Calling out fellow cyclists for illegal or dangerous behavior

magicbastarder

i am curious now as to where the threshold would be in terms of size of vehicle, and whether you'd need a licence plate or not. where would you attach one to a skateboard?

Time

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Check out Cycling Mikey on Twitter - he has achieved hundreds of convictions of motorists, mostly for mobile phone use (6 penalty points a pop) by submitting helmet camera footage. The much more streamlined process makes it feasible.

He's in the UK though, the laws are different here and according to this article in the Irish Times video evidence was key in two cases last year.

Emme

On the rare occasions I cycle in city traffic now I am too busy trying to stay alive to watch out for other cyclists breaking rules. Militant cyclists fully armed with aerodynamic helmets and dressed head to foot in lycra can endanger the lives of other cyclists by sticking to the rules by the letter.

One example is a cyclist who waits behind the white line beside traffic at red lights with a left turn instead of going in front of the traffic to wait where they will be seen by cars. There will be a line of cyclists behind them and when the lights turn red the smug lycra clad militant in the front of the line is most likely to get through the lights safely while the other cyclists are at the mercy of cars deciding to turn left without indication or warning.

Many cyclists who bend the rules are those who have years or decades of experience and survival. They know that to follow the rules to the letter on city roads can mean death. On the other hand many lycra clad militants are relatively new to cycling (a year or two), got their bike and gear through the bike to work scheme and follow the rules to the letter thinking it will protect them from getting knocked off their bikes. (1) it won't. (2) if a cyclist falls foul of a motorist they get the blame and the law does not protect them.

The most important thing for a cyclist is to be seen by other traffic. Wear a high-viz jacket or vest. No need for a full hi-viz lycra suit. Position yourself where traffic can see you. Wear a helmet. There is no need to dress in head to toe lycra like you're doing the Tour de France. You're doing a survival course in Irish traffic.

magicbastarder

by gum, i didn't realise my cycling shorts made me smug.

Stark

Emme wrote: »

On the rare occasions I cycle in city traffic now I am too busy trying to stay alive to watch out for other cyclists breaking rules. Militant cyclists fully armed with aerodynamic helmets and dressed head to foot in lycra can endanger the lives of other cyclists by sticking to the rules by the letter.

One example is a cyclist who waits behind the white line beside traffic at red lights with a left turn instead of going in front of the traffic to wait where they will be seen by cars. There will be a line of cyclists behind them and when the lights turn red the smug lycra clad militant in the front of the line is most likely to get through the lights safely while the other cyclists are at the mercy of cars deciding to turn left without indication or warning.

Many cyclists who bend the rules are those who have years or decades of experience and survival. They know that to follow the rules to the letter on city roads can mean death. On the other hand many lycra clad militants are relatively new to cycling (a year or two), got their bike and gear through the bike to work scheme and follow the rules to the letter thinking it will protect them from getting knocked off their bikes. (1) it won't. (2) if a cyclist falls foul of a motorist they get the blame and the law does not protect them.

The most important thing for a cyclist is to be seen by other traffic. Wear a high-viz jacket or vest. No need for a full hi-viz lycra suit. Position yourself where traffic can see you. Wear a helmet. There is no need to dress in head to toe lycra like you're doing the Tour de France. You're doing a survival course in Irish traffic.

That was even more painful to read than some of the "oh a cycling thread on the front page, I think I'll post something off-topic and ill-informed in it" motorist posts.

MojoMaker

Emme wrote: »

On the rare occasions I cycle in city traffic now I am too busy trying to stay alive to watch out for other cyclists breaking rules. Militant cyclists fully armed with aerodynamic helmets and dressed head to foot in lycra can endanger the lives of other cyclists by sticking to the rules by the letter.

One example is a cyclist who waits behind the white line beside traffic at red lights with a left turn instead of going in front of the traffic to wait where they will be seen by cars. There will be a line of cyclists behind them and when the lights turn red the smug lycra clad militant in the front of the line is most likely to get through the lights safely while the other cyclists are at the mercy of cars deciding to turn left without indication or warning.

Many cyclists who bend the rules are those who have years or decades of experience and survival. They know that to follow the rules to the letter on city roads can mean death. On the other hand many lycra clad militants are relatively new to cycling (a year or two), got their bike and gear through the bike to work scheme and follow the rules to the letter thinking it will protect them from getting knocked off their bikes. (1) it won't. (2) if a cyclist falls foul of a motorist they get the blame and the law does not protect them.

