Bicycle fines for running a red light?

CramCycle

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

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

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_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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-

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

-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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join the queue;)

Threads merged

Beasty

CramCycle

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

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.