Cyclists, The Law & What can be done to improve cyclist safety

smacl

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It really wouldn't be hard to beat the average Irish driver on driving quality.

True and once autonomous vehicles are averaging significantly less accidents per journey they'll quickly become the norm and make insurance costs on manual driving uneconomic. Same goes for combined LIDAR and imaging versus pure imaging based AI and navigation. If the former proves significantly safer, it becomes the only standard in the long term. Personally, I'd like to see any autonomous vehicle that is sharing roads with cyclists, and has pedestrians alongside on pavements, to be making decisions based on a full 360 field of view at all times regardless of lighting conditions and visibility. My opinion is that passive optical sensors have their limits in this regard.

sacamano

droidus wrote: »

Yes, but one is objectively far more likely to kill or injure than another.

Im honestly baffled by the endless noise about minor cyclist misbehaviour. Its just not that big a problem in comparison to... ...just about everything else bad that happens on the roads and in society.

I blame the broken windows theory.

It just boils down to obeying the law and also not being a piece of sh*t and disregarding every other road user. I'm a cyclist myself and the amount of ignorant and selfish cyclists in the city centre far outweighs the good ones.

AndrewJRenko

sacamano wrote: »

It just boils down to obeying the law and also not being a piece of sh*t and disregarding every other road user. I'm a cyclist myself and the amount of ignorant and selfish cyclists in the city centre far outweighs the good ones.

Do you obey EVERY law yourself? Do you EVER break a speed limit while driving?

smacl

sacamano wrote: »

It just boils down to obeying the law and also not being a piece of sh*t and disregarding every other road user. I'm a cyclist myself and the amount of ignorant and selfish cyclists in the city centre far outweighs the good ones.

Why is whenever I see the phrase "I'm a cyclist myself" on this forum I know it will be followed by a rant about cyclists in general? :rolleyes:

lgk

RobbieMD wrote: »

This measurement must be measured and cannot simply be based on a Garda’s visual estimate. It’s similar to guessing speeding while a garda car follows a speeding car.

The indicator lugs are very clear, so there's no estimation required. Long way off guessing speed from a moving car with a speedo that by law must overestimate speed.

beauf

smacl wrote: »

Why is whenever I see the phrase "I'm a cyclist myself" on this forum I know it will be followed by a rant about cyclists in general? :rolleyes:

Regardless he still right. A lot of people are obnoxious no matter it's it's a bicycle or car.

magicbastarder

he said 'far outweighs' - i.e. that a considerable majority of cyclists are ignorant and selfish.

Macy0161

beauf wrote: »

Regardless he still right. A lot of people are obnoxious no matter it's it's a bicycle or car.

Majority of people using bikes? I call bs on that tbh.

Stark

Also completely pointless rant when it comes to the topic of "improving cyclist safety". (That is what this thread is about isn't it? It wasn't just started to further demonise cyclists?) The cycling network in Dublin is inherently unsafe. A colleague of mine who is a very "safe" cyclist: obeys all the rules of the road, wears helmet, dresses like a Christmas tree is in hospital since Wednesday after being knocked down at a particularly badly designed junction. And that's not an atypical story.

beauf

magicbastarder wrote: »

he said 'far outweighs' - i.e. that a considerable majority of cyclists are ignorant and selfish.

It used to be drivers and cyclists would do things like let each other merge or give way to let people or from side streets. People were more pleasant Now the majority will drive at you to get some tribal distance ahead. As a society we are far less empathic than we used to be.

AndrewJRenko

Stark wrote: »

Also completely pointless rant when it comes to the topic of "improving cyclist safety". (That is what this thread is about isn't it? It wasn't just started to further demonise cyclists?) The cycling network in Dublin is inherently unsafe. A colleague of mine who is a very "safe" cyclist: obeys all the rules of the road, wears helmet, dresses like a Christmas tree is in hospital since Wednesday after being knocked down at a particularly badly designed junction. And that's not an atypical story.

That's very true. If you want to improve cyclist safety overnight, get motorists to stop killing people.

beauf

Stark wrote: »

Also completely pointless rant when it comes to the topic of "improving cyclist safety". (That is what this thread is about isn't it? It wasn't just started to further demonise cyclists?) The cycling network in Dublin is inherently unsafe. A colleague of mine who is a very "safe" cyclist: obeys all the rules of the road, wears helmet, dresses like a Christmas tree is in hospital since Wednesday after being knocked down at a particularly badly designed junction. And that's not an atypical story.

