Gardai stopping pedestrians and cyclists breaking red lights today

average_runner

On the corner of Westmoreland st beside the Londis, three gardai were stopping cyclists and pedestrians that broke red lights. It was good to see as it's a real danger zone there. This was at 545pm.

ScouseMouse

Enforcing the law? Bout bleedin' time.

Moflojo

average_runner wrote: »

On the corner of Westmoreland st beside the Londis, three gardai were stopping cyclists and pedestrians that broke red lights. It was good to see as it's a real danger zone there. This was at 545pm.

Whatever about the cyclists, I'd be interested to hear how the conversations with the pedestrians went. What could Gardaí accuse them of doing wrong?

Kaisr Sose

If a pedestrian walks out in front of traffic, a Garda has every right to have a word. That word may just save their life sometime. FWIW, a pedestrian walked out infront of me this morning at the former CB and I had to take evasive action which may have resulted in me getting hit by a following car, if it was close/too close. So if was a Garda, I definitely would have had a word with that person.

In stark contrast to that, and at about 5.50pm, I seen a cyclist break the lights at Doiler St/College, in plain view of a Garda cyclist waiting on red on Fleet St. The lights went green and the Garda passed same cyclist and appeared to me (still waiting at the red) to say something to him, but did absolutely nothing more and went into his station, which is right at the junction. This would appear to indicate there is or was no enforcement campaign today from that Station.

Arcade_Tryer

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

If a pedestrian walks out in front of traffic, a Garda has every right to have a word. That word may just save their life sometime.

Indeed. Though there is a significant difference between walking out in front of traffic, and walking out well before traffic is within collision range. It would be ridiculous for pedestrians to be expected to obey lights at all times when crossing the road.

FWIW, a pedestrian walked out infront of me this morning at the former CB and I had to take evasive action which may have resulted in me getting hit by a following car, if it was close/too close. So if was a Garda, I definitely would have had a word with that person.

If you need to take evasive action on a busy city centre street every time a pedestrian walks out in front of you, then perhaps you're going too fast for the conditions?

magicbastarder

average_runner wrote: »

On the corner of Westmoreland st beside the Londis, three gardai were stopping cyclists and pedestrians that broke red lights. It was good to see as it's a real danger zone there. This was at 545pm.

were they issuing FPNs, do you know?
there has been at least one fatality on that corner that i can remember, but i don't recall RLJing being a factor.

average_runner

magicbastarder wrote: »

were they issuing FPNs, do you know?
there has been at least one fatality on that corner that i can remember, but i don't recall RLJing being a factor.

I think it was just words. But it's very dangerous there now, just be careful around there and all look out for each other.

magicbastarder

it's not a part of town i've ever cycled, nor one i have any desire to. especially over the last year or two with the luas works.

Chuchote

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Indeed. If you need to take evasive action on a busy city centre street every time a pedestrian walks out in front of you, then perhaps you're going too fast for the conditions?

Not at all. I cycle so slowly that hedgehogs and sloths regularly gallop past me. Yet I've had to swerve out on Dame Street as I freewheeled out with fingers on brakes when a) a pedestrian standing dreaming on the pavement suddenly leaped into motion and stepped in front of me at the exact moment I passed, b) two pedestrians strode confidently straight into my path, crossing the road diagonally with their backs to traffic.

Whether you're riding a bike or driving a car, people who walk out without looking at all, and taking a sudden decision to move into the traffic, are a hazard both to you and to themselves.

plodder

I'm fairly sure it's an offense for a pedestrian to cross the road within some distance of a pedestrian crossing, against the signal. But, I've never heard of a pedestrian been charged with it. Though possibly it only applies to zebra crossings...

magicbastarder

a friend of mine once got the phone number of a garda who made her cross back over the road and cross properly at the crossing. he didn't charge her, but she never rang him. would have been a beautiful story otherwise.

rubadub

Moflojo wrote: »

Whatever about the cyclists, I'd be interested to hear how the conversations with the pedestrians went. What could Garda? accuse them of doing wrong?

Breaking the law. Illegal pedestrian crossing is so rife and so tolerated that many are unaware we even have "jaywalking" type laws here -and no, it is not called "jaywalking" in Irish law.

I only have heard of 1 guy I know done for it.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/majority-of-people-want-fines-imposed-for-jaywalking-30361305.html

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print

46 (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.

