Bicycle fines for running a red light?

Beasty

rollingscone wrote: »

I
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?

Yes they do, but I would have thought the argument would be that in these circumstances it's unlikely to be safe to stop in advance of the lights/white line

Lawr

rollingscone wrote: »

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.

Likewise. One thing I've noticed is that cars are completely ignoring all of the bicycle staging areas that have just been painted on Limerick roads. Often, I stage on the other side of the pedestrian crossings. One day not long ago, I saw a company car make an illegal turn, then strafe me when going by, then stop for the light ahead in the middle of the pedestrian crossing. I thought that was bad enough. Then, less than a quarter of a mile ahead, past a primary and secondary school, I stopped for a pedestrian who had stepped in a pelican crossing. The car behind me just whizzed on through like it was nothing.

There is no law. People just do what they want. It's complete anarchy on the roads.

seamus

rollingscone wrote: »

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?

Strictly speaking, a set of green lights doesn't mean, "Go, go, go", it means, "You may proceed, if it is safe to do so". So with that in mind, a road user is expected to approach at a set of lights at a speed that would reasonably allow them to stop in time if something else entered the junction or the lights went amber. Of course, in practice most people don't think like this, and many people will speed up to make a set of lights that have been green for a while.
Rough rule of thumb for the bike is that if you'd make it halfway across the junction between the lights going amber and going red, you're OK. My concern about not being able to stop for an amber light wouldn't be so much that I might get pulled, but that someone coming from the side will take off quickly without looking when their light goes green.

rollingscone

seamus wrote: »

rollingscone wrote: »

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?

Strictly speaking, a set of green lights doesn't mean, "Go, go, go", it means, "You may proceed, if it is safe to do so". So with that in mind, a road user is expected to approach at a set of lights at a speed that would reasonably allow them to stop in time if something else entered the junction or the lights went amber. Of course, in practice most people don't think like this, and many people will speed up to make a set of lights that have been green for a while.
Rough rule of thumb for the bike is that if you'd make it halfway across the junction between the lights going amber and going red, you're OK. My concern about not being able to stop for an amber light wouldn't be so much that I might get pulled, but that someone coming from the side will take off quickly without looking when their light goes green.

An indepth knowledge of the rules of the road is part of my job description.

What I was getting at was the application of that particular principle to cyclists. As a sudden stop from 40kmh is no major drama for a flabby hearted cholesterol seeping motorist but is a different kettle of fish.

I also plan ahead as I approach junctions but if I come around a corner (going down a long hill) and see a green light I do tend to assume the light won't change before I get there, which is usually the case.

However twice last week the light changed while my view was obscured and I realised it was amber when I was literally on the line.
A safe stop would have left me halfway across a junction.

seamus

rollingscone wrote: »

However twice last week the light changed while my view was obscured and I realised it was amber when I was literally on the line.

You should always move at a speed which allows you to stop within the distance which you can see to be clear

swingking

At one single junction this morning. I saw 6 cyclists breaking the red lights. One junction.

It's very simple. If you use the road then obey the f***in rules. Simples :mad:

Dermot Illogical

swingking wrote: »

At one single junction this morning. I saw 6 cyclists breaking the red lights. One junction.

It's very simple. If you use the road then obey the f***in rules. Simples :mad:

Dublin? You can't have been there too long so.

lastlaugh

I got nabbed for breaking a Red light last night on the way home.

Unmarked car pulled me over, took my details and the Guard told me I can expect a summons in about two months.

I was turning left at a juction, I know this will sound outrageous to some, but it is actually safer for me to run the light as once they turn green, four lanes of cars turn left and it's very dodgy being in the middle of a few lanes.

Nice enough Guard, told me there is a Zero tolerance for cyclists over the next few months given that there are more cyclists killed around this time.

But anyway, the law is the law and I was caught by the Boll!x.

What can I expect from the court appearance? A fine? If so how much?

Thanks...

Lumen

lastlaugh wrote: »

I was turning left at a juction, I know this will sound outrageous to some, but it is actually safer for me to run the light as once they turn green, four lanes of cars turn left and it's very dodgy being in the middle of a few lanes.

