote: »

Mandatory ID for cyclists will ultimately lead to mandatory ID for everyone, if you are required to carry ID when you cycle why not when you walk or are present in a public place.

Nothing wrong with National ID cards and plenty of countries inc European ones require them. But having specific ID requirement for subset of people is ridiculous. Licences for using car or other vehicles / thing is a separate issue.

enas

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Nothing wrong with National ID cards and plenty of countries inc European ones require them.

Don't want to derail the topic, but it is perfectly relevant in my opinion. Yes, there is something wrong with the requirement to carry an ID at all times, combined with the possibility for the police to just check the ID of "random" passers-by (the "papers please" that was referred to in a previous post).

As tomasrojo was mentioning, this is routinely and unreasonably used to specifically target "minorities", at least in France where I know the topic very well. Several studies have shown with hard evidence that black people or people from Northern-African background are around 10 times most likely to get checked by police, at such mundane locations as exiting a metro station going to work, or walking back home, including teenagers walking back from school. Depending on their ethnicity, people who fail to produce ID are brought to police stations for a "thorough" identity check, using a varying degree of violence each time, with the intention of maintaining a feeling of harassment towards the said "minorities". Although people from those "minorities" and many "non-minority" (i.e. white) people are fully aware that this phenomenon exists (it can be so absurd that police will only check the black guys in a group of people that are together), authorities simply deny its existence. Campaigners have asked for a very simple measure, requiring police officers to hand back a "receipt" after a negative ID check. The idea being that it would contain elements that identify the police officer, as an incentive against abusive behaviour, and it would help people not get controlled several times in a day. Hollande had promised the implementing of such a scheme, but quickly forgotten after getting into power. Some people might argue this is an implicit admission of guilt.

The result is that many completely innocent members of the public feel mistrust or complete fear at the mere sight of members of the police force. This is surely not a desirable outcome in a what should be a mature and civilised democracy.

I'm glad to say Ireland is right on that one, not the European countries that have such policies.

hardCopy

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

Why?

Some questions.

"It's unlikely to encourage many to stop cycling, but can be expected to turn some people off the idea of starting."

Why?

It doesn't have to stop somebody buying a bike or stop a leisure cyclist going on a planned spin on a Sunday morning.

Where it has it's biggest effect is on those trips that could be made by bike, if you were arsed.

On the best of days with the best of intentions it still takes a bit of motivation to cycle to work instead of driving.

If mandatory helmets/ID/Hi-Viz were to be introduced you'd have three more things that can go missing on a wet Monday morning that will push you into the car.

As long as car ownership is the norm it won't be enough to encourage people to buy a bike, people need to be encouraged to cycle before every single trip.

tomasrojo

enas wrote: »

As tomasrojo was mentioning, this is routinely and unreasonably used to specifically target "minorities", at least in France where I know the topic very well.

Friend of mine who grew up in Belgium says the same.

I had heard that the number of convictions arising from stop and search in the UK is much higher proportionately for white people than for people of African descent, because the police only stop white people when they have reasonable suspicion that they're up to no good.

tomasrojo

Some sort of sense seems to have prevailed on the "special ID" requirement.

Cyclists will also be required to carry ID or pay a $106 fine from March 2017, but the government has said a mobile photograph of a licence or passport would suffice.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/feb/26/cyclists-fined-393-times-during-new-south-wales-police-blitz-on-thursday?CMP=soc_567

The director of the state’s road safety centre, Bernard Carlon, said in a Q&A on Thursday that ID would “assist emergency services attending to a bicycle rider in the event of a crash” although he did not elaborate on how a mobile phone photograph would fulfil that purpose.

Because the ostensible reason for this legislation isn't the actual reason.

Chips Lovell

I think we should just bight the bullet and tattoo everyone's PPS number on the inside of their left arm from birth. Job done.

Ronaldinho

What do people think of the situation over here?

Personally I think we need a bit of a clampdown ourselves. There doesn't seem to be any downside at the moment for those cyclists, with no lights/high-vis, running red lights, on the wrong side of the road, generally making dangerous maneuvers etc.

Skrynesaver

Ronaldinho wrote: »

What do people think of the situation over here?

