Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
FRENCH PRIME MINISTER Manuel Valls has slammed a New York Times article prompted by the debate over the burkini swimsuit, in which French Muslim women complained of discrimination and even “persecution”.
The article, which appeared on Friday, painted an “unacceptable image of France because it is false,” Valls wrote in the French-language online edition of the Huffington Post.
New York Times reporter Lillie Dremaux solicited the views of European Muslim women on the burkini debate, distilling more than 1,000 comments for the article.
One respondent said she was “afraid of having to wear a yellow crescent on my clothes one day, like the Star of David for Jews not so long ago.”
Another said:
French Muslim women would be justified to request asylum in the United States… given how many persecutions we are subjected to.
Valls objected “with the greatest vigour… that the journalist quotes women of the Muslim faith suggesting that their voices are muzzled, to depict France as oppressing them.”
The Socialist prime minister, who came under fire for saying last month that the burkini was “based notably on the enslavement of women,” reiterated his stance in the Huffington Post piece.
Blasting foreign media for accusing secular France of seeking to “undermine Muslims’ freedom to practise their faith,” he said: “It is precisely for freedom that we are fighting.”
Valls saw an “incredible reversal” in comments that he said presented the burkini as “an instrument of women’s liberation”, citing one respondent who said her sister “could finally play with her children on the beach instead of sitting in the shadow.”
Another said “wearing the veil does not mean being enslaved by a man… it means reappropriating the body and femininity.”
These women’s assertions suggest “complete acceptance of male domination”, Valls wrote.
“In France, we consider to the contrary that… women cannot be the subject of the slightest domination. And the idea that women should be removed from the public arena is indeed male domination,” he added.
The prime minister linked the promotion of the burkini to Islamist “proselytising”.
It’s not an anodyne swimming costume. It’s a provocation (of) radical Islamism that is on the rise and wants to impose itself in the public arena.
He said the “great majority of Muslims… do not recognise themselves in this proselytising minority that is exploiting their religion.”
In France, which counts a population of five million Muslims, burkinis are extremely rare and only a minority of Muslim women remain covered on beaches.
Valls said France was “proud that Islam is the country’s second religion. Millions of citizens of the Muslim faith or culture respect their duties perfectly and fully enjoy their duties.”
The burkini debate came as France has been rocked by a string of deadly attacks claimed by Islamic State militants.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
What about cyclists having a Minimal passable set of manners towards all road users!
@Kenny Wolf: I’ve had a few close calls on roads dur to cyclists. Personally I think they shouldn’t be allowed on the roads without insurance and an identity number plate.
@Maggie O’Connor: Idiotic comment
@Kenny Wolf: Laws are meaningless if they’re not enforced. Not a hope of the gardai going out and upholding this.
@Kenny Wolf: or what about when they cycle 2-3 abreast on country lanes without any consideration for other road users!
Oh wait, we’re supposed to drive through the fields!
@Maggie O’Connor: Another stupid comment from someone who probably too lazy to cycle anywhere. I’m very happy with that rule and it won’t effect good drivers who already do it.
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: why is it an idiotic comment?
@Ger Healy: i am incredibly lazy.
@Maggie O’Connor: definitely agree with you
@Me_a_monkey: or how about you have a bit of patience and pass when you are legally and safely able to do so….or would it just be more convenient for you to run them over so you can get where you need faster. They are legally able to cycle two a breast and almost all cycle clubs/groups observe this. Its actually safer for them to cycle two abreast in groups (especially on windy county roads) If they are cycling three abreast get the club name (usually on their jersey) and ring the club and complain
@Me_a_monkey: 2 abreast is legal and is far safer for cyclists as it actually forces vehicles to slow down. Maybe if motorists gave due care to cyclists then they wouldn’t need to cycle 2 abreast. Why do motorists only want responsible behaviour from cyclists while refusing to be responsible themselves? Drivers also now seem to think breaking an orange and a red light is fine. Orange, ladies and gentlemen, means STOP. You can only proceed through an orange light IF it is unsafe to stop.
@Aileen Byrne: Agreed. Unfortunately if you want to cycle safely you have be aggressive. Cycling 3 abreast gives a better road presence and cars have no choice but to slow. Cycling on your own is lethal because some half adleep drivers will pin you to the ditch if they see any gap ahead and can drive by inches away from the cyclist. Most cyclist know that awful feeling that if they had wobbled or tried to avoid a pothole at that time, they were toast.
@Maggie O’Connor: maybe you could be more patient
@Me_a_monkey: Yes, you see gangs of them at the weekend taking up nearly half of the road doing 10km ph. Grrr
@Ger Healy: You and every other cyclist are required by law to follow the rules of the road. That means stopping at Red Lights until the turn Green, having working lights both front and rear, cycling in a manner as not to cause an obstruction to other road users, Not cycling on Pedestrian Paths, obeying One Way systems, not cycling on the Motorway but to name a few that I have witnessed cyclists do on numerous occasions.
@Kenny Wolf: Or Cyclists who clearly ignore the cycle path in favor for the road.
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus:
@Ger Healy
I’m finding both your comments idiotic and a let down of you both.
Fully agree with your comment, Maggie O’Connor – there should be penalties also for those cyclists who don’t use the cycle lanes that are available to them and in then hold up traffic. I’m losing patience with cyclists – seeing more bad cyclists than good.
@Me_a_monkey: two abreast is legal
@Maggie O’Connor: Most club cyclists (those group cyclists you may come across) do have insurance with Cycling Ireland and are also issued with a cycling licence.
@Mick Jordan: and drivers are as bad. Everyone has the right to use the road and no matter what the mode of transport you will see people breaking all the rules you just mentioned
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: my personal opinion differs from yours therefore it’s idiotic?
@ed w: why do you assume im impatient?
@Blants: cyclist visibility make no difference to the ‘ I own the road’ merchants in cars
@Aileen Byrne: it would also be safer for them if they wore night visibility vests and use lights .
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: https://www.joe.ie/news/some-bicycles-in-mayo-will-be-fitted-with-number-plates-this-week-548773
And there is ongoing discusing to add insurance and number plates to cyclists in other parts of he country.
@Kenny Wolf: whatabout whatabout whatabout.
@Trevor Donoghue: are they being put on childrens bikes too? How much to insure a 3 year old on a trike?
