Bicycle fines for running a red light?

jin.ie · 07-11-2011 9:03pm

Doctor Bob

OP: You mentioned two junctions- one on Camden Street and one in Ranelagh. Which two exactly, and which directions were you going?

Em around Camden street towards Rathmines, (could have been Aungier street, was along that road anyway, not sure of the name of the intersection)

and going from Ranelagh to Rathmines, I'll go back and see for myself before I say for sure, because I was in a hurry last time

galwaycyclist · 07-11-2011 9:25pm

psychward wrote: »

Well the question is do we want to encourage people to use bikes or not. in Germany and many other countries you can often ride on the footpath and they will paint a cycle lane onto even a narrow path and people just learn to get out of the way or stay on their side of the path. The one way traffic system makes bikes even harder to use in Dublin City Centre. I don't see why people can't cycle across Grafton Street for example to cut across one way systems. I think pedestrians and cyclists should learn how to share the same space and that the fines should go towards the reckless idiots but not to everyone as some people do take care and adjust their speed appropriately. I often cycle across Grafton Street and if I see a baby buggy, a crowd of people or someone old I slow down to a stop and push the bicycle gently with my feet while sitting on it. The last thing I want is some drama or a guilty conscience. I don't want to see laws and fines go against common sense and hit someone who is pushing along with his feet at a snails pace but yes hit the idiots hard.

A lot of this reasonable, the one way streets system should be dismantled - reverted to two way use wherever possible. Any remaining one way streets should be made two way for cyclists by default as was done in Belgium in 2004. "Pedestrian" zones should be open to cyclists by default with perhaps some code of behaviour - particularly if they follow some natural desire line for cyclists. Both of these suggestions are contained in the reports published last week on extending bikeshare to other cities.

Cycling on roadside footpaths is more problematic because in the first instance it can be more dangerous for the cyclists than staying on the road. Also many of the cyclists on this forum are capable of sustaining 20-30 km/h this is bad news far any vulnerable pedestrians in the same space. If your granny has osteoporosis getting hit by a cyclist may not kill her but it could end any independent existence. Even the fear of getting hit by a cyclist could do that.

In any case cycling on footpaths is often a reaction to failures to police motorised traffic the solution to that is police motorised traffic.

galwaycyclist · 07-11-2011 9:43pm

Ref the point above re marking lines on footpaths in Germany this actually quite controversial and is deplored by some cyclists reps.

The http://verein-gegen-radwege.de/ (club against cycle tracks) might be a good place to start digging. I dont have time to find Englisch translations now.

ThisRegard · 07-11-2011 10:11pm

dave2pvd wrote: »

The 'American roundabout'. Confuses the hell out of Irish tourists.

Only the stupid ones, anyone with a bit of sense can figure out how they work pretty quickly.

dave2pvd · 07-11-2011 10:14pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

Only the stupid ones, anyone with a bit of sense can figure out how they work pretty quickly.

I don't know about that. I've seen plenty of Irish over here completely confounded by 4 way stops. Thankfully they all lived to take the return flight to roundaboutland.

Oldlegs · 07-11-2011 10:23pm

I have seen plenty who cannot deal with the 'basic' roundabout much less the american version.

4-way stop in rush hour traffic is still a sight to behold when it works well and an even better sight when it does not

cyclingrules · 07-11-2011 10:30pm

I don't think the OP is arguing his case very well at all, which isn't helping the discussion.

For what it's worth, I was stopped by a Gard after going through a red light a few months ago now. I was told I would get a summons, but I haven't yet. I know it can take quite some time though, but here's hoping I don't!

Anyway, I came to a stop at a set of lights, waited until all pedestrians had crossed. The pedestrian lights were amber for quite some time, and I moved a couple of seconds before my lights went green. Technically breaking the law, no argument there. Nothing dangerous about it though as there were no pedestrians crossing.

There is a massive difference between ploughing through a group of pedestrians at 30kph, or tipping slowly through when the way is clear. The Gard didn't see it that way in my case, however.

