Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

07Lapierre

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Imagine if cars didn't park in the footpath and on the cycle Lane, pedestrians walked in the path and stayed off the road and cycle lanes and then cyclists actually used cycle lanes, didn't go side by side blocking the road and using paths as shortcuts.

But sure that's not possible in the real world

Agreed...not possible. You cant walk "in" the path.

micar

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yes I know they both relate to the same accident, that's why the words "Fatal result of the above" are typed in between them, anyways perhaps you could contact the author of the article and ask if the pedestrian was on the shared cycle path or not, I see nothing in the article to indicate either way.

In the context of the thread maybe the cyclist was stopped or the pedestrian was standing still?

Not a shared cycle lane

This, from the article, might explain that for you.


"The pedestrian, a software engineer, was crossing the cycle lane from the pedestrian lane in order to exit the park."

" I started to cross over. I don't remember a collision... the only memory I have is lying on the ground," he said.

None of there occurred on a footpath..

ewc78

Hurrache wrote: »

Sorry, you're for real?

You're saying kids out on bikes need to take responsibility for themselves when out on the roads, the adults in cars around them shouldn't be worrying or hindered by them?

I think the line between who's the kids on the roads has just become somewhat blurred in your poor take of reality.

Ah sure those ****ers in prams and buggies, who do those pricks think they are when they expect us to be aware of them when they're nearby.

Yes, I do think teenagers shouldn't be doing wheelies down the middle of a busy road do you? Would you let one of your kids out on a bike alone if you weren't 100% sure that they were responsible enough to not act the prick? I wouldn't.
And please show me where I said motorists shouldn't be careful also? Go on show me I'll be here all night.
I was replying to a poster which said the roads aren't safe for teenagers, which I actually agreed with if you took the time to read my post and I agree they aren't safe for any cyclist which you seemed to ignore.
My point was it can't always be the motorist who is to blame, if a teenager is doing a wheelie down the middle of the road or cycling while looking at a phone then he needs to take responsibility for his own actions.
You mentioning buggys and prams is just plain weird and makes no sense. I've yet to see a mother push her pram down the middle of a busy road, maybe where you live that's more common, not where I live though.

Seth Brundle

ewc78 wrote: »

Ah here you can't blame everything on motorists. Teenagers on bikes are a menace on the roads where I live, not everyone who drives are a car is out to get a cyclist.
There is a group near me who are constantly flying up and down a busy road on bikes doing wheelies and ignoring any cars that are on the road, or cycling while looking at their phones, or cycling in large groups in the centre of the road.

Just to clarify, are all teenagers around you on bikes a menace or are you referring to a distinct group?
Are the menacing teenagers around your area reflective of all people on bikes?

ewc78 wrote: »

Yes, I understand cyclists in general must feel unsafe on the roads as there are brutal drivers out there, but cyclists have to take responsibility for their own actions also, it can't always be the motorists fault.

As one of the many cyclists out there, I can say that we shall take your point on board and discuss it in our next meeting. :rolleyes:

ewc78

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Just to clarify, are all teenagers around you on bikes a menace or are you referring to a distinct group?
Are the menacing teenagers around your area reflective of all people on bikes?


As one of the many cyclists out there, I can say that we shall take your point on board and discuss it in our next meeting. :rolleyes:

Why be a prick? Honestly why the need?

Did I say the teenagers around where I live cycling up and down the middle of the road are reflected of all cyclists did I?
And your last sentence is just the height of prickness it really is.
Do you honestly think cyclists, be them teenagers or adults should not be responsible for their own actions? Really?

Hurrache

Spook_ie wrote: »

An interesting question that, at what age should people be taking their own responsabilities as road users? As a minor under 18 would seem to be too high an age, should we put them at an age of responsibility such as 16? The legal age to obtain an actual license for an A1 class moped/bike.

In fairness a taxi driver (I'm gonna use the logic always used when idiots talk about people on bikes) has no business asking anything when it comes to questions about roads rules or laws.

