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

Rogue cyclists set to face on-the-spot fines MOD WARNING in first post

Options
1…2122242627…76

Comments

  • Options
    #692
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,596 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    rubadub wrote: »
    If there is no pedestrian light around I guess you just get off your bike and legally walk across, this of course might be far more dangerous. But if these fines do start being handed out I expect to see lots of crazy, yet legal, stuff going on.

    I was in a car at the time, the Garda came round to my window to let me know, although I have heard others say they have been informed the same, referring to what the Garda called a stalled light while they were on a bike.


  • Options
    #693
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    Fian wrote: »
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rogue-cyclists-facing-50-fine-for-breaking-red-lights-31303040.html

    €50 on the spot fines

    Apparently these will be introduced by end of summer. I'm not arguing against this, just thought it would be useful to draw it to peoples attention.

    A €50 fine for a moving violation is ridiculous, you can pay twice that just for overstaying on a parking meter and it would not cover the cost of administration. €500 would be more appropriate.

    There is no mention of lights here. There is no need for special clothing but lights of a required design with a prescribed light output should be required, LEDs and rechargeable batteries make these very feasible, and a similar fine if they are absent.


  • Options
    #694
    Pie Eater
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23 ✭Pie Eater


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    A €50 fine for a moving violation is ridiculous, you can pay twice that just for overstaying on a parking meter and it would not cover the cost of administration. €500 would be more appropriate.
    Isn't the fine for breaking a light while driving €80?

    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    There is no mention of lights here. There is no need for special clothing but lights of a required design with a prescribed light output should be required, LEDs and rechargeable batteries make these very feasible, and a similar fine if they are absent.
    Haven't seen the proposed legislation, just the recycled article from the Indo, so I cannot whether lights are to be included or not. I doubt that many on here would argue against it. Indeed, most on here are pro-FPNs.


  • Options
    #695
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users Posts: 8,630 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    A €50 fine for a moving violation is ridiculous, you can pay twice that just for overstaying on a parking meter and it would not cover the cost of administration. €500 would be more appropriate.

    €500 for a bicyclist breaking a red light? Seems completely and entirely disproportionate!?


  • Options
    #696
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,325 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    A €50 fine for a moving violation is ridiculous, you can pay twice that just for overstaying on a parking meter and it would not cover the cost of administration. €500 would be more appropriate.
    It's €80 for a motorised vehicle.

    Part of the logic for FPN is to make the consequences more proportionate to motorised vehicles, and you want to go the other way?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #697
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,545 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    As far as I can see this debate so far is that cyclists don't want it (who ever wants a fine) and drivers seem to be very happy about it.

    In the case of drivers, the reason behind it seems to be that it gets the cyclists. There doesn't seem to be much debate in terms of the safety aspect from either side which surely is the point. Or indeed what it is meant to achieve.

    The government see this as a nice little cash earner while at the same time getting some kudos from the drivers, but in effect what does it really solve.

    Has anybody published the amount of accidents actually caused by this offence. It is dangerous and annoying, no doubt about that, but is it really a safety issue? Will imposing this fine, and therefore eradicating the problem, lead to any noticeable difference in accidents or indeed traffic congestion?

    I have no issue with bringing in a fine system per se, but think before we do we should review the current traffic laws, which were designed primarily with motorist vehicles in mind with a view to helping the traffic flow and allowing pedestrians to cross, but the large increase in cyclists mean that we should revisit them. Is there really a need for a cyclist to stop at a red light when turning left with no other traffic around? Currently yes, but from any sain view point it is a waste of time for everyone.


  • Options
    #698
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,379 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    €500 would be more appropriate.
    Would you think the same for pedestrians illegally breaking the lights? On a single light sequence they could rake in about €20,000 in some city centres. Easy money, throngs of people at a time.
    drivers seem to be very happy about it
    I am not happy about it, as its bound to increase journey times.


  • Options
    #699
    timetogo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 990 ✭✭✭timetogo


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Has anybody published the amount of accidents actually caused by this offence. It is dangerous and annoying, no doubt about that, but is it really a safety issue?