Only today did I see a Gard casually telling a cyclist that the light applied to him too, and the cyclist seemed to take it on board, as if he didn't know previously. A simple warning would go a long way, or even a 2/3 strikes and then a fine approach. Dragging cyclists to court over something so trivial, is a complete waste of everyone's time, and achieves little.

I'd be in favour of a system similar to that in Germany, cars(and bikes) can move through a pedestrian crossing if the way is clear. It keeps traffic moving, and keeps everyone alert. Disconcerting at first for, me as a pedestrian, but I quickly got used to it.

wannabe7a · 07-11-2011 11:17pm

It has been mentioned already during this thread but there should be a balance between the rules of red light and use of common sense.

Sometimes flow management can be applied when you just have to turn to the left. As a cyclist you are not endangering any other road user if you are slowly approaching the turn and then move in.

They have acknowledged this for cyclists in some countries like in Holland, Germany and what I understand the US.

The threat of a cyclist doing harm to other road users is far less than harm that can be done against a cyclist. I noticed this every day for my commute. For me it is sometime like a survival game: cars, other cyclists, traffic jams, put holes, glass on the road, sewage lids where your tyres can get stuck into, buses and so on. It would be "kind" if there was more focus on reducing the threats to cyclist instead of adding another threat of bringing a cyclist to court for a red light offence where there was no dangerous situation!

Amen

oheilis · 08-11-2011 12:42am

I got nabbed on Friday too, quite possibly by the same Guard as the OP. Approx. 6.30pm coming up George's St., at the junction with Stephen's St. Jumped the light as ped light was Amber and no peds in sight, and Guard stopped me about 15 metres past the junction.

No defense, I was breaking the law, didn't argue with him, but like some others here, I think there should be some leniency (e.g. a stern warning) where the cyclist has demonstrated SOME care. I believe my case is different to some idiot who just ploughs through the junction and forces peds to have to react. Similarly, I couldn't care if peds cross the road on a red provided they check properly for oncoming traffic (particularly bikes, which so often seem to be invisible to them).

Anyway, similar story, I was told to expect a summons. Hopefully it won't materialise, or if it does, Mr. Judge won't be too harsh in setting the fine.

Does the guard HAVE to turn up in court for the fine to be given? Anyone any similar experience and know how much a typical fine is?

coolbeans · 08-11-2011 1:08am

I've no truck with running lights generally as it gives cyclists a bad name but has anyone noticed the number of cars running reds? At every junction around rush hour I see at least two cars are squeezing through on reds. It's really become quite remarkable. There'll be a major incident (not accident, stupid term) soon followed by a knee jerk reaction from AGS and the RSA.

radiat · 08-11-2011 1:28am

coolbeans wrote: »

I've no truck with running lights generally as it gives cyclists a bad name but has anyone noticed the number of cars running reds? .

Oops!!!
i ran a red light in the car on Sunday. I was in dreamland and was half way through the junction before i released the light was red. I (and others too) were bloody lucky

HivemindXX · 08-11-2011 10:43am

coolbeans wrote: »

I've no truck with running lights generally as it gives cyclists a bad name but has anyone noticed the number of cars running reds? At every junction around rush hour I see at least two cars are squeezing through on reds. It's really become quite remarkable. There'll be a major incident (not accident, stupid term) soon followed by a knee jerk reaction from AGS and the RSA.

I'd be amazed if all those red light running motorists aren't thinking that it's perfectly safe since cross traffic hasn't started yet and they wouldn't do it if there were cars coming and some common sense is needed. :rolleyes:

To address a bunch of points in no particular order:

Give police officers a financial incentive to hand out fines is a terrible idea. There is the concept of 'speed trap towns' in the US where fining people passing through is a primary source of funding for the police. Locals, of course, do not get stopped.

Cyclists are not more like pedestrians than cars. We use the road like a car. I strongly suspect people who say this want to be treated like a pedestrian when it suits them (footpath cycling, ignore red lights) and a car when it suits them (using the road).