But I will say it's quite eye opening and pathetic that anyone gets involved in this thread to whinge about kids out having fun from the standpoint of a motorist (of which I'm one too)

magicbastarder

i'm jealous of teenagers who can wheelie down the middle of the road without a care in the world.

Hurrache

ewc78 wrote: »

Did I say the teenagers around where I live cycling up and down the middle of the road are reflected of all cyclists did I?

Yeah, you did, twice, because you used kids as an example as to why cyclists, cyclists, not a distinct group of people, should take more responsibility.

07Lapierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm jealous of teenagers who can wheelie down the middle of the road without a care in the world.

Me too! I've been working on my own wheelie skills recently (during the 2k exercise limit), but so far I can only manage a few seconds. Those young lads make it look so easy!

monument

1 sheep2 wrote: »

It's not in the slightest. There is a clear difference between encountering a parked car and a moving cyclist whose motives are unclear.

Talk about moving goal posts... different in encountering is quite different than your original claim of only cyclists using what space they want and only them picking what laws to follows.

The reality is motorist’s actions is far from benign as you suggest. People with wheelchairs and prams and child on bicycles are regularly forced out onto the road

Many cycle tracks have become half redundant at times because of motorists using the space allocated to cyclists.

1 sheep2 wrote: »

Motorists run red lights (something that frustrates me endlessly) only at the very beginning of their phases. Given the number of cars on the road, it is exceedingly rare to see a car break a light outside of that. Cyclists, on the other hand, frequently cut across pedestrians long after the pedestrian light has gone green.

Most years motorists kill 1-3+ people who were walking or cycling crossing at traffic lights or the likes of running red lights and hitting other vehicles or trans before killing people on footpaths... are you just unaware of this or do you have other reasons to deny the seriousness of motorists running red lights?

Some people seem to be in denial about motorists running red lights and pedestrians having to hold back because those videos hardly every reach main stream media, yet we have motorists regularly smashing into trams as if they don’t do the same with pedestrians. Maybe it’s just more accepted because the dominance of cars is accepted too much?

Here’s a news flash: more minor and even many serious injuries aren’t covered in the media, but they still happen. Maybe it never happens where you live but that’s not the experience of many people in cities.

Sure, people cycling also run red lights and it’s wrong and annoying, but generally far less dangerous than motorists doing it. The level of danger is generally closer to jaywalking than motorists running red lights.

1 sheep2 wrote: »

There's nothing else in your post worthy of response.

Glad you’re giving up on replying without resorting to name calling.

magicbastarder

i'm just old and scared of falling over. i can do a wheelie as long as i'm accelerating, i haven't reached the point where i can do it just through balance.

ewc78

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm jealous of teenagers who can wheelie down the middle of the road without a care in the world.

So am I to be fair, they still need to take responsibility for their actions though If something goes wrong.

monument

Hurrache wrote: »

In fairness a taxi driver (I'm gonna use the logic always used when idiots talk about people on bikes) has no business asking anything when it comes to questions about roads rules or laws.

Please focus less about who people are or what they do / did for a living, thanks.

— moderator

ewc78

Hurrache wrote: »

Yeah, you did, twice, because you used kids as an example as to why cyclists, cyclists, not a distinct group of people, should take more responsibility.

No I didn't, but now that you mention it, do you not think every road user who takes a risk should be responsible for their own actions?
If you are doing a wheelie down the middle of a road and fall off in front of a car, then I'm sorry that's your own fault.
If I break a red light in a car and smash into another car then that's my own fault, or if a Tour de France wannabe breaks a red on a bike and gets hit then yes, you guessed it, that's his own fault.
So yes, I do think cyclists should be responsible for their own actions, the same way I think everyone should be responsible for theirs.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

Because if you're going to call Irish motorists in some way bad, there has to be some kind of standard. What are you comparing Irish motorists to? World experience? European norms? Some nonsensical zero-standard that world experience shows is next to impossible?

