Irish law on "jay-walking"

Iwannahurl

In yet another AA poll, Conor Faughnan claims that “Ireland actually has a ‘jay-walking’ law, even if hardly anyone knows it is there and enforcement is unheard of."

According to Faughnan, "if you are within 50 metres of a pedestrian crossing then you must use that crossing to cross the road."

What is the statute he is referring to?

corktina

Why would anyone listen to what a guy from a car recovery service has to say? AA,,,you don't represent me, stop pretending you do.

(Even if there is such a law, it isn't enforceable without a tape measure.)

whomitconcerns

definitely a law on it. And I have seen it enforced in the city centre by some guards at the end of grafton street a few times. Pedantic but law...

Section 38 of the Road traffic act 1964

Use of zebra crossings
38.—(1) On a roadway on which a zebra crossing has been provided a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 50 feet of the crossing except by the crossing.

Iwannahurl

corktina wrote: »

Why would anyone listen to what a guy from a car recovery service has to say? AA,,,you don't represent me, stop pretending you do.

(Even if there is such a law, it isn't enforceable without a tape measure.)

I know what you mean: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/plan-for-dublin-cycle-lane-is-just-another-swipe-at-motorists-30363303.html

There's more to it than mere distance, however.

I am aware of several locations where a local authority has deliberately sited a "pedestrian crossing" away from where pedestrians need and want to cross.

Additionally, I wonder what the definition of "pedestrian crossing" is in the relevant legislation?

whomitconcerns

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I know what you mean: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/plan-for-dublin-cycle-lane-is-just-another-swipe-at-motorists-30363303.html

There's more to it than mere distance, however.

I am aware of several locations where a local authority has deliberately sited a "pedestrian crossing" away from where pedestrians need and want to cross.

Additionally, I wonder what the definition of "pedestrian crossing" is in the relevant legislation?

Interesting, what I found specifically mentions a "zebra crossing" rather than "pedestrian crossing"...but I wonder if there has been any repeal or advancement on same in later acts?

L1011

corktina wrote: »

Why would anyone listen to what a guy from a car recovery service has to say? AA,,,you don't represent me, stop pretending you do.

(Even if there is such a law, it isn't enforceable without a tape measure.)

Because in this case, he's correct.

Renegade Mechanic

One thing I will say is that here in Ireland we are not complete morons in this regard so the need to use only designated crossings is much reduced compared to other countries. Mainly because, for drivers, if you hit someone on the road, anywhere, its your fault. And for people, the risks and consequences of being hit by a vehicle are too much. All in all, everyone looks out. Perhaps in very high density areas like Dublin City centre more strict use of crossings is advisable but anywhere else I dont see a need for it to ever change.

TimeToShine

Pelican or Zebra crossing I take it.

Iwannahurl

whomitconcerns wrote: »

definitely a law on it. And I have seen it enforced in the city centre by some guards at the end of grafton street a few times. Pedantic but law...

Thanks for that lead.

It was updated in 1997 I believe.

(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.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html

RPC 001 indicates a Zebra Crossing. Again, I would expect such a crossing to be placed where pedestrians want to cross, not where a Local Authority official wants to make them cross.

Aard

An online poll conducted by AA Motor Insurance. So no vested interest there at all. I imagine that the vast majority of people polled were motorists looking to buy the cheapest insurance, so hardly a representative sample of Irish people.

Also is it 50 feet, or 50 metres as Faughnan suggests? Quite a difference there.

Dermighty

The difference between 50 feet and 50 metres is huge!

Iwannahurl

And just to add to the confusion (in certain quarters) yer wan on RTE Radio's It Says in the Papers a couple of mornings ago referred to "fifty yards".

15 metres it is.

keith16

Whatever the distance is, it doesn't stop people walking blindly, at a leisurely pace across roads like the N11.

Some bint was strolling across close to a junction, I thought she would see me but no, she continued walking. I slowed to a stop and gave a little beep and she started going beserk like some sort of self-entitled cow.

All it would take is someone turning left from the slip onto the N11 or lose concentration for a second and POW! CAR, RIGHT IN THE FACE.

corktina

MYOB wrote: »

Because in this case, he's correct.