Any suggestion that laws should use 'common sense' is terrible. Speed limits are good, you are either over the limit or under it. Drink driving limits are good, you are either over it or under it. In both of those cases you can not argue your guilt. Rules that are vague are much more difficult to prosecute. Dangerous driving for example, only the most outrageous examples can be brought to court. What's a dangerous left hook to you is no big deal to the motorist. This is what will happen with any rule like 'it is ok to cycle on the footpath so long as you don't go too fast or get too close to pedestrians'. For some people slow will mean anything less than 30kph and so long as you don't hit them you didn't get too close, other will think getting within a couple of feet at more than 10kph is wrong.

Red turn on red does not work perfectly in the US. Cars are supposed to notice if there is a pedestrian crossing but they often don't have line of sight and they just assume (conveniently) that the way is clear. There have been people killed by drivers using the right on red rules and I've seen plenty of cities which have junctions where this is explicitly forbidden. I've seen Irish motorists miss the fact that the junction they are at is green for straight ahead only and turn left on a red light and then have the sheer self-absorbed stupidity to lay in to the horn at the pedestrians who are already in the junction. This makes me dubious about how well right on red (or left on red for us) would work here.

In similar vein I don't think we have the right culture for four way stops. There will be no social pressure against people who slip through out of turn and as soon as one person does it then everyone else will do it. The same applies to the idea of four way amber flashing lights at night. People forget that for every junction where they stop at red even though nobody is coming they get to plough through another one at full speed because it is already green. The four way flashing amber means you should slow down at every single junction and verify it is clear to proceed. I think a lot of people will treat a flashing amber like a green and when the eventually meet a similar idiot coming the other way there will be a fatal accident. If I get to such a junction first but I can see a car approaching at high speed on the cross road I'm never going to be certain that they will actually stop to let me proceed. Perhaps this is because I don't see why people who completely ignore our current rules for amber lights would obey the rules for this new system.

Lumen · 08-11-2011 11:05am

HivemindXX wrote: »

Speed limits are good, you are either over the limit or under it.

If speeding were a good guide to accident risk we'd all be driving around with black boxes in our cars because insurance companies would offer hugely cheaper premiums for them.

Speed limits are a crude and largely ineffective pandering to the "something must be done" lobby, promoted because those responsible for governing our roads lack the imagination or will to come up with something more effective.

Lumen · 08-11-2011 11:17am

sheamo f wrote: »

very well said, civilised society has rules so that all people can go about their business in a safe enviroment and when these are breached offenders should be seen to be prosecuted. Where does it stop if everyone decided to take liberties.

mcmoustache · 08-11-2011 11:33am

sheamo f wrote: »

very well said, civilised society has rules so that all people can go about their business in a safe enviroment and when these are breached offenders should be seen to be prosecuted. Where does it stop if everyone decided to take liberties.

Up in the trees, flinging poo at one another?

tomasrojo · 08-11-2011 11:41am

HivemindXX wrote: »

I've seen Irish motorists miss the fact that the junction they are at is green for straight ahead only and turn left on a red light and then have the sheer self-absorbed stupidity to lay in to the horn at the pedestrians who are already in the junction.

I see this all the time, over and over again. I had to change my route walking home because I got fed up with motorists harassing me and shouting insults at me as I crossed with the green man.

It occurs to me, from principles of software usability that I studied, that if so many motorists misunderstand the signal, it's probably the fault of the signal more than the users. You have to take relative dimwits into account. They need to add a red arrow signal or something like that; the absence of a green arrow doesn't seem to be explicit enough for the careless and thick among us, and we need them to understand as well.

psychward · 08-11-2011 11:48am

oheilis wrote: »

Anyway, similar story, I was told to expect a summons. Hopefully it won't materialise, or if it does, Mr. Judge won't be too harsh in setting the fine.

It seems ridiculous what with the costs of courts and judges and lawyers etc for the state that this can't be dealt with out of court unless you wish to appeal against the fine in which case a hearing would be necessary.

seamus · 08-11-2011 11:52am

tomasrojo wrote: »

It occurs to me, from principles of software usability that I studied, that if so many motorists misunderstand the signal, it's probably the fault of the signal more than the users. You have to take relative dimwits into account. They need to add a red arrow signal or something like that; the absence of a green arrow doesn't seem to be explicit enough for the careless and thick among us, and we need them to understand as well.

I don't know if you can ever get this perfectly right though. Most of these instances are not down to misunderstanding, but down to just not paying attention.

