Bicycle fines for running a red light?

Piercemeear

My girlfriend was stopped at the crossroads in Phibsboro a few weeks ago. A Garda was walking nearby and, when she shifted from one foot to the other (with no intention of moving through the red light) he shouted something to the effect of "Don't even think about it!"

I'm absolutely for cracking down on red-light breakers but crackdowns generally involve a few friendly fire casualties. Sounds like you were very unlucky, amber light breaker.

jambalap

le petit braquet wrote: »

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.

I will take your point next time wont cross even if its amber.May be I don't know But I am not finding any excuses here if I crossed red according to Garda then I am not arguing all I need to know is what should I do in court not to get conviction or offence by paying fine to charity and what are chances I am going to get summons will it be in next 2 months can I expect them?

07Lapierre

Red/Amber traffic lights should be seen as an opportunity to practice your "Track Stand"

HivemindXX

To Jambalap: The Legal Discussion forum might be a better place to ask your question since this is more of a court/legal thing than a cycling specific thing.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=633

Make sure you read the charter first though. I haven't read it but there's a good chance a question like "What should I do?" will be locked as seeking legal advice but one like "If I plead guilty what is the likely impact on my record?" would be fine.

tomasrojo

Jorren Knibe, barrister, was on BBC Radio 4 talking about red-light breaking, among other things.

Many of his comments weren't included, it seems, some of which were related to extenuating circumstances for breaking red lights:

Because of the time constraint, much of the discussion didn’t make it into the program. For example, you hear me say that sometimes red-light jumping by cyclists is perhaps defensible – but you don’t hear me explain why.

My argument was that cyclists who jump red lights are, essentially, doing the same thing as motorists who drive along the motorway at 77mph – they know what the rule is, and know that there’s only a very small risk of being caught or punished for breaking it, so ignore it.

In fact, I argued, what cyclists are doing is more defensible than motorists breaking the speed limit. Firstly, there are real reasons of safety why cyclists sometimes jump red lights – to get out of the way of HGVs waiting at the lights (which pose a significant threat of serious injury) and to get out of the way of inconsiderate drivers who might speed past narrowly when the light goes green. By contrast, motorists who break speed limits generally have no reason to do so other than convenience – making their journeys slightly quicker.

Secondly, rule-breaking by cyclists is of lesser concern than speeding because cyclists pose a much smaller risk of harm to others. As the Department for Transport’s annual road accident statistics show (see in particular this table), cyclists are responsible for fewer than 10 deaths on average each year, and fewer than 100 serious injuries. Car drivers alone kill hundreds and seriously injure thousands.

Unfortunately none of these arguments were, in the end, included in the program.

http://ukcyclerules.com/2011/11/09/cycle-law-on-radio-4/#more-493

cyclingrules

Hi, I posed at few months ago about being stopped fro breaking a red light. Well, moving about 3 seconds too early, but thats another story.

I recieved a summons today(2.5 months after), so will have to attend court in Janurary. It must have been dropped in the door early this morning, as it had no stamp. I'm surprised they didn't ring the bell.

It's a crazy waste of time actually bringing cyclist to court, and then wastes the courts time while there. I broke the light, fair enough, but I can't get my head around why I can't be issued a fine liin line with what motorists incur.

Also, my bike and I weigh ~10 times less than the average car, and will come off 1000 times worse in a colission. My actions on the road have far greater consquences for me than a car driver would have, so it's really not in my interests to put myself in any worse a position.

To put my case in context, I stopped at the red light, saw the pedestrain lights changing against them, made sure the way was clear and moved a few seconds before I should have.

cdaly_

cyclingrules wrote: »

I recieved a summons today(2.5 months after), so will have to attend court in Janurary. It must have been dropped in the door early this morning, as it had no stamp. I'm surprised they didn't ring the bell.

If it was just dropped in the door without being handed to somebody (who, properly speaking should be you), then it has not been properly served. You could deny all knowledge of it when they come to arrest you for not turning up in court...


That said, you should take proper legal advise on the statement above as it may not be valid.

Kintarō Hattori

Damn, sorry to hear that you've been summonsed. Please let us know how you get on after you've been in court.

seamus

cdaly_ wrote: »

If it was just dropped in the door without being handed to somebody (who, properly speaking should be you), then it has not been properly served. You could deny all knowledge of it when they come to arrest you for not turning up in court...

Yeah, I'm not sure that's the case. So long as the summons has been left in your last known address (or place of work!), then it's considered to be correctly served.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_trial/summons.html

Chips Lovell

Also, I'd be very wary about claiming you haven't received a summons if you've publicly admitted that you have.

Lumen

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Also, I'd be very wary about claiming you haven't received a summons if you've publicly admitted that you have.

^^ Don't listen to this man. He knows nothing about the law.

I would recommend turning up to court and claiming that you didn't receive any summons.