Indeed he isn't 50 metres and 50 feet are a lot different

LXFlyer

Whatever the distance, that's a point of detail, and is ignoring the principal point. The fact remains that there is a law on jay-walking that is ignored left, right and centre in much the same way as many drivers and cyclists also ignore road traffic laws.

Again, it boils down to a lack of enforcement.

Other countries manage to enforce their road traffic legislation, why can't we?

keith16

lxflyer wrote: »

Whatever the distance, that's a point of detail, and is ignoring the principal point. The fact remains that there is a law on jay-walking that is ignored left, right and centre in much the same way as many drivers and cyclists also ignore road traffic laws.

Again, it boils down to a lack of enforcement.

Other countries manage to enforce their road traffic legislation, why can't we?

Because, essentially, our attitude to *everything* in this country is "ah shure it's grand"

hmmm

Most of us may not be morons, but I'm amazed every day by the number of people who decide to walk across Westmoreland street at rush hour in the evenings. The place is full of buses and taxis and bicycles all going at different speeds, there's about 5(?) lanes of traffic, and you have eejits casually strolling out and weaving in between the buses.

corktina

Presumably only enforceable within 15 metres of a zebra crossing. Would that be within the zigzags then?

Aard

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Again, I would expect such a crossing to be placed where pedestrians want to cross, not where a Local Authority official wants to make them cross.

You'd expect that, as would most people. But LA's often omit pedestrian crossings where there is otherwise a strong desire line. There are numerous examples along the quays. Suppose you want to get from the west side of Parliament Street to the west side of Capel Street, you actually have to use the east side of Grattan Bridge. Many other examples where all four sides of a crossroads cannot legally be crossed. Church Street at the Luas is another example: the pavement dips down, but there is no legal crossing on the south side of the junction, instead you must use the north side, but then you encounter the situation where the north side of the Luas tracks are blocked off to pedestrians.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

Because in this case, he's correct.

If he said 50m, as he is quoted as saying, he is not correct.

It's just 15m.

Grolschevik

monument wrote: »

If he said 50m, as he is quoted as saying, he is not correct.

It's just 15m.

Though if he said 50 feet, that's just about 15m. And of course, 15 and 50 are often misheard...

NuMarvel

Grolschevik wrote: »

Though if he said 50 feet, that's just about 15m. And of course, 15 and 50 are often misheard...

The 50 metres quote is from the AA's press release itself, so in this case it wasn't a case of being misheard.

Grolschevik

NuMarvel wrote: »

The 50 metres quote is from the AA's press release itself, so in this case it wasn't a case of being misheard.

Fair enough, so, but I still reckon the 15m = 50ft thing is close enough to give him the benefit of the doubt with regard to a likely slip of the tongue/mind. Still, it illustrates the continued need for proofreaders...

Gambas

lxflyer wrote: »

Whatever the distance, that's a point of detail, and is ignoring the principal point. The fact remains that there is a law on jay-walking that is ignored left, right and centre in much the same way as many drivers and cyclists also ignore road traffic laws.

Again, it boils down to a lack of enforcement.

Other countries manage to enforce their road traffic legislation, why can't we?

Because we don't really want to.

endacl

Any chance of a 'law on Conor Faughnan'?

porsche959

corktina wrote: »

Why would anyone listen to what a guy from a car recovery service has to say? AA,,,you don't represent me, stop pretending you do.

Because he's one of the few in the public eye that defends rights of motorists?

endacl

porsche959 wrote: »

Because he's one of the few in the public eye that defends rights of motorists?

But the rights of motorists are the same as those of anybody using the public road. There are no 'rights of motorists'. There are privileges extended to us by virtue of the payment of motor tax and the holding of a valid license. No particular extra 'rights' though.

Aard

Grolschevik wrote: »

Fair enough, so, but I still reckon the 15m = 50ft thing is close enough to give him the benefit of the doubt with regard to a likely slip of the tongue/mind. Still, it illustrates the continued need for proofreaders...

