Cyclist down

Chiparus

I would agree with a lot of that.

RainyDay

doozerie wrote: »

The important point here being that, if as road users we want to benefit from the efforts of others to keep us safe then we have an obligation to make the same efforts ourselves in return. So, for example, if I as a motorist stop at red lights because I don't want to collide with someone crossing on green, then I as a cyclist need to do likewise for the same reasons. Too often we scream that motorists are the scourge of the roads and that "something must be done" only to behave like complete arses while cycling as if that isn't/we aren't part of the very same problem.

Personally, I wouldn't have a huge problem with a 'zero tolerance' approach towards all road users, but this approach ignores risk assessment. Any risk assessment is based around probability and impact. Impact of a 1-2 ton car at 60-120 kmph is in a different league to impact of a 100kg cyclist at 20 kmph. That's why cars/trucks kill 200 people a year and maim hundreds more, and cyclists don't.

This also has to be part of the solution.

doozerie

RainyDay wrote: »

Personally, I wouldn't have a huge problem with a 'zero tolerance' approach towards all road users, but this approach ignores risk assessment. Any risk assessment is based around probability and impact. Impact of a 1-2 ton car at 60-120 kmph is in a different league to impact of a 100kg cyclist at 20 kmph. That's why cars/trucks kill 200 people a year and maim hundreds more, and cyclists don't.

This also has to be part of the solution.

How does it ignore risk assessment? There are varying penalties associated with breaches of the rules of the road, they already differentiate between the various antics of road users. You may disagree with the severity, or lack of, of those penalties (I know that I often do) but they do recognise that not all actions are equally dangerous/ignorant/obnoxious.

Incidentally, one reading of your post, whether intentional or not, is that the big bad cars and trucks harm the little cyclists. That's an example of the language that I believe hinders rather than helps. If it were a simple case of (drivers of) cars and trucks being the sources of all danger then the problem of people being hurt on the roads would be much easier to solve.

The reality is that motorists are sometimes as much the victims as the people they collide with. Every single day while commuting I see cyclists break red lights. They always survive - in fact, bar the odd startled or frightened pedestrian or other cyclist, almost no-one incurs any physical injury whatsoever. I occasionally see a motorist have to slam on their brakes though as one (or more) such cyclist literally throws themselves in front of the motorist's moving car. If the driver had collided with the cyclist it would no doubt be perceived by some as another example of a poor cyclist being hurt or killed by a nasty driver, the reality though is that it's more like an unwitting suicide with the motorist being made the hapless instrument - I'd see the motorist as the victim in that case.

So yes, a 100kg cyclist colliding with, say, a pedestrian at 20kph yields a different impact than a 1-2 ton car colliding with a pedestrian at even 60kph, but while the pedestrian is more likely (but not guaranteed, by the way) to survive the collision with the cyclist that doesn't mean that they don't incur significant and potentially life-changing injuries as a result so that risk can't be ignored (which it typically is currently). And if that 100kg cyclist throws themselves under a car as a direct result of reckless behaviour on their own part, then the fact that they may cause severe emotional and psychological trauma for the hapless motorist can't be ignored either.

RainyDay

doozerie wrote: »

Incidentally, one reading of your post, whether intentional or not, is that the big bad cars and trucks harm the little cyclists. That's an example of the language that I believe hinders rather than helps. If it were a simple case of (drivers of) cars and trucks being the sources of all danger then the problem of people being hurt on the roads would be much easier to solve.

Obviously, that's your language, not mine - but interpretation has actually been held up by formal research - that by and large, injuries to cyclists are caused by motorists and not down to the cyclists themselves.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

Either way, cyclists have no involvement in about 90% of road incidents in Ireland, so they can't really be cited as the common factor.

CramCycle

RainyDay wrote: »

Either way, cyclists have no involvement in about 90% of road incidents in Ireland, so they can't really be cited as the common factor.

If cyclists (who are cycling at the time) are involved in 10% of road accidents I will make a genuine attempt to eat my cap (not hat) and post the video here.

doozerie

RainyDay wrote: »

Obviously, that's your language, not mine - but interpretation has actually been held up by formal research - that by and large, injuries to cyclists are caused by motorists and not down to the cyclists themselves.

I often wonder what passes through the minds of the cyclists that I see that routinely and regularly break red lights, ride on footpaths, ride the wrong way up one-way streets, and generally just "ride it like they stole it". Maybe it's a complete lack of awareness of pretty much everything. Maybe it's a sense of utter contempt towards everyone else. Maybe they're just toying with their immortality. Or maybe they share your view that it's, "by and large", motorists that people need to be worried about, and not them, and therefore they can do what they like on a bike without fear of being the cause of a collision.

What happens when two cyclists collide though, like the two that I saw recently both of whom broke their red light and nearly piled into each other in the middle of a crossroads (lights were green for pedestrians on all 4 roads into the junction, and yes there were people crossing)? It would take some determination to pin that on a motorist.