@Dermot Lane:
we do! We pay car tax for the priviledge … but somehow the dept of transport insists on indulging the arrogant cyclists ( which i find are the majority) that dont adhere to the rules of the road or any commin sense – don’t get me wrong, i’ve seen very good, considerate and smart cyclists that makes sharing the road easy .. so i know there are a very few out there
@Dermot Lane: rubbish Dermot. How are we supposed to see cyclists with no lights/ reflective gear cycling on dark roads. They, on the other hand, can see motorists with their bright lights and if cyclists could bear to part with their earphones, they could also hear vehicles and stay safe.
@Cian Martin: hopefully this gets the same level of enforcement as cyclists breaking red lights does
@Kenny Wolf: Oh,dry your eyes! You are in a big metal box on wheels,you should have the patience and manners.
@Me_a_monkey: Oh,poor baby! Did The bad yokel make you late?
@Fiona Brown: You have lights on your car, don’t you? If you can’t see a cyclist unless they’re lit up like a Christmas tree, you shouldn’t drive
@Skybloo: You pasy motor tax, not car tax, and the tx you’re paying is because your petrol or diesel gulping car is damaging the environment, the roads are paid out of general taxation
@Mick Jordan:
Well MIck, you are the last person I would take a lesson on anything from. Your Law and Order, Hang ‘Em High mentality is legendary on here but what would you expect from someone spending life in prison.
@Ohhh_reeally: If drivers were as “Bad” as you put it, the number of car crashes and road deaths would exponentially far far higher than what they currently are. The majority of cyclists seem to be under the impression that the Rules of the Road do not apply to them and such are “entitled” to cycle as they see fit, irrespective of whether they are endangering themselves, other road users or pedestrians.
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: no I pay tax on the fuel I use for that … by the way a car is a motor vehicle … just saying
@Ger Healy: So you think you are above the Law and the Rules of the Road do not apply to you as a cyclist?
@Aileen Byrne: I’m all for safety on the roads, after all who isn’t? I also have no issue waiting until it’s safer to pass (within reason). Every driver has responsibilities to all other road users, other drivers, cyclists and themselves. However I disagree with you when you say; almost all cycle clubs/groups observe the two abreast rule, where I live they rarely do, unless they are only two cyclists. It’s far more common to encounter a dozen or so cyclists four abreast, often for 4 or 5 km, it’s hard to stay patient with that. I’ve often pulled down my window and asked them to allow me to pass, but get ignore, when I beep the horn I get the finger, so what are you supposed to do with that attitude?
@Kenny Wolf: Kenny issues of manners on the road is not specific to cyclists. Manners in all parts of life is an issue. I am both a driver and cyclist and roll my eyes at the behaviour of both at times. Its human nature and culture rather than a trait of one type of transport user. I find the anti cyclist thing baffling it’s juvenile beyond belief.
@Mick Jordan: it might be time to check your bias Mick and try to develop your understanding of human nature and your own self a bit further. It makes life easier and you a better more pleasant person for us to share the world with.
@Brian Ó Dálaigh: this from a cyclist?
Red also means stop!!!
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: environments can be changed but they cannot be damaged.
@Blants: what attitude? Trying to stay safe is an attitude? I’ve been almost run over several times by deliberatly aggressive drivers. Look at some of the comments on here and the hatred towards cyclists. There are bad cyclists I’m not denying that, but I’m not one of them. What gives drivers the right to judge me based on the actions of a few cyclists? What gives you the right to judge me for trying to stay safe?. If you don’t think there are drivers our there with the attitude I described then you are a part of the problem. Or wilfully ignorant. I’m a motorist and a driver, not on either side except the side of self preservation when I’m on my bike.
@Nick Drake: Get ypurself an airsoft gun Nick and rattle the legs off them
@Me_a_monkey: cyclists are allowed to cycle 2 abreast.
@Blants: ‘it’s the classic I don’t care about anyone else brigade on both sides. Both groups should obey the rules, cyclists should make themselves more visible and motorists should demonstrate courtesy. But that’s not going to happen – as one person commented recently “there’s a lot of people in Ireland not capable of tying their own shoe laces”.’
Thanks Blants. Discussion over.
@Trevor Donoghue: Can you name the insurance companies lobbying, or calling for a cyclist insurance? Surely if such an insurance were deemed to be profitable the insurance companies would be calling for it?
@Skybloo: Motor tax does not pay for the roads and their upkeep it all comes out of general taxation. Cyclists pay for the roads. Besides most adult cyclist also drive.
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: Any cyclist who doesn’t properly make themselves seen at nigh is a danger to themselves and others. The amount of cyclists who cycle in dark clothes with no lights is becoming ridiculous. Note: I’m a cycist
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: stop speaking sense, this is The Journal comments section
@Me_a_monkey: 2-abreast is perfectly legal and 3-abreast only in an overtaking situation. You are not supposed to drive in the field, just be patient until a safe overtaking opportunity arises. You may find that most cyclists are safe, considerate and frequently also drivers.
@Cindy Crawford: Slight exaggeration there Cindy with the 10kph.
@Mick Jordan: Where did I state that cyclists were above the law? Or is it something you extrapolated from my comments?
No, I do not think that are above the law when they cycle 2 or 3 abreast. Also, there is no rule or law that compels a cyclist to use a cycle lane because most are badly planned, poorly maintained with surface that are uncomfortable to cycle on, so while it does not suit you, it is NOT illegal to cycle 2-3 abreast or cycle on a road where there is a cycle lane.
Also many cyclists have long commutes, some even undertake journeys that are longer than some people commute in a car. Excluding traffic lights and Yield signs, if a cyclist has to stop or dismount when a cycle lane ends and remount when a cycle lane starts again, it would add extra time and physical effort onto the journey. Physical effort is not something a driver has to contend with so give cyclists a break, they are good for the environment and are good for drivers as there are less cars on the road when more people cycle.
@Ger Healy: I would be happy to give them a break if they behaved as they should, but they don’t and cycle in a manner that puts not only themselves in danger of a collision but other road users and pedestrians.
@j4VEpUO8: Under S.I. 332/2012 cyclists do not have to use the cycle lane, just as well as cars seems to think its free parking. This law changed 6yrs ago, where have you been living all this time?
