More penalty points for drivers!

TheChizler

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the proposed law will not apply in areas that are 50KMH zones. I assume that includes donnybrook.

It'll be 1 m in those zones.

SixSixSix

jgorres wrote: »

An example, where the distance was most probably less than 1.5 metres: https://cycliq.com/videos/no-margin-for-error

I think you spelt centimeter incorrectly!
That was criminal!

henryporter

Thread should be renamed more penalty points that won't really ever be enforced as the only things the Gardai check for is drink-driving, tax, insurance, nct, baldy tyres and occasionally blown lights.

Are there any statistics showing numbers of penalty points awarded by offence (for example the classic 'I was only checking my text messages whilst leaving work', or 'I couldn't be arsed indicating where I'm going until after I come to a virtual full stop in the middle of the road', or the culchie classic 'I have to veer out on to the other side of the road in order to enter a gateway on my side of the road, even though there's oncoming traffic')

Bottom line is that without proper enforcement these penalty points are all a joke.

inforfun

The only way to make it better for both cyclist and motorist is to get them on separate roads where ever possible.
They should focus of designing proper cycle path (hint, take a look abroad and not the UK for once, go a bit more east... right... there you are The Netherlands) instead of fining me €80 because i was at 1.49 meters away from a cyclist.

Tenzor07

inforfun wrote: »

instead of fining me €80 because i was at 1.49 meters away from a cyclist.

Typical hysteria about this new PP offence...!

The point of this is not to prosecute people for passing a cyclist at a distance of 1.49m, just as you won't get prosecuted for doing 101kph in a 100kph zone...

It's already part of the road traffic act that:

(1) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.
(2) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, unless the roadway ahead of the driver—

( a ) is free from approaching traffic, pedestrians and any obstruction, and

( b ) is sufficiently long and wide to permit the overtaking to be completed without danger or inconvenience to other traffic or pedestrians.


This just removes some of the ambiguity over what constitutes the Minimum safe passing distance... And brings it inline with the current RTL's that attract Penalty points..

So there's pretty much NO scenario where this is not a good idea...

I do agree that along with additional laws to protect vulnerable road users, there should also be physical protections such as segregated cycle paths...

inforfun

It is not hysteria, it is exaggerating from my part.

Just wanted to say it is a waste of time this. It will not be enforced, just like so many other things, because it very hard to check. Same with unaccompanied L drivers. There are no checks on that, the only ones getting caught are the ones that **** up in another way first and then appear to be an L driver without company.

Just one of those exercises to show the common man: "See, we are working hard on improving things" while **** all is done.
Improve infrastructure. That is doing something.

Roadhawk

henryporter wrote: »

Are there any statistics showing numbers of penalty points awarded by offence...

A few here:
http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=1368&Lang=1

matban

Whats needed is a small electronic device that will take a photo of a passing car's number plate and record the passing distance.

If something like that became admissable evidence, there would be enough revenue from fines to build infinite cycle lanes

dodzy

matban wrote: »

Whats needed is a small electronic device that will take a photo of a passing car's number plate and record the passing distance.

If something like that became admissable evidence, there would be enough revenue from fines to build infinite cycle lanes

And build them where?

Paulzx

dodzy wrote: »

And build them where?

Ban pedestrians and use the footpaths. Problem solved:D

Motorists and cyclists happy as Larry

matban

dodzy wrote: »

And build them where?

Could build proper ones on top of the crappy ones we have now for a start

07Lapierre

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I'd support it if there was a €500 on the spot fine for any cyclist without a front and back working light.

Me Too! and most cyclists would agree with you although im assuming your talking about cyclists cycling at NIGHT with no lights?

That's already illegal and the culprit is liable to a fine. As it is these fines are going unpaid, so I would actually prefer to see the Gardai:

1. actually enforcing the law..
2. confiscate the bike in question and have the culprit pay the fine at the station when they come to get their bike back. (storage charges can be applied too!)