The most important thing for a cyclist is to be seen by other traffic. Wear a high-viz jacket or vest. No need for a full hi-viz lycra suit. Position yourself where traffic can see you. Wear a helmet. There is no need to dress in head to toe lycra like you're doing the Tour de France. You're doing a survival course in Irish traffic.

Loving your campaign on Instagram Angela. I rarely cycle the roads and paths you are patrolling on our behalf but your intent is laudable - hopefully people start listening so we can effect some positive action.

kennethsmyth

LeChienMefiant wrote: »

There's no law against that, but it's enough for me to want her stopped. She's breaching GDPR with gay abandon, but that's civil law as far as I know. She's harassing people, but not necessarily any individual.

Nope public place no GDPR issue at all. She's videoing not using cctv etc.

AulWan

magicbastarder wrote: »

the whole rationale for this 'cyclists should wear identifying information' argument is based purely on the 'well, cars need identifying information' basis. so the damage cars do is key to the debate, as the frequency and scale of the damage should be the primary focus for the debate. but cyclists so rarely damage cars that it'd be a laughably retrograde step to force them do wear whatever you'd like them to wear.

Unfortunately, how frequently cyclists do damage to cars is not recorded in any official capacity, and its precisely because cyclists who cause damage (or accidents) cannot be identified. That is the whole point.

You say cyclists "so rarely" cause damage, yet I raised one incident where damage was done to my own car by a cyclist, I got a response of "I know 4 people the same thing happened too".

So, not so rare, apparently.

I actually paid extra attention to bikes and clothes used by cyclists this morning on my way to work and as I already knew, there was nothing, no way, you could identify one individual from another with any degree of certainty, so the whole argument that you could identify a cyclist by describing their clothes, colour of their bike is a total cop out.

At the end of the day, I don't know why cyclists are so against being identifiable. Maybe its because they'd actually have to start behaving better and paying other road users the courtesy they regularly demand they are entitled too.

In the meantime, I will continue to give them exactly the same amount of courtesy as they give other road users. No more, no less.

droidus

AulWan wrote: »

In the meantime, I will continue to give them exactly the same amount of courtesy as they give other road users. No more, no less.

Fascinating. If cyclists adopted the same idiotic position, many of them would be justified in obstructing and terrorising motorists, and, indeed, damaging their cars.

Emme

magicbastarder wrote: »

by gum, i didn't realise my cycling shorts made me smug.

If all they do is make you look smug count yourself lucky.

07Lapierre

Time wrote: »

Imagine how many convictions Angela Fahy would be responsible for then!

Who’s Angela Fahy? Not that it matters, if anyone is caught doing something illegal on our roads, video evidence should be used.

07Lapierre

AulWan wrote: »

And likewise, dash cams.

Anyone who attempts to drive in Dublin without one is nuts.

Nah it’s not that bad. I’ve a dash cam for a few years now and thankfully I’ve never needed it.

RobbieMD

AulWan wrote: »

I actually paid extra attention to bikes and clothes used by cyclists this morning on my way to work and as I already knew, there was nothing, no way, you could identify one individual from another with any degree of certainty, so the whole argument that you could identify a cyclist by describing their clothes, colour of their bike is a total cop out.

At the end of the day, I don't know why cyclists are so against being identifiable. Maybe its because they'd actually have to start behaving better and paying other road users the courtesy they regularly demand they are entitled too.

In the meantime, I will continue to give them exactly the same amount of courtesy as they give other road users. No more, no less.

Should we force everyone to wear identification numbers then? It’d make it easy to identify bank robbers and burglars too.

Cyclists aren’t against being identifiable. We have finite resources to pursue crimes. Time that ought to be spent where it makes the most difference, and in road safety terms, that means motorists. I take it you don’t cycle much if your issue is with cyclists being identifiable.

CramCycle

AulWan wrote: »

Unfortunately, how frequently cyclists do damage to cars is not recorded in any official capacity, and its precisely because cyclists who cause damage (or accidents) cannot be identified. That is the whole point.

You say cyclists "so rarely" cause damage, yet I raised one incident where damage was done to my own car by a cyclist, I got a response of "I know 4 people the same thing happened too".

So, not so rare, apparently.

By cars as well if you had read the post correctly.

I actually paid extra attention to bikes and clothes used by cyclists this morning on my way to work and as I already knew, there was nothing, no way, you could identify one individual from another with any degree of certainty, so the whole argument that you could identify a cyclist by describing their clothes, colour of their bike is a total cop out.