    I can't see how this info could be collected. I've been involved in an accident as a pedestrian with a cyclist flying through a red light. When we exchanged our verbal abuse both of us went our separate ways. If it involved an ambulance or caused a death then there'd be statistics. I'd say most of the time it doesn't.


  • Options
    #700
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    If the value of the fine proves to be an insufficient deterrent, I'm sure they'll move to increase it.


  • Options
    #701
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,559 ✭✭✭dubrov


    As far as I can tell, the large majority of cyclists will do the following:

    1) Turn left on red
    2) Cross junctions which have simultaneous 4-way green men
    3) Cross junctions using pedestrian crossing with a green light

    Personally I think none of the above present any safety risk providing pedestrians/cars are always yielded to and speeds are kept below 10kmph.

    Given the above is so prevalent on our roads and I have never seen a Garda pull someone over, it is likely they have been instructed to these infringements. I think this should be formalized in legislation so that efforts can be focused on the real problems causing danger on our roads.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #702
    micar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,883 ✭✭✭micar


    ted1 wrote: »
    What about lights that need a car to trigger? Stuck at a set coming out if honeypark in dun laoighre
    Kavrocks wrote: »
    If there are no cars coming cycle in the middle of your lane on approach to the lights.

    You would think this would work.

    I have same issue each morning around 6.50 going up lower lesson at at junction of hatch street lower. I rarely trigger the lights on the bike and I cycle up the middle of the road. Unfortunately as there aren't buses around, I do once it's safe go through the red light.


  • Options
    #703
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,379 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    Jep Gambardella wrote: »
    If the value of the fine proves to be an insufficient deterrent, I'm sure they'll move to increase it.

    Littering has a fine of €150 and is obviously insufficient. How much do you think they shoudl increase it?

    And what do you think the fines should be for cyclists breaking lights, and pedestrians?

    Are the parents of children going to be the ones fined? Many whom specifically instruct them to illegaly cycle on paths.


  • Options
    #704
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    I think it's extremely unlikely Guards will issue on the spot fines for kids riding on footpaths.


  • Options
    #705
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,325 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Just as an example, the Guards do nothing about all the unaccompanied drivers with L plates on our roads and motorways (in their registered, licenced and plated cars) - I can't see there being massive enforcement of cyclists bar an initial surge and then focused targeted campaigns on it tbh. There's little enforcement of any road traffic laws in this state.

    RLJ has never been a safety issue. It's just been a stick to hit cyclists with for daring to make better progress than cars. That's what really causes the issue - "I'm stuck in this line of traffic in my car - look at that untc flying down the inside whilst I'm stuck here - look they're breaking a light too".

    btw I think most cyclists welcome it - any cyclist who doesn't welcome this is nuts anyway. There's no change to the law, just if you get pulled you've got a fixed penalty rather than a day in court and potential for a much bigger fine.


  • Options
    #706
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,751 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    btw I think most cyclists welcome it - any cyclist who doesn't welcome this is nuts anyway. There's no change to the law, just if you get pulled you've got a fixed penalty rather than a day in court and potential for a much bigger fine.

    Fixed-penalty notices might increase your chances of getting punished for breaking these laws (indeed, that's the rationale given), so if you are a frequent breaker of said laws, you might not welcome the new measures.

    I have to say there is a chance that I'll get done at some stage. Nobody's perfect.

    Actually, I was listening to a philosophy podcast recently where the discussion turned to laws, and there is a subset of the populace who break certain laws and also believe that the law that would punish them for breaking said law if caught is mostly just. I (very occasionally) fall into this subset. Convenience footpath cycling when footpath is deserted. That sort of level.