On what planet do international comparisons "not matter in the slightest" you're specifically talking trash about Irish drivers?

How is that an "option"?

Remember that even in countries with more severe regulations on motorists, road deaths still occur. Case in point is Canada, where laws regulating motorists are very strict and the process for gaining a full driving license takes a multitude of tests and stretches out over many years. And yet Irish drivers compare very well to Canadian drivers.
Road fatalities per 100,000 people per year:
Canada: 5.8
Ireland: 4.1

Road fatalities per 100,000 vehicles per year:
Canada: 8.9
Ireland: 7.5

Road fatalities per billion kilometres traveled:
Canada: 5.1
Ireland: 3.8

And this bears repeating, and emphasising: Canadian drivers are more heavily regulated than Irish drivers, yet Canada still suffers more road fatalities by every measure. So what in Hades are you looking for?

You may have missed the bit where I pointed out that international comparisons are entirely irrelevant. So what about Canada's rates, India's rates, or Timbuktu's rates.

The issue is the two or three people killed in Ireland each week by motorists.

Speeding is a big issue. Why on earth do we allow cars that can travel at 200kmph and more to be sold when our maximum speed limit is 120 kmph?

But it's not the only issue - mobile phone use, drink/drug driving and fatigued driving are all major problems resulting in regular deaths on Irish roads.

Zebra3 wrote: »

So what's the acceptable number of people that motorists can kill each year?

Indeed, or perhaps more pointedly, which of your own family members are you prepared to lose to a road death to make up for Irish motorists not bothering to obey traffic laws?

SeanW wrote: »

Cyclists (at least some, maybe not all)

seem to have two mantras:

1. Rules for thee, not for me.
2. But, but,but ... whatabout!

Cyclists Cyclists, pedestrians, motorists (at least some, maybe not all)

seem to have two mantras:

1. Rules for thee, not for me.
2. But, but,but ... whatabout!

But it's only motorists that kill a couple of people each week on our roads.

SeanW wrote: »

I've been a daily pedestrian for many years. I know when I've been in danger, and when I have not. And every time a motorist has done something that put me in danger, speed was not the issue. Every. single. time. As long as both myself as a pedestrian and the motorists are obeying traffic controls, the speed of the vehicles (within reason) is a low concern.

The vast majority of us are daily pedestrians in one form or other, so I don't think that earns you any particular credibility or brownie points. And honestly, you don't know when you've been in danger and when you have not. Near miss incidents happen on the roads all the time that go unnoticed by some or all of the other road users around. There is also a very clear danger of confirmation bias, where people see and notice what they want to see and notice.

So again, your personal experience is not a good measure of the source of danger of the roads, relative say to several decades of research by expert transport researchers all round the world, all of which conclude that speed is one of the top three or four causes of road deaths.

SeanW wrote: »

A fact does not cease to be a fact, simply because it is ignored. Nor does it cease to be a fact simply because it does not "give much comfort." That's not how facts work.

No-one suggested a fact ceases to be a fact - but it puts the fact that attempts to trivialise the number of road deaths in Ireland in context.

ewc78 wrote: »

How exactly would a 'jogger' plodding along at around 8km/hr be as dangerous as a cyclist moving at 20km/hr or more on a footpath?

Oh no here comes Karen from the local couch to 5k club coming towards us, we better get out of her way before she knocks us all over...!

How exactly would a 60kg lady cyclist tootling along on her upright bike at around 8 kmph be as dangerous as 120kg Rodge from the rugger club tearing round the corner doing his interval sprints?

1 sheep2 wrote: »

These people cannot see significance beyond physical injury. It's comical.

So is this a mental health issue now? Seriously, I'm not sure what point you're making? What danger or issue are we talking about now?

ewc78 wrote: »

In fairness I've seen comments on those news items where people automatically blame the driver when no one actually knows the details of the accident. I'm sure even some of the time it's the cyclists own fault? Not that anyone deserves to die of course but there are cyclists who take ridiculous risks on the road, and before anyone mentions it, yes I know motorists take stupid risks also...