I agree with most of that.

BarryD2

I cycled a lot around Dublin when I lived there and I always figured that the only person looking out for your safety is yourself. It's a matter of self preservation, whilst taking due care of pedestrians etc. Often jumped a light to get ahead of the cars waiting to shoot off, so as to avoid being cut up or sometimes simply to get safely & quickly out of the way of motorists so as not to hold them up unduly. You've got to take responsibility for your own safety, look out for yourself, anticipate and avoid situations where you could be hit by some driver who doesn't realise you're there. If that means bending a few rules, well so be it. As a motorist when I'm in the city, I see it and know what cyclists are up to.

Tenzor07

smacl wrote: »

Why is whenever I see the phrase "I'm a cyclist myself" on this forum I know it will be followed by a rant about cyclists in general? :rolleyes:

It's a legendary caveat at this stage, anyone can say what they like!!


https://www.reddit.com/r/imacyclistmyself/

AndrewJRenko

Tenzor07 wrote: »

It's a legendary caveat at this stage, anyone can say what they like!!


https://www.reddit.com/r/imacyclistmyself/

Ranks up there with: "I'm not racist, but...."

RobbieMD

lgk wrote: »

The indicator lugs are very clear, so there's no estimation required. Long way off guessing speed from a moving car with a speedo that by law must overestimate speed.

So what measurement would the prosecuting Garda present to a court? As I stated a statutory instrument changed the offence wording for this offence from “excessively worn” to requiring a thread depth reading. What reading could she/he give based on merely looking at the thread wear indicators? Various tyre manufacturers also include various thread wear indicators on their tyres, to include the minimum of 1.6mm but also some have wear indicators at 3mm 4mm etc.

If I was defending someone summonsed/charged with that offence and the only “proof” the garda had was a visual observation, I’ll safely say that would be struck out. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I understand where you’re coming from in the practical sense. My point was just that the average Garda has little other than a pen and notebook. It’s embarassing how poorly resourced they are outside what could be termed health and safety issues for the individual Garda, ie their checkpoint signs, hi viz jackets, mepro lights for checkpoints etc.

TriFirst

godtabh wrote: »

So I came across this evening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvxKFPx-2e4

Lights are clearly red for a long time. Cyclists, not knowing the Garda car is right beside them, pull off breaking the red lights.

What do the Gardai do? Nothing.

With all the bad press last week from VeloCity about how dangerous it is to cycle to Dublin

1. How can cyclists be so stupid?
2. Enforcement is half the issue. Why no enforcement?

If (some) cyclist couldn't be arsed following the law and (some) Gardai couldn't be arsed enforcing something so obviously breaking the law what is the solution to the problem of road safety?

This exact thing happened to me at a set of lights. Cyclist breaks the lights and when I pulled up along side the garda car at the next et of lights to query why they did nothing about it , I was told, ''m sure we cant go after every cyclist''. That attitude pervades the gardai unfortunately but this lawlessness in this country regarding road safety applies to most people.
Very few pedestrians will wait for the green man in Ireland with people crossing the street at will regardless of what traffic is coming. Go to Germany and its a totally different story in that nobody crosses the street until its their turn to do so. Its weird seeing it at first.

Go to Spain or Italy and you see the ubiquitous use of zebra crossings. Why we don't use them in Ireland is beyond me. It seems we have the worst of all worlds with everyone being frustrated. Throw in a dreadfully apathetic police force, a toothless judiciary, legislators who just don't care about road safety and local authorities who have no clue how to design road infrastructure and you have a perfect storm where a cyclist can break the law by breaking the red light in front of a guard and nothing changes.

magicbastarder

TriFirst wrote: »

Go to Spain or Italy and you see the ubiquitous use of zebra crossings. Why we don't use them in Ireland is beyond me.

dublin city council are slow to implement them, due to the way the law is written. i'll dig out the mail i got about it, later.

