Court Summons For Cycling

4li5t4ir

In the middle of October I was cycling down the lower Kimmage road and came to a junction. The lights where red so I stopped, then the pedestrian lights went green so seeing that there where no pedestrians I started crossing the junction only to be stopped by a Garda. I was shocked that my slowly cycling through the junction when the pedestrian lights where green meant a €50 fine. So after the encounter with the garda I cycled on my way, thinking that I would receive a fine in the post. I forgot about the incident until today when a garda called to my door and handed me a summons! Am I missing something? Should have I received a fine in the post before this summons? Anyone else have experience with cycling and the gards?

fred funk }{

I'm glad you were caught. My GF granny was knocked down by a cyclist while crossing the road when the green man was on. She broke her wrist in several places and she still suffers sever pain. Why did you think it was OK to break the red light? are you above the law?

seensensee

fred funk }{ wrote: »

I'm glad you were caught. My GF granny was knocked down by a cyclist while crossing the road when the green man was on. She broke her wrist in several places and she still suffers sever pain. Why did you think it was OK to break the red light? are you above the law?

That's a bit harsh and OTT considering here was NO accident. Schadenfreude much? BTW your granny is waaaaay off topic

kirving

I think he's accepted that he was wrong in fairness, he's just looking for advice.

I think you should have recieved the fine first. A lot of people do use the excuse that they never recieved it, due to them not being sent by resistered post, so I'm not sure how that'd wash in court.

Can you give the Garda who stopped you a ring to try clear it up? It's a very minor offence really.

BostonB

That the risk you take of ignoring the rules like red lights. No matter, if you are cycling or driving, is you meet a Garda who uses his discretion not to give you are warning, but to fine you. Thats the reality of it. You can undo the summons, but you could perhaps find out why it happened and prevent it going that far the next time. Ring up the Garda and find out. Be nice.

The risk of posting about of a forum, is it will never stay on topic. Really what was the point.

4li5t4ir

fred funk }{ wrote: »

I'm glad you were caught. My GF granny was knocked down by a cyclist while crossing the road when the green man was on. She broke her wrist in several places and she still suffers sever pain. Why did you think it was OK to break the red light? are you above the law?

I totally understand where you are coming from, but I think there is a difference between breaking a red light and stopping at the red light then seeing that there are no pedestrians slowly crossing the intersection with the green pedestrian light. Zero tolerance policies are just an excuse for gards not the use their own judgment IMO.

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

BostonB

The problem, is you lose respect from other road users if you keep breaking the lights. To the point where people give cyclists a hard time on the road. If you want other road users to obey the law and give cyclist their due respect on the road you have to earn it. Theres also the risk of an accident, if you get into a habit of doing this too.

But at the end of the day if you break a light, you've got to man up and take the consequences. I doubt theres a cyclist or driver or pedestrian, who hasn't broken some rule or law, intentionally, or unintentionally. Some lights don't change for cyclists. They only change for cars/buses. So you're not going to wait 10 mins for one to come along on a quiet road.

Cookie_Monster

not letting this drag off into whether the OP was wrong or not...

You should have received the fine in the post, but it is not the fault of the Gardai if you did not receive it. I would go down to the local station and ask them to check for a record of it being sent. If it wasn't then you may have a case to argue.

BostonB

As more people cycle, its becomes more obvious how many cyclist break lights and are ninja's at night, with no lights, because you see it far more often than you used to. Its bound to attract more attention from the Garda for that reason alone. They may ignore it a lot, but if they decide to fine you for it, you don't really have much excuse. If it was a car, and you're lights failed. Thats not really an excuse to keep driving it.

mloc123

Somewhat related... Somebody crashed into me a few years back. Thought nothing of it until a Garda arrived at my door 6 months back with a summons. Basically they had some address for me and had sent all letters to that including details that I was meant to produce at my local station. I would imagine this is what has happened with your case, they have sent letters but to an incorrect address.

breezy1985

Captain Morgan wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well i often cycle around limerick at 2am in the freezing cold and come to green pedestrian lights with no people anywhere near me so i slowly procede the difference in a car is your not freezing and also i often have to break a particular red on henry st. because it will not go green til a car comes

scudzilla

I've lost count of the number of times, while waiting at a red light, a cyclist has just pulled up onto the pavement and skipped the light.

Fine was totally deserved, although most seem to think it, Cyclists are not above the laws of the road

Jawgap

Really, you shouldn't have done it, but lots do every day and are much more reckless about it right under the noses of Guards and are never caught etc. I don't think the Guard is obliged to give you a fixed penalty notice. Also, I think South Dublin Division have had a bit of a "jihad" on cylcing over the last few months - providing education and information to cyclists and taking to task those who breach certain laws. Sounds like you've been caught under the latter part of their initiative.