You don't need to cycle "in the middle" of a few lanes.

That said, a bit of zero tolerance of drivers wouldn't go amiss. Half of my family were almost squished by a red light running car on Saturday night in Dublin city centre, and I was clipped by a car on Baggot St yesterday whilst crossing on foot (green man again).

Ray Palmer

swingking wrote: »

At one single junction this morning. I saw 6 cyclists breaking the red lights. One junction.

It's very simple. If you use the road then obey the f***in rules. Simples :mad:

15 cars parked in cycle lanes on the way to work. 7-8 cars driving in the bus lane. At least 20 speeding in a housing estate. No signs of cars obey the rules.

I'll break lights if I deem it safe simples.

lastlaugh

Lumen wrote: »

You don't need to cycle "in the middle" of a few lanes.

That said, a bit of zero tolerance of drivers wouldn't go amiss. Half of my family were almost squished by a red light running car on Saturday night in Dublin city centre, and I was clipped by a car on Baggot St yesterday whilst crossing on foot.

I don't deny I was in the wrong and God knows I'm probably due some sort of penalty at his stage considering how many lights I've run, but given the way the lanes split after they turn left, it's better to be in the middle of them rather than anywhere else. Even better to be ahead of them in case someone does something stupid.

But how much will I be hit for in the fine do you think?

Lumen

lastlaugh wrote: »

But how much will I be hit for in the fine do you think?

I vaguely remember a figure of €200. It goes to charity.

seamus

Ray Palmer wrote: »

15 cars parked in cycle lanes on the way to work. 7-8 cars driving in the bus lane. At least 20 speeding in a housing estate. No signs of cars obey the rules.

I think I'm going to start defrauding my bank and getting loans in made-up names.

Sure loads of people do the same thing with social welfare and no sign of anything being done about that, so why shouldn't I?

Ray Palmer

lastlaugh wrote: »

Nice enough Guard, told me there is a Zero tolerance for cyclists over the next few months given that there are more cyclists killed around this time.
.

Haven't most of these been a result of driver errors. I can't remeber where I saw the figures but there is defintley more than one report saying that cyclists death are normally a result of car/truck driver mistakes.

So to make the victims the point to focus on wouldn't make much sense, enforce all the laws.

I have made mistakes on the road and also do things not right but the biggest danger is motors making mistakes and not obeying the rules.

Beasty

I'm sure if posters head over to the motors forum they will find similar tales of woe about being hit for fines/penalties. There are over 1,000 Fixed Penalty Notices issued every day to motorists, and hence I think it's unfair to assume the guards are not dealing with motoring offences. The point is they cannot be everywhere - I am sure they are not showing any more leniency to drivers who jump red lights.

I for one have no problem with them clamping down, but the issue is that there are no fixed penalty notices they can issue to cyclists for jumping red lights, whereas there are for motorists. Issuing summons to all cyclists caught is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut - if they are going to crack down the penalty system needs to be brought into the 21st century in my view

Ray Palmer

seamus wrote: »

I think I'm going to start defrauding my bank and getting loans in made-up names.

Sure loads of people do the same thing with social welfare and no sign of anything being done about that, so why shouldn't I?

Maybe you should continue to read posts becasue I do what I deem is safe because of the actual dangers on the road. I don't use the cycle lanes in places as they are so dangerous.

seamus

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Maybe you should continue to read posts becasue I do what I deem is safe because of the actual dangers on the road. I don't use the cycle lanes in places as they are so dangerous.

I have no issue with breaking the law where obeying the law leaves you in greater danger. There are numerous examples of such a thing.

But this argument has been had here before; There is no scenario where it is safer to break a red light than it is to obey it. Sometimes you may have to proceed past the white line for your own safety, that's fine. But there are no circumstances where you can say that you are safer going through the light than waiting for green.

"Safe because I deem it", is different. We could all drive around, selectively deciding what laws we do and do not obey because you still consider yourself to be riding or driving safely. But we have laws precisely because people are generally incapable of acting safely all of the time.