More importantly though, what happens when such cyclists sit behind the wheel of a car? I don't believe their complete disregard, and all too often contempt, for other road users is a mindset they adopt exclusively when climbing aboard a bike, one that they can simply switch off when sitting behind the wheel of a car. If you are an utter arse on the roads (and footpaths) as a pedestrian or a cyclist, I suggest that you'll be an utter arse on the roads as a motorist too.

As cyclists and pedestrians we can keep complaining about motorists as if all our woes on the road are entirely their fault. We can seek to educate motorists about their failings, we might even succeed. And when every new wave of people take up driving we can start from scratch again with them. Or, we can try to educate *everyone* about their responsibilities on the road, and hope that the consideration for others that they apply when walking and cycling will translate to consideration when they drive too. I know which option I think is the better choice.

RainyDay

CramCycle wrote: »

If cyclists (who are cycling at the time) are involved in 10% of road accidents I will make a genuine attempt to eat my cap (not hat) and post the video here.

I was going on the basis that about 5% of the deaths on the roads are cyclists, so 5% would probably be a better back-of-the envelope estimate.

doozerie wrote: »

I often wonder what passes through the minds of the cyclists that I see that routinely and regularly break red lights, ride on footpaths, ride the wrong way up one-way streets, and generally just "ride it like they stole it". Maybe it's a complete lack of awareness of pretty much everything. Maybe it's a sense of utter contempt towards everyone else. Maybe they're just toying with their immortality.

I'd imagine that what goes through the minds of these cyclists (who pi$$ me off something rotten too, just for the record) would be similar to what passes through the minds of the 80% of motorists who break the speed limit, the 2 or 3 or 4 motorists who break the red light at every change, the 1 in 10 motorists who have the phone in their hand with a digit actively keying the keyboard as they drive etc etc - and it is probably nothing to do with their driving or cycling. They are thinking about that Facebook post or what they'll be cooking for dinner or how to deal with their bullying boss, and more....

doozerie wrote: »

Or maybe they share your view that it's, "by and large", motorists that people need to be worried about, and not them, and therefore they can do what they like on a bike without fear of being the cause of a collision.

You don't really need to twist my words to make a point. It's a bit of a gross exaggeration. Most of the cyclists that I see breaking lights do so in a way that doesn't threaten their own safety or others. Many will push through a left turn while watching for traffic from either direction. Some will push through a crossroads after slowing down and looking both directions.

doozerie wrote: »

What happens when two cyclists collide though, like the two that I saw recently both of whom broke their red light and nearly piled into each other in the middle of a crossroads (lights were green for pedestrians on all 4 roads into the junction, and yes there were people crossing)? It would take some determination to pin that on a motorist.

Were either of them killed? Or seriously injured?

I'm not justifying their behaviour, but let's keep the impact in context.

doozerie wrote: »

More importantly though, what happens when such cyclists sit behind the wheel of a car? I don't believe their complete disregard, and all too often contempt, for other road users is a mindset they adopt exclusively when climbing aboard a bike, one that they can simply switch off when sitting behind the wheel of a car. If you are an utter arse on the roads (and footpaths) as a pedestrian or a cyclist, I suggest that you'll be an utter arse on the roads as a motorist too.

Yes, probably true.

doozerie wrote: »

As cyclists and pedestrians we can keep complaining about motorists as if all our woes on the road are entirely their fault. We can seek to educate motorists about their failings, we might even succeed. And when every new wave of people take up driving we can start from scratch again with them. Or, we can try to educate *everyone* about their responsibilities on the road, and hope that the consideration for others that they apply when walking and cycling will translate to consideration when they drive too. I know which option I think is the better choice.

Honestly, I'd bet that both approaches are fairly futile. A 'zero tolerance' approach to minor issues on the road whether by cyclists or drivers or both is likely to lead to an 'Irish Water' style of uprising. There is no demand for this and no real justification. What we do need to do is the target the specific behaviours that have high-risks attached. We've done this with drink driving over the years. We are in the process of doing it for speeding and for phoning/texting.

Crocked

I don't believe the majority of commuting cyclists see themselves as cyclists at all and rather see themselves as pedestrians on wheels. As such they have the same view of the rules of the road we have as pedestrians, ie that they don't really apply. So can cross the road whenever and wherever they want, walk/cycle on the path or road as the mood takes them and basically do what they want when they want and it's up to the motorists to deal with it.

There's one lad I see regularly on my drive to work. He's been cycling for about a year now and the road he travels is essentially straight with no dicey junctions to negotiate. Yet he has for that entire year cycled nearly the entire route (about 3k) that I'd see him on the path. He has one section where for some reason he goes onto the road for about 200m before getting back on the path, he crosses every junction through pedestrian crossing like any other pedestrian. I'd be fairly sure if you asked him he wouldn't see himself as a cyclist and that he's safer on the path. In fairness he just tootles along so isn't really a danger to anyone else on the path although I'm sure it adds fire to the bellies of other motorists having to watch him each morning and confirms that all cyclists are law breaking rebels who need to be stopped.

galwaycyclist

CramCycle wrote: »

If cyclists (who are cycling at the time) are involved in 10% of road accidents I will make a genuine attempt to eat my cap (not hat) and post the video here.