When his whole argument rests on the legal distance within which a pedestrian must use a zebra crossing, you'd think that he might try to avoid a "slip of the tongue" on the most pertinent point.

alias no.9

Aard wrote: »

You'd expect that, as would most people. But LA's often omit pedestrian crossings where there is otherwise a strong desire line. There are numerous examples along the quays. Suppose you want to get from the west side of Parliament Street to the west side of Capel Street, you actually have to use the east side of Grattan Bridge. Many other examples where all four sides of a crossroads cannot legally be crossed. Church Street at the Luas is another example: the pavement dips down, but there is no legal crossing on the south side of the junction, instead you must use the north side, but then you encounter the situation where the north side of the Luas tracks are blocked off to pedestrians.

There might be a strong desire line but there are only two light sequences at the junction of Parliament Street / south quays / Grattan Bridge and there are always active pedestrian crossing(s).

• the crossings on the bridge and on Parliament street are active whenever the traffic travelling along the quays has a green light
• the crossing on the east side of the lights is active whenever traffic coming off the bridge has a green light

A crossing on the fourth side could not operate as frequently as the other ones because this is an active exit from the junction for all traffic routes where as the others can be active at the same time as traffic routes.

It’s actually a good example of balancing the needs of all modes, yes the shortest route by distance for some people might be a crossing on the west side of the junction but when you factor in the impossibility of matching the frequency of activation of the other three sides, the shortest distance to cross is not necessarily the shortest time to cross. On the other side of the argument there is no left turn from the quays onto Parliament Street discommoding motorists but enabling the simultaneous movement of traffic and pedestrians.

wrt40

keith16 wrote: »

Whatever the distance is, it doesn't stop people walking blindly, at a leisurely pace across roads like the N11.

Some bint was strolling across close to a junction, I thought she would see me but no, she continued walking. I slowed to a stop and gave a little beep and she started going beserk like some sort of self-entitled cow.

All it would take is someone turning left from the slip onto the N11 or lose concentration for a second and POW! CAR, RIGHT IN THE FACE.

I feel so much safer knowing the rules of the road are being enforced by citizens such as yourself. You should get some sort of honorary badge for your services. Next time I get honked I'll be sure to thank the driver for correcting the error of my ways.

Keep up the good work, solider.

corktina

That old "cars have the right of way" thing. The N11 lady was there before you, you needed to give way to her.

Banjoxed

MYOB wrote: »

Because in this case, he's correct.

He is. I've always found Conor Faughnan to be balanced in his advocacy for improved public transport in parallel with road improvements. The AA has a credible advocate in him.

corktina

Banjoxed wrote: »

He is. I've always found Conor Faughnan to be balanced in his advocacy for improved public transport in parallel with road improvements. The AA has a credible advocate in him.

no he isn't . it's not 50 metres, he is giving out incorrect info.

The AA are merely a recovery service the same as all the others (or an Insurance Broker)

Iwannahurl

lxflyer wrote: »

Whatever the distance, that's a point of detail, and is ignoring the principal point. The fact remains that there is a law on jay-walking that is ignored left, right and centre in much the same way as many drivers and cyclists also ignore road traffic laws.

Again, it boils down to a lack of enforcement.

Other countries manage to enforce their road traffic legislation, why can't we?

There is no law on "jay-walking" specifically, although there is a general obligation on pedestrians as well as other road users to behave with due care and attention.

With regard to zebra crossings, the specific regulation is that pedestrians shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing, except by the crossing. In the Irish context, where many Irish roads engineers seem to be allergic to zebra crossings and other pedestrian-priority facilities, that rather minimises the opportunities for pedestrians to do dastardly deeds such as crossing the road by the most direct and convenient route.

Unfortunately Ireland is a country where proper enforcement and engineering are not highly valued. Some other countries manage to enforce their road traffic legislation, and they also manage to have a legislative framework that systematically protects vulnerable road users as well as promoting active travel modes. In the Netherlands, for example, motorists are automatically at fault if they hit a cyclist (or a pedestrian, presumably), and I bet they enforce that law too.

hmmm wrote: »

Most of us may not be morons, but I'm amazed every day by the number of people who decide to walk across Westmoreland street at rush hour in the evenings. The place is full of buses and taxis and bicycles all going at different speeds, there's about 5(?) lanes of traffic, and you have eejits casually strolling out and weaving in between the buses.

There are also large numbers of people walking there. Where's the pedestrian crossing to help them go about their business safely and conveniently?

Grolschevik wrote: »

Though if he said 50 feet, that's just about 15m. And of course, 15 and 50 are often misheard...