Chuchote

Origin of the term 'jaywalking'

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/20/the_secret_history_of_jaywalking_the_disturbing_reason_it_was_outlawed_and_why_we_should_lift_the_ban/

One of the earliest references to the practice is in an article in the Chicago Tribune: “chauffeurs assert with some bitterness that their ‘joy riding’ would harm nobody if there were not so much jay walking” (April 7, 1909). The quote reflects a mind-set of entitlement among the motorist class, a readiness to allocate blame to the lowest tier of traveler. In early America “jay” was a pejorative used to denote a rube or rustic, someone unacquainted with the niceties of urban refinement. To be called a jay was to have called into question your very sense of belonging, your right to exist within the city proper.

* * *

Before the proliferation of automobiles streets were shared by all manner of traveler. Crosswalks had not yet been established (the first one wouldn’t appear until 1911) and pedestrians had just as much right to the road as streetcars and carriages. Cars, in their earliest incarnation, were seen as interlopers, an unwelcome addition to the urban milieu. Traffic fatalities were not looked upon kindly by the general public. Angry mobs were wont to drag offending drivers (kicking and screaming, one would presume) from the comfort of their cars. According to the Detroit News, upwards of 60 percent of automobile-related fatalities in the 1920s were children under the age of 9. “One gruesome Detroit article described an Italian family whose 18-month-old son was hit and wedged in the wheel well of a car. As the hysterical father and police pried out the child’s dead body, the mother went into the house and committed suicide.”

By the close of the 1920s, automobiles had claimed the lives of more than 250,000 children and adults in the United States. In New York City, temporary memorials were erected in Central Park to commemorate the dead, as if casualties of combat. Automobile drivers were uniformly painted as villains in newspaper editorials, a menace to civic well-being.

Feckofff

rubadub wrote: »

Breaking the law. Illegal pedestrian crossing is so rife and so tolerated that many are unaware we even have "jaywalking" type laws here -and no, it is not called "jaywalking" in Irish law.

I only have heard of 1 guy I know done for it.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/majority-of-people-want-fines-imposed-for-jaywalking-30361305.html

The reason most folks jaywalk is because the beg button pedestrian lights are designed NOT to interrupt the flow of traffic which makes them pointless.

queldy

Was wondering if they are doing the same with vehicles (considering the potential damage a vehicle/pedestrian/cyclist could do breaking a light I sure would put more attention on the first category); not that I am an anti-vehicles person, but I know at least 20 lights that are repeatedly broken by vehicles every morning during my commute (I think it's like the 100% of those I encounter on my path); is the Garda in need of any advice regarding this?

rubadub

Feckofff wrote: »

The reason most folks jaywalk.

I would say the primary reason is since the law is not enforced

In Germany is a bit unsettling to see what goes on. People all standing waiting on a street with no cars coming at all.

Most cars obey lights here even when nothing else is around. I have been in taxis in very early morning and they broke them. A few weeks ago on my commute I saw a car very slowly and safely turn a corner which was red -the only reason it was red was since a pedestrian had pressed the button and illegally crossed the road, then the light finally went green for the pedestrian when he was long gone -and the subsequent red was holding up traffic.

OleRodrigo

The light sequences are badly designed. As a pedestrian, you never know if they are broken or just wonky, so if someone decides to cross on a red ( because there is a red for traffic ) like lemmings the rest will follow.

I think pedestrians have the worst of road infrastructure in DCC, to be honest. None of it is calibrated for efficiency. You might wait patiently for a red at the first set on your journey, but by the time you reach the third or fourth set, you're like f**k this I'm crossing anyway.

You can throw in narrow footpaths with uneven surfaces filled with streams of last nights booze and slow walking tourists, but that's quibbling. :P

Feckofff

rubadub wrote: »

I would say the primary reason is since the law is not enforced

In Germany is a bit unsettling to see what goes on. People all standing waiting on a street with no cars coming at all.

Most cars obey lights here even when nothing else is around. I have been in taxis in very early morning and they broke them. A few weeks ago on my commute I saw a car very slowly and safely turn a corner which was red -the only reason it was red was since a pedestrian had pressed the button and illegally crossed the road, then the light finally went green for the pedestrian when he was long gone -and the subsequent red was holding up traffic.

In Germany the lights change within 30 secs not 3 minutes later at the end of the traffic sequence.