At a junction close to me, they've changed the layout slightly such that a left-hand lane now gets a filter light every now and again. Previously it was just a standard green light. There are two lanes. Twice now I've seen people sitting waiting to go straight on, and put their foot to the floor when the filter light goes, ploughing straight through a junction where traffic has a green light coming from the left. And anyone I've spoken to has seen this happen at least once at this junction since it changed a few months ago.
It's kind of irrelevant that the junction layout has changed - if someone was familiar with the junction, they would be aware that it has changed and act accordingly.

It's just pure blind doziness and I don't think any amount of red arrows, flashing green arrows or whatever can mitigate this.

tomasrojo · 08-11-2011 11:59am

seamus wrote: »

Twice now I've seen people sitting waiting to go straight on, and put their foot to the floor when the filter light goes, ploughing straight through a junction where traffic has a green light coming from the left.

That's interesting. So in this case they're taking a green left turn signal to mean you can go straight ahead, which is even dimmer than the previous instance.

So maybe in both cases they're just responding unthinkingly to the green signal, without looking at the shape.

Maybe they need worded signals: "Straight ahead only", "Left turn only", and light the words up in amber, rather than green.

I guess the large minority of dozy people among will always make mass car ownership a problem.

EDIT: Another odd response is from people who don't realise that lights apply only to vehicles entering the junction, rather than leaving. So you get motorists proceeding correctly through a green light, turning right through the junction and then coming to a sudden halt when they see a red light. But the red light they see is for motorists waiting to enter the junction behind them. Used to see this every day outside East Point business park.

cipo · 08-11-2011 12:54pm

Haven't read the thread but just wanted to say I think it's only right that fines are being handed out for RLJs.

We are all road users and I'm so sick of idiots getting me tarred with the same brush as them for not obeying rules of the road.

Some of the stuff I see weekdaysin & out of work is just ridiculous.

We all needto do our bit whether you're riding or driving.

CramCycle · 08-11-2011 12:54pm

Fit cars with a lockout sensor that is hooked into the local traffic light system. When approaching a light the system judges if it is safe to proceed and if it is not a low level speed limiter kicks.in. Since everyone is linked in then the system can judge if it is safe or not on an amber to stop. In the rare cases a car needs to break the rules for an emergency,there can be an emergency button that overrides the lockout and gives your vehicle precedent. This could then log your details with the gardai and if you are found to be abusing the system your car is taken off you alongbwith your licence for minimum 3 years.

typed on phone, apologies for drummer and spelling.

HivemindXX · 08-11-2011 12:59pm

Lumen wrote: »

If speeding were a good guide to accident risk we'd all be driving around with black boxes in our cars because insurance companies would offer hugely cheaper premiums for them.

Speed limits are a crude and largely ineffective pandering to the "something must be done" lobby, promoted because those responsible for governing our roads lack the imagination or will to come up with something more effective.

But they are a great way to identify people who are breaking the law. You can argue all you like about whether the speed limits are fair or not but the bottom line is there is a clear divide between legal and illegal and that's a very important thing to be able to determine when it comes to writing laws.

The rules for amber traffic lights are terrible. They allow anyone and everyone to claim 'ah shure, I couldn't stop for that, it'd be dangerous' no matter how farcical the claim is. The rules for red lights are good, cross a stop line against a red light and you've broken the law, no excuses.

In the context of this discussion, allowing cyclists to use pedestrian areas with vague criteria would be a disaster. It's very important that a garda or a judge is able to clearly determine whether what you did is legal or illegal.

ciarsciars · 08-11-2011 1:13pm

I'm sure this has been said before but does anyone else think there are too many pedestrian crossing lights? There is probably some valid reasons why zebra crossings can't be used, but I can't think of one. i would have thought zebra crossing would make life easier for everyone concerned.

cdaly_ · 08-11-2011 1:14pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

That's interesting. So in this case they're taking a green left turn signal to mean you can go straight ahead, which is even dimmer than the previous instance.

So maybe in both cases they're just responding unthinkingly to the green signal, without looking at the shape.