Either way (50 feet or 50 metres) he's a plonker. Ireland has been officially metric since the early 1970s, and if the relevant legislation referred to metres as long ago as 1997 it's about time Faughnan and the AA caught up and copped on.

endacl wrote: »

Any chance of a 'law on Conor Faughnan'?

porsche959 wrote: »

he's one of the few in the public eye that defends rights of motorists

Perhaps the Competition Authority could intervene? It's farcical imo, and also revealing, that Conor Faughnan and the rest of the AA crew are given so much airtime. Vested interests pure and simple.

.

keith16

wrt40 wrote: »

I feel so much safer knowing the rules of the road are being enforced by citizens such as yourself. You should get some sort of honorary badge for your services. Next time I get honked I'll be sure to thank the driver for correcting the error of my ways.

Keep up the good work, solider.

Nothing to do with me enforcing the rules of the road at all, not sure how you got that from my post. Are you telling me you've never beeped at anyone in your way or delaying you?

But yeah, your attitude is fairly typical of the sort of self entitled "I'll do whatever I want on the road and anyone calling me out on my bullsh1t behaviour is nothing more than some sort of moral crusader with nothing better to do".

keith16

corktina wrote: »

That old "cars have the right of way" thing. The N11 lady was there before you, you needed to give way to her.

I did give way to her. Doesn't change the fact what she was doing was dangerous.

All well and good saying someone had the right of way and they were right but are now brown bread.

Banjoxed

corktina wrote: »

no he isn't . it's not 50 metres, he is giving out incorrect info.

The AA are merely a recovery service the same as all the others (or an Insurance Broker)

Oh Yes He Is :P

corktina

keith16 wrote: »

I did give way to her. Doesn't change the fact what she was doing was dangerous.

All well and good saying someone had the right of way and they were right but are now brown bread.

you also blew the horn at her.

hmmm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There are also large numbers of people walking there. Where's the pedestrian crossing to help them go about their business safely and conveniently?
.

There's one right behind the camera, and one just up the road at the BOI.

I'm no angel, but there's an awful lot of jaywalkers who have no concept of how dangerous what they're doing is - bus and car drivers are not perfect human beings.

But I agree with your point in general. Our towns are built with traffic flow in mind, and not pedestrian convenience. Narrow footpaths, slow to change pedestrian lights and when they do change they don't stay green for long, and motorists who think they have the right of way.

NSAman

Bring in Fines like in LA 130 on the spot fine for Jay Walking... the amount of times I have seen people running across O'Connell Street Bridge to get to Westmoreland street when the lights for the cars have turned green is unreal.... both sides of the bridge. and then on the south quays people just crossing between cars is ridiculous.

It always amazes me that more people are not knocked down.

Iwannahurl

hmmm wrote: »

There's one right behind the camera, and one just up the road at the BOI.

I'm no angel, but there's an awful lot of jaywalkers who have no concept of how dangerous what they're doing is - bus and car drivers are not perfect human beings.

What's a "jaywalker" in situations where pedestrian crossings are not provided in order to help pedestrians cross safely and conveniently?

Presumably the pedestrian signals "right behind the camera" are here, and the "one just up the road at the BOI" is here.

If so, the distance between the two pedestrian crossings is 180 metres according to Google Maps. Meanwhile there is no place to cross at the junction of Westmoreland Street and Fleet Street. This means that any pedestrian wishing to cross Westmoreland Street to access Fleet Street without being labelled a "jaywalker" has to take a detour of around the same distance, because engineers have seen fit not to facilitate them.

And the purpose of inconveniencing congestion-busting pedestrians in this manner is what exactly?

markpb

NSAman wrote: »

Bring in Fines like in LA 130 on the spot fine for Jay Walking... the amount of times I have seen people running across O'Connell Street Bridge to get to Westmoreland street when the lights for the cars have turned green is unreal.... both sides of the bridge. and then on the south quays people just crossing between cars is ridiculous.

It always amazes me that more people are not knocked down.

