Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

ewc78

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Why does anyone care if people break reds on a bike anyway? Once again, they're harmless, they don't need strict regulations the way cars do.

Spook_ie

Moving on to another parking spot
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/cameras-benburb-blackhall-luas-red-lights/

18 months, 1300 offences by vehicles and cyclists, 32% (416) were cyclists, Guess what though, no FCPNs issued to the cyclists as they couldn't be identified from the red light cameras.

Hurrache

TaurenDruid wrote: »

No, it absolutely is not in your post. Your figures make absolute assumptions!

Either a failure of actual numbers and percentages supplied to you on a plate, or intentional trolling ignorance. The numbers of those breaking red lights were given.

Like I said at the time, take it up with the Gardai. Everyone else can understand it.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Do let the people at TCD know if you disagree with their findings.

Making crap up again, as always. I never said anything about disagreeing with them. There was no numbers supplied as to how many that % was.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Moving on to another parking spot
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/cameras-benburb-blackhall-luas-red-lights/

18 months, 1300 offences by vehicles and cyclists, 32% (416) were cyclists, Guess what though, no FCPNs issued to the cyclists as they couldn't be identified from the red light cameras.

So what you're saying is that the number of motorists breaking the red light is over double that of cyclists?

Sure haven't we been saying this for days that the dumb argument that cyclists are the biggest offenders is exactly that, dumb.

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

Moving on to another parking spot
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/cameras-benburb-blackhall-luas-red-lights/

18 months, 1300 offences by vehicles and cyclists, 32% (416) were cyclists, Guess what though, no FCPNs issued to the cyclists as they couldn't be identified from the red light cameras.

1. Nobody has said cyclists never breat the ROTR.
2: these reports really do highlight how rampant ROTR breaking is among all road users.
3: be careful what you wish for. Do you really want every citizen to be required to display their ID details when out in public?

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Another good reason for hi-vis for all cars - to make it easier to find them and rescue them from the sea.

https://twitter.com/aaroadwash/status/1273340368369696770?s=19

Anyway, it's interesting to hear the results of the testing of autonomous cars in Galway isn't going well. There's no mention of a driver in the article, so it must be an autonomous vehicle, right?

Is this one of Sean's 'unavoidable accidents'?

Oh dear! One old couple lets their car go down some rocks! How horrible!
[sarcasm]STOP PRESSES! Yes, this is so reflective of Irish drivers as a whole and proves your point that all Irish drivers are horrible, all Irish cars need hi-vis and, and totally counters all the international evidence that road deaths in Ireland are relatively rare[/sarcasm] :rolleyes:

Hurrache wrote: »

And a later survey of the attitudes of drivers towards cyclists seems to have been based on the off the wall posters here

71% believe cyclists do not obey the rules of the road and regularly commit offenses on our roads.

81% said that cyclists regularly break traffic lights

I'm guessing the other 29% and 19% respectively don't spend much time on foot in our major cities. Or are cyclists themselves. :rolleyes:

Spook_ie

Hurrache wrote: »

Either a failure of actual numbers and percentages supplied to you on a plate, or intentional trolling ignorance. The numbers of those breaking red lights were given.

Like I said at the time, take it up with the Gardai. Everyone else can understand it.



Making crap up again, as always. I never said anything about disagreeing with them. There was no numbers supplied as to how many that % was.



So what you're saying is that the number of motorists breaking the red light is over double that of cyclists?

Sure haven't we been saying this for days that the dumb argument that cyclists are the biggest offenders is exactly that, dumb.

And I provided you with a link to their study with the invitation that if you disagreed that you contact them, hardly call that making up crap, rather just providing you with the research they did, now of course it could have been their research you were calling crap but I think not.

Eh not in my arguments, no one has, 98% cyclists jumping redlights is not an insignificant figure, as to Blackhall Place, what sensors were they using, much easier to detect a vehicle whatever sensors you use than a piddly little cyclist ( with or without HiViz :rolleyes:

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

1. Nobody has said cyclists never breat the ROTR.
2: these reports really do highlight how rampant ROTR breaking is among all road users.
3: be careful what you wish for. Do you really want every citizen to be required to display their ID details when out in public?

I have no disagreement with 1 and 2 though some on here seem to think it doesn't matter , almost as if RotR are like pick and mix sweets, if you don't like the RotR then don't bother with them.