  • Options
    #707
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,596 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    rubadub wrote: »
    Would you think the same for pedestrians illegally breaking the lights? On a single light sequence they could rake in about €20,000 in some city centres. Easy money, throngs of people at a time.
    I wonder what the legalities of this are, I know you have to cross at a lights junction if within 15metres but I wonder does the legislation stipulate a green man is required.
    Either way, no, pedestrians, despite all of us being one at some point are the most poorly looked after class of road users. If it were possible and I could build a case, traffic engineers all over this country would be up in court for what is tantamount to bullying of so many people.
    I am not happy about it, as its bound to increase journey times.
    I used to cycle at night where i typically had a green run most of the way, seems to make no difference now stopping at every second light. Interval training might be good for some.
    rubadub wrote: »
    Littering has a fine of €150 and is obviously insufficient. How much do you think they shoudl increase it?
    Look at the numbers fined, its not a case of the fine being a deterrent, if its not enforced then its not a deterrent, much like the dogs mess by laws, I think there was either 0 or 1 fine last year. Much like the mobile phone fine, I see more people driving and using mobiles than there was before the fine jumped to a grand. The feeling of its not enforced with the fact the fine is so high, people can't believe a garda would land them with it means it seems to have gotten worse. A smaller fine that is heavily enforced is the way to go.


  • Options
    #708
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,751 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Laws are sometimes passed to show that you take something seriously, but without dedicating resources that would really show that you take it seriously. Gordon Brown outlawed child poverty in the UK. Spoiler alert: they still have child poverty.

    Whacking up the size of the fine is a cheap way to attempt to compensate for a lack of resources dedicated to enforcement. As CramCycle says, it doesn't usually work.

    Funnily enough, it sort of works the other way around: despite the extreme unlikeliness of winning the national lottery, the size of the prize is a very significant lure.


  • Options
    #709
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,379 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    CramCycle wrote: »
    I wonder does the legislation stipulate a green man is required.
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a46
    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.
    CramCycle wrote: »
    I used to cycle at night where i typically had a green run most of the way, seems to make no difference now stopping at every second light.
    I was actually speaking as a motorist there, as the person presumed most drivers would welcome it, I will be held up as more cyclists take to the roads, and delay cars taking off when lights go green and the cyclist is still there, who would previously have taken off a few seconds before or broken the light (most I see do it in a safe manner).

    I also would not like to see jaywalking laws enforced for the same reason. There was a pedestrian light installed near my house a few years ago, which the majority of people crossing do not use. The road is often empty, if people did stick to the law they would delay themselves and traffic.


  • Options
    #710
    clod71
    Registered Users Posts: 641 ✭✭✭clod71


    rubadub wrote: »
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a46



    I was actually speaking as a motorist there, as the person presumed most drivers would welcome it, I will be held up as more cyclists take to the roads, and delay cars taking off when lights go green and the cyclist is still there, who would previously have taken off a few seconds before or broken the light (most I see do it in a safe manner).

    I also would not like to see jaywalking laws enforced for the same reason. There was a pedestrian light installed near my house a few years ago, which the majority of people crossing do not use. The road is often empty, if people did stick to the law they would delay themselves and traffic.

    I do agree that traffic lights are and should continue to be mostly a thing for cars and you explained very well why that is above. Cyclists and pedestrians breaking lights or jaywalking cannot be even compared to cars, when this is done "in a safe manner".


  • Options
    #711
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    There is no mention of lights here. There is no need for special clothing but lights of a required design with a prescribed light output should be required, LEDs and rechargeable batteries make these very feasible, and a similar fine if they are absent.

    Cian Ginty got his hands on the draft list of offences to come under the new legislation. No lights is on the list alright.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #712
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users Posts: 8,630 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Yea this one is always kinda worrying
    "There will also be a fine for cycling “without reasonable consideration”, which is not well-defined in law."

    Which basically means the Gards can decide to stop and fine you for pretty much any sort of behaviour they don't like...


  • Options
    #713
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    RLJ has never been a safety issue. It's just been a stick to hit cyclists with for daring to make better progress than cars. That's what really causes the issue - "I'm stuck in this line of traffic in my car - look at that untc flying down the inside whilst I'm stuck here - look they're breaking a light too".
    The truth ^^^


  • Options
    #714
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    Yea this one is always kinda worrying

    Which basically means the Gards can decide to stop and fine you for pretty much any sort of behaviour they don't like...

