Anti Cycling Legislators in Aus hit a new low.

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?