Does this apply to the outside or the inside one where you have a pair of halfwits cycling two abreast on a busy road having a chat?
@Ronan Sexton: half wits? Read the rules of the road dude.
@Ronan Sexton: two abreast is legal and good practice to ensure drivers overtake safely.
@Ronan Sexton: Well said Ronan , especially on back roads. You wouldn’t walk on a road two a breast , youd walk in single file, why can’t cyclists?
@Cian Martin:
Wasn’t hook around the other car good practice once?
@Cian Martin: Source, please.
@Cian Martin: Overtaking is legal too, only when it is safe to do so though. Same applies to cycling two abreast.
I’ve an idea, why don’t all the militant cycling fascists here introduce a cycling tax, ensure its paid and collected and then use that money to develop their own road network rather than holding up the majority of the population who can’t actually afford to spend 30 mins driving behind you on a country road where there’s no over taking point and you’re too ignorant to pull over and let them pass.
Oh, and as a bonus, we wouldn’t be forced to look at you wearing stupid Lycra outfits and ridiculous helmets.
@Cian Martin: Am I the only one who has to follow two abreast cyclists for miles and miles on bendy roads before they pull out the headphones and know I’m there to actually let me overtake? Try NW rural roads for oblivious cyclists. A speciality is them going through villages at full pelt and nearly hitting kids who can’t hear them coming.
@Ronan Sexton: you can cycle 2 abreast it’s the law
@Ray Farrell: See the comments above,and read the rules of the road,you dope.
@Brian Keegan: it actually says in the Rules of the Road that it is SOMETIMES ok to cue two abreast , but not when causing an obstruction. All clubs chose to ignore th at bit!
@Patricia Ellis Dunne: *cycle
@Seamus Mc Meel: Must have hit a nerve did I?
No need to get personal pal, would I be right to assume you’d be one of these MAMIL’s out for a jaunt on a Sunday morning?
@Patricia Ellis Dunne: And the actual legislation does not impose that qualification (ROTR is, after all, simply the RSA interpretation of the legislation, and as such has no more direct legal standing than my interpretation or yours). The clause RE obstruction applies to cycling more than two abreast when overtaking:
Pedal cyclists
47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.
@Cian Martin: ” two abreast is legal ”
being legal does not make it safe. two cyclist abreast are more likely to be engaged in conversation and more reckless than a single file . we need a system of recognising cyclist to report atrocious cycling behaviour . we need to ban head phones etc from cyclists . labe hopping should be outlawed as should travelling without proper high visibility gear and lightsd on a bike . and lycra man should have to obey traffic signals . random breath tests for alcohol on cyclists should also be done . the majority of car drivers are far more respectful of cyclists than the other way round , motorist and cyclists know the driver is screwed even if the cyclist is at fault . particularily where its the motorist word against the poor cyclist.. hope the govt is going to give motorist 50% discount on car taxes as cyclist now own 50% of the roads and pay nothing.
So what happens when we have a cycle lane painted into an already narrow lane of traffic? Take Rathmines for example, there’s no way a bus or car can legally overtake a cyclist and give them one metre without entering the opposite lane. Which means we’ll have traffic jams in rush hour as nobody can overtake cyclists as the opposite lanes are always full of traffic
it’s a nonsense idea.
@David Garland: Ah, so your convenience is more important than a cyclist’s life? Therein lies one of the issues. Drivers think that getting to their destination five minutes quicker is more important than someone’s life.
@David Garland: If the lanes are full of traffic then the cyclist is going faster than you anyway
@David Garland: But if conditions do not allow sufficient room between you and the cyclist you are overtaking then it is not safe to overtake. That is the reason for this law. Saying you’ll be held up doesn’t change that. Close passing by motorists is incredibly dangerous for cyclists. Things like pot holes, manhole covers, drains and debris can mean cyclists have to deviate from their course, which could result in a collision if a car is passing too closely.
@David Garland: So you mean to say that the reason our narrow roads take too long to get down isn’t because of the widest traffic, it’s because of the narrowest traffic.
@Alan: it’s all about creating awareness amongst drivers of the need to respect other road users
@Brian Ó Dálaigh: cyclists are dangerous idiots and should be forced to take courses to learn about safely using roads
@Marc Power: Cyclists never knocked me down. Drivers did. According to recent RSA statistics, over 90% of drivers break the speed limit. Every single traffic light I have been at over the last year at least one driver has broken the lights. Don’t tell me who the idiots are on the roads, because I can tell you that most idiots on them are of the four-wheeled, motorised category.
@David Garland: Moronic comment of the day.
@Brian Ó Dálaigh: to my knowledge Brian the included link gives the last recorded stats over 24 hour monitoring of drivers speeds by the Garda (who the RSA get their stats from), under 400 drivers out of over 88000 speeding. With the Garda’s inability to release true figures for anything in recent times, I’d say under 400 is as dubious as your 90%. Mutual respect on the roads is the only solution to the issue, if we start on the younger generation now we might have a chance of that at this stage. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda-clampdown-finds-few-irish-drivers-break-speed-limits-1.2332846?mode=amp
@David Garland: if the opposite lane is full of traffic, I’d be surprised if your one wasn’t full too. In other words, the circumstances you’re talking about is already that of a traffic jam. You simply have to have patience and wait until there is space on the other side of the road before you perform your overtaking manoeuvre. Of course, if you are actually in a traffic jam, then the average speed of a bicycle will be higher than your car, in which case, a cyclist will be obstructed by you in places where there are no cycle lanes. On the other hand, if the cyclists chose to drive instead, the traffic jam would be a lot lot worse and you wouldn’t have to worry about having patience overtaking, since you’d be sitting in your car going even slower than you are now!
@Brian Ó Dálaigh: Speak about yourself, Brian. Last week I had to jump out of the way of a cyclist as I was crossing Camden str at a green light! The guy looked like he was in Tour de France, and was moving with similar speed. Red light was not going to slow him down for his win!
@Brian Ó Dálaigh: That’s not what he’s saying. No need to be passively aggressive.
@David Garland: David there is nowhere in Dublin City at rush hour that you can get from A to B quicker than a bike. You are only passing to get to the next red light.