    The offence is a general one, i.e. it applies to all vehicle types. AFAIK this is what's colloquially known as "dangerous driving". TBH, since Guards aren't going around prosecuting motorists for small infractions, I can't see them doing it for cyclists.


  • Options
    #715
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,794 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Jep Gambardella wrote: »
    Cian Ginty got his hands on the draft list of offences to come under the new legislation. No lights is on the list alright.
    Jep Gambardella wrote: »
    The offence is a general one, i.e. it applies to all vehicle types. AFAIK this is what's colloquially known as "dangerous driving". TBH, since Guards aren't going around prosecuting motorists for small infractions, I can't see them doing it for cyclists.

    Any Cian essentially makes the point
    The draft list which is subject to consultation with the Gardai and the Road Safety Authority, includes fines only for offences which already exist. No new offences will be created as part of the process
    So essentially it's all about introducing a more sensible basis for enforcement (and on an equal footing to motorists, even if the actual penalties are for differing amounts), which a lot of us on here have made quite clear we are supportive of - it's far better than heading off to court for a day. Equally it's more likely to be enforced which can only help deter people from offending


  • Options
    #716
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Discussed on Matt Cooper yesterday
    http://www.todayfm.com/Cyclists:-Menace-or-Misunderstood--

    Player
    http://www.todayfm.com/player/podcasts/The_Last_Word_with_Matt_Cooper/The_Last_Word_with_Matt_Cooper/35437/2/Cyclists:_Menace_or_Misunderstood


  • Options
    #717
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,596 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Jebus, it's like Finian McGrath watched a hipster courier movie and has confused it with reality.

    Finian McGrath, neutral (I will admit he sounded fairer than usual, not that means much), according to Finian kids are getting knocked down daily by cyclists in Clontarf, and getting away with it. If this were true, the Gardai would have them lifted, people really think cyclists get away with murder but anyone who knows anything about the Gardai would know that if kids were getting knocked down and it was reported, the gardai would have the cyclists lifted in a matter of days, it's not like you need a detective of Sherlock Holmes standing to catch these people.


  • Options
    #718
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,325 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Fixed-penalty notices might increase your chances of getting punished for breaking these laws (indeed, that's the rationale given), so if you are a frequent breaker of said laws, you might not welcome the new measures.
    It may do, but as has been said many times on this thread (and others) enforcement of road traffic laws is pathetic.

    Car or bike commute every single day I see vehicles regularly speeding, breaking red lights (never mind amber gambling), driving on mobile phones, illegally parked (on cycle paths, pavements and yellow lines), blocking yellow boxes, cars displaying L plates unaccompanied, HGV's in the overtaking lane of motorways/ dual carriageways, left and right turns contrary to the signage, u-turns contrary to the signage, motorised vehicles in mandatory cycle lanes, cars/ vans and motorbikes in the bus lanes etc.

    Cyclists breaking red lights or on pavements are in the ha'penny place when it comes to breaking the road traffic laws - I see no reason that there'll be any more enforcement of cyclists than any other section, once the initial buzz wears off...


  • Options
    #719
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    In theory, FPNs should allow for more enforcement of road traffic offences since Garda time isn't being spent attending court for prosecution of relatively minor offences.


  • Options
    #720
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Jep Gambardella wrote: »
    In theory, FPNs should allow for more enforcement of road traffic offences since Garda time isn't being spent attending court for prosecution of relatively minor offences.

    Assuming FPNs are paid. If a lot are issued, and even a small proportion go unpaid then, relative to the amount of time involved in 'cycling enforcement' currently, the Guards could find more time hoovered up chasing the non-payers.

    I suspect the % of unpaid cycling FPNs will be higher than the % of unpaid motoring FPNs - by a noticeable margin.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #721
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Probably be comparable to Luas or Dublin Bus fines. Maybe a small bit higher because of the fear factor of a Garda issuing them.


Advertisement