I've been known to start rolling on a ped green 'cos I've been watching the other direction's amber. Then I spot that it was a ped light, jam on the brakes and get run into by the car behind which started rolling 'cos I did...

Maybe they need worded signals: "Straight ahead only", "Left turn only", and light the words up in amber, rather than green.

I've seen French lights where a left/right filter light has its own set of arrow shaped amber and red lights. Removes a bit of the ambiguity from the situation...

Doctor Bob · 08-11-2011 1:19pm

jin.ie wrote: »

Em around Camden street towards Rathmines, (could have been Aungier street, was along that road anyway, not sure of the name of the intersection)

and going from Ranelagh to Rathmines, I'll go back and see for myself before I say for sure, because I was in a hurry last time

Thanks. If you're not familiar with the street names, local landmarks would do.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Also many of the cyclists on this forum are capable of sustaining 20-30 km/h this is bad news far any vulnerable pedestrians in the same space.

I'm often as bothered by cyclists imposing their 'capabilities' as I am by cyclists breaking red lights- each bespeaks a particular sense of entitlement, an unwillingness to compromise one's selfish desires for the common good.*

'O, it is excellent to have a giant's strength, But it is tyrannous to use it like a giant.' (WS, Measure For Measure, II:2:107)

The tiger is dead. Long live the tiger.

*Younger readers, unfamiliar with a world neither run by nor recovering from Fianna Fail, may not be familiar with the concept of the Common Good, but it did exist, and may yet do so again.

tomasrojo · 08-11-2011 1:32pm

ciarsciars wrote: »

There is probably some valid reasons why zebra crossings can't be used, but I can't think of one. i would have thought zebra crossing would make life easier for everyone concerned.

I suspect the same thoughtfulness required at filter lights is found wanting at zebra crossings.

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2011/10/zebra-crossings-extinction-warned-on-diamond-anniversary/

One zebra crossing in England is probably safe, as that article points out:

EDIT: That reminds me of a waspish little cartoon Private Eye ran, which had Lennon surreptitiously letting thumb tacks fall behind him.

dave2pvd · 08-11-2011 2:00pm

Lumen wrote: »

If speeding were a good guide to accident risk we'd all be driving around with black boxes in our cars because insurance companies would offer hugely cheaper premiums for them.

It's being done. Thankfully it's voluntary!

Snapshot by Progressive Insurance

I have heard that the discounts can be fairly substantial.

galwaycyclist · 08-11-2011 2:11pm

ciarsciars wrote: »

I'm sure this has been said before but does anyone else think there are too many pedestrian crossing lights? There is probably some valid reasons why zebra crossings can't be used, but I can't think of one. i would have thought zebra crossing would make life easier for everyone concerned.

Yes the issue here is similar to that which obtains with cyclists. Several generations of Irish traffic engineers have been training several generations of Irish walkers to ignore pedestrian crossings.

In Irish engineering practice pedestrian crossings often appear to be intended to manage and control pedestrians for the benefit of motorised traffic. One sign of this is the use of traffic light crossings at locations where it would make sense to use zebra crossings. I have argued previously that where this is the underlying objective there is no moral obligation on pedestrians to obey the controls being applied - the legal obligation is a separate issue.

Lumen · 08-11-2011 2:32pm

dave2pvd wrote: »

It's being done. Thankfully it's voluntary!

Snapshot by Progressive Insurance

I have heard that the discounts can be fairly substantial.

Yes, a massive 1% if you dare to brake harder than about a third of the maximum braking potential of your vehicle.

07Lapierre · 08-11-2011 2:41pm

jin.ie wrote: »

Sorry if this has come up before but I couldn't find it.

Ok so today was cycling back as normal and while going through Camden street, I got pulled over by a Garda because I went through a yellow light although he says red because the pedestrians lights had turned green already.

Anyway he took my details threatening to take my bike if they were false, and said I would receive a summons! Since when do you go to court for going through a red light?? He also mentioned a fine, being a poor student I can't afford to pay a fine.

Just to say I've gone through plenty of red lights since I do be in a hurry to get home in the rain and cold but a summons is a bit extreme.
If anyone has been in a previous situation I'd like to know what happened to them.
Thanks

I doubt very much that you will get a summons. But thats the problem! AFAIK the Guard in question has to be in court as well, so the chances are, even if you do get a summons (very unlikely), the guard won't show and it'll be "struck out".