Har be careful with offers like that! It has long been known that cycling accidents are significantly under reported in the official stats.

CramCycle

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Har be careful with offers like that! It has long been known that cycling accidents are significantly under reported in the official stats.

Clarification: Officially reported accidents

That said, I imagine that up until recently, minor car accidents were also severely under reported as people were trying to avoid bumping their premiums.

I will admit that I had dreams of me making a youtube video of me eating my cycling cap.

doozerie

RainyDay wrote:

You don't really need to twist my words to make a point.

What twist did I add? Correct me if I’m wrong but in a previous post you said that motorists are the danger on the roads and that cyclists are not a danger, what twist did I add to that? You even repeated it in your last post above, with statements like:

RainyDay wrote:

Most of the cyclists that I see breaking lights do so in a way that doesn't threaten their own safety or others.

If you truly believe that then presumably it wouldn’t bother you if those same cyclists behaved in exactly the same way while driving a car? If their judgement is so reliable while on a bike then surely it must be reliable when they are driving too, right? After all, speaking from personal experience I’ve seen many motorists break red lights and, with the odd notable exception, they’ve left no corpses in their wake, maybe some shocked pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists, but no-one hurt, maimed, or killed, so they could reasonably argue that they caused no more harm that those “safe” cyclists that you refer to above.

It never ceases to amaze me though that, of those motorists I’ve seen quoted or have spoken to personally who have been involved in a collision on the road, almost none of them were in the wrong. The other party to the collision “appeared out of nowhere” or something similarly fantastic. I could choose to believe that something mystical happened or I could choose to believe that peoples’ judgement is not all they believe it to be and when they choose to gamble and take an unnecessary risk it doesn’t always turn out the way they’d hoped.

Personally, I have great faith in my own judgement but I’m as infallible as anyone else. So when I’m stopped at a red traffic light, while cycling or driving, and I’m passing the time wondering why I shouldn’t just keep on going when there is clearly nothing coming either way, I choose to ignore the voice that tells me to break the light. I’ve avoided many collisions by ignoring that voice because, being a typical human being, I’m very motivated to see exactly what I want to see when it suits me and that can include completely blanking out that pedestrian, cyclist, or motorist that I’d be putting myself on a collision course with if I break the light. It really is much more convenient to just “not see” them and blast on in the hope that it’ll all work out and convenience is always appealing - that’s representative of the behaviour of many of the cyclists (and motorists) that I see on my commute, either you share your commute with a much more civilised class of cyclist, or you are entirely incorrect to describe them as not being a threat to others.

As for your statement that “there is no demand” for what you refer to as a “zero tolerance” approach, you’ve completely lost me there. You say “zero tolerance”, I say “enforce the existing rules of the road”. Where is there even a hint of the “uprising” that you refer to at the prospect of the (long established) rules of the road being enforced? Unless the modern uprising is not what it used to be - general annoyance and grumbling don’t count, there needs to be a pitchfork or two and some flaming torches as well - I think you are overestimating the strength of peoples’ opinions on the topic.

galwaycyclist

doozerie wrote: »

What twist did I add? Correct me if I’m wrong but in a previous post you said that motorists are the danger on the roads and that cyclists are not a danger, what twist did I add to that? You even repeated it in your last post above, with statements like:



If you truly believe that then presumably it wouldn’t bother you if those same cyclists behaved in exactly the same way while driving a car? If their judgement is so reliable while on a bike then surely it must be reliable when they are driving too, right? After all, speaking from personal experience I’ve seen many motorists break red lights and, with the odd notable exception, they’ve left no corpses in their wake, maybe some shocked pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists, but no-one hurt, maimed, or killed, so they could reasonably argue that they caused no more harm that those “safe” cyclists that you refer to above.

It never ceases to amaze me though that, of those motorists I’ve seen quoted or have spoken to personally who have been involved in a collision on the road, almost none of them were in the wrong. The other party to the collision “appeared out of nowhere” or something similarly fantastic. I could choose to believe that something mystical happened or I could choose to believe that peoples’ judgement is not all they believe it to be and when they choose to gamble and take an unnecessary risk it doesn’t always turn out the way they’d hoped.

Personally, I have great faith in my own judgement but I’m as infallible as anyone else. So when I’m stopped at a red traffic light, while cycling or driving, and I’m passing the time wondering why I shouldn’t just keep on going when there is clearly nothing coming either way, I choose to ignore the voice that tells me to break the light. I’ve avoided many collisions by ignoring that voice because, being a typical human being, I’m very motivated to see exactly what I want to see when it suits me and that can include completely blanking out that pedestrian, cyclist, or motorist that I’d be putting myself on a collision course with if I break the light. It really is much more convenient to just “not see” them and blast on in the hope that it’ll all work out and convenience is always appealing - that’s representative of the behaviour of many of the cyclists (and motorists) that I see on my commute, either you share your commute with a much more civilised class of cyclist, or you are entirely incorrect to describe them as not being a threat to others.

