Anti Cycling Legislators in Aus hit a new low.

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.

Unknown Soldier

Jawgap wrote: »

You'll be OK.

It is all about you, being OK.

Jawgap

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

You'll be OK.

It is all about you, being OK.

Well I am ok, but thanks for your concern.

Nothing like a good cycle to keep you ok

odyssey06

Jawgap wrote: »

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.

We already have a Garda Traffic Corps... this is what it should be doing... none of the things noted above require massive outlays of monies. It's about what you do with what you've got.
And you're right in that it's not just about catching them, it's how they are processed... there's a balance to be struck between making it too hard to process someone, and making it too easy (which is a recipe for abuse) ... but our pendulum has gone way too far to the 'too hard'.

We need to get the costs of enforcement, in time and money, down. I would hate to see how many hours it takes an Irish policeman to process someone versus say, a Canadian or Australian.
I think there's a lot more scope for improvement there than in the resources going into the system. The guards are underfunded now, but even if we got them up to proper levels, when I look at the system we have, we need more than that to get them to do everything we need them to do.
I think we need a 'force multiplier', and I don't think even increased funding can deliver that.

Jawgap

odyssey06 wrote: »

We already have a Garda Traffic Corps... this is what it should be doing... none of the things noted above require massive outlays of monies. It's about what you do with what you've got.
And you're right in that it's not just about catching them, it's how they are processed... there's a balance to be struck between making it too hard to process someone, and making it too easy (which is a recipe for abuse) ... but our pendulum has gone way too far to the 'too hard'.

We need to get the costs of enforcement, in time and money, down. I would hate to see how many hours it takes an Irish policeman to process someone versus say, a Canadian or Australian.
I think there's a lot more scope for improvement there than in the resources going into the system. The guards are underfunded now, but even if we got them up to proper levels, when I look at the system we have, we need more than that to get them to do everything we need them to do.
I think we need a 'force multiplier', and I don't think even increased funding can deliver that.

If you follow Garda Traffic on Twitter you'll find there busy bods - between speed checks, MAT checkpoints, unsafe loads, vehicle toad worthiness etc they're doing yeoman's work when it comes to road safety and RTA enforcement - if they've spare capacity it's not evident, and wouldn't it be better spent doing speed checks, for example, on secondary roads?

RLJ enforcement makes drivers feel good, raises a small amount of cash, but really does nothing to improve road safety.

odyssey06

Jawgap wrote: »

If you follow Garda Traffic on Twitter you'll find there busy bods - between speed checks, MAT checkpoints, unsafe loads, vehicle toad worthiness etc they're doing yeoman's work when it comes to road safety and RTA enforcement - if they've spare capacity it's not evident, and wouldn't it be better spent doing speed checks, for example, on secondary roads?
RLJ enforcement makes drivers feel good, raises a small amount of cash, but really does nothing to improve road safety.

As a citizen and pedestrian who has had cyclists fly by me at speed on footpaths and through green lights, I've had too many near misses already... am sure my 9 lives are up ... if on the spot fines reduce that, then the vote of this poster would be that yes, road safety has been improved. And of course, there are other road safety battles to fight.

I never said they weren't busy, or weren't doing yeoman's work... but you win wars not just by doing hard work, but by having the right tactics and having the right weapons. And when you have those, suddenly where once you seemed overwhelmed and outnumbered, you are effective. Sadly I don't think we have the right tactics, right weapons (and yes, not enough soldiers for that matter).

I see Garda Traffic Corps cars driving around, sure, people suddenly become very law abiding when they see it, but what if some of those patrols and speed checks were in unmarked cars?

Here's €6 million euros that could have been better spent:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda-forced-to-pull-technology-that-detects-uninsured-drivers-1.2198863

Jawgap

odyssey06 wrote: »

As a citizen and pedestrian who has had cyclists fly by me at speed on footpaths and through green lights, I've had too many near misses already... am sure my 9 lives are up ... if on the spot fines reduce that, then the vote of this poster would be that yes, road safety has been improved. And of course, there are other road safety battles to fight.

I never said they weren't busy, or weren't doing yeoman's work... but you win wars not just by doing hard work, but by having the right tactics and having the right weapons. And when you have those, suddenly where once you seemed overwhelmed and outnumbered, you are effective. Sadly I don't think we have the right tactics, right weapons (and yes, not enough soldiers for that matter).

I see Garda Traffic Corps cars driving around, sure, people suddenly become very law abiding when they see it, but what if some of those patrols and speed checks were in unmarked cars?