The Law is not the problem, its the enforcement thats at fault.

Cyclists break red lights becaue they can, and because the chances of getting caught are minimal. And then, even if you are caught, there is no punishment.

cL0h · 08-11-2011 3:15pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

Cyclists break red lights becaue they can, and because the chances of getting caught are minimal. And then, even if you are caught, there is no punishment.

Is that the same reason that cars break the speed limit then. On numerous occasions I've had cars shout stuff at me about some perceived infraction while they were speeding.
As for mobile phones... don't get me started.

07Lapierre · 08-11-2011 3:23pm

cL0h wrote: »

Is that the same reason that cars break the speed limit then. On numerous occasions I've had cars shout stuff at me about some perceived infraction while they were speeding.
As for mobile phones... don't get me started.

Yes,

check_six · 08-11-2011 3:56pm

Here is a nice combination of activity as seen from Bath Avenue on Google Street View http://maps.google.com/?ll=53.33714,-6.234329&spn=0.000002,0.001418&t=h&z=20&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=53.337153,-6.23418&panoid=W2x7tNzzg-FNJKgrNCKwow&cbp=12,242.19,,0,22.5

You will notice a truck waiting to turn right, a cyclist proceeding through the junction, a red van in the junction, and a taxi entering the wide junction from the left. All these vehicles are on Shelbourne Rd/Grand Canal St.

Also notice that the light for cars coming from Bath Avenue is green. This means that the lights on the other road have been red for a couple of seconds (there is a pause, and sometimes the pedestrian lights are triggered also). The taxi on the left has just passed the red light, if it is not stopping or stopped it is verry late into the junction. The red van depending on it's speed has also gone through the red. The truck will go through the red as soon as the other vehicles have cleared the junction. Meanwhile the cyclist will have cleared the lights from Shelbourne Rd before they changed to red and now has a long way to go before they clear the junction on the other side. A pedestrian crossing on the end of Grand Canal St will just see a cyclist blazing through a "red light" and may feel within their rights to shake their fist at the cyclist (so long as the pedestrian hasn't got flatten by the red van or taxi, that is!).

Now, it could be that everything in this particular photo is static and will remain so, but the suggested scenario does happen regularly enough at this junction because of its width and the extra road feeding into it.

-K2- · 08-11-2011 4:13pm

check_six wrote: »

Now, it could be that everything in this particular photo is static and will remain so, but the suggested scenario does happen regularly enough at this junction because of its width and the extra road feeding into it.

That junction is a mess. Vehicles move up from Shelbourne Road (LHS of the picture) to filter right onto South Lotts Road. Then the lights change and a few will fail to filter through. So, they are sitting in the middle of the junction while vehicles from Bath Avenue (next in the sequence) try to come through, usually by under- and overtaking.

If you stand outside Slattery's with a pint for a while (for research purposes) you will see this happen something approaching every second light sequence.

check_six · 08-11-2011 4:38pm

-K2- wrote: »

That junction is a mess. Vehicles move up from Shelbourne Road (LHS of the picture) to filter right onto South Lotts Road. Then the lights change and a few will fail to filter through. So, they are sitting in the middle of the junction while vehicles from Bath Avenue (next in the sequence) try to come through, usually by under- and overtaking.

If you stand outside Slattery's with a pint for a while (for research purposes) you will see this happen something approaching every second light sequence.

The cars heading for South Lotts think they are stopped at a light, but in reality they are about 25m past the red light and they should be clearing the junction for traffic coming from Bath Ave. Imagine the red van has just stopped and is now blocking you getting to Haddington Rd from Bath Avenue (the road we are viewing the image from). The sequence needs to be rethought. I think your suggestion of using "research pints" is the most obvious course of action!

whydoibother? · 08-11-2011 4:44pm

jin.ie wrote: »

Yes but since when do cyclists always follow the same rules as motorists? If the path is clear you go, do you stop for every single red light? I wish we had some proper form of transport in Dublin, I'm fed up of cycling

Are you being serious? Because the motorist you hasn't seen who has a green light and thinks they have right of way may kill you.