As for your statement that “there is no demand” for what you refer to as a “zero tolerance” approach, you’ve completely lost me there. You say “zero tolerance”, I say “enforce the existing rules of the road”. Where is there even a hint of the “uprising” that you refer to at the prospect of the (long established) rules of the road being enforced? Unless the modern uprising is not what it used to be - general annoyance and grumbling don’t count, there needs to be a pitchfork or two and some flaming torches as well - I think you are overestimating the strength of peoples’ opinions on the topic.

With respect I think you need to get over yourself. Just because something is illegal it is not necessarily dangerous. The reverse also holds, just because something is legal it is not necessarily safe.

The problem in this country is the state has failed to legalise cyclist behaviours that are safe but do not fit with the car-supremacist or "windscreen" view of the world. Examples are free turns on red, four way greens, two-cycling on one-way streets etc.

And yes in some countries some such behaviours such free turns on red are also legal for motorists.

Edit: I face a typical example on my way to work. I reach a signal controlled t-junction in a cycle lane, I am joining a road with a cycle lane. I am usually the only cyclist who stops and I feel like a wally for doing so. But I am a prominent cycling activist and member of city council.committees and it would thrown in my face if I was seen. The way the junction was designed, means the car lane joins at a different angle to the cycle lane. Motorists are invited to cut the corner through the cycle lane and through the path designated for cyclists. I am quite clear in my own mind that cyclists who wait for the lights are exposing themselves to more danger than those who go while the cars are stopped.

In other countries such a stupid junction design would not happen but cyclists would also have a free turn at the.lights or some form of by pass arrangement.

doozerie

galwaycyclist wrote:

With respect I think you need to get over yourself.

So you are saying that my view is irrational and/or conceited. Fair enough, that’s a strong start, but…

galwaycyclist wrote:

…the car-supremacist [view of the world]…

…I feel like a wally [for stopping at a red light]…

…[but I have to because] it would thrown in my face [if I didn’t, and wouldn’t that look awful altogether]…

…a poor finish there, undermining your whole basis for taking issue with me by throwing in your own fair share of irrationality and conceit.

Anyway, I’d sum up my view on the subject by saying that where we are trying to share the roads in as safe a manner as possible, I believe that predictability is vital. Even where everyone behaves in a predictable fashion accidents will inevitably occur of course, that’s just a fact of life, but the risk of accidents is at least reduced.

If some of us make up our own set of rules as we go along, our unpredictable behaviour increases the risk of a collision. If many of us do so, the risks increase further. If we make up our own rules without acknowledging even to ourselves that we are doing so (e.g. fully *expecting* other road users to make space for us when we break a red light and try to create a space for ourselves amongst dense moving traffic, as if that is logical), the risks increase further still. Etc.

You want red lights that can be treated as yield signs by cyclists, fine, legislate for that and make sure that every road user is aware that this is the case. Similarly for other changes you believe should be made to accommodate cyclists. I’m not against such initiatives, once they are formaly in place then behaviour becomes predictable, I’m against people behaving entirely randomly and causing danger to others in the process. That’s the whole basis of the Rules of the Road, they are certainly not perfect, but they’re a starting point for predictable behaviour much like any basic set of social rules.

I’d even go for the “sharing space” approach incidentally, where traffic lights are removed, etc., and we all just have to compromise amongst each other every time. In that scenario you have to start from a position of expecting to have to adjust your own behaviour to accommodate the behaviour of other road users so you can’t use the roads under the assumptions that it is reasonable to make with the current set of rules that we have.

For me the worst scenario is the mess that we currently have whereby some people operate within the rules and others knowingly and randomly don’t, that’s the most dangerous mix as far as I am concerned.

RainyDay

doozerie wrote: »

What twist did I add? Correct me if I’m wrong but in a previous post you said that motorists are the danger on the roads and that cyclists are not a danger,

More twisting there - why don't you just use my words istead of rephrasing.

doozerie wrote: »

If you truly believe that then presumably it wouldn’t bother you if those same cyclists behaved in exactly the same way while driving a car? If their judgement is so reliable while on a bike then surely it must be reliable when they are driving too, right? After all, speaking from personal experience I’ve seen many motorists break red lights and, with the odd notable exception, they’ve left no corpses in their wake, maybe some shocked pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists, but no-one hurt, maimed, or killed, so they could reasonably argue that they caused no more harm that those “safe” cyclists that you refer to above.

Honestly, could we step back from the hyperbole. THere are no absolutes on either side. Yes, there is a degree of danger involved in cyclists breaking red lights, mostly to themselves, but possibly to pedestrians or other cyclists.

