Query about red light fines

Stark · 07-12-2019 6:18pm

He's not moaning because he was caught, he's complaining because he was issued two fines for the same offence.

Eamonnator · 07-12-2019 6:28pm

St1mpMeister wrote: »

My vision wasn't obscured by lights. I saw parked cars to the right side junction with lights. The cars weren't in front of me, they were to my right about 10m away, my vision wasn't obscured.

Anyway back on topic, is it possible to request the Garda's account under freedom of information, or does it just remain a mystery until it goes to court?

I'm legitimately curious what he saw was a "double offendable" act considering I see countless cars/bikes going through red lights daily without a care.

I saw 2 Guards on bikes going through red lights about 6 months ago and even jokingly took them up on it.

I'll keep the receipt for the payment so that WHEN (not if) it becomes legal here to turn left on red (as it is with most other developed nations) I might be able to appeal for a refund :pac:

I have no doubt, that if you don't pay the fines and attend court, when you are summoned, the judge will not convict you on the two counts. Despite the arguments put forward here, I still think, there was only one offence.
Problem is, you will lose a day.
Regarding the two Gardai going through red lights, no offence is committed by doing so. Gardai on duty are exempt from that and other regulations(parking and speeding come to mind), however they are not exempt from the dangerous/careless etc. driving laws.

St1mpMeister · 07-12-2019 6:29pm

AulWan wrote: »

The second quote is a direct contradiction of the first. I didn't make this up, you posted it.

name checks out

St1mpMeister · 07-12-2019 6:31pm

Eamonnator wrote: »

I have no doubt, that if you don't pay the fines and attend court, when you are summoned, the judge will not convict you on the two counts. Despite the arguments put forward here, I still think, there was only one offence.
Problem is, you will lose a day.

yeah pretty much. If the fine was €200 or something higher I might take it up, but honestly it's not worth my time for €40, though I still do want to understand the justification so that I can see it from their side.

plodder · 07-12-2019 7:06pm

St1mpMeister wrote: »

yeah pretty much. If the fine was €200 or something higher I might take it up, but honestly it's not worth my time for €40, though I still do want to understand the justification so that I can see it from their side.

Even if the judge dismisses the second charge, you'll be hit with a fine of at least 60 on the first count, and maybe higher, and a conviction, which you avoid if you pay the fixed penalty. Not sure it would be worth it.

Eamonnator · 07-12-2019 7:12pm

plodder wrote: »

Even if the judge dismisses the second charge, you'll be hit with a fine of at least 60 on the first count, and maybe higher, and a conviction, which you avoid if you pay the fixed penalty. Not sure it would be worth it.

Not necessarily so. The judge has discretion in the matter. Each case is judged on it's merits.

mattser · 07-12-2019 7:17pm

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

You're overthinking it. Just because he didn't realise that it was a Garda car, doesn't mean his vision was obscured. After all, he wasn't looking out for a Garda car. If I'm cycling at night and I meet a car. I can't normally tell what make and model it is as I just see the headlights. That doesn't mean I'm unaware of it.

It's not unreasonable to wonder if the Garda saw soft target? I regularly see motorists behaving illegally under the noses of Gardai but they rarely seem interested.

Guards doing their job................Guards wrong
Guards not doing their job...........Guards wrong

plodder · 07-12-2019 7:19pm

Eamonnator wrote: »

Not necessarily so. The judge has discretion in the matter. Each case is judged on it's merits.

True, but the fixed penalty has already increased by 50% to 60 by the time it gets to court. So, it would be very strange if a judge reduced the fine for someone who was accepting they were guilty.

St1mpMeister · 07-12-2019 11:29pm

plodder wrote: »

Even if the judge dismisses the second charge, you'll be hit with a fine of at least 60 on the first count, and maybe higher, and a conviction, which you avoid if you pay the fixed penalty. Not sure it would be worth it.

well a bit late for that, the red light fine has been paid because, well, there was no question about it

The other fine is the one pending payment.

tomasrojo · 08-12-2019 12:04am

There's a mention of the "without reasonable consideration" FPN here:

There’s a limited amount of court reports available online referring to the offence of cycling without reasonable consideration, but the offence seems to generally relate to when more than one potentially action without reasonable consideration is carried out. For example: Last month a man from Terenure was reportedly found to be cycling without reasonable consideration after he cycled past a red light, without looking left or right, and whilst taking on a phone. In Galway in 2008 another man was convicted under this offence for cycling the wrong way off the roundabout and hitting a taxi.

https://irishcycle.com/2015/07/19/cycling-fines-what-you-need-to-know-from-august-1/

I guess if there weren't a specific red-light-breaking FPN, it would be reasonable to issue a "without reasonable consideration" FPN, but issuing both seems pretty irregular.

sy_flembeck · 08-12-2019 12:15am

Stark wrote: »

Seemed to be quite a few jobsworths around yesterday evening.

