Has ignoring red lights gotten a lot worse?

magicbastarder

As I've repeatedly said, the car should be seized/surrendered for a number of days equal to the number of penalty points the offence incurs. That'd sort the issues out pronto.

trellheim

Seizing a car or revoking a full license driver to provisional for the offence of failing to stop at a red light are unrealistic, ill-thought out and disproportionate to the offence committed.

I'm ignoring the rest. It is not disproportionate in the slightest. Let me break this down in small words : you stop at yellow and red lights. Because those red lights make it safe for others to do their thing, your not stopping has likely endangered them. You deserve this kind of harsh lesson because all those driving lessons and test you took ? It clearly missed the basic stuff and therefore you need to have some re-education.

AGS are currently seizing vehicles for unaccompanied learner drivers , its not a big step down to seize for running a red.

blackwhite

trellheim wrote: »

I'm ignoring the rest. It is not disproportionate in the slightest. Let me break this down in small words : you stop at yellow and red lights. Because those red lights make it safe for others to do their thing, your not stopping has likely endangered them. You deserve this kind of harsh lesson because all those driving lessons and test you took ? It clearly missed the basic stuff and therefore you need to have some re-education.

AGS are currently seizing vehicles for unaccompanied learner drivers , its not a big step down to seize for running a red.

They seize for unaccompanied learner drivers because allowing them to drive off unaccompanied would be implicitly allowing them to continue breaking the law.

Currently, the only offenses where Gardai are allowed to seize a vehicle is where there is something would make it illegal for the vehicle to be driven away by the driver (I.e. unroadworthy, no tax, no insurance, etc.)

If your logic of seizing a car for running a red was applied, then the same penalty would need to apply to nearly any road offense under the proportionality principle.

AndrewJRenko

magicbastarder wrote: »

As I've repeatedly said, the car should be seized/surrendered for a number of days equal to the number of penalty points the offence incurs. That'd sort the issues out pronto.

We’re gonna need a bigger pound.

magicbastarder

yep, initially. i suspect the space required after a few weeks of Me Being In Charge will have shrunk.

McCrack

trellheim wrote: »

I'm ignoring the rest. It is not disproportionate in the slightest. Let me break this down in small words : you stop at yellow and red lights. Because those red lights make it safe for others to do their thing, your not stopping has likely endangered them. You deserve this kind of harsh lesson because all those driving lessons and test you took ? It clearly missed the basic stuff and therefore you need to have some re-education.

AGS are currently seizing vehicles for unaccompanied learner drivers , its not a big step down to seize for running a red.

In your head it's not disproportionate however logic and reality are quite different

Even Shane ross has never advocated taking people's cars from them if they fail to stop at a red light.. And that's saying something

Wishful thinking all the same

trellheim

McCrack wrote: »

In your head it's not disproportionate however logic and reality are quite different

Even Shane ross has never advocated taking people's cars from them if they fail to stop at a red light.. And that's saying something

Wishful thinking all the same

Like I said AGS are seizing for less. Reality is people are running red lights.

CramCycle

Why is it disproportionate? Don't get me wrong, it will never happen, best we can hope for are increased penalty points and large fines. Which if enforced, would probably solve alot of road use issues.

Ignoring the stupidity of my example, just bear with me. Imagine no one is allowed fire cannons in public. Unless, they have undergone training, gotten a license from the state, contributed (albeit only slightly) to the cost of the damage done to public spaces when they do use the canon etc. Only thing is they have a very specific set of rules they must adhere too. They have insurance to cover mistakes because lets face it, if you mess up with a canon, you probably cannot cover the cost but lets leave that aside for a minute.

Imagine there are spaces you an fire canons, its public, but they have a set of signals so people in the area know when you will or won't fire, and therefore when it is or is not safe to move in that area.

Imagine now, the signals are set that they have a three stage signal. Green for when you are clear to fire, amber means you cannot fire but if you have already lit the fuse, there is enough time for the canon to fire before others are told it is OK to move in the area. And ten there is Red, which means in no circumstances are you allowed fire. Ther eis a risk to life if you do. Even if there is no one else around, stlll a no no, because no one is perfect or you never know where someone might appear from, and lets face it, if you let it slip at all, it will generally keep slipping in regards when the general population think it is OK to fire.