When questioned about what brought you to court, claim you were just passing and it's a massive coincidence, and if put under further pressure invoke the Chewbacca defence.

doozerie

tomasrojo wrote: »

Jorren Knibe, barrister, was on BBC Radio 4 talking about red-light breaking, among other things.

Many of his comments weren't included, it seems, some of which were related to extenuating circumstances for breaking red lights:


http://ukcyclerules.com/2011/11/09/cycle-law-on-radio-4/#more-493

I heard that program at the time and was left scratching my head a bit at the content. The fact that it was badly edited certainly didn't help but even the introduction to the piece and in particular the comments by the presenter afterwards seemed ill informed and, at worst, inflammatory/bitter (towards cyclists). Not a shining example of what the BBC can produce.

I was curious to read Knibe's reasoning for saying what he did in the program, which came across badly I thought, so thanks for the link above. However, having read it I'm still not convinced by his justification, though perhaps this time it's because the wording of his blog is poor. One way of reading it is that he is saying that it's okay for cyclists to break red lights due to the dangers he mentions of obeying them (I disagree completely with the dangers he describes, they seem at best weak and at worst contrived), another way of reading it is that he thinks that cyclists breaking red lights is just less of an issue than motorists breaking red lights and certainly there are grounds for arguing that.

The relative dangers to others of cars versus bicycles is often thrown out as a means of justifying idiotic behaviour by cyclists, and his blog sails close to that by my reading of it (which, again, may not be what he is trying to express - much of the other stuff he writes there seems reasonable). I've never understood that argument. If the dangers posed by a cyclist were nil, then sure, the argument would make sense but as he mentions himself "cyclists are responsible for fewer than 10 deaths on average each year" - which is actually much higher than I would have thought. At its worst that argument is like saying that someone dropping an anvil on your foot is completely unacceptable whereas someone dropping a lump hammer on your foot is okay because it poses less risk. Personally I'd rather have neither dropped on my foot, thanks very much.

tomasrojo

I think it has to be borne in mind that he's talking in the context of a bill that would, in some circumstances, treat cyclists more harshly than motorists for certain bad behaviour, even though the cyclists are far less likely to cause harm. The point is that generally in law and in application of the law the likelihood of prosecution and the harshness of the punishment are usually proportionate to the a priori likelihood of harm inherent in the wrongdoing, since the punishment is meant to have a deterrent effect. Shooting someone is punished more harshly than shoving them, even though the risk of death in the latter is not zero.

I don't think he's arguing that being in a hurry is a justification for breaking red lights, or anything like that.

tomasrojo

The other point he's making, if I understand him correctly, is that red-light breaking by cyclists is not dissimilar to not-totally-outrageous speeding by motorists: they know they're not supposed to do it, but they're willing to take the quite small risk that they'll be caught and punished.

One difference between not-totally-outrageous speeding and red-light breaking by cyclists is that the former is not likely to light up the switchboard on Joe Duffy's show.

doozerie

tomasrojo wrote:

I think it has to be borne in mind that he's talking in the context of a bill that would, in some circumstances, treat cyclists more harshly than motorists for certain bad behaviour, even though the cyclists are far less likely to cause harm.

That may well be the case, but in both the program and in his blog that bill is discussed separately so it sounded, and reads, like the issue of breaking red lights by cyclists is being discussed in isolation and in relation to current laws. So it may just be poor wording/editing on his part of his blog.

tomasrojo

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not sure that's the case. So long as the summons has been left in your last known address (or place of work!), then it's considered to be correctly served.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_trial/summons.html

Yes, I'm not sure watching Pineapple Express is adequate legal training for making a decision in this case.

Dermot Illogical

07Lapierre wrote: »

(Wear a suit! )

And keep your hands out of your pockets!

doozerie

Related to the topic in hand, but mostly just something that made me chuckle: While cycling to work one morning this week, I saw a cyclist belting along on the wrong side of the road. He was overtaking two lanes of traffic - a bus lane, where I was, and an outer lane full of cars. The only reason I could see for him being out there was to get past the cars while we were all stopped at a red light, but by the time he was passing me we were all moving on green and just joining a tailback of traffic ahead. He was actively involved in a "discussion" with someone on a moped who was doing the very same thing as himself so I presumed one of them had pulled out in front of the other, or something. Slightly ironic, I thought.

What was very ironic, though, was that I've seen the same cyclist doing ridiculous stuff in the past. In particular, when approaching the junction of Harold's Cross Road and Kimmage Road Lower (from Terenure side), he's been awfully fond on several occasions of sailing through the red light and cycling in the lane of oncoming traffic until he can squeeze back into the correct lane further down the road. In doing so he clearly is expecting oncoming traffic to not squish him, and in fairness to them they've obviously obliged so far. Seems he doesn't like someone on a moped doing something stupid which impacts on him though. He's obviously one of those that "don't like it up 'em".

the_syco

looksee wrote: »

I went across a road with the 'green man' yesterday and a cyclist went across the crossing in front of me

I shout BOO at these people.

blorg

tomasrojo wrote: »

The other point he's making, if I understand him correctly, is that red-light breaking by cyclists is not dissimilar to not-totally-outrageous speeding by motorists: they know they're not supposed to do it, but they're willing to take the quite small risk that they'll be caught and punished.