However, as you well now, the danger involved in motorists breaking red lights is in the region of x 100 more significant, given the weight and speed of the vehicle involved. It's just common sense. It doesn't excuse or condone behaviour by either cyclists or motorist, but it also doesn't equate the seriousness of the two actions.

doozerie wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me though that, of those motorists I’ve seen quoted or have spoken to personally who have been involved in a collision on the road, almost none of them were in the wrong. The other party to the collision “appeared out of nowhere” or something similarly fantastic. I could choose to believe that something mystical happened or I could choose to believe that peoples’ judgement is not all they believe it to be and when they choose to gamble and take an unnecessary risk it doesn’t always turn out the way they’d hoped.

Personally, I have great faith in my own judgement but I’m as infallible as anyone else. So when I’m stopped at a red traffic light, while cycling or driving, and I’m passing the time wondering why I shouldn’t just keep on going when there is clearly nothing coming either way, I choose to ignore the voice that tells me to break the light. I’ve avoided many collisions by ignoring that voice because, being a typical human being, I’m very motivated to see exactly what I want to see when it suits me and that can include completely blanking out that pedestrian, cyclist, or motorist that I’d be putting myself on a collision course with if I break the light. It really is much more convenient to just “not see” them and blast on in the hope that it’ll all work out and convenience is always appealing - that’s representative of the behaviour of many of the cyclists (and motorists) that I see on my commute, either you share your commute with a much more civilised class of cyclist, or you are entirely incorrect to describe them as not being a threat to others.

We're pretty much in full agreement here. It is strange how in these online discussions about crap or dangerous driving, we always talk about 'the other guy'. Well here's a start - I misjudged a lane change on the M4 last night, so apologies to the lady in the other car.

doozerie wrote: »

As for your statement that “there is no demand” for what you refer to as a “zero tolerance” approach, you’ve completely lost me there. You say “zero tolerance”, I say “enforce the existing rules of the road”. Where is there even a hint of the “uprising” that you refer to at the prospect of the (long established) rules of the road being enforced? Unless the modern uprising is not what it used to be - general annoyance and grumbling don’t count, there needs to be a pitchfork or two and some flaming torches as well - I think you are overestimating the strength of peoples’ opinions on the topic.

So let's take an example then - if the Gardai went out today and stopped and fined and gave points to the 80% of drivers that break the speed limit and enforced the rules of the road, do you think that would be greeted by just 'general annoyance and grumbling'?

smacl

doozerie wrote: »

I believe that predictability is vital. Even where everyone behaves in a predictable fashion accidents will inevitably occur of course, that’s just a fact of life, but the risk of accidents is at least reduced.

I personally think that this is fundamental to safe cycling. By behaving predictably either as cyclist or motorist, we provide the greatest opportunity to other road users to avoid hitting us. Obeying the rules of the road is part of this, and when cycling I think of myself as a road user with the responsibilities that go with that.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I face a typical example on my way to work. I reach a signal controlled t-junction in a cycle lane, I am joining a road with a cycle lane. I am usually the only cyclist who stops and I feel like a wally for doing so.

I think that bad cycling infrastructure that introduces this kind of ambiguity makes the roads more dangerous for cycling. I tend to avoid these cycle lanes that have their own traffic lights and prefer the roads, but this is in itself a cause of frustration to motorists seeing cyclists on the road where there are cycle lanes alongside. If you were to use the cycles lanes around my area for example you would have to dismount regularly, and be faced with rejoining busy traffic where cycle lanes abruptly end.

ED E

Have to strongly agree there, our poor road design teaches cyclists that the law and markings mean jack and to do what you need to.

Example: Dundrum crossroads, follow the path and you get killed, hold the road and you're safe as houses. I

Similarly if you see 100-200 cars blocking the cycle lane illegally on your way to work how does that endear respect for the ROTR.

doozerie

RainyDay wrote: »

So let's take an example then - if the Gardai went out today and stopped and fined and gave points to the 80% of drivers that break the speed limit and enforced the rules of the road, do you think that would be greeted by just 'general annoyance and grumbling'?

Yes.

I'm intrigued, what would you expect to happen?

doozerie

smacl wrote: »

I think that bad cycling infrastructure that introduces this kind of ambiguity makes the roads more dangerous for cycling.

Absolutely.

Particularly at junctions the worst of the cycling lanes seem to have been designed with a child's view of the world, where other traffic simply is not taken into account. There is one crossroads I encounter daily that has a cycle lane that keeps to the left of a left-only lane for motorists - if you are going straight on then that cycle lane is completely the wrong place to be. Another junction springs to mind where at the T-junction the left-most cycle lane swings right across the left-only lane as if it simply wasn't there.

The removal of the obligation to use cycle lanes is surely an acknowledgement that many of them are extremely badly designed and that they often introduce more dangers than they remove. Progress, of sorts.

Kaisr Sose

RainyDay wrote: »

So let's take an example then - if the Gardai went out today and stopped and fined and gave points to the 80% of drivers that break the speed limit and enforced the rules of the road, do you think that would be greeted by just 'general annoyance and grumbling'?