07Lapierre

matban wrote: »

Could build proper ones on top of the crappy ones we have now for a start

Personally, I think the best ones are the ones just painted onto existing roads. Why? because:

1. there on the part of the road where cyclist actually cycle.
2. they don't take away the cyclists right of way at each and every junction.

Example: https://goo.gl/maps/fcmVg9dZQ7m

Indricotherium

07Lapierre wrote: »

Example: https://goo.gl/maps/fcmVg9dZQ7m

I think that is the most dangerous type of cyclepath junction.

Prime spot for an inattentive driver to turn right a kill a cyclist going straight.

It needs a middle lane for cyclists going straight, or a red box for cyclists in front of the cars.

07Lapierre

Indricotherium wrote: »

I think that is the most dangerous type of cyclepath junction.

Prime spot for an inattentive driver to turn right a kill a cyclist going straight.

It needs a middle lane for cyclists going straight, or a red box for cyclists in front of the cars.

all the markings in the world won't make an inattentive driver suddenly become attentive. But your right..probably a bad example, but it was the first one i could think of!

H3llR4iser

I would normally overtake cyclists the same way I'd do if it was a car or motorbike, leaving plenty of space; I've even been in the situation where incoming traffic forced me to wait a few seconds behind a cyclist as I deemed I could not "squeeze" between him/her and said traffic, where drivers behind started beeping and flashing their lights.

Now the idea is not bad, even if difficult to enforce it would have a psychological effect making people pay more attention; One important edge case is however where a continuous line exists and it's physically impossible to leave more than 1.5 meters to the cyclist without going over it - it is unrealistic to expect motor vehicles to drive behind a cyclist until either the continuous line ends, or the cyclist stops.

Now, to the cyclist themselves...please learn to accept criticism; Even the ones posting here are doing no favours whatsoever to the entire group, coming off the "cyclists can do no wrong nor harm and need to be protected"; There are plenty of cyclists who are, I'm sorry, total d1cks, as much as there are drivers; Plenty regard themselves as "wheeled pedestrians", do not filter on the right of stopped traffic but arather bsolutely bomb along, completely forgetting there are pedestrians trying to cross. Plenty totally disregard the "green man", or consider it a "bike green light", happily sailing through pedestrian crossings giving us "plebs" the evil eye; The Grand Canal cycling lanes have dedicated lights...that cyclists systematically ignore, choosing instead to move off when the pedestrian one goes green. Basically folks, you do to pedestrians what you complain about motorists doing to you.

Indricotherium

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Now, to the cyclist themselves...please learn to accept criticism; Even the ones posting here are doing no favours whatsoever to the entire group, coming off the "cyclists can do no wrong nor harm .

I don't think anyone on this thread has had that attitude.

07Lapierre

H3llR4iser wrote: »

I would normally overtake cyclists the same way I'd do if it was a car or motorbike, leaving plenty of space; I've even been in the situation where incoming traffic forced me to wait a few seconds behind a cyclist as I deemed I could not "squeeze" between him/her and said traffic, where drivers behind started beeping and flashing their lights.

Now the idea is not bad, even if difficult to enforce it would have a psychological effect making people pay more attention; One important edge case is however where a continuous line exists and it's physically impossible to leave more than 1.5 meters to the cyclist without going over it - it is unrealistic to expect motor vehicles to drive behind a cyclist until either the continuous line ends, or the cyclist stops.

Now, to the cyclist themselves...please learn to accept criticism; Even the ones posting here are doing no favours whatsoever to the entire group, coming off the "cyclists can do no wrong nor harm and need to be protected"; There are plenty of cyclists who are, I'm sorry, total d1cks, as much as there are drivers; Plenty regard themselves as "wheeled pedestrians", do not filter on the right of stopped traffic but arather bsolutely bomb along, completely forgetting there are pedestrians trying to cross. Plenty totally disregard the "green man", or consider it a "bike green light", happily sailing through pedestrian crossings giving us "plebs" the evil eye; The Grand Canal cycling lanes have dedicated lights...that cyclists systematically ignore, choosing instead to move off when the pedestrian one goes green. Basically folks, you do to pedestrians what you complain about motorists doing to you.