I find this hilarious. Go over to the 'Near Misses' thread and apparently the Guards are doing nothing but when they do actually do their job they are seemingly jobsworths. No winning for them really

tomasrojo · 08-12-2019 12:16am

As mentioned at that link, there were originally 15 FPNs proposed. I think the gardaí also wanted to be able to issue them for not using cycle tracks where provided but ran into the problem, like the non-helmet-wearing non-existent offence that so exercised the guard in this thread, that it wasn't illegal. Which seems to have started them on a Bill Barr-like quixotic run to prove that the legislation that made cycle tracks optional never really happened.

Anyway, I think the the "without reasonable consideration" FPN is to cover the more egregious cases of the eight FPNs that didn't make the cut.

tomasrojo · 08-12-2019 12:19am

sy_flembeck wrote: »

I find this hilarious. Go over to the 'Near Misses' thread and apparently the Guards are doing nothing but when they do actually do their job they are seemingly jobsworths. No winning for them really

There is a difference between putting yourself in a risky situation and passing someone else at speed in a multi-tonne vehicle with centimetres to spare.

People shouldn't break red lights, and the OP accepts he shouldn't have done it. From the way he describes it, it wasn't outrageously dangerous to himself or others, but it's unambiguously illegal.

magicbastarder · 08-12-2019 12:21am

sy_flembeck wrote: »

I find this hilarious. Go over to the 'Near Misses' thread and apparently the Guards are doing nothing but when they do actually do their job they are seemingly jobsworths. No winning for them really

the issue is that in this case, the garda did his job. but he overdid his job. it's like being charged for murder *and* manslaughter of the same person.

droidus · 08-12-2019 12:21am

Just dont pay it. Thousands of drivers are constantly getting off without paying FPNs and aren't even summoned. Those that do end up in court just claim they never got the letter.

If you do end up having to go to court I seriously doubt the guard will even show up.

Meanwhile, during my commutes this week I saw 53 cars break solid red lights, another 46 break amber lights and 119 drivers using phones whilst driving.

tuxy · 08-12-2019 12:23am

droidus wrote: »

If you do end up having to go to court I seriously doubt the guard will even show up.

I wouldn't bet on that, if he has been busy he may have several cases in the court that day so would be there,

Time · 08-12-2019 12:40am

Stark wrote: »

He's not moaning because he was caught, he's complaining because he was issued two fines for the same offence.

Theres a difference between two actions and two offences, one action can break multiple laws and it's very common to have multiple charges arise from a single incident.

tomasrojo · 08-12-2019 12:41am

But there is only one offence. This isn't like being intoxicated and urinating in a public place, which are two separate offences. The logic seems to be that the OP broke a red light and thereby acted in an inconsiderate manner. But that's why breaking the light is an offence in the first place. It's one offence.

Donald Trump · 08-12-2019 12:48am

sbs2010 wrote: »

In this case I think you'd have a chance of successfully contesting the second charge.

The first is a black and white issue but you did take care and consideration by noting there was no one around.

Surely the second one is for those who fly through without taking any care at all.

Contest the first one too. Just tell the judge you wouldn't have even broken the red light if you weren't twisted drunk after being on the beer all day

plodder · 08-12-2019 12:50am

St1mpMeister wrote: »

well a bit late for that, the red light fine has been paid because, well, there was no question about it

The other fine is the one pending payment.

I'm not a lawyer so take this with a pinch of salt, but did they send two separate bills? If not, they might say you haven't satisfied the terms of the fixed penalty notice, if you don't pay the whole thing... just sayin.

The more I think about this, the more I think you should just pay it all and chalk it down to experience.

Time · 08-12-2019 12:53am

tomasrojo wrote: »

But there is only one offence. This isn't like being intoxicated and urinating in a public place, which are two separate offences. The logic seems to be that the OP broke a red light and thereby acted in an inconsiderate manner. But that's why breaking the light is an offence in the first place. It's one offence.

If someone sped through a red light in the city centre at 80 kmh, that could attract the following charges; failing to stop, speeding, dangereous driving and or driving without due care and attention. Two of those are objective strict liability offences (speeding, failing to stop) the other is subjective, yet they would all arise from one action. The same principle applies here.

Edit: just to add, they could crawl through the red light at walking pace and it'd still be an offence, it's the manner in which the first offence was made that creates the second one.

sy_flembeck · 08-12-2019 12:54am

tomasrojo wrote: »

There is a difference between putting yourself in a risky situation and passing someone else at speed in a multi-tonne vehicle with centimetres to spare.

People shouldn't break red lights, and the OP accepts he shouldn't have done it. From the way he describes it, it wasn't outrageously dangerous to himself or others, but it's unambiguously illegal.

I neither quoted nor queried the OPs post, as well you know

tomasrojo · 08-12-2019 12:58am

Time wrote: »

If someone sped through a red light in the city centre at 80 kmh, that could attract the following charges; failing to stop, speeding, dangereous driving and or driving without due care and attention. Two of those are objective strict liability offences (speeding, failing to stop) the other is subjective, yet they would all arise from one action. The same principle applies here.