Personally I think we need a bit of a clampdown ourselves. There doesn't seem to be any downside at the moment for those cyclists, with no lights/high-vis, running red lights, on the wrong side of the road, generally making dangerous maneuvers etc.

Happy Friday...

ThisRegard

And what clampdown you do think is required for not wearing high-vis, immediately slashing of their tyres would teach em.

Ronaldinho

Skrynesaver wrote: »

Happy Friday...

just sayin. There's an awful lot of cyclists that could use a bit more cop-on.

Even if it's just getting a earful from a guard - better that than an accident to cause them to change their habits.

Jawgap

Ronaldinho wrote: »

What do people think of the situation over here?

Personally I think we need a bit of a clampdown ourselves. There doesn't seem to be any downside at the moment for those cyclists, with no lights/high-vis, running red lights, on the wrong side of the road, generally making dangerous maneuvers etc.

Why?

A cyclist running a red light is an annoyance. Is a clampdown needed to protect or promote public safety, or make drivers feel better?

How many injuries have been caused by the behaviours you describe in the last 10 years?

buffalo

Ronaldinho wrote: »

What do people think of the situation over here?

Personally I think we need a bit of a clampdown ourselves. There doesn't seem to be any downside at the moment for those cyclists, with no lights/high-vis, running red lights, on the wrong side of the road, generally making dangerous maneuvers etc.

Well, you've answered your own question there. :pac:

hardCopy

Ronaldinho wrote: »

What do people think of the situation over here?

Personally I think we need a bit of a clampdown ourselves. There doesn't seem to be any downside at the moment for those cyclists, with no lights/high-vis, running red lights, on the wrong side of the road, generally making dangerous maneuvers etc.

Firstly, I never break red lights. Purely because I think it damages the reputation of cyclists everywhere.

What harm is being done when a cyclist breaks a red light? I don't care about what harm you think is nearly being done or narrowly avoided, that's not actual harm, that's just imaginary.

Hi Viz is not a requirement and never should be so I don't see any need for a clampdown. maybe the RSA could start handing out free bike lights instead of ill fitting, defective, branded vests.

Ronaldinho

Jawgap wrote: »

Why?

A cyclist running a red light is an annoyance. Is a clampdown needed to protect or promote public safety, or make drivers feel better?

How many injuries have been caused by the behaviours you describe in the last 10 years?

We all see stuff on a daily basis that ranges from being outright dangerous at one end of the scale to silly and annoying at the other.

I would advocate a common sense approach for reasons of both promoting public safety and also generally reducing the amount of silly but not necessarily very dangerous stuff.

At quiet times (with no pedestrians around) I myself will go through a junction where the pedestrian lights are green, albeit I will slow right down.

So I'm no saint myself, but I try not to take undue risks like cycling in the pitch black with no lights for example. And I try to respect other road users for example by not ignoring pedestrians whose light has gone green before the bike ones (see this all the time along the canal in the evenings - it's not dangerous just bad manners).

http://irishcycle.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Cyclist-deaths-and-injuries-RTC-Ireland-Sheet1-1.pdf
And 9 in 2015

check_six

Jawgap wrote: »

How many injuries have been caused by the behaviours you describe in the last 10 years?

Ronaldinho wrote: »

http://irishcycle.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Cyclist-deaths-and-injuries-RTC-Ireland-Sheet1-1.pdf
And 9 in 2015

You're kidding right? You believe that any cyclist killed on the roads in the last 10 years was doing something incorrectly and that's why they got killed? I barely know where to start with this it's so wrongheaded. Take a look at the stories behind the figures.

I had started to describe some of the accidents, but that is unnecessary. You all know the score.

Chips Lovell

There's a lot of poor cycling (and poor driving) around. Better enforcement requires more bodies in the Traffic Corps. However, given the outcry now about rural crime and gangland violence, I'd say traffic is still low down the list of priorities when it comes to increasing Garda numbers.

Jawgap

Ronaldinho wrote: »

We all see stuff on a daily basis that ranges from being outright dangerous at one end of the scale to silly and annoying at the other.

I would advocate a common sense approach for reasons of both promoting public safety and also generally reducing the amount of silly but not necessarily very dangerous stuff.