I could probably give a fair description of most of the ones I met this morning without issue, cars a bit less so as they all blend into one and I am more focused on if they are about to do something stupid than their specifics. Most would be easy to pick out of a line up if you sat on the same road at the same time the next day or next week. Maybe public transport is the way to go for you if it took extra attention to notice nothing.

At the end of the day, I don't know why cyclists are so against being identifiable. Maybe its because they'd actually have to start behaving better and paying other road users the courtesy they regularly demand they are entitled too.

Because that is working so well for motorists? Your having a laugh or being obtuse, or both. I am very identifiable on the bike. Funnily enough when ever I have been pulled up by a motorist and I stop, they never want to wait for the Gardai, particularly if you mention that it is on video.

In the meantime, I will continue to give them exactly the same amount of courtesy as they give other road users. No more, no less.

So your saying because one person acts badly (or loads) that everyone in that group deserves poor treatment. That is insane. Imagine if I started acting the maggot towards every motorist because a few cut me up, that would be an insane response.

magicbastarder

AulWan wrote: »

At the end of the day, I don't know why cyclists are so against being identifiable.

it's a barrier to cycling. it's that simple. the fewer cyclists there are on the road, the more dangerous it is for remaining cyclists. if someone wants to pop to the shops on their bike but needs to register their bike and carry some form of (as yet unidentified) means of identifying that bike from a distance, the numbers cycling will fall, and cause problems far greater than the issue this measure is supposed to fix.

Stark

The fact that pretty much every country in the world has an "AulWan" campaigning for mandatory registration but not even the most regressive countries have given the idea the time of day should speak volumes.

It would present a bureaucratic nightmare with very little to be gained.

Roadhawk

AulWan wrote: »

Unfortunately, how frequently cyclists do damage to cars is not recorded in any official capacity, and its precisely because cyclists who cause damage (or accidents) cannot be identified. That is the whole point.

I agree..."if it cant be measured, it cant be managed. In order to measure an incident there needs to be a way to account for it.

AulWan wrote: »

You say cyclists "so rarely" cause damage, yet I raised one incident where damage was done to my own car by a cyclist, I got a response of "I know 4 people the same thing happened too".

anecdotal, but i do relate.

AulWan wrote: »

I actually paid extra attention to bikes and clothes used by cyclists this morning on my way to work and as I already knew, there was nothing, no way, you could identify one individual from another with any degree of certainty, so the whole argument that you could identify a cyclist by describing their clothes, colour of their bike is a total cop out.

At the end of the day, I don't know why cyclists are so against being identifiable. Maybe its because they'd actually have to start behaving better and paying other road users the courtesy they regularly demand they are entitled too.

Apparently the financial cost of implementing and running a registered bike system far outweighs its revenue return...I dont see how though...i have seen +5 cyclists run a single red light at any one time (€40x5 per red light). Bring in a few red light cams, now it makes cents

Regs look great too:

AulWan wrote: »

In the meantime, I will continue to give them exactly the same amount of courtesy as they give other road users. No more, no less.

Amen to that.

07Lapierre

RobbieMD wrote: »

Should we force everyone to wear identification numbers then? It’d make it easy to identify bank robbers and burglars too.

Cyclists aren’t against being identifiable. We have finite resources to pursue crimes. Time that ought to be spent where it makes the most difference, and in road safety terms, that means motorists. I take it you don’t cycle much if your issue is with cyclists being identifiable.

I have an RSI number, car rev number, CI license number, unique Telephone number! Now you want me to have yet another number?

CramCycle

Roadhawk wrote: »

anecdotal, but i do relate.

The post being referred to talked about cars doing it.

Apparently the financial cost of implementing and running a registered bike system far outweighs its revenue return...I dont see how though...i have seen +5 cyclists run a single red light at any one time (€40x5 per red light). Bring in a few red light cams, now it makes cents

You'll probably find most Cyclists would be very in favour of red light cameras. Since we are on the anecdotal bandwagon, in the last few years, I cannot recall a junction where more cyclists have broke the red in comparison to motorists.

Regs look great too:

The look isn't the issue, it's the bureaucracy and idiocy that goes with it. Cars need insurance because the damage they are likely to cause in an accident is above and beyond what most people can afford to repay, this is untrue for cyclists. As for motor tax, taxes are to an extent to be fair and equitable. To make a similar tax for cyclists as you have for motorists, either motor tax has to sky rocket due to the massive subsidies motorists receive or the government would otherwise have to pay cyclists for the money they bring to the economy or reduce from its cost.