The question raised wasn't about the blaming nature of comments. It was about the number of comments. Check it out on thejournal.ie - each report of this week's two or three road deaths, whether motorist or pedestrian will get five-ten 'very sad' and RIP posts. Any report of an incident involving a cyclist, including incidents of cyclist deaths will have 100-300 comments about 'dangerous cyclists'. Why is that?

ewc78 wrote: »

If everyone just agreed that there are some motorists who are arseholes and there are some cyclists who are arseholes then this back and forth debating wouldn't need to happen.

We can certainly all agree that there are arseholes using all forms of transport. Can we also all agree that the damage caused by arsehole motorists is in a totally different ballpark, by a factor of something like x 1000 of that caused by arsehole cyclists?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Again NOT a parked car, how many injuries or deaths do you have for parked cars. I'll give you one that happened to me, I was walking between vehicles in a multistory car park and hit my shin on a towball. I'm sure it probably happens on footpaths with cars parked as well BUT I'm not the one throwing in stats about deaths to try and secure points that are actually irrelevant to the topic of cyclists riding on the footpath and cars parked on the footpath.

I'll give you one so. My blind friend, a white cane user, who lives permanently with bruised and cut shins as a result of walking into cars on the footpath, where the sweeping movement of the white cane doesn't pick the vehicle in time for him to avoid it. So the minor irritation that you got when you walked into the towbar is a constant in his life, thanks to selfish motorists.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Still unlikely to find many cases of people being being killed or injured by cars parked on footpaths, I daresay that the anecdotal evidence suports the theory that cyclists injure more peple on footpaths than parked cars.

I daresay your anecdotal evidence is
1) wrong, and
2) bearing no relation to real (non-anecdotal) evidence.

ewc78 wrote: »

Cyclists can use the footpath all they want for all I care. I run on the cycle lanes the whole time anyway, to give walkers space when they are with their kids or dogs or whatever. Dog walkers very rarely pull the dogs lead in so I just stay in the cycle lane.
And I'm sure seeing as none of the cyclists here see anything wrong with cycling on a footpath, then they should have no issues with me running in the cycle lane?

I've no problem in the current circumstances with joggers using bike lanes, with two provisos;
1) It is necessary to use the bike lane to avoid people walking on the path, so it's not just choosing the bike lane for their convenience.
2) They run in the opposite direction to bike traffic on the bike lane, so they can see bikes coming and take evasive action.

Fair enough?

1 sheep2 wrote: »

This is a really disappointing contribution from a mod. Hostile, badly written...

Whether you admit it or not, motorists rarely impinge on pedestrians within their sphere. It is highly unusual to see a motorist in a pedestrian zone or cutting across someone as they cross on a green light. Parking on footpaths, while annoying in the extreme (and widespread) is a different matter because a motorist will nearly always yield complete right of way to a pedestrian before doing so. So, it is very rare for a pedestrian to be affected by the rule-breaking of motorists anywhere but at crossings - i.e. in the place where the two spheres overlap.

This is the best example of confirmation bias that I've seen in a long time, or else you wear blinkers when you're out and about. I've seen van and truck drivers reversing on pavements towards pedestrians without a care in the world. I've seen drivers beeping pedestrians out of their way on pavements. These polite, deferential motorists are the exception, not the rule in my experience.

1 sheep2 wrote: »

Cyclists have repeatedly asserted that it is a minority of cyclists that break rules, while simultaneously justifying why they themselves do it.

I don't think anyone repeatedly asserted that it is a minority of cyclists that break rules. What particular posts did you have in mind?

Most cyclists break rules, just like most motorists break rules and most pedestrians break rules. But only one of those three groups kills two or three people each week.

1 sheep2 wrote: »

Motorists run red lights (something that frustrates me endlessly) only at the very beginning of their phases. Given the number of cars on the road, it is exceedingly rare to see a car break a light outside of that. Cyclists, on the other hand, frequently cut across pedestrians long after the pedestrian light has gone green.

