Fines/Cyclist/Rule of the roads

TallGlass

So this one I had been thinking about after watching a video on YouTube, a cyclist turned left down a 'bus only' street in London. But imagine this was Dublin or had it been a red light.

What if the cyclist had argued with the Garda or Judge, that they did not know the rules of the road/formal training requirement to know them. So how did they know the sign/light applied to them.

Stupid I know, common sense and cyclists should know the rules of the road before getting on a bike, but there is not formal requirement, I mean the cyclist must know the rules of the road I assume but they could argue that have no training so don't know what a red light means or a particular sign for example.

jimmycrackcorm

Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. Otherwise I could argue lots of things such as being an accidental landlord and turfing out tenants on a whim.

The Sidewards Man

The cyclists is always right op.

Peregrinus

TallGlass wrote: »

So this one I had been thinking about after watching a video on YouTube, a cyclist turned left down a 'bus only' street in London. But imagine this was Dublin or had it been a red light.

What if the cyclist had argued with the Garda or Judge, that they did not know the rules of the road/formal training requirement to know them. So how did they know the sign/light applied to them.

Stupid I know, common sense and cyclists should know the rules of the road before getting on a bike, but there is not formal requirement, I mean the cyclist must know the rules of the road I assume but they could argue that have no training so don't know what a red light means or a particular sign for example.

They could certainly argue it, but it would make no difference to the outcome. There's no rule that says laws only apply to you if you know about them, or undestand them.

"I didn't know!" might be an explanation of why the cyclist broke the law, but it won't alter the fact that he did break the law.

TallGlass

Peregrinus wrote: »

They could certainly argue it, but it would make no difference to the outcome. There's no rule that says laws only apply to you if you know about them, or undestand them.

"I didn't know!" might be an explanation of why the cyclist broke the law, but it won't alter the fact that he did break the law.

I was thinking along them lines also. So basically its up to you to know the laws. As in you don't walk into a shop take a TV walk out and then when your arrested basically say I didn't know the law or that I couldn't take the TV/item from the shop.

ezra_pound

TallGlass wrote: »

So this one I had been thinking about after watching a video on YouTube, a cyclist turned left down a 'bus only' street in London. But imagine this was Dublin or had it been a red light.

What if the cyclist had argued with the Garda or Judge, that they did not know the rules of the road/formal training requirement to know them. So how did they know the sign/light applied to them.

Stupid I know, common sense and cyclists should know the rules of the road before getting on a bike, but there is not formal requirement, I mean the cyclist must know the rules of the road I assume but they could argue that have no training so don't know what a red light means or a particular sign for example.

There are hundreds of thousands of drivers who have never done a theory test. There are also thousands of drivers who got licences before the test came in in 1964 who have never done a driving test.

Furthermore there are hundreds more drivers who have done both tests but are pretty ignorant of the rules of the road.

It's not a cyclist only issue.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

I thought cyclists could use bus lanes? Or was he going the wrong way down a one-way street? ...

brian_t

ezra_pound wrote: »

It's not a cyclist only issue.

Anybody that steps outside their front door needs to know what a red light means.

ezra_pound

brian_t wrote: »

Anybody that steps outside their front door needs to know what a red light means.

Unless you live in Leitrim!

seamus

While, "Ignorance is no excuse". To a certain extent one could mount a defence on the basis of having made a reasonable mistake. That is, if something was legal in one place, but illegal five km down the road (such as drinking in public), then you could reasonably argue that your intent was not malicious and you weren't deliberately ignorant of the law.

But even then the severity of the penalty is relevant. If it's a €10,000 fine, then arguing that it was an innocent mistake may save you. But if the penalty is just a warning, then you'll be given a warning, even if it was an innocent mistake.

The bike example is actually good because the assumption would be that cyclists are in general entitled to use bus lanes (as they are here in Ireland). Thus the cyclist arguing that they weren't aware this specific lane was "busses only" (especially if the signage was hidden or unclear) won't save them from getting a caution, but it might save them from receiving a fine.

Though in road traffic offences the worst thing you can do is say that you "didn't notice" a sign or a light. That can get you done for driving without due care and attention. Better to admit you knew you were breaking the law and you'll just get a fine.

Marcusm

seamus wrote: »

While, "Ignorance is no excuse". To a certain extent one could mount a defence on the basis of having made a reasonable mistake. That is, if something was legal in one place, but illegal five km down the road (such as drinking in public), then you could reasonably argue that your intent was not malicious and you weren't deliberately ignorant of the law.

But even then the severity of the penalty is relevant. If it's a €10,000 fine, then arguing that it was an innocent mistake may save you. But if the penalty is just a warning, then you'll be given a warning, even if it was an innocent mistake.

The bike example is actually good because the assumption would be that cyclists are in general entitled to use bus lanes (as they are here in Ireland). Thus the cyclist arguing that they weren't aware this specific lane was "busses only" (especially if the signage was hidden or unclear) won't save them from getting a caution, but it might save them from receiving a fine.

Though in road traffic offences the worst thing you can do is say that you "didn't notice" a sign or a light. That can get you done for driving without due care and attention. Better to admit you knew you were breaking the law and you'll just get a fine.

Doesn't that depend on whether it is a strict (or possibly, absolute) liability offence as opposed to one requiring mens rea.

Peregrinus

Marcusm wrote: »

Doesn't that depend on whether it is a strict (or possibly, absolute) liability offence as opposed to one requiring mens rea.

Traffic offences are typically absolute offences - your state of mind is irrelevant. There are a couple of exceptions - careless driving requires a careless state of mind, for example - but, mostly, state of mind is irrelevant.

But that's a different issue. State of mind is not the same thing as knowledge of the law. If you have the required state of mind for any offence - intent, carelessness, whatever - they you can be convicted, if if you were unaware the the conduct involved was an offence. To be convicted of murder, you don't have to intend to commit the crime of murder. You just have to intend to kill or cause serious injury.

Shep_Dog

Peregrinus wrote: »

Traffic offences are typically absolute offences - your state of mind is irrelevant. There are a couple of exceptions - careless driving requires a careless state of mind, for example - but, mostly, state of mind is irrelevant.

There are two subjects: guilt and sentencing. Guilt could be open/shut as in a simple/absolute traffic offense, but the judge could be sympathetic depending on the circumstances and how good your lawyer is.

Peregrinus

Yes. An "I had no idea this wasn't allowed" mitigation may lead to more lenient sentencing. (Assuming, of course, that it's plausible that you genuinely didn't know that it wasn't allowed. It won't help you if you ran a red light.)