Are you saying that if someone fired on red, they should not have their canon siezed or their license to fire revoked, or what would be appropriate?

magicbastarder

yep, if you prove yourself incapable of following *the most basic* rule of driving, should we not question your very fitness to drive?
to draw an analogy with soccer, this is not the offside rule, this is not understanding the 'put the ball into that white rectangular thing with the net' level of getting the point wrong.

Breezer

Slightly off topic, but just had an interesting one. I'm on foot crossing a side road on Dublin, at an unsignalised T junction. A guy in a car comes along as I'm half way across the road and turns across my path. He's going slowly enough and is obviously going to yield to me, but he gets close enough before he stops and throws his hands up in the air in a "WTF?" gesture. So I stop and have a little chat with him about his duty to yield to pedestrians already crossing.

He responds by firing up his undercover siren. I tell him I don't care if he's a guard, he's still wrong. There's a bit of back and forth and him acting the hard man telling me he hopes to see me on a coroner's desk some day.

If I'd had more time I might have suggested we discuss it with his superintendent but I didn't want the eejit taking me up on it for the sake of his ego, since I actually did have somewhere to be, so we agreed to disagree.

Wonderful attitude from Ireland's finest though.

Idleater

The law is that a pedestrian must cross at a signal if present, or at a junction. If there's an island (unsure about painted hatching) you treat each half separate.

I cross at a roundabout in a village and do the same as you, a driver must give way to a pedestrian already crossing.

Breezer

Idleater wrote: »

The law is that a pedestrian must cross at a signal if present, or at a junction. If there's an island (unsure about painted hatching) you treat each half separate.

I cross at a roundabout in a village and do the same as you, a driver must give way to a pedestrian already crossing.

Yes, but none of the above applied. Small side street here. The guy literally had to yield for 2 or 3 seconds, but no, he had a noisy light and a badge. And unfortunately there's plenty driving without that equipment who have the same attitude, and I'm just sick of it at this stage. People are getting hurt as a result.

magicbastarder

at my favourite junction for RLJing - the junction of clontarf road and alfie byrne road - again.
i was on the bike, in the right turning lane, facing a red light for all traffic. the light went green for straight on only, and the three cars in front of me drove thorugh a solid red right turn light; i rolled up to the white line and the guy in the car behind me beeped at me and gestured for me to take the turn - i mouthed 'no' at him and he gave me an angry gesture, drove around me and went through the red.

neris

magicbastarder wrote: »

at my favourite junction for RLJing - the junction of clontarf road and alfie byrne road - again.
i was on the bike, in the right turning lane, facing a red light for all traffic. the light went green for straight on only, and the three cars in front of me drove thorugh a solid red right turn light; i rolled up to the white line and the guy in the car behind me beeped at me and gestured for me to take the turn - i mouthed 'no' at him and he gave me an angry gesture, drove around me and went through the red.

that spot became famous on the dashcam thread over on motors for a while coz of 1 man in a van going through that light a few times. It was reckoned the company he worked for made boards pull the videos.

CramCycle

neris wrote: »

that spot became famous on the dashcam thread over on motors for a while coz of 1 man in a van going through that light a few times. It was reckoned the company he worked for made boards pull the videos.

I'd say whoever put it up was paid to pull it down, or they simply reported it to youtube who pulled it without question

Effects

CramCycle wrote: »

I'd say whoever put it up was paid to pull it down, or they simply reported it to youtube who pulled it without question

What right have they to have it taken off youtube?

Dravokivich

Effects wrote: »

What right have they to have it taken off youtube?

Cite defamation, right to be forgotten or if you can see business details could be use of trademarks without permission.

highdef

Dravokivich wrote: »

Cite defamation, right to be forgotten or if you can see business details could be use of trademarks without permission.