I think all you can do now is put your affairs in order - the pitchfork and torches brigade (aka the "After Hours" mob) will march on your house, drag you outside before hanging, drawing and quartering you. Your body parts will then be impaled at various locations around the city as a warning to the rest of the lawless, hooligan, red light jumping cycling brotherhood you personify:)

If you make it as far as court, my advice is wear a decent suit, plead guilty, apologise for wasting the Guard's and the court's time and if you're asked for an explanation provide one. If the judge sees you're showing a bit of respect and humility they'll probably fine you the 50 notes and leave it at that.

Good luck.

ED E

Jawgap wrote: »

Really, you shouldn't have done it, but lots do every day and are much more reckless about it right under the noses of Guards and are never caught etc

Kildare street.....Each Gard must see at least 20 cyclists break that light every day, never once have I seen them even attempt to intervene.

ebbsy

Silly OP.

He should have brought the country to its knees instead.

No court proceedings for that.

Chips Lovell

Did the copper tell you that you'd be getting a €50 fine in the post? Or did he simply say that it's a €50 fine (i.e. that's usually what is levied at a court hearing) and you misunderstood?

loyatemu

Captain Morgan wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

rules is rules, but a car weighs about a tonne, is about 50 times the size of a bike, has much poorer visibility, braking distance, manouverability and so on. Car ≠ Bike.

The rules of the road do apply to bikes, but prosecuting them in the circumstances described by the OP seems like a massive overreaction and waste of garda time. A bike slowly breaking a red light at an empty pelican crossing is more akin to jaywalking than light-breaking by a car.

Stark

fred funk }{ wrote: »

I'm glad you were caught. My GF granny was knocked down by a cyclist while crossing the road when the green man was on. She broke her wrist in several places and she still suffers sever pain. Why did you think it was OK to break the red light? are you above the law?

He said there were no GF grannies crossing at the time.

El.duderino

fred funk }{ wrote: »

when the green man was on

High 5 to that.

scudzilla

loyatemu wrote: »

rules is rules, but a car weighs about a tonne, is about 50 times the size of a bike, has much poorer visibility, braking distance, manouverability and so on. Car ≠ Bike.

The rules of the road do apply to bikes, but prosecuting them in the circumstances described by the OP seems like a massive overreaction and waste of garda time. A bike slowly breaking a red light at an empty pelican crossing is more akin to jaywalking than light-breaking by a car.

And the persons skull who is knocked over by a bike is the same thickness as the persons skull who's hit by a car.

So prosecuting someone for breaking the rules of the road is a massive overreaction? Where do you stop? If i got caught doin 36 in a 30 and was fined, sure it's close and on the limit but i'd take my fine and not whine like a biatch

TheReverend

scudzilla wrote: »

And the persons skull who is knocked over by a bike is the same thickness as the persons skull who's hit by a car.

So prosecuting someone for breaking the rules of the road is a massive overreaction? Where do you stop? If i got caught doin 36 in a 30 and was fined, sure it's close and on the limit but i'd take my fine and not whine like a biatch

Its quite obvious there was no one crossing as the OP said

BostonB

You'd get done in a car if there was no one around too. Whats the difference.

Raam

BostonB wrote: »

You'd get done in a car if there was no one around too. Whats the difference.

He was on a bike.

rubadub

scudzilla wrote: »

So prosecuting someone for breaking the rules of the road is a massive overreaction? Where do you stop?

Most gardai stop when common sense tells them to. It a great relief that the majority of gardai are not pedantic little hitlers, they have cop on and reaslise the actual type of incident the law sets out to prevent -and do not go about looking to grab people on every little technicality.

If they did not "stop" then the courts would be brimming with jaywalkers.

BostonB wrote: »

You'd get done in a car if there was no one around too. Whats the difference.

It would be more likely to be done in a car doing it, I have been in many taxi's who broke lights on empty roads.

A car is more likely to be done than a cyclist, and a cyclist is far more likely to be done than a pedestrian ("jaywalking"). If people cannot understand why this is the case or why gardai might turn a blind eye then they should really not be let out of the house, might be a danger to themselves with such a severe lack of common sense.

Sacred_git

fred funk }{ wrote: »

I'm glad you were caught. My GF granny was knocked down by a cyclist while crossing the road when the green man was on. She broke her wrist in several places and she still suffers sever pain. Why did you think it was OK to break the red light? are you above the law?

lol fcuking Granny's causing mayhem again, they should all be locked up, menaces to society!