@David Garland: Interesting point, but aren’t traffic jams caused by traffic? Trying to blame cyclists who are always moving for tailbacks doesn’t make much sense.
@David Garland: During rush hour in Rathmines cars would be lucky to move at the speed of bikes. So it is a non-issue. As for 1 metre of space, there sure is. I Bike Dublin frequently hold actions there and there certainly is a 1m of space and traffic is not affected by it.
@Brian Ó Dálaigh:
Ah, so your convenience is more important than a cyclist’s life?
who says the cyclist who is not paying for the roads should have the convenience over the motorist . every bike on the road should have a visible licence plate and helmets high vis gear ,lights etc should be compulsory. random breast testing should also apply . I had to report a cyclist on the main road last week who was finding it hard to find his pedals on his bike after leaving a pub. .
What about cyclists not cycling in the middle of the road and giving room so drivers can pass
@Shannon Cassidy: stop talking shite
@Dermot Lane: Hit a nerve did It?
She’s dead right.
@Ray Farrell: if cyclist cycle in the middle of the road it’s usually for their own safety. Hit a nerve? Ha Ha! I’m just delighted this new law is coming in.
@Dermot Lane: Well it that’s what makes you happy well I’m happy for you too.
@Ray Farrell: Well, I’ve been campaigning for it in my own little way for the past year or so. So, happy days!
@Shannon Cassidy: they’re mostly Taking the Lane – Google “taking the lane cycling” to see how to share the road with other users…
@Ray Farrell: Shit talk
@Dermot Lane: is no one entitled to an opinion in your mind
@Shannon Cassidy: cyclists have two road positions.
The secondary , which is hugging the ditch.
Primary which is out 2 ft from the ditch.
Secondary is dangerous as the cyclist may have to swerve Out to avoid a pothole and get clipped by a halfwit like you thats passing too close.
Lesson is slow down and pass when its safe to do so.
@Dave Sherman: if there is an obstruction in your way you should have to wait like everyone else to pull out and avoid (potholes) can’t have your cake and eat it and it works both ways
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@Seamus Mc Meel:
Good lad Seamus, you got the hump because you didnt get the day off work??
@Paul Coughlan: yes they are entitled to an informed opinion, just as I am entitled to disagree with it and argue against it. Problem with that? It’s called debating.
How is that possible in a city environment?!?
Or how is it enforceable!?
@Tony Maguire: stay behind the cyclist if you can’t overtake safely. It’s simple.
@Ted Logan: might be ‘simple’, but it’s not reasonable. One cyclist dawdling along at 10 km/h would force absolutely every vehicle following behind to slow to the same snail’s pace.
@Jumperoo: then use a bike, you’ll get to your destination much quicker.
@Ted Logan: Exactly, and don’t drive right into incoming traffic. Complete morons on the roads.
@Ted Logan: yeah Ted, I suppose anyone who drives because they have mobility issues and can’t cycle, they should give up and stay at home on the dole? Foolish talk, there should be mutual empathy, which is impossible if one side insists they’re always right (ever listened to that clown Eamonn Ryan?)
@Ted Logan: not if you’re the 10 km/h guy who’s holding them all up in the first place. And where’s all the cargo in lorries, trucks, vans, etc., that are stuck behind him supposed to go on a bike?
@Jumperoo: and this situation is extremely dangerous
@Ted Logan: tell me how I can carry laptops, pcs, monitors and tools and still visit 4 or 5 customers sites in one day on a push bike?
@Tyrone Williams: https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.thelocal.de/20170302/german-post-tests-out-new-delivery-system-by-cargo-bike/amp
And it will burn off all those breakfast rolls too!!
I would say they may come across a few challenges with enforcing this and in particular proving the distance was less than that permitted
@Nick Allen: the smoking ban and the plastic bag levy changed public behaviour without any prosecutions this passing law will hopefully do the same
@Nick Allen: not that difficult depending on the type of road
I get that it’s important to protect cyclists but when they are two abreast (which is totally legal) on a narrow country road you can’t pass them let alone leave that much space
@Aidan Smith: That is true. But when they cycle single file, drivers like to try and kill the cyclist by either forcing the cyclist under the wheels of the car or knocking them into a ditch. When drivers learn to give cyclists the space they need, maybe cyclists will realise that it is finally safe to cycle single file.
@Brian Ó Dálaigh: what percentage of cyclists were killed in this way in 2017?
Cyclists are like the cisgendered people of the road. The tiny minority that cries the loudest and all of society just bend over backwards for them.
@Seth Cheffetz: lol not only is that a bigoted comment, you didn’t even get it right. cisgender people are those who identify as the gender of their birth sex.
@Seth Cheffetz: cisgendered people are a massive majority of the population you gombeen. At least if you are gonna throw out insults try and do it right if you can manage it.
@a: hey my bad.. But somehow you still knew what was meant! It’s all about context! Now run along with your hurt feelings to someone that cares.
@Seth Cheffetz: society has been bending over backwards for motorists for decades. Result: toxic air, millions dead, cities and towns ripped assunder, landscapes ruined, toxic dumping of tyres and old cars, a rise in obesity levels, millions of Euro cost to the taxpayer. I could go on but the net impact of cars and motoring on society is a negative one.
@Dermot Lane: you’re right. Society would be much better off if modem transportation had never been invented!
@Seth Cheffetz: the majority of cyclists are motorists also so that’s a fairly dumb comment
@Ohhh_reeally: the majority of motorists are not cyclists though. What’s your point?
@Seth Cheffetz: no, my point is society has bent over backwards for motorists for generations to The exclusion of others transport modes. The car should not the be all and end all of modern transportation. Too much emphasis have been put on the private, one driver per vehicle, motor car. The balance is finally swinging back to a more sensible and sustainable approach, an approach in which cycling is finally being treated as an important element in transportation and town-city planning. Suck it up!
@Seth Cheffetz: actually, if you open your eyes (and mind maybe) you’ll realise that cities that embrace cycling thrive.
@Dermot Lane: I’m all for a robust system of public transportation. It’s by far the most efficient use of space
https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7142/6440857817_a1f5423c45_b.jpg.
The cyclists are inaccurately represented of course as things like following distance and space between cycles is not represented.
Shane Ross doesn’t spend much time driving around Rural Ireland….does he?