Jawgap · 08-11-2011 4:45pm

Lumen wrote: »

........those responsible for governing our roads lack the imagination or will to come up with something more effective........

feckin' Brits slaggin' off Gaybo again - you'll never be the man he is........

xz · 08-11-2011 4:59pm

Simple fact is, although most of us have or do, do it,RLJ is illegal. As road using cyclists, we are governed by and should adhere to the ROTR, this includes stopping at a red light. AFAIK, caught offenders are now beginning to be summonsed rather than getting a warning.Even with stopping at red lights, cycling still is the quickest way around the city and suburbs,a little patience is all that's needed

christeb · 08-11-2011 5:02pm

RLJed this morning, totally overlooked a motorbike Garda on the opposite side of the road. Although it wasn't dangerous (not the point, I know), it was so blatant that he had to write me up.

As there are no on the spot fines (there should be, IMO), it's a straight summons. Not ideal start to the day, it must be said.

07Lapierre · 08-11-2011 5:29pm

christeb wrote: »

RLJed this morning, totally overlooked a motorbike Garda on the opposite side of the road. Although it wasn't dangerous (not the point, I know), it was so blatant that he had to write me up.

As there are no on the spot fines (there should be, IMO), it's a straight summons. Not ideal start to the day, it must be said.

I'd almost bet money that nothing comes of this. Let us know if and when the summons arrives and how you get on in court. (Wear a suit!

)

tomasrojo · 08-11-2011 5:32pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Several generations of Irish traffic engineers have been training several generations of Irish walkers to ignore pedestrian crossings.

This put me in mind of a pedestrian crossing I know. It's on the SCR in Dublin, beside Islandbridge Court. It used to turn green the moment the pedestrian pressed the button, the only crossing I know of in Dublin that did this, apart from the crossing in front of the Dáil.

But they changed it so now you have to wait for what I think is about two minutes every time you press it. It's not like the usual setting, where the light will change immediately if it has been some time since it has been green but take a while if it has changed more recently. It takes ages every single time. This means that people just run across the road, possibly slowing down traffic, and then the light changes, eventually, and stops the traffic but the pedestrians are long gone. So traffic flow is interrupted twice rather than once and pedestrians feel as if they're being discriminated against, which I have to say does appear to be the case.

nerraw1111 · 08-11-2011 5:39pm

check_six wrote: »

The cars heading for South Lotts think they are stopped at a light, but in reality they are about 25m past the red light and they should be clearing the junction for traffic coming from Bath Ave. Imagine the red van has just stopped and is now blocking you getting to Haddington Rd from Bath Avenue (the road we are viewing the image from). The sequence needs to be rethought. I think your suggestion of using "research pints" is the most obvious course of action!

I pass this junction most days on the bike and it is a total mess from every direction. Once you clear the first lights, you should continue but heavy traffic means this isn't possible.

Cars coming from Bath avenue wanting to go on Sth Lotts which creates an even bigger mess. I wouldn't blame a single driver for not having a clue at the junction.

CramCycle · 08-11-2011 5:47pm

nerraw1111 wrote: »

I pass this junction most days on the bike and it is a total mess from every direction. Once you clear the first lights, you should continue but heavy traffic means this isn't possible.

Cars coming from Bath avenue wanting to go on Sth Lotts which creates an even bigger mess. I wouldn't blame a single driver for not having a clue at the junction.

3 out of 5 days a working week i end up directing traffic on that junction. The number of people who pull onto that junction and stop before clearing it because they think a different red light for another part of the junction relates to them, all this junction proves is the.complete stupidity of some people is unfathomable until you see it for yourself.

JayRoc · 08-11-2011 6:18pm

I'm honestly baffled by some of the stuff written here.

If there's risk or potential risk to you or anyone else, or if there's any doubt whatsoever, then obviously it'd be irresponsible at the very least to break a red light, or an amber one for that matter. I've never done this and I certainly do not encourage others to. Nothing annoys me more than having to defend cyclists (as a group) from a pedestrian who was nearly hit by some dipstick charging through a crossing against the lights.