At quiet times (with no pedestrians around) I myself will go through a junction where the pedestrian lights are green, albeit I will slow right down.

So I'm no saint myself, but I try not to take undue risks like cycling in the pitch black with no lights for example. And I try to respect other road users for example by not ignoring pedestrians whose light has gone green before the bike ones (see this all the time along the canal in the evenings - it's not dangerous just bad manners).

http://irishcycle.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Cyclist-deaths-and-injuries-RTC-Ireland-Sheet1-1.pdf
And 9 in 2015

Yes, we do - but it's a matter of perception. I see cyclists, when I'm on the bike and in the car, taking outrageous risks that I would never do - but if something is objectively 'outright dangerous' where's the data to support that?

If anything, the data supports the idea that being overly compliant is more dangerous - compare and contrast the number of cyclists injured / killed by HGVs when adopting a legal position in respect of them.......we could bring in a perfectly sensible piece of legislation that allows cyclists to turn left on red, but we don't, mostly because it would send drivers (not including myself) into orbit with their outrage.

RLJing is the equivalent of dog fouling - it's messy, annoying and anti-social but it rarely amounts to much beyond being those three things.

Chips Lovell

Jawgap wrote: »

Why?

A cyclist running a red light is an annoyance. Is a clampdown needed to protect or promote public safety, or make drivers feel better?

How many injuries have been caused by the behaviours you describe in the last 10 years?

I'd take issue with the notion that cyclists ignoring road traffic law is "doing nobody any harm". If you're involved in a fatal collision with a cyclist with no lights or who's breaking a traffic light, even if the cyclist is completely at fault, you as the motorist is going to have to live with that for the rest of your life. I don't know about you, but I certainly couldn't shrug that off, even if I wasn't to blame.

Ronaldinho

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

There's a lot of poor cycling (and poor driving) around. Better enforcement requires more bodies in the Traffic Corps. However, given the outcry now about rural crime and gangland violence, I'd say traffic is still low down the list of priorities when it comes to increasing Garda numbers.

Yeah - when you look at the numbers and consider the competing areas for garda resources it's hard to argue that they should throw a lot of bodies at it permanently. A little 2 week blitz might do the trick though.

Jawgap

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I'd take issue with the notion that cyclists ignoring road traffic law is "doing nobody any harm". If you're involved in a fatal collision with a cyclist with no lights or who's breaking a traffic light, even if the cyclist is completely at fault, you as the motorist is going to have to live with that for the rest of your life. I don't know about you, but I certainly couldn't shrug that off, even if I wasn't to blame.

How often does than happen?

Ronaldinho

check_six wrote: »

You're kidding right? You believe that any cyclist killed on the roads in the last 10 years was doing something incorrectly and that's why they got killed? I barely know where to start with this it's so wrongheaded. Take a look at the stories behind the figures.

I had started to describe some of the accidents, but that is unnecessary. You all know the score.

Sorry - my bad. Didn't read the previous poster's sentence properly so just posted the # of fatalities, verbatim :rolleyes:.

Charles Babbage

It is in the interest of every country to ensure that laws apply to everyone in equal manner, self justification for being allowed break laws, such as proliferate in the every thread of this sort, is a recipe for chaos. There are always points made about police resources, but of course if police established a measure of enforcement 80% of the offenders would stop and the resources could then be directed at the hard core. The general lawlessness of a large minority of cyclists, especially in regard to breaking red lights and cycling on footpaths, create a perception that the law is only for some people and that the State is happy to have it this way.

hans aus dtschl

Charles Babbage wrote: »

It is in the interest of every country to ensure that laws apply to everyone in equal manner, self justification for being allowed break laws, such as proliferate in the every thread of this sort, is a recipe for chaos. There are always points made about police resources, but of course if police established a measure of enforcement 80% of the offenders would stop and the resources could then be directed at the hard core. The general lawlessness of a large minority of cyclists, especially in regard to breaking red lights and cycling on footpaths, create a perception that the law is only for some people and that the State is happy to have it this way.

Absolutely: so many motorists now break red lights that the cyclists are copying them. We need a crackdown on motorists jumping red lights. I'm with you 100%. Why are we discussing this in the cycling forum?