BostonB

rubadub wrote: »

...
If they did not "stop" then the courts would be brimming with jaywalkers....

Unlikely. I don't think there is a charge of "Jaywalking" in Ireland. However you can be done for crossing a road, not at a crossing where you are withing a certain distance of a crossing.

BostonB

rubadub wrote: »

Most gardai stop when common sense tells them to. It a great relief that the majority of gardai are not pedantic little hitlers, they have cop on and reaslise the actual type of incident the law sets out to prevent -and do not go about looking to grab people on every little technicality.....

That would make sense if they only ignored people who weren't driving dangerously. Unfortunately thats not always true. As a result they are seen to be inconsistent, and thus people think its a lottery and don't take it seriously.

BostonB

rubadub wrote: »

....
It would be more likely to be done in a car doing it, I have been in many taxi's who broke lights on empty roads. ...

Its a much smaller % of cars in my experience. Its not something you'd see every day or at every change of lights at a junction. However on my commute its something like 70% of cyclists break the lights and at every change of the lights too.

I'm not making a judgement call on it, glass houses and all that, or if its actually dangerous, most of the time. Or we'd see it in stats. But I can't see how you can deny a vastly higher % of cyclists don't obey lights, than motorists.

abbeyside1

The biggest problem I see with this whole story is why the f..k did you give you actual name to the cop?Like hello,your on a bike its not as if you have a reg number he can trace.If a cop ever stops me on my bike I have a false name and address at the ready!:)

Beasty

abbeyside1 wrote: »

The biggest problem I see with this whole story is why the f..k did you give you actual name to the cop?Like hello,your on a bike its not as if you have a reg number he can trace.If a cop ever stops me on my bike I have a false name and address at the ready!:)

So you are encouraging the posters to break the law - do that again and I will infract you.

For anyone who does think they can be "clever" and try this, bear in mind you could get yourself into very serious trouble

Beasty

loyatemu

BostonB wrote: »

Its a much smaller % of cars in my experience. Its not something you'd see every day or at every change of lights at a junction. However on my commute its something like 70% of cyclists break the lights and at every change of the lights too.

so 70% of cyclists break the lights, most in circumstances more dangerous than those described by the OP, and yet the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by cyclists remains tiny (even among grannies) - I wonder why that is?

I weigh 70kg and my bike is 15kg - I've seen joggers who weigh more than me and my bike combined (and probably move faster :pac:) - it ludicrous to argue that cyclists should be subject to the same sanctions as motorists, or that the Gardai should waste their time with petty infractions like that described by the OP.

desertcircus

On one level, I have little sympathy; you break the rules, sometimes you get busted. On another level, though, I have lost count of the number of times I've had the light turn green for me just as the last car comes barrelling through from the left after his or her light's gone red. Without wanting to exaggerate, I'd guess it happens at about half the traffic lights I stop at on the morning cycle, and I've never once seen anyone stopped for it. Breaking a light in the morning rush hour in a two-ton SUV is orders of magnitude more dangerous than bimbling across a pedestrian crossing when nobody's around.

brayblue24

abbeyside1 wrote: »

The biggest problem I see with this whole story is why the f..k did you give you actual name to the cop?Like hello,your on a bike its not as if you have a reg number he can trace.If a cop ever stops me on my bike I have a false name and address at the ready!:)

If I stop you after committing an offence and you give me a name and address that you can't support with valid ID I'll seize your bike under S108 RTA.

As the mod says don't throw out poor legal "advice". You're doing nobody any favours.

carthoris

loyatemu wrote: »

it ludicrous to argue that cyclists should be subject to the same sanctions as motorists.

I cannot say I agree - as road users we are all bound by the same rules and should all be subject to the same sanctions. On the basis you have given (mainly kinetic energy - speed and weight) a truck driver should be jailed for life for a minor infraction - that is not very workable.

I would agree however that the impact of a person on a bike breaking the law is not very likely to have the same outcome as a person in a cage.

That said, people doing stupid things transcends modes of transport; you get foolish behaviour on foot, on bikes, in cars, buses, lorries etc.

Jawgap

loyatemu wrote: »

so 70% of cyclists break the lights, most in circumstances more dangerous than those described by the OP, and yet the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by cyclists remains tiny (even among grannies) - I wonder why that is?