The simple fact is that so many cyclists demand to be treated with respect and equality on the roads, while simultaneously showing complete disregard for basic control of traffic laws on the basis of, "Ah shure it's grand, I'm not doing any harm".

Interceptor

seamus wrote: »

But we have laws precisely because people are generally incapable of acting safely all of the time.

Thats not true in this case. There are multiple instances of experiments to show that there are innovative ways of moving traffic without regulating them out of existence. I am not defending the OP's actions or traffic light runners - just saying that there are other ways to get the job done.

A red light is a signal to stop, a green light is a signal to 'proceed with caution' and if more road users were focussed on these statements there would be less accidents...

'cptr

Lumen

Interceptor wrote: »

A red light is a signal to stop, a green light is a signal to 'proceed with caution' and if more road users were focussed on these statements there would be less accidents...

'cptr

An amber light is also a signal to stop. Not that you'd work that out from observing traffic.

Interceptor

Lumen wrote: »

An amber light is also a signal to stop. Not that you'd work that out from observing traffic.

Most road users treat them as optional, or worst case a challenge. I also find that it takes being hit from the side by a fast moving car to get people to realise how dangerous running a light is.

OP, the safest way to avoid tickets for running lights is not to run them.

[/THREAD]

'c

seamus

Interceptor wrote: »

Thats not true in this case. There are multiple instances of experiments to show that there are innovative ways of moving traffic without regulating them out of existence. I am not defending the OP's actions or traffic light runners - just saying that there are other ways to get the job done.

While I agree completely that traffic lights are not the optimal solution, I do think my point still stands - if traffic lights existed, but on an honour system where no law existed, people just wouldn't bother and they would go if they thought it was safe.
Arguably it's even more dangerous to ignore traffic lights in their current form because there's a general expectation that people will obey them.

droidus

seamus wrote: »

I have no issue with breaking the law where obeying the law leaves you in greater danger. There are numerous examples of such a thing.

But this argument has been had here before; There is no scenario where it is safer to break a red light than it is to obey it. Sometimes you may have to proceed past the white line for your own safety, that's fine. But there are no circumstances where you can say that you are safer going through the light than waiting for green.

I generally agree, but Ive found a situation where it is arguably safer to break a light.

Heading west from King Street North and turning right onto Church St.

There are 3 lanes of traffic, the rightmost lane is for heading straight and turning right and there is a filter light for turning right. If I take the lane at the lights, I get repeatedly beeped and threatened with violence, so I started moving to the extreme right to allow cars going straight to pass. This puts me in a less than ideal road position, cars tend to pass way to close (I was clipped my a mirror recently) and if the light changes at the same time as a right turning car reaches the light then there's serious potential for an accident.

Now. This is a one way Street. There is no oncoming traffic. The filter is presumably to account for the pedestrian light on Church st, but the timing stays the same 99% of the time, even when the pedestrian light is red.

The safest option by far is to break the right filter. Ive tried everything else and its the only thing that works. Its the only light I break on my daily 30k round commute, and if the ped light is against me I take the turn then stop at the pedestrian light.

Ray Palmer

seamus wrote: »

But this argument has been had here before; There is no scenario where it is safer to break a red light than it is to obey it.

Actually this is well documented that breaking the lights is safer in urban envinoments due to visibility of trucks.

As for the rest of the nonsense you spouted. There isn't single road user that obeys all the rules. You are making it all about cyclists. I didn't demand anything for the simple reason motor drivers are removed from their environment and incased in a "home" which means they can't connect to the danger they are to all others not incased in metal.

Everybody does pick and choose the rules they obey and to think otherwise flies in the face of reality as per my orginal post.

check_six

lastlaugh wrote: »

Nice enough Guard, told me there is a Zero tolerance for cyclists over the next few months given that there are more cyclists killed around this time.

Yesterday morning I spotted a punter on a all white fixie/singlespeed (even had white deep section rims, very ghostbike-esque). They were heading up Kildare St in Dublin. The lights at Molesworth St were red for a while. The cyclist rolled straight through the red... and then turned in to the Dail entrance. The Guard on duty at the gate didn't even blink.

Those damn hipsters can get away with anything in this town!