Let's be clear here. These offences have existed in the RTA for years and previously enforced more than they are now. So yes, enforce them. A widespread outcry would be unlikely. These fines / points are avoidable by changing behaviour. You pass a red light when lit or break a speed limit you commit an offence and potentially endanger others in the act. The fine is an opportunity for the motorist to learn — not an invitation to join a mass protest seeking to preserve a certain 'style' of driving.

galwaycyclist

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Let's be clear here. These offences have existed in the RTA for years and previously enforced more than they are now. So yes, enforce them. A widespread outcry would be unlikely. These fines / points are avoidable by changing behaviour. You pass a red light when lit or break a speed limit you commit an offence and potentially endanger others in the act. The fine is an opportunity for the motorist to learn — not an invitation to join a mass protest seeking to preserve a certain 'style' of driving.

I don't how many people here remember what happened when Seamus Brennan was Minister for Transport. In spite of opposition from the Guards, he brought in penalty points. As I recall for about a month there was a fundamental change in driver behaviour. A friend of mine got an alarm device fitted to his car to his car to warn him if he was over the limit.

Then it became clear that the Guards were using the "blue flu" tactic and everything went back to the way it was before.

RainyDay

doozerie wrote: »

Yes.

I'm intrigued, what would you expect to happen?

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Let's be clear here. These offences have existed in the RTA for years and previously enforced more than they are now. So yes, enforce them. A widespread outcry would be unlikely. These fines / points are avoidable by changing behaviour. You pass a red light when lit or break a speed limit you commit an offence and potentially endanger others in the act. The fine is an opportunity for the motorist to learn — not an invitation to join a mass protest seeking to preserve a certain 'style' of driving.

Yes, they are enforced now more than ever before, particularly with penalty points to address the 'frequent flyers'. But enforcement is nothing near 'zero tolerance' - quite the opposite. Most drivers break the speed limit most of the time on the road. If Gardai decided on a zero tolerance policy, and 80% of drivers started coming home with fines/points most days, there would be an absolute uprising, imho. Joe Duffy would be on fire for ever, Ivan Yates and George Hook would be having caniptions live on air, backbench TDs would be revolting (plus ca change). It would make Irish Water protests look like Ted and Dougal outside the cinema. If the Gardai didn't change their approach, the law would be changed.

Kaisr Sose

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, they are enforced now more than ever before, particularly with penalty points to address the 'frequent flyers'. But enforcement is nothing near 'zero tolerance' - quite the opposite. Most drivers break the speed limit most of the time on the road. If Gardai decided on a zero tolerance policy, and 80% of drivers started coming home with fines/points most days, there would be an absolute uprising, imho. Joe Duffy would be on fire for ever, Ivan Yates and George Hook would be having caniptions live on air, backbench TDs would be revolting (plus ca change). It would make Irish Water protests look like Ted and Dougal outside the cinema. If the Gardai didn't change their approach, the law would be changed.

You seem to be a master at semantics. Perhaps a career in politics beckons for you! For the record , there is no provision of tolerance in the RTA. It's either enforced to the letter or it's not being enforced. Therefore by enforcement, I meant zero tolerance.

As for Talk to Joe , George Hook and so forth, the law should be above Joe Duffy et al. My guess is no media outlet would want to be seen to be justifying or encouraging breaking traffic laws or non enforcement of same.

What evidence have you to justify your claim that a people's revolt to fines for breaking the law will happen?

doozerie

RainyDay wrote: »

If Gardai decided on a zero tolerance policy, and 80% of drivers started coming home with fines/points most days, there would be an absolute uprising, imho.

A quick check of the Garda website turned up their report for 2014 (Link), which gives a lot of info including the following:

Fixed Charge Notices:
* 226,731 issued for speeding, an increase of 18,811 from 2013
* 12,749 issued for seatbelt, an increase of 494 from 2013
* 32,434 issued for mobile phones, an increase of 3,623 from 2013

That's a lot of fines and presumably a lot of penalty point issued too. No sign of an uprising though, that I am aware of. In fact, the report also states that whenever the gardai made a show of enforcing the rules of the road, behaviour improved widely (though temporarily), not exactly the behaviour of people on the verge of revolt either.

More generally, that report also contains the following fatality figures for 2014:
* Pedestrians - 42 (up from 31)
* Passengers - 39 (up from 32)
* Cyclists - 13 (up from 5)
* Children under 16 - 16 (up from 7)
* Drivers - 77 (down from 95)
* Approximately 30% of fatal collisions involve people who “drive for work”

...the increase in cyclist fatalities may well be the biggest amongst all of those categories, but the actual number of cyclist fatalities is the lowest of all of them, same as the previous year.