Amen to that.

What does this even mean, is it a veiled threat, I don't see too many incidents of cyclists killing motorists, nor do I hear tell of many killing pedestrians. So Amen to that, does this mean the two of you are going to make sure you put cyclists at practically zero risk when you are on the road because that is what they do to you.

RobbieMD

07Lapierre wrote: »

I have an RSI number, car rev number, CI license number, unique Telephone number! Now you want me to have yet another number?

No I don’t. I was directing that at the poster saying cyclists aren’t identifiable. IMO cyclists don’t need to be anymore identifiable than Joe soap walking down the road.

07Lapierre

RobbieMD wrote: »

No I don’t. I was directing that at the poster saying cyclists aren’t identifiable. IMO cyclists don’t need to be anymore identifiable than Joe soap walking down the road.

Apologies... knee jerk post on my behalf.

AulWan

CramCycle wrote: »

You'll probably find most Cyclists would be very in favour of red light cameras. Since we are on the anecdotal bandwagon, in the last few years, I cannot recall a junction where more cyclists have broke the red in comparison to motorists.

Maybe you should pay a visit to specsavers, cramcycle, you're obviously blind. :rolleyes:

07Lapierre

AulWan wrote: »

Maybe you should pay a visit to specsavers, cramcycle, you're obviously blind. :rolleyes:

He’s right. “Amber gambling” as well as red light jumping is rife in Dublin! It’s so frequent now it’s easy to take it for granted. Cyclists are easier to spot doing this, which gives the impression they all do it. Which is incorrectt

Duckjob

AulWan wrote: »

Maybe you should pay a visit to specsavers, cramcycle, you're obviously blind. :rolleyes:

Or maybe just not blinded by irrational hatred. Maybe you could take a objective view by researching the many many studies that show cyclists taken as a group break laws at roughly the same or slightly lower rate than motorists taken as a group.

Also, as another poster pointed out, deciding that someone you see on a bike is not worthy of respect / safe treatment based on the actions of a different person you saw on a bike at a different time and place is idiotic.

RoadHawk wrote:

Amen to that

Quiet day over on the motoring forum eh lads?

CramCycle

AulWan wrote: »

Maybe you should pay a visit to specsavers, cramcycle, you're obviously blind. :rolleyes:

Considering you missed MBs post referring to cars not bikes, well actually you noticed and then forgot in a subsequent post, and you had to pay "extra attention" so as not to be able to tell the difference between cyclists, not casting aspersions, but maybe we should both get checked out :pac:

As for Specsavers, not really, eyes checked every year, all still good, have two cameras as well, which catch (in my opinion) a large number of people jumping lights at every junction. If you included amber gambling it would be typical to have 16 motorists per light sequence, excluding amber gamblers, probably about 8 per sequence on my route in and out of work (ie rush hour). Cyclists are not as consistent. Typically it is between zero and one but there are always a few over the commute, there have been occasions where I have seen upto 10, the junction outside UCD would be the worst, where they like to go on the pedestrian light. Outside of rush hour, it probably evens up a bit more to be the same. This is obviously dependent on your commute as I have went other routes where it is far higher, the rock road has certain junctions where more cyclists would break more lights than motorists.

Both groups do it, there is no denying that, but if you think one group is worse than the other by a measurable amount you are delusional. Motorists are often stopped by the first person who wishes to stop at the lights, cyclists are not. Hence why it appears to some like it is really common among cyclists, when it is doubtful that it is even comparable.

I could even name the junctions it is most likely to happen, how many cars will go through, which direction is likely to be blocked by people sitting on a yellow box and which ones will mount the kerb to go round the traffic that they cannot legally proceed past anyway.

Observation is amazing in how it helps you predict behaviour.

tomasrojo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Stark wrote: »

The fact that pretty much every country in the world has an "AulWan" campaigning for mandatory registration but not even the most regressive countries have given the idea the time of day should speak volumes.

It would present a bureaucratic nightmare with very little to be gained.

Has New South Wales tried it? Then it can't be done. They've adopted just about every half-baked cyclist "control" scheme. Even they baulked at identification schemes.

magicbastarder

it'd be great if there was a government initiative which identified cyclists on the road. they could give them all two wheeled human powered vehicles as a way of marking them out, so people would know they were cyclists.
does anyone have shane ross's email address? i wish to share my idea with him.

rubadub

Roadhawk wrote: »

Regs look great too:

They do indeed

If pedestrians had to wear them I might have caught those bastards throwing stones at me, or been able to ID the scum I saw kicking wingmirrors off a row of cars.