MarkR

Chuchote wrote: »

Origin of the term 'jaywalking'

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/20/the_secret_history_of_jaywalking_the_disturbing_reason_it_was_outlawed_and_why_we_should_lift_the_ban/

Jesus, that's grim.

average_runner

Feckofff wrote: »

The reason most folks jaywalk is because the beg button pedestrian lights are designed NOT to interrupt the flow of traffic which makes them pointless.

They work on a timer system in the city. A few mins won't kill you

tomasrojo

average_runner wrote: »

They work on a timer system in the city. A few mins won't kill you

A delay of a few minutes at every single junction adds up very quickly into a much longer journey. The crossing times are also too short. Sometimes the green-man part of the cycle is omitted from every second cycle.

When you're treated with contempt by the system, you treat the system with contempt in return.

tomasrojo

rubadub wrote: »

In Germany is a bit unsettling to see what goes on. People all standing waiting on a street with no cars coming at all.

My mother crossed the road Irish-style on her honeymoon in Vienna. Her embarrassment at the resulting opprobrium has lasted decades.

OneOfThem Stumbled

This won't be a popular opinion here, but breaking red lights as a pedestrian or cyclist is sometimes fine. I don't mean blinding running/cycling across a road without looking - I mean where it is patently safe to do so. There is one junction that I habitually break the red light because it makes no sense that there is a red light there for anything but right turns (and I'm making a left turn). Visibility is clear, and there's usually little traffic.

The particular location in the OP is a very different matter though - driving in the city centre is a nightmare (like trying to avoid wild gazelle).

rubadub wrote: »

In Germany is a bit unsettling to see what goes on. People all standing waiting on a street with no cars coming at all.

There is something obvious that could be said here.

What? No... as I said, it's obvious.

rubadub

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

This won't be a popular opinion here, but breaking red lights as a pedestrian or cyclist is sometimes fine.

It's thankfully a popular opinion in most Garda stations, most have sense and know why the laws were put in place and what they really set out to prevent.

Feckofff

average_runner wrote: »

They work on a timer system in the city. A few mins won't kill you

The same is true for cars, Why not only activate the green light after the car has arrived at the junction and had been waiting for at least 90sec.

Oh wait that would be ridiculous!

But apparently fine for pedestrian!

Car is king right. More traffic and faster traffic is what this city needs.

tomasrojo

Feckofff wrote: »

The same is true for cars, Why not only activate the green light after the car has arrived at the junction and had been waiting for at least 90sec.

Oh wait that would be ridiculous!

But apparently fine for pedestrian!

Car is king right. More traffic and faster traffic is what this city needs.

Yeah, the pedestrian asking for permission to cross is a very British attitude that we've taken on. It was highlighted as one of the shortcomings of our urban design by a Danish urban designer a year or two or three ago.

(Anyone remember the guy?)

Pinch Flat

Moflojo wrote: »

Whatever about the cyclists, I'd be interested to hear how the conversations with the pedestrians went. What could Gardaí accuse them of doing wrong?

"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."

2 and 3 above

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print

magicbastarder

Pinch Flat wrote: »

(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.

i know i'm being facetious, but i wonder how a judge would react to someone saying 'but you're honour, the light is not constant, it never stays green for more than 30s'.

tomasrojo

Move 15m up the road and you're golden.

28064212

tomasrojo wrote: »

Move 15m up the road and you're golden.

The 15m rule only applies to zebra crossings. You only have to move past the pedestrian lights and you're not breaking the law

magicbastarder

to be clear, zebra crossings are not what the law refers to. most light-controlled pedestrians crossings are not zebra crossings.

plodder

rubadub wrote: »

In Germany is a bit unsettling to see what goes on. People all standing waiting on a street with no cars coming at all.

Just to relate my experience on that from living there a long time ago and visiting frequently. What you say is true much of the time, a little less so at night time, when there aren't children around. If you crossed on a red light, nobody would say anything to you, unless there were kids (or old people) around. It'd often be the elderly who give out about it.