People not indicating is another bugbear of mine. And people double-parking. And people parking on double-yellow lines. And people not using yellow boxes properly. And people with broken headlights. And people driving in hard shoulders. And people driving in cycle lanes. And people parking in taxi ranks. We need new, disproportionate fines for all of these.

ford2600

Genuine question; how much more dangerous is it to use roads where there is little love of the law (in say Sicily) with people who love their rules (say Bavaria)? I can't seem to get regional data breakdown for said areas but Germany appears much safer than Italy, but Sicily looks like one of the safer regions of Italy

Subjectively I find Sicily chaotic, but once you adapt to that, I find it a grand place to cycle/drive. As an example breaking side mirrors is known as a Sicilian kiss, and both parties typically just drive on, maybe with a beep of horn.

Interesting study here which is a bit of topic but shows some interesting correlations

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174448/

desertcircus

Ronaldinho wrote: »

What do people think of the situation over here?

Personally I think we need a bit of a clampdown ourselves. There doesn't seem to be any downside at the moment for those cyclists, with no lights/high-vis, running red lights, on the wrong side of the road, generally making dangerous maneuvers etc.

I remember doing the calculations for the level of danger involved for a cyclist breaking a red at 20kph and a car at 40. Roughly speaking, a car carries about two hundred times as much kinetic energy as a bike in this situation, and because it's about four times as wide, it's at least four times as likely to hit someone who's crossing legally. In other words, a red-light jumper on a bike is about eight hundred times less dangerous than an ambler gambler in a car. I will have absolutely no problem with hauling a cyclist up for RLJing once the figures show that the last 800 people before that charged for it were driving cars.

Fian

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I'd take issue with the notion that cyclists ignoring road traffic law is "doing nobody any harm". If you're involved in a fatal collision with a cyclist with no lights or who's breaking a traffic light, even if the cyclist is completely at fault, you as the motorist is going to have to live with that for the rest of your life. I don't know about you, but I certainly couldn't shrug that off, even if I wasn't to blame.

If you were a new arrival from the motoring forum I would be tempted to reply that there is an easy solution - get out of your car and onto a bike and you won't need to worry about this. The truth is that every time you get behind the wheel you are taking a small risk that you will kill someone, even if you drive reasonably and safely.

Now that doesn't persuade me not to drive, but it is part of the reason why I would feel guilty for killing a cyclist, even a cyclist who was cycling dangerously.

Cookie_Monster

Ronaldinho wrote: »

What do people think of the situation over here?

Personally I think we need a bit of a clampdown ourselves. There doesn't seem to be any downside at the moment for those cyclists, with no lights/high-vis, running red lights, on the wrong side of the road, generally making dangerous maneuvers etc.

and those damn renegade pedestrians / horse rides / skate borders or the ultimate taboo; travellers on their sulkys :eek::eek::eek:

All that's need in Ire is for AGS to get off the lazy holes and enforce all the offences they see across all road users. existing penalties are sufficient it simply the lack of enforcement that has led to the current situation of free for all.

Cookie_Monster

enas wrote: »

Don't want to derail the topic, but it is perfectly relevant in my opinion. Yes, there is something wrong with the requirement to carry an ID at all times, combined with the possibility for the police to just check the ID of "random" passers-by (the "papers please" that was referred to in a previous post).

As tomasrojo was mentioning, this is routinely and unreasonably used to specifically target "minorities", at least in France where I know the topic very well. Several studies have shown with hard evidence that black people or people from Northern-African background are around 10 times most likely to get checked by police, at such mundane locations as exiting a metro station going to work, or walking back home, including teenagers walking back from school. Depending on their ethnicity, people who fail to produce ID are brought to police stations for a "thorough" identity check, using a varying degree of violence each time, with the intention of maintaining a feeling of harassment towards the said "minorities". Although people from those "minorities" and many "non-minority" (i.e. white) people are fully aware that this phenomenon exists (it can be so absurd that police will only check the black guys in a group of people that are together), authorities simply deny its existence. Campaigners have asked for a very simple measure, requiring police officers to hand back a "receipt" after a negative ID check. The idea being that it would contain elements that identify the police officer, as an incentive against abusive behaviour, and it would help people not get controlled several times in a day. Hollande had promised the implementing of such a scheme, but quickly forgotten after getting into power. Some people might argue this is an implicit admission of guilt.