Gee Shane….how about passing a law that says that bicyclists have to drop back to single file when there is traffic behind them…..which they never fecking do because they are rude and inconsiderate; and too busy worrying about maintaining their heart rate instead of paying attention to what is going on around them.
@Patty Cullinane: Cyclists travel two abreast on such roads to force proper overtaking by those behind. Travelling single file can be dangerous, as people think they can squeeze passed. It is also perfectly legal to travel two abreast.
@Alan: I know the 2 abreast law…and it is not always the best practice in many situations on our roads. Also, please fill in the cyclists who think biking 3 and 4 abreast is perfectly ok because they need to maintain their heart rates.
But like Shane Ross…you obviously don’t drive much on secondary and tertiary Rural roads either.
@Patty Cullinane: I drive on such roads most days actually. Impossible to avoid them where I am. I cycle on them a lot too, so I know from both sides. Obviously people shouldn’t travel more than 2 abreast. Safe overtaking is important, and giving 1 meter is not much to ask now is it? What’s the alternative?
@Patty Cullinane: Shane Ross is an incompetent clown
@Patty Cullinane: and you don’t spend much time cycling
@Alan: then you know exactly what I am talking about. As a former avid cyclist…it never occurred to me to not drop back to single file to give vehicles as much room as possible to pass me when safe to do so….for their sake as well as my own. As a driver, I keep a safe distance from cyclists and motor cyclists at all times…especially on the crappy rural roads. It is too easy for all types of cyclists to lose control due to the bad road conditions. I have often..and I mean often…driven up to 25 km in distance behind groups of cyclists biking 3 and 4 because I didn’t want to make their lives uncomfortable or risk overtaking them… while they act oblivious to the line of cars behind them. I have also done this for cyclists biking 2 abreast for the same reasons.
This is a nonsense “it looks like I am doing something law” that is typical of Shane Ross. It is uninforceable. A better alternative would be to enforce the speeding and reckless driving laws we already have. Speeding and reckless driving is the problem…for everyone. But the guards hearely enforce that one.
And if anyone doesn’t know to keep a safe distance from cyclists when driving and passing….then they shouldn’t be on the road full stop. These are the drivers who are endangering everyone.
@Ohhh_reeally: see reply to @Alan
Typos…
unenforceable
barely
@Alan:
Also…cyclists need to take the head phones blaring loud music out of their ears. As a car driver and passenger, not only do I see wires hanging from the ears of bikers all of the time…but I know it goes on from my experience with other cyclists when I was a cyclist. This is a mad practice. It is no wonder they have no idea what is going on behind them…they can’t hear a damn thing. This falls into the same category as drivers talking on their phones while driving. Again…it would never have occurred to me to block one of my senses while cycling.
@Patty Cullinane: excellent comment Patty. I totally agree with you here. Too many people come on these forums to be either insulting or display their hurt feelings.
Thank you!
@Patty Cullinane: but drivers do that also, blaring music, that has to be distracting. Some drivers love to accuse cyclists of doing things that drivers commonly do, like breaking red lights. Except these things are way more dangerous when drivers do it due to the nature of the vehicle they are driving. I’m I’m not excusing poor cyclists, they give careful cyclists like me a bad name. And I gave up using earphones on the bike years ago for safety reasons.
@Dermot Lane: I agree. Too many unnnecessary distractions for both car drivers and cyclists.
How is that gonna be enforced when they weave and swerve to dodge a sweet wrapper without any indication signal or warning, b better making them do theory tests before they go thru red lights and turn without any warning
@Philip Mckenna: That’s the whole point! If they do need to avoid something you have already left a gap. Can’t comment on the red light as that is an individuals risk,walking, in a car and on a bike – I have seen them all do it.
@Philip Mckenna: If a cyclist is swerving to avoid some obstacle they have to keep both hands on the bars to steer. How on earth can you expect them to indicate around something unexpected?
@Alan: I think his point is that say if you’re leaving 1.5 metres space as you overtake. Then the cyclist suddenly veers out by say .75 metres to go round an obstacle. Now you’ve only got 0.75 metres space between cyclist and vehicle. By the letter of the law, the motorist is committing a criminal offence. Has that been thought through properly, I wonder?
@Jumperoo: think about it Jumperoo. That cyclist is still alive because you gave them 1.5m space. If you didn’t that space and they swerved they could be dead.
I think you just proved why this legislation is a good idea while trying (unsuccessfully) to say how it’s a bad one.
@Ted Logan: I think you’re not thinking it through here. When the cyclist swerves into the 1.5 metre space that the motorist is properly giving them, the motorist us technically committing an offence if they don’t veer out by the same distance too, to maintain 1.5 metres. I’m not saying this law is a bad idea. I’m just giving an example of how the letter of the law will be difficult in practice in certain circumstances.
@Jumperoo: Do you have the technicalities of what the law will be introduced.
The law will be there to give that bit of room for eventualities like you outlined. I don’t think you’ll see prosecutions were a cyclist had to swerve into the 1.5m gap.
Will cyclists have to stop at red lights and pedestrian crossings too?
@Jimmy Corkhill: few weeks ago I saw 5 cars break the same red light, one after the other. If you think it’s only cyclists breaking them, then I’d say you’ve never driven on the roads.
@Dermot Lane: 5 in a row??? You serious? Did you report it to the Garda?
@Ray Farrell: yes i did and i can send you the gopro footage if you like. Useless to the gardai as it didnt catch the registrations.
@Dermot Lane: oh please do I’d love that. All joking aside though that carry on is lunacy, nothing will change until somebody gets clipped and God forbid killed.
Its nearly worse being a pedestrian at times .
@Dermot Lane: used to drive a motor bike, one morning I was nearly killed at island bridge as a bus broke the red light well after I had a green. Reported it to kilmainham Gardai, only to be told by the Garda “I know, I see them do that every day”
@Dermot Lane: thats desperate, awful pity you cant see the registrstions. Its clowns like that that have our insurance premiums up so high.
@Tyrone Williams: is it any wonder though that people take these chances when the people who are supposed to enforce it don’t give a toss.
If your going to use the road you should know the rules of the road. Cyclists should therefore prove their aptitude to use it.
The onus for safety is always on the motorist.
The artice implies that all of the accidents were down to the motorist. I find that very hard to believe.