The result is that kids can be trusted to walk around the place, to school or wherever because they know that most people obey the traffic signals, and they just do what everyone else does. Here you have the strange combination (in Dublin at least) of pedestrian crossings, and lollipop men/women at some crossings making sure kids do the right thing, but everywhere else you have kids crossing willy-nilly, the same as adults. The sight of Irish parents, dragging their kid across the road at a red light, would be quite shocking to Germans. Yet then you get parents here saying the streets aren't safe for them to walk to school. :rolleyes:

Doctor Bob

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, the pedestrian asking for permission to cross is a very British attitude that we've taken on. It was highlighted as one of the shortcomings of our urban design by a Danish urban designer a year or two or three ago.

(Anyone remember the guy?)

Jan Gehl.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-needs-more-benches-less-pandering-to-cars-says-expert-1.1920733

RustyNut

Just out of idol intrest what's the potential penalty for a pedestrian crossing against a red light. Is it a fixed charge penalty notice or an appearance before the Beak?

fxotoole

average_runner wrote: »

On the corner of Westmoreland st beside the Londis, three gardai were stopping cyclists and pedestrians that broke red lights. It was good to see as it's a real danger zone there. This was at 545pm.

They should be stopping drivers that break those lights as well. A few years back I was crossing at those lights. I had a green man so I was 100% entitled to cross there. A car came speeding towards me, and missed me by centimetres. I'd say he was doing about 60kph at the time. Idiot driver not paying attention to the road*

*I say this as a driver myself.

rubadub

28064212 wrote: »

The 15m rule only applies to zebra crossings. You only have to move past the pedestrian lights and you're not breaking the law

magicbastarder wrote: »

to be clear, zebra crossings are not what the law refers to. most light-controlled pedestrians crossings are not zebra crossings.

there is a law for pedestrian lights, linked already, and this is the one for zebra crossing.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1964/si/294/made/en/print

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.

(50ft ~ 15m)

meeeeh

plodder wrote: »

Just to relate my experience on that from living there a long time ago and visiting frequently. What you say is true much of the time, a little less so at night time, when there aren't children around. If you crossed on a red light, nobody would say anything to you, unless there were kids (or old people) around. It'd often be the elderly who give out about it.

The result is that kids can be trusted to walk around the place, to school or wherever because they know that most people obey the traffic signals, and they just do what everyone else does. Here you have the strange combination (in Dublin at least) of pedestrian crossings, and lollipop men/women at some crossings making sure kids do the right thing, but everywhere else you have kids crossing willy-nilly, the same as adults. The sight of Irish parents, dragging their kid across the road at a red light, would be quite shocking to Germans. Yet then you get parents here saying the streets aren't safe for them to walk to school. :rolleyes:

I'm not German but I grew up in a country with similar system. I find it beneficial and I saw my seven years old niece walking home from school. The distance is about two kilometers, there is one zebra crossing that she has to navigate. It's not on the busiest roads but there are plenty of schools in similar areas here and you don't see kids walking, cycling or rollerblading to school.

tomasrojo

To add to what plodder said:

Here you have the strange combination (in Dublin at least) of pedestrian crossings, and lollipop men/women at some crossings

... and the children usually have a guardian with them too! (Not criticising; just highlights how little people trust other road users to let kids cross the road.)

Arcade_Tryer

fxotoole wrote: »

They should be stopping drivers that break those lights as well. A few years back I was crossing at those lights. I had a green man so I was 100% entitled to cross there. A car came speeding towards me, and missed me by centimetres. I'd say he was doing about 60kph at the time. Idiot driver not paying attention to the road*

*I say this as a driver myself.

That's why the standard modus operandi for pedestrians has always been the safe cross code. I never rely solely on the colour of lights as a pedestrian.

Mac-Chops

Glad to hear this. I cycle up and down the quays most days now and have seen many's a near miss.

Last week I witnessed a guard shout after a fellow dublin biker who broke a red and went up the Luas (only) tracks at Four Courts. Que bemused look from foreign cyclist as they sheepishly did a U-turn.

Also the other day, another dublin biker going full speed through a red (a few seconds had past) at the pedestrian lights at Ha'penny Bridge with no helmet or hi-viz and with earphones in, swerving around 2 pedestrians in the process who were crossing the road looking at their phones.

Too many outliers involved these days in city centre, I'm playing it safe and stopping for red lights.

Pawwed Rig

Mac-Chops wrote: »

with no helmet or hi-viz

Not sure why that bit is relevant?

I remember being on a Dublin Bike with a guy shouting at me from a van for not wearing a hi viz. Nice sunny day it was :pac:

I think there is a belief amongst some that helmets and hi viz are mandatory.