Again, this is very different to my experience. I see motorists breaking lights at the start and end of phases. I see motorists breaking lights when they get mixed up as to which light they should be looking at. I see motorists breaking lights when sun glare makes it a bit harder to see which light is on.

It happens all the time, as confirmed by the findings of the Luas red light camera.

But why the narrow focus on red light breaking? If you want to compare levels of law breaking, let's bring speed limits into the picture - such as the 98% of drivers that break urban speed limits in the RSA Speed Survey.

Pinch Flat

Ah I love these cycling threads. They go off in a little meander - bit like the spin I did today. Nice and handy. Managed to avoid a footpath though. So no one was put perilously in danger.

mrcheez

Hi jogging in footpaths is very dangerous for pedestrians especially now with this virus pandemic. Every day I witness these events joggers on the footpaths spewing out germs as they run past pedestrians less than two feet from them. If any of these joggers have the virus the pedestrians have no chance they will pick up the disease. Why do the police allow this carry on. They should be protecting the elderly instead of turning a blind eye to this outrageous carryon. What do yo think out there in Ireland the country whose population do not know how to wear a facemask.

07Lapierre

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Ah I love these cycling threads. They go off in a little meander - bit like the spin I did today. Nice and handy. Managed to avoid a footpath though. So no one was put perilously in danger.

Easy enough for me to avoid footpaths...their are none where I live!

ewc78

mrcheez wrote: »

Hi jogging in footpaths is very dangerous for pedestrians especially now with this virus pandemic. Every day I witness these events joggers on the footpaths spewing out germs as they run past pedestrians less than two feet from them. If any of these joggers have the virus the pedestrians have no chance they will pick up the disease. Why do the police allow this carry on. They should be protecting the elderly instead of turning a blind eye to this outrageous carryon. What do yo think out there in Ireland the country whose population do not know how to wear a facemask.

Lolz

magicbastarder

i think they're there for his sake rather than yours.

1 sheep2

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Again, this is very different to my experience. I see motorists breaking lights at the start and end of phases. I see motorists breaking lights when they get mixed up as to which light they should be looking at. I see motorists breaking lights when sun glare makes it a bit harder to see which light is on.

At this point I ignore you and your haughty, irrational posts. But I thought I would just highlight for others your stupidity. Renko wants us to believe that motorists routinely break lights other than in the seconds after they've turned red. What a fool.

magicbastarder

1 sheep2 wrote: »

Renko wants us to believe that motorists routinely break lights other than in the seconds after they've turned red. What a fool.

i know one set of lights where this is (was? - used to see it on my commute) very common.
motorists breaking the lights 20, 30s after they'd gone red. regularly.
i have been beeped at multiple times for not breaking the red, i.e. holding up the motorists who do want to ignore the red.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3632057,-6.2223216,18.75z

note the proximity to clontarf garda station.

SeanW

Zebra3 wrote: »

So what's the acceptable number of people that motorists can kill each year?

Where is the evidence that your "wrap everyone up in cotton wool and no-one will ever die" standard is reasonably attainable? Or, as AJR put it "the option" of not killing 2 or 3 people.

You have provided ZERO evidence that your standard is feasible, and the international context proves beyond doubt that it is not.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You may have missed the bit where I pointed out that international comparisons are entirely irrelevant. So what about Canada's rates, India's rates, or Timbuktu's rates.

You didn't "point out" anything, you simply expressed your own opinion that all the data and evidence is irrelevant to you.

You have chosen to ignore all the data, all the evidence and all international context that disproves your view, but you have given no reason why any reasonably well balanced person should follow. Your argument basically consists of sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating the same empty platitudes.