Yeah, but video evidence of a van with a business name on it going through the same red light multiple times is not really defamation though, is it? The video is not expressing a false statement, more so a true one via the medium of video.

The trademarks are being displayed in a public place, for the purpose of being seen by members of the public for the purpose of advertising said business. Fair enough if it was on private property.

Should the driver of the business vehicle choose to break the law in the public place whilst willingly advertising the business name to all who can see/record it by whatever medium, that's fine.

Dravokivich

To be honest, it doesn't matter. If theres something about you on YouTube that you can challenge the authenticity of they'll just remove it. I just mentioned potential reasons to use it. They arent there to maintain evidence of someone breaking red lights.

highdef

Dravokivich wrote: »

To be honest, it doesn't matter. If theres something about you on YouTube that you can challenge the authenticity of they'll just remove it. I just mentioned potential reasons to use it. They arent there to maintain evidence of someone breaking red lights.

Fair enough, point taken

AndrewJRenko

Dravokivich wrote: »

To be honest, it doesn't matter. If theres something about you on YouTube that you can challenge the authenticity of they'll just remove it. I just mentioned potential reasons to use it. They arent there to maintain evidence of someone breaking red lights.

I've had different experiences with YouTube - they are very tight about removing anything, and don't do so lightly.


All the GDPR rights would apply to the individual, not the business.

magicbastarder

bit of a thread bump, but things are going from bad to worse. twice today i had to stop in the middle of a junction because of ludicrously late red light jumpers. also witnessed a taxi driver sail through a red light (and a pedestrian green) completely unaware; and at a junction where there were three red lights facing him.

also was only two cars in front of a heavy enough rear-ending; both cars seem to have been rendered undriveable as they were still in place when i drove past on the way home, over half an hour later. all the muppets were out today.

Tomrota

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117754367#Comment_117754367

I have also noticed it’s gotten even worse. People are sick of traffic in this country and rightly so. We rank one of the worst cities in Europe for traffic, one of the worst for public transport, and the most expensive public transport. What a disgrace. We had it great during COVID with very few cars on the road. It’s up to the government to provide alternatives.

Breezer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117761851#Comment_117761851

Every time “the government” (I’m using that term to describe both national and local government, and agencies) tries to put in an alternative, war breaks out.

Try to build a metro, that’s been planned for years, and the people of Ranelagh and a former Tánaiste start screaming about the Berlin Wall.

Try to build a cycle route, again planned for years, and the plain people of Sandymount rise up against the bourgeois cyclists.

Try to improve a bus network, and people are suddenly eco warriors, out protecting trees, to save the environment from the nasty buses.

It’s not up to the Government. It’s up to all of us, as a society, to cop on. And it’s also up to us to stop breaking red lights. Although some cameras and enforcement wouldn’t go amiss.

Thinkingaboutit

A number of lights on my way into work (Dublin City) stay green for maybe 10 seconds to help the polar bears or something. Given the delays caused by someone checking their phone in front of me, being a bit of an amber gambler is no harm. There are of course some people on another planet. A red VW Golf nearly drove into me when he decided to go when the light was red for him and cars were proceeding from the next road on the junction. I sat on the horn for a while so he got the message.

thelord

I find cyclists break Red lights all the time now. In addition Cyclists going at breakneck speeds on the public footpath.

I was clipped by a cyclist walking round the corner on my way to work this was on the public footpath not a cycle way and was the subjected to a load of verbal abuse as he receded into the distance.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117774815#Comment_117774815

The Luas red light camera found that 88% of red light jumping in Dublin was done by motorists, not cyclists. They had to switch off the camera, because Gardai couldn't keep up with the number of drivers to be prosecuted - one every 30 seconds.

magicbastarder

was talking to a garda recently about this; she would spend significant chunk of her day driving, and she was saying that they would typically have two near misses a day from idiot motorists; and she would be in a marked car.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117774815#Comment_117774815

Cool story bro!

zom

"They had to switch off the camera, because Gardai couldn't keep up with the number of drivers to be prosecuted"

How much we pay Garda that it is not profitable to employ one just to prosecute red light jumpers?