I think 3 is a great idea. ( as a requirement to carry and produce when requested )

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

I think 3 is a great idea. ( as a requirement to carry and produce when requested )

regarding this, if a garda stops a cyclist who they believe has committed an offence, and the cyclist is unable to satisfy the garda that he or she has honestly identified themselves, the garda is allowed confiscate the bike.

like many laws pertaining to road and traffic enforcement, i suspect this is rarely enforced.

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

regarding this, if a garda stops a cyclist who they believe has committed an offence, and the cyclist is unable to satisfy the garda that he or she has honestly identified themselves, the garda is allowed confiscate the bike.

like many laws pertaining to road and traffic enforcement, i suspect this is rarely enforced.

Probably the main reason it's rarely enforced is the sheer hassle of taking cyclist and cycle to station and then just releasing them when ID is confirmed, so much easier if the charge was not carrying the ID at all, arrest, ID, charged. court if required.

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

I think 3 is a great idea. ( as a requirement to carry and produce when requested )

that's fine as most people carry a driving license etc. or if challenged, can be given 10 days to produce it at their local Garda station. But that info cant be caught via CCTV cameras at traffic lights.

magicbastarder

Spook_ie wrote: »

Probably the main reason it's rarely enforced is the sheer hassle of taking cyclist and cycle to station

i'm not sure if the cyclist has to be taken to the station, must look up how the law is written. maybe it's a 'leave your bike there and walk' scenario.

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

that's fine as most people carry a driving license etc. or if challenged, can be given 10 days to produce it at their local Garda station. But that info cant be caught via CCTV cameras at traffic lights.

Yeah I know, that's why I always feel that it's a tad disingenuous when cyclists say bring in red light cameras, when they know full well that it wont affect their behavior, however, we weren't talking red light cameras then we were discussing

3: be careful what you wish for. Do you really want every citizen to be required to display their ID details when out in public?

to which I replied

I think 3 is a great idea. ( as a requirement to carry and produce when requested )

07Lapierre

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yeah I know, that's why I always feel that it's a tad disingenuous when cyclists say bring in red light cameras, when they know full well that it wont affect their behavior, however, we weren't talking red light cameras then we were discussing

You were pointing out that no penalties were issued as the cyclists could not be identified from "Red light cameras"?


And I disagree. Their is nothing disingenuous in looking for the Gardai to enforce the ROTR. After all, i have number plates on my car too.

TaurenDruid

Hurrache wrote: »

Either a failure of actual numbers and percentages supplied to you on a plate, or intentional trolling ignorance. The numbers of those breaking red lights were given.

Do I have to quote the numbers you supplied again? I mean, they're right there. They leave out the totals.

1,296 cars in Dublin recorded breaking a red
24 times the rate of cyclists, 54 during that period. (There were only 5 times the amount of motorists surveyed, so don't try argue the number is higher for cars because there's more)
So only 12% of cyclist were observed breaking red lights

Yes, 24 times 54 is 1,296. Well done.

Where are you getting the "There were only 5 times the amount of motorists surveyed" from?

Where are you getting the "only 12% of cyclist were observed breaking red lights" from? We can't know that without knowing the total number of cyclists observed breaking the lights.

Presumably you have the figures? Third time to ask, now. Give us the source.

Hurrache

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Where are you getting the "There were only 5 times the amount of motorists surveyed" from?

The gardai.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Yes, 24 times 54 is 1,296. Well done.

I can't take the credit, those numbers are from the gardai.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Where are you getting the "There were only 5 times the amount of motorists surveyed" from?

The gardai.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Where are you getting the "only 12% of cyclist were observed breaking red lights" from? We can't know that without knowing the total number of cyclists observed breaking the lights.

The gardai. Of course you can know that it's 12% without knowing the total number of cyclists, the gardai worked that out.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Third time to ask, now. Give us the source.

I told you at the outset, the gardai.


Look, you wouldn't believe there were actually surveys with facts and figures that would contradict your tunnel vision. You were given them, and predictably you won't take them at face value.

Take it up with the gardai at this point.

TaurenDruid

Hurrache wrote: »

The gardai.


I can't take the credit, those numbers are from the gardai.




The gardai.



The gardai. Of course you can know that it's 12% without knowing the total number of cyclists, the gardai worked that out.



I told you at the outset, the gardai.


Look, you wouldn't believe there were actually surveys with facts and figures that would contradict your tunnel vision. You were given them, and predictably you won't take them at face value.

Take it up with the gardai at this point.