As to why I mentioned Canada specifically, it's generally accepted by your ilk that Irish motorists are horrible and need to be regulated much more heavily. Yet Canada regulates its motorists much more heavily than Ireland, and yet they suffer significantly more road fatalities than Ireland by every relative measure? Why are the lesser-regulated Irish motorists involved in fewer fatalities? Surely, if you and your ilk are to be believed, Canada should have fewer road deaths per captia/vehicle/km traveled than Ireland.

You have also singled out Irish motorists specifically, but given ZERO reason why Irish motorists specifically deserve the level of opprobrium directed towards them. ZERO. None. Nada. Squat. Zip. People are entitled to ask you why you are singling out Irish motorists in that way.

The issue is the two or three people killed in Ireland each week by motorists.

And yet, Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to be a road user.

No-one suggested a fact ceases to be a fact - but it puts the fact that attempts to trivialise the number of road deaths in Ireland in context.

You've chosen to ignore the context, and the facts, so I really have no idea what you're trying to suggest here.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

Where is the evidence that your "wrap everyone up in cotton wool and no-one will ever die" standard is reasonably attainable? Or, as AJR put it "the option" of not killing 2 or 3 people.

You have provided ZERO evidence that your standard is feasible, and the international context proves beyond doubt that it is not.

You didn't "point out" anything, you simply expressed your own opinion that all the data and evidence is irrelevant to you.

You have chosen to ignore all the data, all the evidence and all international context that disproves your view, but you have given no reason why any reasonably well balanced person should follow. Your argument basically consists of sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating the same empty platitudes.

As to why I mentioned Canada specifically, it's generally accepted by your ilk that Irish motorists are horrible and need to be regulated much more heavily. Yet Canada regulates its motorists much more heavily than Ireland, and yet they suffer significantly more road fatalities than Ireland by every relative measure? Why are the lesser-regulated Irish motorists involved in fewer fatalities? Surely, if you and your ilk are to be believed, Canada should have fewer road deaths per captia/vehicle/km traveled than Ireland.

You have also singled out Irish motorists specifically, but given ZERO reason why Irish motorists specifically deserve the level of opprobrium directed towards them. ZERO. None. Nada. Squat. Zip. People are entitled to ask you why you are singling out Irish motorists in that way.

And yet, Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to be a road user.

I've singled out Irish motorists because I live in Ireland and this is an Irish discussion site, not because they are good or bad relative to their international peers.

Of course it is attainable - we just need drivers to stop speeding, drink/drug driving, using their phones and not wearing seat belts.

Will that get us to zero? Maybe not annually, but it will certainly get us to zero some weeks and maybe even some months.

Just because getting to zero would be very hard doesn't mean that we can throw out hands up in the air and choose to do nothing.

07Lapierre

1 sheep2 wrote: »

At this point I ignore you and your haughty, irrational posts. But I thought I would just highlight for others your stupidity. Renko wants us to believe that motorists routinely break lights other than in the seconds after they've turned red. What a fool.

He's right!

Green light = proceed if safe to do so.
Amber light = stop if safe to do so.
Red light = stop.

amber and red lights are routinely broken.

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've singled out Irish motorists because I live in Ireland and this is an Irish discussion site, not because they are good or bad relative to their international peers.

Of course it is attainable - we just need drivers to stop speeding, drink/drug driving, using their phones and not wearing seat belts.

Will that get us to zero? Maybe not annually, but it will certainly get us to zero some weeks and maybe even some months.

Just because getting to zero would be very hard doesn't mean that we can throw out hands up in the air and choose to do nothing.

Yet you single out Irish motorists specifically. So comparisons, data, evidence are all appropriate in judging your claims.

It's not just "very hard" the evidence shows that it is not feasible. I mentioned Canada specifically because they regulate motorists much more heavily than Ireland yet suffer more fatalities. Yet according to people like you, Canada should have less fatalities, not more.

You also choose to ignore things like vehicular suicide which contributes significantly to road fatalities.

If you choose to ignore all the data, all the evidence and all the international context, that is your right, but everyone else has the right to draw their own conclusions and object to your nonsense.