Los Angeles is not the city anyone wants to copy when you're talking about pedestrians. Even the people who live there will tell you that. And if you want to copy them, will we also get the metro line, five tram lines, one fully segregated BRT line, overnight bus operations, buses that operate to a timetable and general professional approach to running public transport that they have. Strict enforcement of parking laws would also be nice - they do that too. No more dodging cars that are parked across the footpath would be great.

corktina

Pedestrians should have right of way over cars anyway.

wrt40

keith16 wrote: »

Are you telling me you've never beeped at anyone in your way or delaying you?

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. I have never beeped a pedestrian, ever.

keith16

wrt40 wrote: »

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. I have never beeped a pedestrian, ever.

Well good for you I guess, I will beep people where I believe they are putting themselves in danger. Crossing slowly & blindly a busy dual carriage way where cars frequently go above the 80 limit is dangerous, it was dangerous for me to even stop.

Another situation where I beeped a pedestrian goes like this:

I'm second in the queue at pedestrian lights (ones that flash orange and you can go once all pedestrians have cleared).

In front of me there was an L driver. They were slow off the mark, but I was giving them plenty of time and space.

So the lights go flashing orange, (no-one had even crossed) and I noticed a girl running toward the crossing (I had a slightly better view as she came from my left side and was angling her run to get in front of the L driver).

The L driver wouldn't have seen her, and a motorbike going the other way opened the throttle once he saw the crossing was clear too.

So I sat on the horn, and the girl got a fright just as she reached the road and jumped back in. She was putting herself in serious danger IMO.

Was I wrong to beep her? Should I never beep pedestrians again? If you can tell me why, then great, I'll put my hands up and say, I am wrong.

corktina

I bet the L driver thought you were beeping him/her

keith16

corktina wrote: »

I bet the L driver thought you were beeping him/her

Yeah, that crossed my mind, but I was following them for ages. What's your point?

Muahahaha

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

One thing I will say is that here in Ireland we are not complete morons in this regard so the need to use only designated crossings is much reduced compared to other countries. Mainly because, for drivers, if you hit someone on the road, anywhere, its your fault. And for people, the risks and consequences of being hit by a vehicle are too much. All in all, everyone looks out. Perhaps in very high density areas like Dublin City centre more strict use of crossings is advisable but anywhere else I dont see a need for it to ever change.

This. Because drivers know they will be in a lot of trouble if they hit a pedestrian it serves to make the roads overall safer. I'd hate to see us go down the route of the US or Australia where this is not necessarily the case.
As a driver I'm always very cautious of the potential for pedestrians to step out, the very threat of it makes me a safer driver. As a pedestrian crossing the road wherever I feel it's safe to do so is nothing more than exercising my own personal responsibility for my actions.

anncoates

corktina wrote: »

Why would anyone listen to what a guy from a car recovery service has to say? AA,,,you don't represent me, stop pretending you do.

(Even if there is such a law, it isn't enforceable without a tape measure.)

Because in Ireland, we take it up the ass 24/7 when it comes to important matters but any attempt to enforce even trivial instances of personal / civic responsibility is an infringement of our ''rights' and must be fought to the death.

SeanW

Muahahaha wrote: »

This. Because drivers know they will be in a lot of trouble if they hit a pedestrian it serves to make the roads overall safer. I'd hate to see us go down the route of the US or Australia where this is not necessarily the case.
As a driver I'm always very cautious of the potential for pedestrians to step out, the very threat of it makes me a safer driver. As a pedestrian crossing the road wherever I feel it's safe to do so is nothing more than exercising my own personal responsibility for my actions.

Which is fine until you as a motor user are involved in a motorist/non-motorist accident that you didn't cause, and couldn't have prevented, but are still bankrupted / effectively driven off the road with loaded insurance.

Like this motorcyclist: http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2007/1107/world/young-skateboarder-awarded-240000-in-claim-against-motorcyclist-47204.html

Justice?

L1011

SeanW wrote: »

Which is fine until you as a motor user are involved in a motorist/non-motorist accident that you didn't cause, and couldn't have prevented, but are still bankrupted / effectively driven off the road with loaded insurance.

Like this motorcyclist: http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2007/1107/world/young-skateboarder-awarded-240000-in-claim-against-motorcyclist-47204.html

Justice?

That was from the peak of the insanity in awards and happened before PIAB was introduced (though the case was well after, I'm fairly sure the PIAB Act wasn't retrospective). Wouldn't get offered that much if a cent now. Realistically the insurers are at fault for offering it.