I weigh 70kg and my bike is 15kg - I've seen joggers who weigh more than me and my bike combined (and probably move faster :pac:) - it ludicrous to argue that cyclists should be subject to the same sanctions as motorists, or that the Gardai should waste their time with petty infractions like that described by the OP.

the physics are relatively easy to understand, but trying to frame, publish and enforce a law based on someone's kinetic or potential energy would be impossible.

If someone doesn't like the road traffic legislation applying to them as cyclists, then perhaps they shouldn't cycle - or at least not complain if they break a rule and get called to account for it. I'm not suggesting the OP was complaining - he was just looking for advice.

TiTo13

loyatemu wrote: »

I weigh 70kg and my bike is 15kg - I've seen joggers who weigh more than me and my bike combined (and probably move faster :pac:) - it ludicrous to argue that cyclists should be subject to the same sanctions as motorists, or that the Gardai should waste their time with petty infractions like that described by the OP.

Laws of physics? Kinetic energy is 1/2(m)(v^2). So say you have a 100kg pedrestian doing 5km/hr, that's 96.5 joules, and a guy on a bike (12kg+65) doing 20km/hr that's 1190 joules. Bit of a difference.

That said you did say that the jogger could be moving faster, but usually that isn't the case. Surely your should be taken into account in these cases then?

I break light all the time. If I was caught I'd be pissed off, but I'd probably pay a fine. It's crazy to get a court summons for this sort of thing, but I'v heard of Judges giving out to Guards in these cases saying they are wasting there time so most likely you will just have to pay the smaller fine.

btw a friend of mine was stopped on Kildare st for breaking the light.

rubadub

BostonB wrote: »

Unlikely. I don't think there is a charge of "Jaywalking" in Ireland. However you can be done for crossing a road, not at a crossing where you are withing a certain distance of a crossing.

AFAIK There is no charge of jaywalking in any country -it is just a slang term which varies in each country. Most people will understand what is meant by it, in many threads people have questioned if there was an actual law here for pedestrians-which speaks volumes about how often it is implemented, I have only heard of a single case.

You say it is "unlikely" when I said courts would be full of people committing the offence if gardai were to enforce it. Do you mean few people do it? Because it is the most common offence I see on the roads.

If gardai did clamp down on it with zero tolerance I would expect fewer would do it, just like cycling offences -but thankfully our gardai have common sense.

BostonB wrote: »

Its a much smaller % of cars in my experience. Its not something you'd see every day or at every change of lights at a junction. However on my commute its something like 70% of cyclists break the lights and at every change of the lights too.

Agreed and it doesn't take a genius to figure out why. On my commute I see maybe 50-60% of bikes break lights, and 80-90% of pedestrians.

BostonB wrote: »

I can't see how you can deny a vastly higher % of cyclists don't obey lights, than motorists.

I never said this, of course more do and it makes perfect sense why this is the case.

I dunno if you picked me up wrong when I said

It would be more likely to be done in a car doing it

By that I was quoting yourself

You'd get done in a car if there was no one around too.

"done" meaning prosecuted.

I think in many of these threads people like to feign ignorance in a twisted attempt to sound smart, trying to compare things like its a courtroom where people cannot deny "2+2=4". But they end up just looking like they need a dose of cop-on, thankfully most cops got their dose.

cantalach

rubadub wrote: »

AFAIK There is no charge of jaywalking in any country -it is just a slang term which varies in each country.

This is not correct. Many jurisdictions have explicit jaywalking laws. Western Australia is one. They tend to only enforce it during the first few days of each school term in an effort to get adults set a good example to kids. $50 on the spot fine.

rubadub

cantalach wrote: »

This is not correct. Many jurisdictions have explicit jaywalking laws. Western Australia is one.

Does their law explicitly use the term "jaywalking" in its title? this is what the other poster was pedantically posting about. As I said many countries have got laws against pedestrians crossing roads, obviously the law changes but many people understand what is meant by the slang term "jaywalk" and use it to describe such laws.

You don't have to look to australia, we have our own laws.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a46

Rules for Pedestrians


46. (1) A pedestrian shall exercise care and take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians.


(2) A pedestrian facing a traffic light lamp which shows a red light shall not proceed beyond that light.


(3) A pedestrian about to cross a roadway at a place where traffic sign number RPC 003 or RPC 004 [pedestrian lights] has been provided shall do so only when a lamp of the facing pedestrian lights is lit and emits a constant green light.


(4) Subject to sub-article (5), save when crossing the roadway, a pedestrian shall use a footway if one is provided, and if one is not provided, shall keep as near as possible to the right edge of the roadway.


