Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Irish law on "jay-walking"

2

Comments

  • #32
    Banjoxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭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.


  • #33
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭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)


  • #34
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭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.

    .


  • #35
    keith16
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭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".


  • #36
    keith16
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Banjoxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭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


  • #38
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #39
    hmmm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,203 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #40
    NSAman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,481 ✭✭✭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.


  • #41
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,431 ✭✭✭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.


  • #43
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    Pedestrians should have right of way over cars anyway.


  • #44
    wrt40
    Closed Accounts Posts: 422 ✭✭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.


  • #45
    keith16
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭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.


  • #46
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


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


  • #47
    keith16
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭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?


  • #48
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,760 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #49
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #50
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,322 ✭✭✭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?

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #51
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72,746 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,322 ✭✭✭SeanW


    MYOB wrote: »
    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.
    Problem is that this is what some people seem to want.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #53
    galah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,215 ✭✭✭galah


    Just wondering about an 'almost' incident that happened earlier in eyre square. I was driving towards a traffic light/pedestrian crossing. I had a green light, the pedestrian light was obviously red.

    I wasn't going very fast, aware of the Irish pedestrian thing of not giving a damn about lights and crossing the road wherever it suits, but this guy comes from the left out of nowhere and steps right into my path without even looking, and continues to cross the road. I slammed on the breaks and beeped at him, he just stared for a bit and then kept crossing the road.

    If I had hit him, would I have been 100 % at fault ??? Even though his pedestrian light was red?


  • #54
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,431 ✭✭✭markpb


    galah wrote: »
    this guy comes from the left out of nowhere and steps right into my path

    No-one can say for sure what happened except you and him but this bit bothers me. People don't come from nowhere unless they're ninjas hiding in a bush :)


  • #55
    galah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,215 ✭✭✭galah


    Defo not a ninja, that one! :p

    He was kinda coming from slightly behind my car, passenger side. There's always a lot of pedestrians around the square (hence my going slow as well) but I would expect anyone To at least stop and look before they cross the road (green light or not), for their own safety. This guy didn't, he just kept walking as if it was a continuation of the footpath.


  • #56
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,322 ✭✭✭SeanW


    galah wrote: »
    If I had hit him, would I have been 100 % at fault ??? Even though his pedestrian light was red?
    Given recent Irish jurisprudence, I would have to speculate that the answer is yes.

    And there are some who would consider that the perfect implementation of justice. Even if it ruined your life over an accident you didn't cause or couldn't forsee.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #57
    c_murph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40 ✭c_murph


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

    +1

    Another place that needs to have a pedestrian crossing is Parnell Street at the top of Jervis Street. Plenty of people head to and from the cinema that way, but the lights at that particular junction cater only to motorists.


  • #58
    HonalD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭HonalD


    Ladies and Gentlemen, can we get back on topic please?
    The relevant section of the 1997 regulations S.I. 182 was amended by article 16(r) of Road Traffic (traffic and parking) (amendment) (no. 2) regulations 2012 (s.I. 332 of 2012).
    As iwannahurl says, the restrictions apply to 15 metres from a zebra crossing.

    Areas in Dublin City have no zebra crossings at junctions so jay-walking cannot be penalised in these areas of high level of pedestrians.

    Mr. Faughan gets it wrong.........


  • #59
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,107 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Faughan on RTE Radio 1 right now again claiming the Irish jaywalking law is within 50m!


  • #60
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    That man isn't stupid, and knows very well what he's doing.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,322 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Aard wrote: »
    That man isn't stupid, and knows very well what he's doing.
    Noone would make themselves look foolish on purpose.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



Advertisement