Yes, because the car was speeding AND breaking a red light. The OP was only breaking a red light.

As for the dangerous driving and driving without due care and attention, you could actually fine everyone who breaks one of the six non-vague bike-related FPNs twice with this logic, since "being inconsiderate" is incredibly vague. There seem to have been less than a handful of court cases where it's come up. Dangerous driving and driving with due care and attention at least have numerous court cases to make their meaning a bit more specific.

tomasrojo · 08-12-2019 1:00am

sy_flembeck wrote: »

I neither quoted nor queried the OPs post, as well you know

The only think I well know is that now I have no idea what you're talking about.

Amouar · 08-12-2019 1:03am

I recently started cycling to work and the number of bicycles breaking the red light is just alarming. I very rarely see a cyclist stopping at a red light. I'm struggling to understand why they break the red light? Is everyone in such a hurry that they can't afford to wait for a few seconds when the lights are red?

tomasrojo · 08-12-2019 1:06am

Amouar wrote: »

I recently started cycling to work and the number of bicycles breaking the red light is just alarming. I very rarely see a cyclist stopping at a red light. I'm struggling to understand why they break the red light? I'd everyone in such a hurry that they can't afford to wait for a few seconds when the lights are red?

They do it because there is almost no chance (usually) that they'll be punished for it. Pretty much like the automotive equivalents of speeding about 20% over the speed limit and parking on footpaths. They're all crass and inconsiderate behaviours that generally result in no punishment or inconvenience to the perpetrator.

Time · 08-12-2019 1:13am

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yes, because the car was speeding AND breaking a red light. The OP was only breaking a red light.

As for the dangerous driving and driving without due care and attention, you could actually fine everyone who breaks one of the six non-vague bike-related FPNs twice with this logic, since "being inconsiderate" is incredibly vague. There seem to have been less than a handful of court cases where it's come up. Dangerous driving and driving with due care and attention at least have numerous court cases to make their meaning a bit more specific.

Yes you could, thats how the law is constructed, and laws need court cases to flesh them out, thats how it works. So if in the opinion of a member of AGS a person was acting inconsiderate while also breaking a red light then thats sufficient to issue a fine.

Similarly if a car crawled through a red light, it'd be enough to level a charge of driving without due care and attention. It might not stick, but there's nothing stopping the Garda from saying in their opinion thats what it was and thats all the law requires. OP can fight it if they want, but on its face this is absolutely a legitimate use of the Gardas power

tomasrojo · 08-12-2019 1:18am

I don't see anything that stops them issuing the FPN for inconsiderate behaviour, but that's true for the other six FPNs as well.

Mind you, people who cycle through railway barriers probably deserve to be fined at least twice.

droidus · 08-12-2019 1:59am

tomasrojo wrote: »

They do it because there is almost no chance (usually) that they'll be punished for it. Pretty much like the automotive equivalents of speeding about 20% over the speed limit and parking on footpaths. They're all crass and inconsiderate behaviours that generally result in no punishment or inconvenience to the perpetrator.

Well no. Cyclists break red lights for a few reasons, but there are two that makes it qualitatively different from a car breaking a red.

1. The chances of seriously injuring or killing someone are very slim so it is seen as a much less serious matter (rightfully so).
2. Unlike in a car it takes effort to stop and start as you lose momentum when you stop.

Im genuinely surprised to see you comparing it to going 20% over the speed limit in a car. 20% over the speed limit can mean the difference between serious injury and death in a 50km zone. Its not even in the same ballpark.

tomasrojo · 08-12-2019 2:14am

droidus wrote: »

Well no. Cyclists break red lights for a few reasons, but there are two that makes it qualitatively different from a car breaking a red.

Yeah, I wasn't very clear. I wasn't saying motorists breaking lights was like cyclists breaking lights. I was saying more that different transport modes are associated with the flouting of different rules. So red-light-breaking is quite easy to do on a bike, and relatively hard to do in a car, because once a car ahead of you in your lane stops, you usually have to stop too.

Speeding on the other hand is difficult to do on a bike, even, for quite a lot of people, in a 30km/h zone, but very easy to do in a car.

droidus wrote: »

Im genuinely surprised to see you comparing it to going 20% over the speed limit in a car. 20% over the speed limit can mean the difference between serious injury and death in a 50km zone. Its not even in the same ballpark.

Yeah, I wasn't clear enough on that either. Speeding (and cleariy speeding, not just 1 or 2 km/h over the limit) is widely accepted and widely practised. I wasn't saying it was about as likely to result in injury and death as a cyclist breaking a red light.

But breaking red lights, even on a bike, eats into other people's peace of mind and sense of security, especially that of pedestrians, so, even if death or serious injury is rarely a consequence of it, has a harmful effect on people's well-being.

Query about red light fines

Comments