CramCycle

RobbieMD wrote: »

So what measurement would the prosecuting Garda present to a court? As I stated a statutory instrument changed the offence wording for this offence from “excessively worn” to requiring a thread depth reading. What reading could she/he give based on merely looking at the thread wear indicators? Various tyre manufacturers also include various thread wear indicators on their tyres, to include the minimum of 1.6mm but also some have wear indicators at 3mm 4mm etc.

If I was defending someone summonsed/charged with that offence and the only “proof” the garda had was a visual observation, I’ll safely say that would be struck out. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I understand where you’re coming from in the practical sense. My point was just that the average Garda has little other than a pen and notebook. It’s embarassing how poorly resourced they are outside what could be termed health and safety issues for the individual Garda, ie their checkpoint signs, hi viz jackets, mepro lights for checkpoints etc.

Its not a visual inspection, it is a physical one, where you check has the lug been met. It isn't quantitative either, it is a pass or fail, it has either met it or it hasn't. Gardai get prosecutions on this all the time based on my local courthouse and the garda traffic twitter feed.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

dublin city council are slow to implement them, due to the way the law is written. i'll dig out the mail i got about it, later.

this was what i got, via andrew montague:

CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPLY:
Dublin City Council does not recommend Zebra crossings as they may provide a false sense of safety for pedestrians. In Ireland, a pedestrian does not have the right-of-way until they have already stepped onto a Zebra crossing. For this reason Dublin City Council’s preferred option is for crossings where the onus is unambiguously on the driver to stop.

Large bottle small glass

magicbastarder wrote: »

this was what i got, via andrew montague:

NRA guidance specifically recommends Puffin type pedestrian crossings.

There are other factors to consider like inter visibility between driver and pedestrians, sitting, road surface skid resistance etc when installing pedestrian crossings.

Stark

I just wish if they put in light controlled pedestrian crossings that the light actually goes green when the pedestrian presses the switch as opposed to 5 minutes later long after the pedestrian has jaywalked across and everyone has to sit at the red lights at an empty crossing like morons. Or change the law so it's fine to go through if there's no-one crossing (to account for kids messing with the lights and stuff).

OleRodrigo

Tenzor07 wrote: »

It's a legendary caveat at this stage, anyone can say what they like!!


https://www.reddit.com/r/imacyclistmyself/

Love this one

' I'm a cyclist myself, but this bicyclist made no effort to avoid being hit by an SUV '

RobbieMD

CramCycle wrote: »

Its not a visual inspection, it is a physical one, where you check has the lug been met. It isn't quantitative either, it is a pass or fail, it has either met it or it hasn't. Gardai get prosecutions on this all the time based on my local courthouse and the garda traffic twitter feed.

People are convicted everyday for various offences without a hearing of the evidence. If you plead guilty then there is no onus on the prosecution to prove its case. The judge will merely hear the facts from the prosecution, which for a tyre below the legal limit is the Garda simply saying they stopped whatever car in a public place and whatever tyre was below the minimum legal thread.

If you want to see how prosecutions fail on the minutiae of a charge/summons then I’d advise going to a district court on a hearing date, when you will see a full examination of the evidence.

Stating that it’s a physical inspection is precisely what I have been saying all along. But the physical inspection is supposed to be done using a calibrated thread depth gauge and not reliant on the manufacturers minimum wear indicators. If people here can differentiate between 1.6mm and 1.5mm then fair play to them.

sacamano

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you obey EVERY law yourself? Do you EVER break a speed limit while driving?

Like to think I do obey every law. And no to breaking the speed limit. Those that do piss me off too but that's not relevant to this thread.

smacl wrote: »

Why is whenever I see the phrase "I'm a cyclist myself" on this forum I know it will be followed by a rant about cyclists in general? :rolleyes:

Just giving some context and pre-empting any comments asking if I've ever cycled before. And hardly a rant, more of an observation.

magicbastarder wrote: »

he said 'far outweighs' - i.e. that a considerable majority of cyclists are ignorant and selfish.

That's been the case in my experience, whether it is breaking red lights, cycling on footpaths or creating imaginary contraflow lines on a one-way street.

CramCycle

sacamano wrote: »

That's been the case in my experience, whether it is breaking red lights, cycling on footpaths or creating imaginary contraflow lines on a one-way street.