One difference between not-totally-outrageous speeding and red-light breaking by cyclists is that the former is not likely to light up the switchboard on Joe Duffy's show.

This to me is a key point, speeding is endemic with motorists but as everyone in society does it, it is accepted behaviour. Drink driving had the same status in the not so distant past.

ArticHare

Always stop for every red, even the annoying pedestrian crossing with nobody on it. I think it'll just take time for peoples behaviour to change, and for proper on the spot fines to eventually come in.

I always think its funny that people will break every red light whilst wearing a helmet and a relective jacket. Be safe!

seamus

blorg wrote: »

This to me is a key point, speeding is endemic with motorists but as everyone in society does it, it is accepted behaviour. Drink driving had the same status in the not so distant past.

Indeed, anyone over 20 if they asked their parents will probably find that they routinely went to the pub or a wedding or the in-laws, had four or five drinks and drove home. Way back (late 70's/early 80's), my Dad went to the in-laws for dinner on a Sunday, drove down to the local pub with his brother-in-law, 4 nice pints, drove back to the house, had dinner, another drink or three, then drove the 5km back home.

The kind of thing that's a conversation-stopper these days if you admitted to it, but back then was, "Probably not a great idea, but sure ah it's grand".

I'm not sure if the same attitude shift will occur for speeding. The dangers of driving above the speed limit are less blatant than those of driving after a skinful. That said, we have softened a lot over the last ten years so while we would have supported someone's right to do 50mph in a 30mph zone if they thought it was safe to do so, not so much any more.

Jawgap

I think the problem is inappropriate speed and the Guards and RSA have yet to twig that inappropriate enforcement doesn't help.

Ping someone doing 35 in a 30 zone on a schoolday morning in the vicinity of a school and I reckon most people would say they deserve it.

Pinging them at 4-00am doing 130km/h on a motorway doesn't look like road safety enforcement.

RobertFoster

the_syco wrote: »

I shout BOO at these people.

Boo in the theatrical sense to comment on their cycling or Boo! in the ghostly sense to scare them off the bike? Either way is funny in my book.

the_syco

RobertFoster wrote: »

Boo in the theatrical sense to comment on their cycling or Boo! in the ghostly sense to scare them off the bike? Either way is funny in my book.

I'm 6 foot 6. I yell BOO at them as they nearly collide into me. If the green man is on, and the red light shows cars/bicycles/etc to stop, if some ****er hits into me, I won't be happy. Actually, I'd probably go insane on the f**ker.

So yes, I yell BOO to show them I'm there. If they get a fright, good, as the ones who go through red lights usually do so at speed, with no consideration for other cyclists that have stopped, or children and very old people who are crossing the street.

rubadub

Wheely GR8 wrote: »

How could a guard not stop someone who breaks a light in front of them. What next ,banks give out free money ?

I have seen gardai not stopping people breaking lights many, many times.

Once I saw one even assist school children to break the law and jaywalk across a dual carriageway right underneath a pedestrian flyover.

ciotog

rubadub wrote: »

I have seen gardai not stopping people breaking lights many, many times.

Once I saw one even assist school children to break the law and jaywalk across a dual carriageway right underneath a pedestrian flyover.

I'm not sure what you mean by assisting in this case but I believe a Garda who is directing traffic to allow the children to cross is not breaking the law or causing the children to break the law. The Road Traffic Act contains a section on traffic wardens patrolling places where school-children cross public roads which allows them to require traffic to stop. While we're talking about a Garda rather than a Traffic Warden here I would assume the Garda would have similar if not greater authority. However in this case the Garda may have been somewhat reckless in allowing them to cross - hard to say.

Cookie_Monster

rubadub wrote: »

Once I saw one even assist school children to break the law and jaywalk across a dual carriageway right underneath a pedestrian flyover.

lights at Cabinteely out again?

Dermot Illogical

rubadub wrote: »

I have seen gardai not stopping people breaking lights many, many times.

Once I saw one even assist school children to break the law and jaywalk across a dual carriageway right underneath a pedestrian flyover.

Children being marshalled across a road by a garda are not breaking any law.

rollingscone

I've made it a point to obey all red lights from about 2 months after I started commuting, I grin and bear red light jumping left right and centre around me now.
It sucks.

One question though, does anyone know if the provisions of the road traffic act for amber lights i.e. that you should stop unless it is unsafe to do so. Can be applied to a cyclist who doesn't want to jam on when they see the lights change at the last minute while coming down a hill at 40km?