:rolleyes: You haven't even given us the name of this survey or report or whatever it is. If you have figures as precise as "54 cyclists" or "1,296 motorists" you presumably have not memorised them and are looking at them somewhere in a report or news story or online publication.

Stop being so obtuse, and provide the link to this report, or, at the very least, the name of the study.

Pinch Flat

So glad to see red light breaking being debated so thoroughly on here. These things just never get discussed on boards.

Thelonious Monk

Why are the anti-cycling people even bothering with this thread? I can't believe you're annoyed that much by bicycles that you'd post on this for weeks on end. They are good for society and harmless.

ewc78

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Why are the anti-cycling people even bothering with this thread? I can't believe you're annoyed that much by bicycles that you'd post on this for weeks on end. They are good for society and harmless.

Eh, the thread was originally about cyclists on footpaths. It was then hijacked by some cycling cult members who are unable to take any sort of criticism and constantly try to justify cyclists breaking the law.
The thread would have died out weeks ago if it wasn't for you lot and your whataboutery..

Pinch Flat

ewc78 wrote: »

Eh, the thread was originally about cyclists on footpaths. It was then hijacked by some cycling cult members who are unable to take any sort of criticism and constantly try to justify cyclists breaking the law.
The thread would have died out weeks ago if it wasn't for you lot and your whataboutery..

I think it's fair to say that if someone starts a thread about cycling on a public forum that people who regularly cycle offer their own opinion. Thankfully we had "road tax", hi vis, red light breaking along the way. It's so rare these get discussed on boards when cycling comes up. Cult is a new one for me - previous reference to warriors and cycling brigade, so glad to see another catch all generalisation out there.

AndrewJRenko

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Link to survey, please? I mean, I'm not doubting the figures, but then context is important. Andew's famous figures for Dublin are from a selectively presented Kerry cycling blog that clearly omits a lot of relevant data.

I've asked you before to detail what information you think is omitted from that article on the NTA camera findings. Can you clarify please?

TaurenDruid

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've asked you before to detail what information you think is omitted from that article on the NTA camera findings. Can you clarify please?

Pretty sure I spelt out exactly what was missing at the time.

Chiparus

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I think it's fair to say that if someone starts a thread about cycling on a public forum that people who regularly cycle offer their own opinion. Thankfully we had "road tax", hi vis, red light breaking along the way. It's so rare these get discussed on boards when cycling comes up. Cult is a new one for me - previous reference to warriors and cycling brigade, so glad to see another catch all generalisation out there.

Dont forget bike nazis.

Hurrache

Chiparus wrote: »

Dont forget bike nazis.

The Nazis nicked them all back in their day!

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

Probably the main reason it's rarely enforced is the sheer hassle of taking cyclist and cycle to station and then just releasing them when ID is confirmed, so much easier if the charge was not carrying the ID at all, arrest, ID, charged. court if required.

I suppose that's the main reason why the legal requirement for cars to have insurance is rarely enforced for the 100k - 150k vehicles with no insurance - just too much hassle.

ewc78

I was gonna say nazi but then thought it be unfair to actual nazis to be comparing them to you lot

SeanW

Did Hitler ever ride a bike? That might explain a lot. :pac::D

(Andrew already Godwinned the thread so it's OK)

AndrewJRenko

ewc78 wrote: »

Eh, the thread was originally about cyclists on footpaths. It was then hijacked by some cycling cult members who are unable to take any sort of criticism and constantly try to justify cyclists breaking the law.
The thread would have died out weeks ago if it wasn't for you lot and your whataboutery..

Though funnily enough, that's still not even in the same ballpark as those who constantly try to justify drivers breaking speed limits, which is one of the top three causes of road deaths.

Pinch Flat

Hurrache wrote: »

The Nazis nicked them all back in their day!

Fahrrad macht frei

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

Oh dear! One old couple lets their car go down some rocks! How horrible!
[sarcasm]STOP PRESSES! Yes, this is so reflective of Irish drivers as a whole and proves your point that all Irish drivers are horrible, all Irish cars need hi-vis and, and totally counters all the international evidence that road deaths in Ireland are relatively rare[/sarcasm] :rolleyes:

Sorry, but how do you 'let your car' do anything. Your car doesn't have a life of its own. It doesn't do things on its own. Drivers are supposed to be in control.

If the driver is unable to control the vehicle, they shouldn't be in the driving seat.

We really need regular retesting of drivers.