But I imagine, like most people, you (and me) are inherently biased, we all are, it is damn near impossible to ignore. It was pointed out to me a few years ago, so I looked over footage on my camera, after any day I came in ranting about a, b or c, bar mobile phone use in cars and speeding, almost every other law, by any other road users was only broken in the minority.
Cycling on footpaths would be the big one, anyone who thinks this is over 1% of cyclists is biased, it is simply untrue. It does happen, I am not denying that but to claim a majority, that is insane.
Contraflow lanes on one way streets, well lets just be damned clear, there are not enough one way streets and again not enough cyclists using them, nor data on those who go around to make such a ludicrous statement that it is the majority. Some do, but christ on a bike, pick a point that has some point you can show.
Breaking red lights, percentage wise, it is not much different than motorists, in fact all evidence would indicate that it is less for cyclists. My experience in around Dublin at any lights I stop at, it weighs between 50% and 100% who don't, with it typically skewed above the 90% who don't.
But the same way I rant about X Y or Z always doing something, i am biased, it annoys me, therefore I notice it more, therefore it appears to be in the majority.
Do the same yourself, when you pay attention to what your not looking for, you will notice, most people are doing it

sacamano

When it comes to cycling on footpaths I'd put it down to around 5 cycling down them for every one walking with their bike. Again with one way streets (I live on one so that's why I mentioned them), 10 cycling vs 1 walking. And breaking red lights would be similar numbers in my experience.

Care to link to the evidence re the red lights?

Duckjob

CramCycle wrote: »

Breaking red lights, percentage wise, it is not much different than motorists, in fact all evidence would indicate that it is less for cyclists. My experience in around Dublin at any lights I stop at, it weighs between 50% and 100% who don't, with it typically skewed above the 90% who don't.

It's pretty hard to compare light breaking rates between motorists and cyclists since the way the break lights is inherently different.

Opportunity is there for cyclists to break anytime during the red light whereas cars are more constrained by space so it's usually an opportunistic charge by 1 or more drivers to get through a recently changed red light before the light is deemed to be "too red".

As has been discussed before, the two are also worlds apart in the levels of potential damage they can cause.

Stark

CramCycle wrote: »

Contraflow lanes on one way streets, well lets just be damned clear, there are not enough one way streets and again not enough cyclists using them, nor data on those who go around to make such a ludicrous statement that it is the majority. Some do, but christ on a bike, pick a point that has some point you can show.

I also have to ask, "so what"? Is there an actual issue caused by the odd cyclist cycling the wrong way up a one way street or is it just more petty begrudgery? One way streets serve one of two purposes: improving traffic flow or restricting traffic where the street is too narrow for two cars to pass. Cyclists by and large don't interrupt the traffic flow and a cyclist is also narrower so isn't going to block the road like a car would do if a driver tried to drive the wrong way up a one-way street.

CramCycle

Duckjob wrote: »

It's pretty hard to compare light breaking rates between motorists and cyclists since the way the break lights is inherently different.

Opportunity is there for cyclists to break anytime during the red light whereas cars are more constrained by space so it's usually an opportunistic charge by 1 or more drivers to get through a recently changed red light before the light is deemed to be "too red".

As has been discussed before, the two are also worlds apart in the levels of potential damage they can cause.

Aside from the damage, as your point makes clear, from a % point of view, once a car stops, 100% bar exceptional circumstances, must stop, with a cyclist that is not true and from a numbers, not safety perspective, you simply cannot compare. My point was simply for those trying to make out that cyclists were somehow more rampant at RLJing than motorists, which is actually untrue both by the numbers and by the philosophy when you think about opportunity.

Stark wrote: »

I also have to ask, "so what"? Is there an actual issue caused by the odd cyclist cycling the wrong way up a one way street or is it just more petty begrudgery? One way streets serve one of two purposes: improving traffic flow or restricting traffic where the street is too narrow for two cars to pass. Cyclists by and large don't interrupt the traffic flow and a cyclist is also narrower so isn't going to block the road like a car would do if a driver tried to drive the wrong way up a one-way street.

I have no issue with it, it is just begrudgery, again, my point was simple though, I am ignoring the decent common sense point you are making because some people cannot stand being reasonable and I am just painting it by the numbers, which still paints it as a non issue. Do enough people ru contra flow that they can be considered a majority, and that is the question, bar the fact that there are not enough areas to do it to make a fair statistical comparison, it is also a small enough number that it is not an issue for the gardai.