Hurrache

1 sheep2 wrote: »

At this point I ignore you and your haughty, irrational posts. But I thought I would just highlight for others your stupidity. Renko wants us to believe that motorists routinely break lights other than in the seconds after they've turned red. What a fool.

It's a complete fallacy to claim otherwise.

But at least you are acknowledging that they routinely break lights.

RoversCeltic

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is article 13 from the 1997 law:
"13 Driving on Footway

13. (1) Subject to sub-articles (2) and (3), a vehicle shall not be driven along or across a footway.

(2) Sub-article (1) does not apply to a vehicle being driven for the purpose of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the footway.

(3) A reference in sub-article (1) to driving along or across a footway, includes s reference to driving wholly or partly along or across a footway."
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print#article13

also, the above mentions this lest there be confusion:
"(5) A reference to a vehicle in these Regulations shall, unless otherwise specified, mean a mechanically propelled vehicle (other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair) and a pedal cycle."

if you know of any superseding law, it'd be interesting to see it.

Since 2015 the laws governing cycling have been regulated into specific fixed charge offences. Gardaí have the power to stop and fine a cyclist if they commit a fixed charge offence. Cycling on a footpath is not a fixed charge offence. However other laws do include it as an offence.

Article 11 of the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012 prohibits you from cycling beyond a traffic sign that prohibits bicycles
Article 13 of the 1997 Regulations makes it an offence to cycle on a footpath unless you are entering or exiting a property
Article 45 of the 1997 Regulations (as amended by the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) (Amendment) Regulations 1998), you must not cycle in a pedestrianised street or area during the period indicated by the sign
Although it is not a fixed charge offence to cycle on a footpath a cyclist could be fined for doing so if a Garda deemed their cycling to be without ’reasonable consideration‘.

Is there a legal alcohol limit for cycling?
If a Garda suspects you are cycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs to the point that you do not have proper control of the bike, you can be arrested without a warrant. This is also the case if a Garda has reasonable grounds to suspect you are riding a stolen bike.

Securing your bike
What steps can I take to prevent my bike being stolen?
Gardaí advise people to spend a minimum of 10 per cent of the cost of their bike on two bike locks. They also recommend that you should:

Lock your bike tightly to an immovable object like a bike stand or lamppost
Keep the lock off the ground
Lock your bike in a well-lit public area
Photograph and keep a note of your bike’s serial number
Always report a bike theft to the Gardaí
According to Garda figures, the most common time for a bike to be stolen is during daylight between 8am and 5pm.

Where to apply
Garda Fixed Charge Processing Office
Parnell Street
Thurles
Co. Tipperary
Ireland

Tel: +353 504 59800
Locall: 1890 304 060
Homepage: http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=348&Lang=1
Email: npo@garda.ie
Page edited: 13 November 2019




Related Documents
Drink driving offences
Drink driving is a very serious offence. Find out about the law on drink driving, including random breath testing, powers of the Gardai and procedures if you are arrested.
Lighting of bicycles in Ireland
All bicycles used in Ireland are required to have certain lighting fitted as standard.
Cycling in Ireland
This is an overview document on cycling. It includes information on bike sharing schemes, Greenway trails and taking your bike on public transport.
Contact Us
If you have a question about this topic you can contact the Citizens Information Phone Service on 0761 07 4000 (Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm).

You can also contact your local Citizens Information Centre or Request a call back from an information officer.

Find information on...
Social Welfare
Returning to Ireland
Employment
Travel and Recreation
Family and Relationships
Environment
Justice
Death and Bereavement
Health
Housing
Education and Training
Money and Tax
Consumer Affairs
Moving Country
Government in Ireland
About
About us
Contact us
Accessibility
Privacy and Cookies
Disclaimer
Re-use of Public Sector Information
Reference documents

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

And yet, Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to be a road car user.

FYP
or; please provide figures that ireland is exceptionally safe for cyclists and pedestrians.

magicbastarder

RoversCeltic wrote: »

Since 2015...

not sure what your point is. it seems to confirm my post.