Green Peter

Pawwed Rig wrote:

I think there is a belief amongst some that helmets and hi viz are mandatory.

Pawwed Rig wrote:

I remember being on a Dublin Bike with a guy shouting at me from a van for not wearing a hi viz. Nice sunny day it was

Pawwed Rig wrote:

Not sure why that bit is relevant?

If you don't see the value in them now you probably soon will if you are still around afterwards!

Mac-Chops

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Not sure why that bit is relevant?

I remember being on a Dublin Bike with a guy shouting at me from a van for not wearing a hi viz. Nice sunny day it was :pac:

I think there is a belief amongst some that helmets and hi viz are mandatory.

Well if you add it with earphones in, breaking a red and swerving around pedestrians, then there's a few too many boxes left unchecked there for my liking. Pedestrians won't see much crossing the road looking at their phones either mind, hi-viz or not.

Personally, in the city centre at rush hour at least, (enforcement aside) I think both should be mandatory.

I had been using neither and was given a helmet as a gift and got a lightweight jacket myself at the weekend and feel better for it.

tomasrojo

The efficacy of helmets and hiviz is a frequent source of passionate (and tedious) debate.

We have megathreads for both, linked in the Charter sticky at the top of main Cycling page.

magicbastarder

Mac-Chops wrote: »

I think both should be mandatory.

you do realise this would be one of the worst things to happen to cycling in ireland - both re numbers partaking, and safety for those left cycling?

tomasrojo

And bringing them up is about the worst thing that could happen to this thread!

dr.fuzzenstein

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Jan Gehl.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-needs-more-benches-less-pandering-to-cars-says-expert-1.1920733

He's right about the benches.

Tea drinker

Feckofff wrote: »

The same is true for cars, Why not only activate the green light after the car has arrived at the junction and had been waiting for at least 90sec.

Oh wait that would be ridiculous!

But apparently fine for pedestrian!

Car is king right. More traffic and faster traffic is what this city needs.

Dublin has grown tremendously in the past few decades, the public transport is expensive and simply won't do in many cases. People drive from the suburbs or neighbouring counties to their jobs. It is what it is, we are where we are etc.
Cars are a huge fact of life here, and many won't let their kids walk to school as the schools are too far away or because the parents are scared of traffic or paedophiles etc. I don't have an answer to the problems. Better urban planning and public transport can't be substituted with lights and fines etc.
It took many decades to get here, not going to improve overnight.

tomasrojo

Tea drinker wrote: »

Dublin has grown tremendously in the past few decades, the public transport is expensive and simply won't do in many cases. People drive from the suburbs or neighbouring counties to their jobs. It is what it is, we are where we are etc.

Actually, a lot of journeys aren't all that long:
http://irishcycle.com/2016/12/26/4-of-7-excuses-why-ireland-cant-copy-cycling-in-the-netherlands/

~40% or so under 4km. Just over half of journeys are 6km or less.

Just because we have a lot of long-distance commuters doesn't mean short journeys do not make up a large part of total journeys.

Rezident

average_runner wrote: »

On the corner of Westmoreland st beside the Londis, three gardai were stopping cyclists and pedestrians that broke red lights. It was good to see as it's a real danger zone there. This was at 545pm.

They'll have stopped by 7:45 and won't do it again for years. Just unfortunate for the 0.1% that got caught. Normal service has already resumed.

Kaisr Sose

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Indeed. Though there is a significant difference between walking out in front of traffic, and walking out well before traffic is within collision range. It would be ridiculous for pedestrians to be expected to obey lights at all times when crossing the road. If you need to take evasive action on a busy city centre street every time a pedestrian walks out in front of you, then perhaps you're going too fast for the conditions?

I was actually going slow and still had to take evasive action. Having to take evasive action is the point of what I wrote. I did everything right. You have no reason to even speculate as to my speed from what I wrote. It's actually a baseless comment.

As for the former, pedestrians should always make sure it's safe to cross, wherever they are. It's not hard to do and some patience would help in a lot of cases.

This morning a young lady pushing her young child decided not to wait for green and dashed out in front of me, and cars moving off after a green light. The cars beeped her too as they had to stop. Perhaps they were going too fast? Yea, it's everybody's fault except the lady who showed little or no regard for the safety of the child.