The result is that many completely innocent members of the public feel mistrust or complete fear at the mere sight of members of the police force. This is surely not a desirable outcome in a what should be a mature and civilised democracy.

I'm glad to say Ireland is right on that one, not the European countries that have such policies.

lets just agree to differing opinions and leave it out of this thread shall we?

Unknown Soldier

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think we should just bight the bullet and tattoo everyone's PPS number on the inside of their left arm from birth. Job done.

If you have a "smartphone", you've already done that, more or less. Garmins etc just add to the data collection.

odyssey06

Jawgap wrote: »

Why?
A cyclist running a red light is an annoyance. Is a clampdown needed to protect or promote public safety, or make drivers feel better?
How many injuries have been caused by the behaviours you describe in the last 10 years?

There are near collisions happening on a daily basis in Dublin between pedestrians and cyclists. Cyclists who have absolutely zero right to endanger or inconvenience or annoy pedestrians legitimately crossing at a green man. Ditto for cycling on footpaths.

But yes, let's wait until the injuries and deaths start happening... then do something about it. That's the Irish way.

Even if driver behaviour was 10 times worse than it currently is, it would not legitimise cyclists endangering pedestrians... it's just "whataboutery" ... defending illegitimate behaviours by pointing to worse behaviour by others.
Now maybe you're not advocating cycling through red lights etc when there are pedestrians crossing, so maybe you should attach some riders to your RRLs advocation if that is the case.

We need a clampdown to protect and promote public safety across the board on the rules of the road being broken regardless of whether it is drivers, cyclists or even pedestrians (who can endanger themselves and cyclists by jaywalking).

buffalo

odyssey06 wrote: »

Even if driver behaviour was 10 times worse than it currently is, it would not legitimise cyclists endangering pedestrians...

It wouldn't legitimise it, but it would make it insane to spend time - either with Gardai or legislation - targeting something which is causing little to no physical harm over something which kills hundreds of people a year. Do you prefer the Gardai to save lives, or to prevent annoyances? They don't have the resources to do everything.

Jawgap

odyssey06 wrote: »

There are near collisions happening on a daily basis in Dublin between pedestrians and cyclists. Cyclists who have absolutely zero right to endanger or inconvenience or annoy pedestrians legitimately crossing at a green man. Ditto for cycling on footpaths.

But yes, let's wait until the injuries and deaths start happening... then do something about it. That's the Irish way.

Even if driver behaviour was 10 times worse than it currently is, it would not legitimise cyclists endangering pedestrians... we need a clampdown to protect and promote public safety across the board on the rules of the road being broken regardless of whether it is drivers, cyclists or even pedestrians (who can endanger themselves and cyclists by jaywalking).

These things are expressed in ratios - for every 100 near misses there'll be a smaller number of minor collisions, a smaller number again of less minor collisions and a smaller number of serious collisions - for example in occupational health the ratio is usually 256 minor incidents to about 80 major incidents to about 1 fatality.

So if RLJing is really a danger, where's the data?

I'm not saying cyclists should jump lights - if you jump and get caught, tough.....pay your fine and don't whinge......the odd occasion I do jump a light or drift through, I do it in the full knowledge that a Guard may ping me for it and I'd have zero argument.

I'm saying RLJing isn't the dangerous activity people make it out to be.

Unknown Soldier

Jawgap wrote: »

So if RLJing is really a danger, where's the data?

I'm not saying cyclists should jump lights - if you jump and get caught, tough.....pay your fine and don't whinge......the odd occasion I do jump a light or drift through, I do it in the full knowledge that a Guard may ping me for it and I'd have zero argument.

I'm saying RLJing isn't the dangerous activity people make it out to be.

You're right.

I'm thinking of doing it while driving now.

The amount of time I waste at Ped crossing that are Red when there is no one there, never mind junctions where there is no traffic.

You are onto something.

Jawgap

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

You're right.

I'm thinking of doing it while driving now.

The amount of time I waste at Ped crossing that are Red when there is no one there, never mind junctions where there is no traffic.

You are onto something.

Well I certainly wouldn't do it in my car - wouldn't that get you penalty points?