Here's €6 million euros that could have been better spent:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda-forced-to-pull-technology-that-detects-uninsured-drivers-1.2198863

Why use the language of confrontation to discuss something that while it is an issue, is only a nuisance?

What next start pinging cyclists for not meeting the legal requirements for bells and reflectors?

Jawgap

odyssey06 wrote: »

...... checks were in unmarked cars?

Here's €6 million euros that could have been better spent:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda-forced-to-pull-technology-that-detects-uninsured-drivers-1.2198863

GTC operates unmarked cars and unmarked motor bikes.

odyssey06

Jawgap wrote: »

Why use the language of confrontation to discuss something that while it is an issue, is only a nuisance?

What next start pinging cyclists for not meeting the legal requirements for bells and reflectors?

Well, I completely disagree that near collisions are a nuisance ... but I was making the more general point about road safety in general. We need to confront everything from speeding, to running red lights to tailgating to not having lights on a bike (or wrong use of lights on a car).

I don't think the onus should be on the Guards to pick and choose what's enforced. Then you have rules of the road that people look at and say, is that one of the real ones that are actually enforced, or is that just one of the paper ones that everyone ignores? And how do I know which ones are which? Is is 0, 1, 2, or 3 cars now that can go through the red light before it's wrong?

Yes, cyclists should be pinged for not having bells and reflectors if that's what the law says. And if the law is an ass change it. We need laws that are, in sum, respected and enforced.

odyssey06

Jawgap wrote: »

GTC operates unmarked cars and unmarked motor bikes.

I've never seen any news reports of a general motoring conviction from such a vehicle, or heard of anyone being done by them ... if they are using them for general road traffic law enforcement, they really need to start getting the word out and publicising their endeavours ... deterrence is half the battle.

Jawgap

odyssey06 wrote: »

Well, I completely disagree that near collisions are a nuisance ... but I was making the more general point about road safety in general. We need to confront everything from speeding, to running red lights to tailgating to not having lights on a bike (or wrong use of lights on a car).

I don't think the onus should be on the Guards to pick and choose what's enforced. Then you have rules of the road that people look at and say, is that one of the real ones that are actually enforced, or is that just one of the paper ones that everyone ignores? And how do I know which ones are which? Is is 0, 1, 2, or 3 cars now that can go through the red light before it's wrong?

Yes, cyclists should be pinged for not having bells and reflectors if that's what the law says. And if the law is an ass change it. We need laws that are, in sum, respected and enforced.

That's why the legislation throughout talks about "A Garda may......" If it said "shall" a Garda wouldn't get 100m from the station if he/she had to deal with every violation of every law......and the courts would be even more clogged up than they are now.......on the plus side, Guards would well with the overtime!

......and if they pinged everyone for not having a bell they'd collect a modest fortune!

Jawgap

odyssey06 wrote: »

I've never seen any news reports of a general motoring conviction from such a vehicle, or heard of anyone being done by them ... if they are using them for general road traffic law enforcement, they really need to start getting the word out and publicising their endeavours ... deterrence is half the battle.

See them regularly on the M1, M4/6, occasionally on the N11 and N25 and less frequently on the M7/9.

Here’s how many unmarked Garda cars are on our roads

SOME 45 UNMARKED cars and vans have been assigned to the Garda Traffic Corps so far in 2015.

A total of 110 marked cars and 91 motorcycles have been allocated to the traffic corps during the same period.

Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald revealed the figures in the Dáil last week, in response to a parliamentary question asked by independent TD Tommy Broughan.

In 2014, 43 unmarked cars and vans were assigned to the traffic corps division, up from 35 in 2013 and 39 in 2012. Some 37 unmarked cars and ten unmarked vans were used for the same purposes in 2011.

mamax

I've always thought there was a much simpler way to police wearing a helmet than those silly extreme fines
When a garda stops a person without a helmet, take name and address along with the bike and the owner has to pay 50€ to get the bike back
It would take them 2 mins to complete and they would be on their way to tackle the gangland crime
If that happened to you would you wear a helmet next time ???




I always wear a helmet and never break red lights

Jawgap

mamax wrote: »

I've always thought there was a much simpler way to police wearing a helmet than those silly extreme fines
When a garda stops a person without a helmet, take name and address along with the bike and the owner has to pay 50€ to get the bike back
It would take them 2 mins to complete and they would be on their way to tackle the gangland crime
If that happened to you would you wear a helmet next time ???