@blue exile: the vast majority or cyclist are motorists also.
@blue exile: What about pedestrians? They use the road too!
@blue exile: motorists are supposed to pass a test to drive. It doesn’t do much for standards even when they pass the test. And there are thousands of L drivers driving unaccompanied who never took any test. More of them than cyclists is say, the difference is they are illegally driving a potentially lethal weapon, cyclists aren’t.
@Conor O’Farrell: if pedestrians cross the the road where they should then whats the problem ? They are not road users
@Ted Logan: im a cyclist too. But cyclists that take no responsibility for their own safety really get my goat.
@blue exile: totally agree. And the should be subjected to the full rigours of the law. I have no issue at all with dining and charging cyclist who don’t follow the rules of the road.
Good luck with that one on the narrow West Cork Roads…
Do cyclists also have to observe the minimum passing distance when overtaking or undertaking a line of cars? What happens when a cyclist is undertaking a line of traffic that begins to move? It’ll be mayhem but who cares, Shane Ross gets some airtime.
@Rory Mc Closkey: I agree. If motorists have to leave 1 metre space on the outside on city roads, for example, shouldn’t cyclists be prohibited from going through gaps less than 1 metre on the inside? After all, less than 1 metre is unsafe, isn’t it? Or else we wouldn’t need this law?
@Jumperoo: If a car is moving slower than a bike it is legal to filter and pass. Please keep this in mind if you decide to say that to someone on the road.
@johngough: but surely this would not be safe if there was less than a metre?
Difficult to enforce this law I would think.
@Let free speech live: maybe, but I think it’s more about raising public awareness. Which can only be a good thing.
This is great news. Hopefully more people will feel safer cycle and ditch their cars for short journeys. Better for people’s health and the environment
Why won’t they start from cyclists first? As using the road when cycling lane is provided separately 2 metres off the driveway isn’t a sign of brain existence in a cyclist’s head. Look at Tallagh dual carriageway. 80 km/h speed limit, cycle lane in place and the road itself is full of potential organ donors on two wheels. Especially at the summer time.
And dozens of examples from all over the place: Stillorgan road, Drummartin link, Kingswood interchange etc etc etc…
@Goshworks Welding: if the local councils actually looked after the cycle lanes you could use them the amount of debris and crap on them makes them lethal on a bike you’d be ok in a car on them though
I can understand the reason behind the minimum distance as it applies to cars/vans etc. Will the same rule apply to cyclists. Will cyclists be required to observe the same clearances when passing motorised vehicles. If not, why not.
@Jimmy McCarthy: Because they (cyclists) can’t kill you in your car.
Cue cyclists and drivers arguing… what would be great is if drivers understood that it’s extremely dangerous to have cars, vans and lorries clipping your elbow at speed because of a lack of protection for cyclists. If you’re going to argue against measures like this, jump on a bike sometime and see how you like it. Conversely it would also be great if cyclists admitted there are issues with cyclists breaking lights, cycling on footpaths etc etc. Basically both drivers and cyclists need to develop more awareness and stop convincing themselves that both drivers and cyclists both act wrecklessly. Difference is, cyclists are more vulnerable.
* … that neither cyclists or drivers don’t act wrecklessly….
@Himalaya Joe: You won’t get far around here with common sense Joe.
Ok fair enough, drivers need to give cyclists room. Now Shane Ross needs to make cyclists to stop at red lights. How many times have you had a green light at a junction and see a bike break a red light and go across in front of you?
@Míleata Watch Co: @Míleata Watch Co: I was at the pedestrian crossing on Dame Street a couple of weeks back and while the lights were still red, 3 cars drove through. I took a picture as one of them was a company van. I contacted the company and they literally laughed down the phone. But yeah, let’s just say it’s only cyclists who ignore red lights!
@Míleata Watch Co: around the same number of times as I’ve seen cars do it. Except a car most probably will kill you, a cyclist most probably won’t.
Lefties and cyclists…same crowd if you ask me. And im not changing my mind.
Will cyclists be ‘observe’ cycle lanes, wear helmets and proper lighting – this is becoming a bit 3 wheeled – if they insist on using roads when a path is available then road tax them….by the way the same sould apply to motorists (mainly yummy mummies) parking in cycle lanes
Equity must prevail!
@Brendan Glynn: Cycle lanes aren’t mandatory, by law.
There’s no such thing as Road Tax.
@Brendan Glynn: You at least got the parking in cycle lanes bit right.
I’m all for lowering cycling deaths – I see driver behaviour on the commute every day that scares the bejeeus out of me. Fact remains that there is a lot of dangerous behaviour by cyclists too, and Shane Ross needs to focus on BOTH groups, not just go after the easy target with identifiable regs. In the context of clearance, why don’t faster cyclists check the lane behind them before swinging into the road to pass a slower cyclist? They’ve no right of way to do this as far as I know, and they would often break into the clearance space I’m leaving to do this. Is this going to be deemed my fault because they can’t overtake safely?
I welcome the move, anything to improve road safety or all.
Any mention of making it obligatory for all cyclists to wear high vis vests and have proper lighting? That would also be a step in the right direction .
@Ray Farrell: hi viz doesnt work as a safety measure. It’s already obligatory to have lights.
Proper lighting is just common sense too. Recent studies have found that hi-vis has the exact opposite intended affect http://road.cc/content/news/232944-study-finds-wearing-hi-vis-can-increase-chance-collision-while-cycling
@Dermot Lane: was coming home from work a few weeks back, pitch dark and I passed cyclist who had all the proper cycling gear , serious enough looking cyclist . All in black with a tiny little red light on the back and a poor light on front.
As I said I’m all for safety but you have to be fair to motorists and other road users , you wouldn’t have seen that guy until you were up on top of him. Where I live is rural and there’s not too many cyclists commuting they’d mainly be clubs out at the weekends or people out on training cycles.
But more often than not they are dressed in dark clothing and poorly lit up.
Common sense has to prevail for both cyclists and motorists.
Room for everybody on the roads.
@Ray Farrell: listen I’m all for lights, but I don’t buy into this hi viz myth that’s constantly rattled out as some sort of solution when it’s been shown not to work.
@Blants: To be fair there is a lot of research on this. RSA are not equipped to do the type of research that has been done and have taken a model of safety from totally unrelated fields. If the hi viz logic was to be true then everyone should always wear hi viz everywhere.