It's a function of chance of getting caught multiplied by severity of punishment - I don't mind slipping through on my bike and risking a €45 fine because most Guards won't be bothered - dare say they'd take a different view if I did it in a car, and I need my licence for work.

odyssey06

buffalo wrote: »

It wouldn't legitimise it, but it would make it insane to spend time - either with Gardai or legislation - targeting something which is causing little to no physical harm over something which kills hundreds of people a year. Do you prefer the Gardai to save lives, or to prevent annoyances? They don't have the resources to do everything.

I think it's a false dichotomy.

Why can't a guard who is at a junction enforce any breaches of the rules of the road?
Start turning a blind eye here and there and people start to take an ala carte approach to the rules of the road. That's what we want to avoid.

You'll never have enough resources if you are playing whack-a-mole. We need zero tolerance. We will never have enough guards to be everywhere at all times. But we need to get all road users thinking that there is a good chance they could be caught for breaking the law. We need unmarked garda cars with cameras etc in random locations patrolling all road users. And when the Guards do catch someone we need to get rid of all these embarrassing loopholes which make it 50-50 someone who committed an offence will actually get done for it. And you need the punishment when they are convicted to be a sufficient deterrent to them and others.
The point is not in the long run to vastly multiply the number of convictions, there would have to be a spike sure until people get the message. The point is to put a little policeman in every road user's head.

And if you have zero tolerance, then you need to make sure that the laws you have are worth it... there's a case to be made for being able to turn left through a green man if there are no pedestrians - both in a car and bike.
There's a case to be made for cyclists being able to treat a green man as a yield (to pedestrians) going straight through. Doubtless there are others. Perhaps some sort of forum with input from the AA, Cycling Ireland etc could come up with a set of recommendations. Also they should be able to issue red cards to specific current junctions \ light sequences \ road layouts \ markings where people are reporting issues so that the councils must review them. But that's a whole other thread.

Jawgap

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think it's a false dichotomy.

Why can't a guard who is at a junction enforce any breaches of the rules of the road?
Start turning a blind eye here and there and people start to take an ala carte approach to the rules of the road. That's what we want to avoid.

You'll never have enough resources if you are playing whack-a-mole. We need zero tolerance. We will never have enough guards to be everywhere at all times. But we need to get all road users thinking that there is a good chance they could be caught for breaking the law. We need unmarked garda cars with cameras etc in random locations patrolling all road users. And when the Guards do catch someone we need to get rid of all these embarrassing loopholes which make it 50-50 someone who committed an offence will actually get done for it. And you need the punishment when they are convicted to be a sufficient deterrent to them and others.
The point is not in the long run to vastly multiply the number of convictions, there would have to be a spike sure until people get the message. The point is to put a little policeman in every road user's head.

And if you have zero tolerance, then you need to make sure that the laws you have are worth it... there's a case to be made for being able to turn left through a green man if there are no pedestrians - both in a car and bike.
There's a case to be made for cyclists being able to treat a green man as a yield (to pedestrians) going straight through. Doubtless there are others. Perhaps some sort of forum with input from the AA, Cycling Ireland etc could come up with a set of recommendations. Also they should be able to issue red cards to specific current junctions \ light sequences \ road layouts \ markings where people are reporting issues so that the councils must review them. But that's a whole other thread.

Who is going to pay for it?

Even if the revenue from the fines covers a good proportion of the costs (highly unlikely) what happens as compliance increases? Ease off or maintain the enforcement?

The other problem is that for every 100 offenders a Guard pings most will pay up, a small proportion won't and these take up a disproportionate amount of time as they are pursued through the courts.

Unknown Soldier

Jawgap wrote: »

Well I certainly wouldn't do it in my car - wouldn't that get you penalty points?

It's a function of chance of getting caught multiplied by severity of punishment - I don't mind slipping through on my bike and risking a €45 fine because most Guards won't be bothered - dare say they'd take a different view if I did it in a car, and I need my licence for work.

You had me at who cares as long as I am OK.

You've released me tbh.

I wouldn't even ask you to use a condom.

Jawgap

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

You had me at who cares as long as I am OK.

You've released me tbh.

I wouldn't even ask you to use a condom.