I always wear a helmet and never break red lights

What if the bike is worth less than 50 quid?

Or what if it's a kid, does the Guard takes his bike and leave them by the side of the road?

desertcircus

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... 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).

Policing involves setting priorities. Focusing on cyclists jumping lights rather than on drivers jumping lights would be a catastrophically stupid misallocation of resources.

odyssey06

Jawgap wrote: »

That's why the legislation throughout talks about "A Garda may......" If it said "shall" a Garda wouldn't get 100m from the station if he/she had to deal with every violation of every law......and the courts would be even more clogged up than they are now.......on the plus side, Guards would well with the overtime!

I think there's a difference between deciding whether an offence occurred, and deciding what is an offence. Of course a Garda, like a referee in football, 'may' decide not to award a penalty because they judge that no infringement occurred... but it's not for the individual referee to ignore the infringement when they determine that it occurred, and not give a penalty e.g. for handball. They can decide whether to give a caution or a yellow card, but they still have to blow for a free.
By ignoring an offence, you guarantee that the offence will happen, and happen at such a level which you now would be overwhelmed if you enforced it.

......and if they pinged everyone for not having a bell they'd collect a modest fortune!

As an aside, I do think we need a small education campaign to the effect that it is polite to ring a bell if you are on a bike and approaching a pedestrian from behind in a shared space... e.g. a park, and that a ring of the bell might actually be appreciated by the pedestrian to alert them to your presence... Or else we need to deploy a word similar to Fore! If we could agree on that, drop the bell from the statute. Until then, bikes are supposed to have a bell, please use it appropriately. Go on, it makes a nice noise.

Jawgap

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think there's a difference between deciding whether an offence occurred, and deciding what is an offence. Of course a Garda, like a referee in football, 'may' decide not to award a penalty because they judge that no infringement occurred... but it's not for the individual referee to ignore the infringement when they determine that it occurred, and not give a penalty e.g. for handball. They can decide whether to give a caution or a yellow card, but they still have to blow for a free.
By ignoring an offence, you guarantee that the offence will happen, and happen at such a level which you now would be overwhelmed if you enforced it.



As an aside, I do think we need a small education campaign to the effect that it is polite to ring a bell if you are on a bike and approaching a pedestrian from behind in a shared space... e.g. a park, and that a ring of the bell might actually be appreciated by the pedestrian to alert them to your presence... Or else we need to deploy a word similar to Fore! If we could agree on that, drop the bell from the statute. Until then, bikes are supposed to have a bell, please use it appropriately. Go on, it makes a nice noise.

not terribly aerodynamic though

Anyway thankfully, there's too much common sense and/or not enough police resources to implement more than token enforcement of the legislation so I'll continue to enjoy my cycling in that context.

odyssey06

Jawgap wrote: »

See them regularly on the M1, M4/6, occasionally on the N11 and N25 and less frequently on the M7/9.
Here’s how many unmarked Garda cars are on our roads

My idea though is that you shouldn't see them, or realise that they've seen you... until you get the fine in the post.

mamax

Jawgap wrote: »

What if the bike is worth less than 50 quid?

Or what if it's a kid, does the Guard takes his bike and leave them by the side of the road?

With a kid common sense could/should be used, some kids could do with a kick up the arse from said cop though, and yes take the bike and when parents call for it give em an earful.
I recently witnessed a little **** tell a cop to "f*ck back into you car you fat bast*rd"
No sympathy for those scumbags either that have no respect for the law or the cops or even themselves if they don't wear a helmet.

Charles Babbage

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

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?

I don't know why you are discussing motorist in the cycling forum. Why are you? Whataboutery perhaps?

Why use the language of confrontation to discuss something that while it is an issue, is only a nuisance?

Assault only a nuisance?
My house was burgled last week, in the view of many here because I wasn't murdered I have no right to complain or expect the Gardai to do anything. I don't expect the Gardai to apply the same priority to my burglary as to murder, but I do expect then to act in a proportionate way to catch the criminals involved, likewise I expect them to act in a proportionate way to catch criminals cycling on the footpath. No doubt in the burglars forum there are posters suggesting that I can spare a few items from my house and that it isn't the worse crime and at the end of the is an issue, but only a nuisance.

desertcircus

Charles Babbage wrote: »

I don't expect the Gardai to apply the same priority to my burglary as to murder, but I do expect then to act in a proportionate way to catch the criminals involved...

So we're in agreement: as long as the fining split between cars and bikes for red-light jumping is eight hundred to one, then we're all go on fines.