RainyDay

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

You seem to be a master at semantics. Perhaps a career in politics beckons for you! For the record , there is no provision of tolerance in the RTA. It's either enforced to the letter or it's not being enforced. Therefore by enforcement, I meant zero tolerance.

doozerie wrote: »

A quick check of the Garda website turned up their report for 2014 (Link), which gives a lot of info including the following:

Fixed Charge Notices:
* 226,731 issued for speeding, an increase of 18,811 from 2013
* 12,749 issued for seatbelt, an increase of 494 from 2013
* 32,434 issued for mobile phones, an increase of 3,623 from 2013

That's a lot of fines and presumably a lot of penalty point issued too. No sign of an uprising though, that I am aware of. In fact, the report also states that whenever the gardai made a show of enforcing the rules of the road, behaviour improved widely (though temporarily), not exactly the behaviour of people on the verge of revolt either.

Look around you, gentlemen. Most drivers break the speed limit most of the time, and most of them get away with it most of the time. Drive around Dublin at the speed limit, and watch the very high percentage of cars that speed past you, or tailgate you, or get highly frustrated at your 'slow' speed. Drive on the M50 and see what % break the 100 kmph speed limit.

Enforcement is negligible. You can break the speed limit every day, and your chances of getting caught are negligible.

If this changed, and the Gardai decided that most people would be coming home with penalty points most days, and would have built up enough points to be off the road in a week or two, there would be a revolution.

smacl

RainyDay wrote: »

Look around you, gentlemen. Most drivers break the speed limit most of the time, and most of them get away with it most of the time. Drive around Dublin at the speed limit, and watch the very high percentage of cars that speed past you, or tailgate you, or get highly frustrated at your 'slow' speed. Drive on the M50 and see what % break the 100 kmph speed limit.

Any references to back that up? The fact that there are many people who speed, who also become obnoxious and frustrated when denied the ability to do so doesn't in any way make them a majority. They're simply a very visible minority who need some re-education on the rules of the road.

Enforcement is negligible. You can break the speed limit every day, and your chances of getting caught are negligible.

Doesn't make it either right or acceptable though does it? In years gone by many people drove home from the pub with a skinfull on board and the gardaí turned a blind eye, and while it still goes on to some extent it is no longer socially acceptable and gets punished where observed by the gardaí.

If this changed, and the Gardai decided that most people would be coming home with penalty points most days, and would have built up enough points to be off the road in a week or two, there would be a revolution.

D'ya think? The usual whingers would call up Joe Duffy or George Hook in indignant outrage, some would refuse to pay and play the martyr perhaps. But if you look at the large scale apathy towards some much larger, more wide reaching and considerably more genuine serious social injustices that have gone on in this country you'd realise the we're more bark than bit when it comes to revolution of any sort.

doozerie

RainyDay wrote: »

If this changed, and the Gardai decided that most people would be coming home with penalty points most days, and would have built up enough points to be off the road in a week or two, there would be a revolution.

Jaysus, you're channelling Paul Murphy there.

Your constant reference to "uprising" and "revolution" is distasteful by the way, not least given the day that's in it. And just how little faith do you have in human nature? As smacl says there are many examples of social injustice in this country, and they've existed for many years without a hint of an "uprising" in response. You really believe that the prospect of fines and penalty points will be the thing that will fire people up to the point of taking action? Wow.

Incidentally, your earlier reference to an uprising in relation to Irish Water is nonsense too. What "uprising"?

RanyDay wrote:

Honestly, could we step back from the hyperbole.

Ha!

RainyDay

smacl wrote: »

Any references to back that up? The fact that there are many people who speed, who also become obnoxious and frustrated when denied the ability to do so doesn't in any way make them a majority. They're simply a very visible minority who need some re-education on the rules of the road.

'Visible minority'? Not a chance - see http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/almost-100-of-road-users-saw-drivers-using-mobiles-study-1.2409965

Driving over the speed limit was the next most common illegal behaviour after using mobiles while driving, with 75 per cent of respondents observing it at least once a week.

You'll find the full survey results online, and see that 60%+ of motorists admit to speeding.

But really, have you tried sticking to the 50 kmph limit recently, and had a look at what happens around you?

smacl wrote: »

Doesn't make it either right or acceptable though does it? In years gone by many people drove home from the pub with a skinfull on board and the gardaí turned a blind eye, and while it still goes on to some extent it is no longer socially acceptable and gets punished where observed by the gardaí.

Fully agree - I'm not suggesting that it is acceptable or right. Just that it is the prevalent behaviour on the roads. I'm really surprised that anyone would challenge this - again, just look around you.

smacl wrote: »

D'ya think? The usual whingers would call up Joe Duffy or George Hook in indignant outrage, some would refuse to pay and play the martyr perhaps. But if you look at the large scale apathy towards some much larger, more wide reaching and considerably more genuine serious social injustices that have gone on in this country you'd realise the we're more bark than bit when it comes to revolution of any sort.

Take a look around your road or block, and work out which 60%-80% of people would come home tomorrow with points in a zero tolerance situation. And then the same on the next day. And the same on the next day.

And you think this would just be accepted?