This is just one study > Research from the Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and Nottingham University has found “increased odds of a collision crash” among cyclists who wear reflective clothing.
Hi viz has a place in some areas of society but won’t improve our roads in the long run and create a false sense of safety and remove an element of responsibility from the operators of vehicles.
Lights are mandatory. I would be for some sort of minimum luminosity though. Some lights are just abysmal.
How will psycho drivers cope. It’s to dangerous to cycle with extremely difficult roads to negotiate and incompetent drivers, it’s a death trap. If the Gardai charged a few drivers with manslaughter after the death of cyclists maybe driving like an ah wouldn’t be tolerated.
About time and I say this as a motorist!
Alot of idiot drivers that would rather clip a cyclist handlebars then slow down abit and pass safely, I see it all the time.
@Barry Somers:
You see motorists clipping cyclists handlebars all the time. mmmmm…..
@Barry Somers: Wow! How many times did you see a motorist clip handlebars? How often was the cyclist thrown off their bike? Were
there many seriously injured cyclists? Did you get the reg number of any of the cars involved? Did you report any of the drivers to the Gardai? Do you often exaggerate things? Could you be exaggerating in this instance?
@Alphonsa: 15 cyclists killed by motorists last year, a 50% increase in the previous year.
I do give cyclists a wide birth and have waited at a safe distance behind them if it’s difficult to pass. I see cyclists every day using a busy and dangerous Road when there’s a very safe cycle lane beside it. Cyclists should be forced on to the lane. We all have to do our bit for the safety for all road users.
@Alan Scott: cycle down the quays and see how you get on with our fit for purpose cycle lanes. Pot holes, flooding only two of the reasons why some cannot be used all the time
Unenforceable,bullshit from control freaks who are trying to hide their political incompetence.Who will carry the measuring tapes?
@Gus Dennis: you do know how many cyclist we killed last year in this country don’t you. If it makes motorists think when the are passing cyclist and give a bit more space one life saved will be worth it.
@thewolf: go pro camera evidence has been accepted in other jurisdictions,
@thewolf: But why not just be 1 meter from him? Why take the risk of living with the guilt of killing someone?
It is taking a bit of time for motorists to expose it as flawed in other regions…
They cant even enforce the existing traffic laws, the amount of drivers I see on mobiles, getting into the car and driving off while trying to put on the seat belt, stopped in box junctions and a lot more motoring offences that’s common to see while on the road every day. This hasn’t a hope.
@brendan H: Have a look at cyclists. A lot have cameras. Also a lot of cars with dash cams. Lots of CCTV too. Plus other methods used in other countries.
BUT its not always about enforcement, its also about awareness. And just look at the views at this article.
Will it be illegal for a cyclist to undertake cars at less than this distance? If not, why not?
@Eric De Red: simple physics, dear boy
@Dermot Lane: simple rules dermot goose/gander or does that not fit your naritive
How about enforcement of the laws surrounding cyclists on pathways, absolutely disgraceful their is no enforcement and far more likely to cause serious injury.
What happens if the cyclist swerves towards you while you are passing them with a garda car behind you? I can see many many court cases!
Cycling here in Donegal is lethal even on open roads with no on coming traffic I’ve had cars pass with only inches of a space this will never be unforced. Even had rubbish thrown out of a car into my face recently and getting the finger is also a regular occurrence. Cyclists here are seen as vermin especially by boy racers no way will this law be respected.
Non enforceable
Non policeable
Non prosecutable
Meanwhile both cyclists and drivers have to navigate through the endless rubbish and flytipping accross the Republic.
Enforce the laws we have don’t make up new populist ones that will add to the Laws not enforced
Totally ridiculous. Ignoring the flagrant violation of most rules of the road by most cyclists to appease a Nazi like minority who refuse to understand that most drivers dislike cyclists. Have them learn to share the road instead of forcing the majority of road users yup accommodate them
@Marc Power:
Careful now, you’ll upset the peddlers
About time. Fragile mode of transport and the consequences are pretty shit in an accident. It’s a step forward.
Wow… what a crap and badly thought out law
It would be far more beneficial if the authorities enforced the current laws regarding lighting on bikes and made cycle helmets mandatory. You cant have a minimum passing distance when motorists cant see the cyclists in the first place!!
@Peter White: how would helmets help visibility?
@samdithers: given that hi viz doesn’t help driver visibility
Seeing a lot of stupid, poorly thought out comments on here.
Simple fact, if it is impractical to pass at a minimum distance in “most” situations then it is impractical to pass in the first place.
A simple solution is to fit a retractable high-vis 1 metre spacing rod at the front and back of each bike that wishes to use the public roads. This will force drivers and cyclists to give space to each other and for cyclist to give pedestrians a chance to walk on the footpath. Of course the preferred route for Shane Ross, instead of actually providing proper cyclist facilities requiring proper investment “this will save lives” is to search for crazy unenforceable laws that wont address anything but moves the problem and the solution away from him. If only there was someone responsible for actual Transport policies. Oh wait!!
@Kev O’Boyle: and yet several other jurisdictions can enforce this, including police forces in the UK
Is there anything else they can catch us for, farting while driving comes to mind, keeping an eye on cyclists is important for sure as is keeping an eye on all road users, motorcyclists, cars and heavy goods vehicles, we got a glimpse of the sinister side of the Governments agenda today when Leo commented about the elderly and heating in this cold spell…
Dublin cyclists…no helmets, no hi vis, no lights, zig zagging between cars, speed through pedestrian crossings, listening to music on headphones, texting on phone oblivious to their surroundings, paying no attention..last sunday all but for good grace and my own good sense and road awareness I would have had collided with 3 of these morons not from any fault on my part but for the arrogant, selfish manner in which they think they own the road…Proficiency test, registration, insurance, and road worthiness of cyyle..if you want to “share” the road then share the “responsibilities ” of being a road user
@Michael Mcshane: load of shite
@Michael Mcshane: lol, exactly your kind that cyclists need protection from. Get out of your car, on your bike and see it from the other side
Was driving in Dublin recently on quite a narrow road. A cyclist was progressing right up the middle of the road. I eventually managed to pass. He moved out to block me. At the junction he attempted to smash the window on the driver side with his fist. I reported the incident to the gardai. They stated that road rage was not an offence. He hasn’t managed to break the window. They would not be able to find him. They would not ask the nearby bank for a copy of their cctv. Seems one rule for motorists and another for cyclists.