(5) At a road junction where traffic is controlled either by traffic lights or by a member of the Garda Síochána, a pedestrian shall cross the roadway only when traffic going in the direction in which the pedestrian intends to cross is permitted (by the lights or the member) to proceed.


(6) Within a pedestrian crossing complex [traffic sign number RPC 002] a pedestrian shall only cross the roadway at the location of traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing].


(7) On a roadway on which a traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing] has been provided, a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing, except by the crossing.


(8) For the purposes of this article, each carriageway of a dual carriageway shall be deemed to be a separate roadway, and where there is a traffic refuge on a roadway the portion of the roadway on each side of the refuge shall be deemed to be a separate roadway.

DaveR1

Go driving around quite streets late at night. You will see many cars (especially taxis) breaking red light at junctions where lights are really only needed during the day and are just pointless at night.
There needs to be some tolerance allowed. I know the other side is what if there is a car coming. then you just treat it like a junction where that car has right of way... Nothing complicated. OP did nothing wrong!! Simples

cantalach

rubadub wrote: »

Does their law explicitly use the term "jaywalking" in its title? this is what the other poster was pedantically posting about.

Sorry, I didn't realise you were referring to the actual term itself rather than the offence. No, the relevant WA regulations (Road Traffic Code 2000, Sections 196-199) don't use the term.

BostonB

loyatemu wrote: »

so 70% of cyclists break the lights, most in circumstances more dangerous than those described by the OP, and yet the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by cyclists remains tiny (even among grannies) - I wonder why that is?...

I made that point in the rest of my comment which you decided to selectively quote.

BostonB

rubadub wrote: »

...
You say it is "unlikely" when I said courts would be full of people committing the offence if gardai were to enforce it. Do you mean few people do it? Because it is the most common offence I see on the roads.

no unlikely to be prosecuted

rubadub wrote: »

...
If gardai did clamp down on it with zero tolerance I would expect fewer would do it, just like cycling offences -but thankfully our gardai have common sense.

They are very strict on it in other countries. Even on an empty road, at off peak times. I don't know if makes a difference in accident stats.

rubadub wrote: »

...
I never said this, of course more do and it makes perfect sense why this is the case.

I dunno if you picked me up wrong when I said
By that I was quoting yourself
"done" meaning prosecuted.

I did. Sorry.

rubadub wrote: »

...
I think in many of these threads people like to feign ignorance in a twisted attempt to sound smart, trying to compare things like its a courtroom where people cannot deny "2+2=4". But they end up just looking like they need a dose of cop-on, thankfully most cops got their dose.

Lost me with that one.

Mr. Presentable

The thread title needs to be changed

Court summons for running red light

OP failed an intelligence test by running the light while a Garda was there.

Other things we learn on the thread include

It is OK to run a red if you are cold

It is OK to run a red if you have fewer than four wheels

It is OK to run a red if your vehicle weighs less than a tonne

It is OK to run a red using your own discretion

All road users are subject to the same rules. They should also be subject to the same consequences for breaking said rules.

The real issue for the OP is: "Why me, why now? Cyclists run reds all the time without penalty, why am I being picked on?

4li5t4ir

I should have realised that the area of interest would not have been my actual question but my actions that my question caused. I believe that people are responsible and rules of the road should be enforced though common sense on part of the Gardaí, penalizing blatantly safe maneuvers just because the "law" says so, corrupts the law more because people will find it unjust. As for the whole issue of traffic lights I would urge people to looks at these two videos, they made me totally rethink my view of traffic controls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBcz-Y8lqOg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi0meiActlU

BostonB

Because they can is the only answer to that.

cantalach

4li5t4ir wrote: »

I would urge people to looks at these two videos, they made me totally rethink my view of traffic controls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBcz-Y8lqOg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi0meiActlU

This video made me completely rethink my mode of transport.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljPFZrRD3J8

loyatemu

Jawgap wrote: »

the physics are relatively easy to understand, but trying to frame, publish and enforce a law based on someone's kinetic or potential energy would be impossible.

well a bike's kinetic energy will always be a fraction of a cars, so thats a start - however I'm not suggesting laws should not apply to cyclists, but that some discretion should be applied when enforcing them. Dangerous cycling should be punished, minor transgressions that are not dangerous should not.

(also I think more effort should be made to ensure car-centric road features such as traffic-lights and roundabouts do not unduly affect cyclists - an example would be providing slip-cyclelanes to allow cyclists turn left on red, or go straight ahead at T-junctions).

BostonB

Discretion applied the same for cars?

Stark

Not uncommon in a lot of countries to allow cars to turn left/right on a red.