RainyDay

doozerie wrote: »

Jaysus, you're channelling Paul Murphy there.

Your constant reference to "uprising" and "revolution" is distasteful by the way, not least given the day that's in it. And just how little faith do you have in human nature? As smacl says there are many examples of social injustice in this country, and they've existed for many years without a hint of an "uprising" in response. You really believe that the prospect of fines and penalty points will be the thing that will fire people up to the point of taking action? Wow.

Incidentally, your earlier reference to an uprising in relation to Irish Water is nonsense too. What "uprising"?

Have you been out of the country for recent years? Did you notice the Government making a fundamental change in policy - moving from a usage-based charge to a capped, subsidised, fixed charge - following the protests and blockades?

smacl

RainyDay wrote: »

'Visible minority'? Not a chance - see http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/almost-100-of-road-users-saw-drivers-using-mobiles-study-1.2409965

You'll find the full survey results online, and see that 60%+ of motorists admit to speeding.

But really, have you tried sticking to the 50 kmph limit recently, and had a look at what happens around you?

Where exactly? Both the Times article and the linked RSA study refer solely to the number of people that observe various types of illegal driving activity. Observing an activity bears no relation whatsoever to participating in one. As per my previous post, the issue is a visible minority who clearly need to be dealt with.

I think if you re-read the article and study, the point being put forward is that insufficient resources are being put into traffic policing and that more needs to be done.

But really, have you tried sticking to the 50 kmph limit recently, and had a look at what happens around you?

If your implication here is that we should all be breaking the rules of the road to placate the few that actually do break them, you may want a rethink. By extension, we should all be breaking red lights, driving while on the phone without a hands free set, and even drunk driving for that matter. Similarly as cyclists, should we hug the kerbs at all time such that potentially fast traffic can squeeze by even if it isn't safe for them to do so?

Our roads are a shared space, and the rules of the road are the mechanism that allows this sharing to take place. IMHO, road users that refuse to share the road on this well defined basis should not be allowed use the road until such time as they do so. All it takes really is a little mutual consideration, and personally I find most other road users are very considerate but it is the few that aren't that get all the attention.

doozerie

RainyDay wrote: »

Have you been out of the country for recent years? Did you notice the Government making a fundamental change in policy - moving from a usage-based charge to a capped, subsidised, fixed charge - following the protests and blockades?

Nope, I've been living in this country, paying my bills and making a conscious effort to adhere to the rules of the road both when cycling and driving. I don't seem to fit into your image of the country.

Kaisr Sose

RainyDay wrote: »

Have you been out of the country for recent years? Did you notice the Government making a fundamental change in policy - moving from a usage-based charge to a capped, subsidised, fixed charge - following the protests and blockades?

It's absolute nonsense to compare the reaction to IW to a step up in enforcement of the RTA. Please provide evidence that such a revolt would happen and be tolerated ? Are you just taking a view here to be controversal?

The reason people tailgate motorists that are travelling within the speed limit (which is not a target , just the max speed permitted) is because there is no enforcement of speed on the roads. If everyone travelled within the limit there would be no aggression, dangerous overtaking, tailgating required because people would soon realise they only get to the next light faster and spend longer stopped while the slower car ends up getting through the same cycle (I have observed this many times). It works in other countries so why not Ireland? Is it the we are Irish, normal policies won't work?

Most people are law abiding on the roads. Yes, some will chance running a red if in a hurry (not justified) but would soon alter behaviour if they knew they would be caught by a camera. How many LUAS incidents involving cars running lights have happened since cameras were introduced? I don't know but less for sure.

Policing and enforcement changes behaviour (even in Ireland) and there is no evidence that it will lead to a revolution.

Anyway, the times are a changing as I hear there is a tender process underway for the provision of speed cameras....in Ireland of all places!

RainyDay

smacl wrote: »

Where exactly? Both the Times article and the linked RSA study refer solely to the number of people that observe various types of illegal driving activity. Observing an activity bears no relation whatsoever to participating in one. As per my previous post, the issue is a visible minority who clearly need to be dealt with.

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but who exactly do you think this majority are observing breaking speed limits?

I'll do a proper response later, but this might keep you going;

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/aa-survey-70-of-irish-drivers-admit-speeding-1.790858

cython

RainyDay wrote: »

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but who exactly do you think this majority are observing breaking speed limits?

I'll do a proper response later, but this might keep you going;

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/aa-survey-70-of-irish-drivers-admit-speeding-1.790858

Nothing in that article suggest that "Most drivers break the speed limit most of the time" which was your previous claim. In fact a minority, albeit significant, admitted to having broken the speed limit in the preceding 4 weeks, which lends far more credence to the notion that a minority of drivers break the limit most of the time, but the majority do it a minority of the time.

Beasty

This thread started over a serious accident involving a cyclist. The last few pages have strayed so far off-topic anyone reading the thread title and indeed the first few posts would wonder "WTF?"

Anyway I wish the cyclist involved a full and speedy recovery

Thread closed