Ridiculous suggestion from Ross the Buffoon. Has he ever driven on Clonliffe road at peak times. ? There are lots of rules for motorists. Time to crack down on show off looney cyclists.
While the majority of overtakes ive experienced by drivers have been safe there is the percentage of idiots that will come within millimetres of your handlebars. And we can’t prove a thing. The impatience of some road users is insane.
Cyclists will eventually need to have compulsory cameras to prove an injustice. When the reality is that there needs to be more CCTV in Dublin and other cities and Motorists need to have dashcams by law. I as a cyclist would agree to either insurance or a number plate system. But only if dashcams are mandatory and more infrastructure is put in place for cyclists. The overtake rule is necessary but more so on rural/secondary roads. I understand the cramped nature of city commuting.
Hope this applies to dublin bus drivers too
Who is going to monitor this. Another piece of legislation with little or no back up
And when will cyclists learn to cycle in single file and obey traffic laws
@OCallaghan TP: cycling in single file is not a traffic law, maybe you should brush up yourself
@Dermot Lane: maybe you should read the text correctly.
Straight to the comments section on this one!
Good to see i’m not disappointed by all the idiotic half witted clowns on here who have a problem with keeping road users safe!
Bit of respect for each other on all sides would be great. There’s about six degrees of separation between us all in Ireland. We are far too accepting the crap behaviour on our roads. This is good legislation and soon some of the motorists on here giving out will hopefully be on bikes. It won’t be overally enforced but it will create much needed awareness.
Its badly needed. Anything that gets more bikes on the road is positive for us. Cities are at a standstill and our health service in the toilet due to type 2 diabetes and various ailments caused by sedentary lifestyles. Pollution from cars is gonna f*** up our lungs, 25% of our kids are obese and we have someone die on the roads nearly every day.
Cyclists do break the rules. So do motorists. Both do it too much.
Road usage should be part of the school curriculum – 20 years ago I don’t remember any of it – doubt its much better now. Infrastructure needs to be created, and ultimately more people need to get active. We have the opportunity to make our cities and towns move for very little investment by encouraging cycling more. The data is there to show what happens when cycling and motoring are both catered for correctly. Zero vision in Sweden and now NY. The Dutch and Danish approaches only started in the 70′s and are more than doable here.
I’m delighted that this law has been/will be brought in. I have gone to the guards a few times about close passes from drivers, one of them was an actual assault. After that I got a camera for the bike, it catches everything, the guards do a great job and can see clearly the close pass and the registration, it’s up to me then to decide whether or not I want to press charges, or just issue a caution. I have, so far, not pressed charges, as long as the driver agrees to drive with more care for cyclists.
With the camera and the new law, the guards will be able to press charges themselves, whether I want to or not, as they are actually breaking a law, like running a red light. At the least, it will make people more aware of how vulnerable cyclists are, and just because they may be holding you up until your next red light, it does not entitle you to run them over, or overtake dangerously.
As for cyclists overtaking cars-I have yet to see a cyclist hitting a car so badly that they cause the driver to die-but if a car hits a cyclist, the consequences are never good.
Just use your common sense, and think before you pass a cyclist, also think before posting an idiotic comment like -cyclists break red lights-so do motorists!!! There were over 280,000 speeding tickets last year, there are 3-600 people caught for drink/drug driving every week on the road-but yet, the attitude seems to be that cyclists cause accidents????
Jesus wept
Get these ass holes off the road. Pay no tax but we pass laws for them. If they want to get fit go and have a sprint, lazy, fat, want to be sports people with flash hear.
@Gearoid De Burca: Yes, as a cyclist I live completely tax free.
@Gearoid De Burca: Hello Gearoid, I imagine lazy fat people drive cars rather than cycle? Thats probably the reason why people dont like cyclists that much and love murdering them by not abiding by this law?
@Cian O Broin: Too lazy to run – cycle, lazy man’s exercise. No room on Irish roads for ye. Nobody wants ye. Murder is a very strong word for intentionally killing a cyclist in ireland.
@John Boy: Good. I will be very careful about my distance from you and your flash gear.
@Gearoid De Burca: ” Murder is a very strong word for intentionally killing a cyclist in ireland.”
Sounds like murder to me.
@John Boy: Wel agree to differ.
@Gearoid De Burca: they’re just selfish and self absorbed… nothing less
@Marc Power: Exactly. Terrible people
@Gearoid De Burca: reported you comment as hate speech to the gardai.
@Dermot Lane: hahaha haha haha hahaha
@Dermot Lane: just off the phone from garda. I think I will have to go on the run, find a safe house so to speak
@Dermot Lane: Gardai are prioritising hutch kinahin feed and I think my comment is second on list
Is this measured from the inner most cyclist?
Will motorists be allowed cross a continuous white line to the opposite side of the road in order to pass cyclists 2 abreast. What happens on a country road where there is a continuous white line for 2 miles ?
@Joe Joyce: yes, you can cross a continuous white line to overtake cyclists (when safe to do so). This the crux of the issue…. most people assume they should be able to overtake a cyclist without crossing the center line. This is false.
If you come across a cyclist(s).. once it’s safe, move over the center line and overtake, while giving at least 1.5m clearance. It’s easy.
wheres the report?
Some I have encountered give me the impression they own the road, they won’t go closer to the side so I can find it easier plus making it safer for me to overtake. Most that I do encounter thankfully use hand signals at least!
this is realy the top app of the day http://www.freegiftcards.top
I don’t think that would be possible around Cork City !!!!
Widen the f in roads first
To the people who think this is a stupid law, all I can say is say the same thing after someone you love is killed by a car whilst out cycling! Then make your decision…
Mr Shane Ross.
The road I travel on, which by the way has no road markings, is roughly 2 metres wide. Full of cyclists in summer. Figure that one out.
Also it goes on like that for the 30 miles I have to drive to work every day. Road rage doesn’t even begin to describe the way we feel in these rural shitty roads us IRISH people have to travel.
Move out of the Pale once in a while.
have your say