But the idea of sitting at a junction at six in the morning with no-one around? On a bicycle? Catch yourselves on.

The problem with this country is that more and more people clearly lack basic cop-on, and as a result no-one is given any room to exercise personal judgement anymore.

Because you've got cretins cycling through busy junctions when a 4-year old would know they shouldn't, means you've got a situation where gardaí are actually SUMMONSING people for cycling slowly through a red light with no-one anywhere near them and no potential danger whatsoever.
Crazy, crazy stuff.

07Lapierre · 08-11-2011 6:27pm

So to summerise the last 10 pages....

"In jersey anythings legal as long as you don't get caught"

More lyrics: http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/t/travelling_wilburys/#share

doozerie · 09-11-2011 12:41am

JayRoc wrote: »

But the idea of sitting at a junction at six in the morning with no-one around? On a bicycle? Catch yourselves on.

The problem with this country is that more and people clearly lack basic cop-on, and as result no-one is given any room to exercise personal judgement anymore.

That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is people make an awful lot of room for themselves and use what they call their personal judgement to justify all manner of stupid behaviour. I suspect that if you were to get any kind of a coherent response from the idiot in the car that breaks a red light in the presence of pedestrians, it would be very similar to the response you'd get from what you might consider to be a reasonable person on a bike that breaks a red light in the absence of pedestrians - both would almost certainly claim that they assessed the risk and deemed it acceptable. Which of course simply means that there was little or no risk to them, their reasoning might not extend beyond that. Swap things around and ask a cyclist breaking a red light in the presence of pedestrians, and a car driver breaking a red light in the absence of pedestrians, and I reckon you'd get the very same responses from them. All that might differ is the perception of those looking on.

Basically, people are selfish and see nothing wrong with justifying any kind of action on their own part despite the fact that they may be appalled at the same action by others. In my view the cop-on that is mostly lacking is empathy.

jambalap · 10-11-2011 1:16pm

I thought I crossed Amber light today but Garda (I guess they were behind me) came and stopped while I am cycling after 2 mins and said I broke the light and took my details and said there will be court summons.I did ask can I get warning as I never do that but he said no

. What are my chances of not getting court summons. I read the forum already and see that some people are fined. Can I plead guilty and pay Fine and not get conviction for road offence which I don't want on my name. I am clean until now with no offences on my name this is my first time talking to Garda.

P.S: I agree its offence breaking light cycling I will never do it knowingly from now i will never cross amber also. so all I need is advice on above questions I don't want conviction I can plead guilty and pay fine to charity as someone said in the forum.

Beasty · 10-11-2011 1:23pm

Join the queue;)

Threads merged

Beasty

CramCycle · 10-11-2011 1:32pm

jambalap wrote: »

I thought I crossed Amber light today but Garda (I guess they were behind me) came and stopped while I am cycling after 2 mins and said I broke the light and took my details and said there will be court summons.I did ask can I get warning as I never do that but he said no . What are my chances of not getting court summons. I read the forum already and see that some people are fined. Can I plead guilty and pay Fine and not get conviction for road offence which I don't want on my name. I am clean until now with no offences on my name this is my first time talking to Garda.

P.S: I agree its offence breaking light cycling I will never do it knowingly from now i will never cross amber also. so all I need is advice on above questions I don't want conviction I can plead guilty and pay fine to charity as someone said in the forum.

Go to court, plead guilty, apologise profusely, claim you thought it had just changed to amber on the junction but you would not disagree with a garda, hope for the best, nothing else you can do.

It really depends on the judge. Also depends if you actually get a summons or not.

le petit braquet · 10-11-2011 1:45pm

jambalap wrote: »

I thought I crossed Amber light today but Garda (I guess they were behind me) came and stopped while I am cycling after 2 mins and said I broke the light .

If the junction is wide it can be risky to go through on amber on a bike . The timings are designed for cars so if you are doing 25 kph (as opposed to the 40 that some of the Boards supermen achieve) then the lights may have already turned to green on the other roads while you are still crossing the junction. If the Gardai were not directly behind you but on the side road, they might then assume you came through on red.

Bicycle fines for running a red light?

Comments