Roadhawk wrote: »

Apparently the financial cost of implementing and running a registered bike system far outweighs its revenue return...I dont see how though...i have seen +5 cyclists run a single red light at any one time (€40x5 per red light). Bring in a few red light cams, now it makes cents

That is absolute pittance compared to the amount they would get for jaywalkers, 100+ breaking a single red is common in a city.

Majority of people want fines imposed for jaywalking

I always wonder what other genius ideas these reg plate, licence, "road tax" people come up with, they should go on dragons den with them, I find the ludicrous ones the most entertaining. "who has nobody else thought of my oh so excellent idea?!?!"

-Story behind Mr Reg plate pedestrian is great
https://www.corriere.it/english/13_agosto_09/fotoeng_e7bd91ea-00c1-11e3-8892-6722e21d9990.shtml?refresh_ce-cp

Number plate fine for pedestrian - The setting is Genoa. A 20-year-old man received a fine through the post from the municipal police for entering a restricted traffic zone in the city centre. But the man wasn’t driving anything. He was on foot. His “crime” was decorating his backpack with the number plate from a moped his mother had ridden years ago. This tale of bureaucracy gone mad appeared in the Corriere Mercantile newspaper. As the man crossed Via Garibaldi, the boundary of Genoa’s restricted zone, he was photographed by cameras that monitor the traffic. The infringement was duly recorded and the system ground out a fine, which was posted to the man’s address. Later, it turned out that the number plate had been cancelled in 2007. The man’s mother has now presented a formal appeal to the prefecture.

Roadhawk

rubadub wrote: »

That is absolute pittance compared to the amount they would get for jaywalkers, 100+ breaking a single red is common in a city.

rubadub wrote: »

Majority of people want fines imposed for jaywalking

I agree but there is always the issue of policing the Jaywalkers...just like the most recent fines for cyclists, they were a novelty at the start and now only the odd one or two are dished out by Garda. In most efficient cities they have path side barriers in place particularly at corners to stop pedestrians from entering a road space. This alone would be beneficial for traffic flow. In ireland we favour the pedestrian so they will always have level crossings and the like. I lived in Hong Kong and Singapore where they would have many city center pedestrian flyovers where the pedestrians do not interrupt the flow of traffic.

Roadhawk

CramCycle wrote: »

The post being referred to talked about cars doing it.

I know and then the conversation shifted to cyclists doing it.

CramCycle wrote: »

You'll probably find most Cyclists would be very in favour of red light cameras. Since we are on the anecdotal bandwagon, in the last few years, I cannot recall a junction where more cyclists have broke the red in comparison to motorists

"I cannot recall a junction where more cyclists have broke the red in comparison to motorists.", you cannot say that with any honesty behind it and mean it. Motorists, Cyclists and pedestrians alike all know that cyclists have a tendency to run a red light more often the other road users. Yes its lower risk than a motorist doing it but that doesnt take away from the fact that a bicycle is a vehicle and vehicle are to stop at red.

CramCycle wrote: »

The look isn't the issue, it's the bureaucracy and idiocy that goes with it. Cars need insurance because the damage they are likely to cause in an accident is above and beyond what most people can afford to repay, this is untrue for cyclists. As for motor tax, taxes are to an extent to be fair and equitable. To make a similar tax for cyclists as you have for motorists, either motor tax has to sky rocket due to the massive subsidies motorists receive or the government would otherwise have to pay cyclists for the money they bring to the economy or reduce from its cost.

Light reading from 5 years ago: https://www.vancourier.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-do-bicycles-need-to-become-registered-1.1377562

CramCycle wrote: »

What does this even mean, is it a veiled threat, I don't see too many incidents of cyclists killing motorists, nor do I hear tell of many killing pedestrians. So Amen to that, does this mean the two of you are going to make sure you put cyclists at practically zero risk when you are on the road because that is what they do to you.

No its clearly not a threat and has noting to do with of one road user killing another however it does have to do with giving the same amount of courtesy shown by the other.

Fact of the day: in 2018 there were 2.68million registered (taxed) vehicles in ireland. In that same year there were 142 fatal incidents on irish roads equaling 1 fatal incident per 18873.24 vehicles (0.00530%). In the same year there was an estimated 65,000 cyclists with 9 fatalities. Thats 1 in every 7222.22 cyclists or 0.01385%.