Cyclists certainly can and do wrong...but that's not what this discussion is about. It's about giving a vulnerable roaduser a minimum distance when overtaking.

Let's assume it's daylight, the cyclist is cycling in the correct position on the road (everything is legal) and a car overtakes the cyclist. If im the cyclist, I don't care if the motorist has a valid nct or not, or has a broken headlamp. My only concern is that the car passes me with due consideration. thats why I'm in favour of this law. Rogue cyclists, dodgy drivers, licenses, helmets etc. Etc. .... their irrelevant to this discussion.

H3llR4iser

07Lapierre wrote: »

It's about giving a vulnerable roaduser a minimum distance when overtaking.

Most certainly - and I've already said I'd agree, as a matter of fact I more or less already behave in a similar way.

I was just pointing out how perspective changes and how cyclists aren't the only "vulnerable" road users but most of them seem to have interesting double standards when it comes to detecting "wrongdoing".

coolbeans

Just to set the record straight Roadhawk straight up hates cyclists and cycling.  He's been trolling on the Cycling forum for years. Fair warning before you waste the rest of your Friday engaging.

Indricotherium

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Most certainly - and I've already said I'd agree, as a matter of fact I more or less already behave in a similar way.

I was just pointing out how perspective changes and how cyclists aren't the only "vulnerable" road users but most of them seem to have interesting double standards when it comes to detecting "wrongdoing".

I think that's something of a myth that people who don't cycle and don't really know any cyclists seem to be obsessed with.

ciotog

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Most certainly - and I've already said I'd agree, as a matter of fact I more or less already behave in a similar way.

I was just pointing out how perspective changes and how cyclists aren't the only "vulnerable" road users but most of them seem to have interesting double standards when it comes to detecting "wrongdoing".

FWIW, any of the Irish cycle campaigns I've been involved with in the past have followed the hierarchy of road users model which puts pedestrians at the top. See p28 of DMURS for a simplified version. There's a better (I think) and more expansive hierarchy described at https://comparativegeometrics.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/nmt-and-a-new-transport-user-hierarchy/ under the "New Zealand 2013" section.

What that meant in practice was:
- Those groups being the voice of pedestrians and people with mobility issues at discussions with or submissions to local councils, AGS, DoT, politicians and ministers. Those groups generally don't have representatives in transport infrastructure discussions - ideally they would as the cycle campaign groups have limited insight into specific issues. Those groups are highly resource constrained though.
- Arguing against road design engineers where their plans inappropriately mix pedestrians and cyclists through badly designed shared spaces or conflict points (bus stops are a great example, complex junctions where the cyclist is expected to become a pedestrian are another)
- Arguing against road design engineers where their plans make cycling on the footpath the most attractive (in terms of either safety or convenience) option against the designed paths
- Arguing for adults cycling on the footpath being a specific offence with a FCPN attached
- Arguing with local authority officials about the legal status of pedal cycles in relation to footpath usage. Officials in one instance argued that a pedal cycle isn't a vehicle under the road traffic acts and as such it isn't illegal to cycle on the footpath. No, I'm not joking. Yes, they were willing to spend money getting a legal opinion to that effect.
- Trying to get AGS to enforce road traffic legislation for all road users

There are a lot of us who cycle for leisure, sport and the daily commute who do recognise we're not the only vulnerable people on the roads and try to do something about it. We're not blind to the traffic offences of fellow cyclists but Gardai really need to step up; either enforce or call out lack of resources. At the same time I will also argue proportionality in discussions - even a fat bastard like me will do a lot less damage than a car. Yet, the reaction to this bill would suggest that it's cyclists who are the largest contributor to road deaths and injuries (I'm not ignoring cyclists who hurt people by ignoring pedestrians crossings or cycling on footpaths - may they burn in hell while skewered on a sharpened seat post)