Cyclists squeaking through on red lights don't bother me, but if someone gets stopped on a bike why do they get a more severe punishment than if they had a different type of vehicle?

seamus

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Actually this is well documented that breaking the lights is safer in urban envinoments due to visibility of trucks.

Do you have these documents? It's well documented that stopping directly in front of or on the left of a truck in an urban environment is very dangerous, but this can be mitigated by stopping behind the truck or moving well out in front without breaking the light.

There isn't single road user that obeys all the rules. You are making it all about cyclists.

Actually I'm not. I'm making it about specific blatant rule-breaking. In general, most roads users aim to stick within the rules, and in that vein, "hard" rules like red lights, no right turns, one-way streets, etc, are relatively rigourously obeyed by road users, and there's little tolerance for people who break them.

"Soft" rules on the other hand such as speed limits, solid white lines, double-yellow lines, etc, are rules where people usually keep within these boundaries, but there is some tolerance where another road user has breached these boundaries within reason. Soft rules become hard rules usually through education campaigns, such that "hard" rules are seen as more primary, as being more fundamental to road ettiquette than soft rules. This is why it's less acceptable to break a hard rule - it's the road equivalent of misspelling "lose" in an email. A small misspelling of "government" will be overlooked, but you'll be considered a simpleton if you misspell a basic word.

The conflict between cyclists and motorists occurs because cyclists frequently ignore the "hard" rules (the ones seen as unacceptable to motorists).
Any attempt to be respected and taken seriously will fail unless cyclists show themselves to be capable of following the most basic rules of the road.

I didn't demand anything for the simple reason motor drivers are removed from their environment and incased in a "home" which means they can't connect to the danger they are to all others not incased in metal.

Far from me making this all about cyclists, as I originally pointed out, you're making this all about motorists.

doozerie

Ray Palmer wrote:

Actually this is well documented that breaking the lights is safer in urban envinoments due to visibility of trucks.

I would be very grateful if you could post a link to where this is "well documented", 'cos I've never managed to find a credible report which states this.

What does exist though, and is something that gets trotted out now and again as if it were a fact, is a report which analysed traffic accidents involving cyclists (in London, I think) whose reference to quite a few cyclists deaths being under the wheels of left-turning trucks was used as justification for the ridiculous idea that the cyclists concerned would have survived if they'd broken the red light that they were stopped at moments before. That one is a rubbish conclusion, not a fact.

Brianderunner

doozerie wrote: »

I would be very grateful if you could post a link to where this is "well documented", 'cos I've never managed to find a credible report which states this.

What does exist though, and is something that gets trotted out now and again as if it were a fact, is a report which analysed traffic accidents involving cyclists (in London, I think) whose reference to quite a few cyclists deaths being under the wheels of left-turning trucks was used as justification for the ridiculous idea that the cyclists concerned would have survived if they'd broken the red light that they were stopped at moments before. That one is a rubbish conclusion, not a fact.

Yep pretty sure it was London yeah, I see ghost bikes around the place all the time, quite unnerving. The iron fencing at the bends was blamed IIRC as the cyclists had no escape route from the inswinging trucks.

I see no problem with cyclists breaking red lights for left turns (the same way they do it in America when drivers can turn right on a red light if the path is clear) but not otherwise. I generally look behind and around me to see if there's any cop cars, if not, i break the reds when turning left.

Ray Palmer

seamus wrote: »

Any attempt to be respected and taken seriously will fail unless cyclists show themselves to be capable of following the most basic rules of the road.

I'll make this real simple I don't agree. Nobody is adhering to the hard rules. Speed kills yet every driver speeds. The number one cause of fatalities nothing close to attempting to keep to the rules. A complete disregard for every road user.

As for your hard rules see them broken everyday by motorists so I completely reject how you see the world I live in.

Yes the study was the London one and the Australian one too.

doozerie

Brianderunner wrote:

I see no problem with cyclists breaking red lights for left turns (the same way they do it in America when drivers can turn right on a red light if the path is clear) but not otherwise. I generally look behind and around me to see if there's any cop cars, if not, i break the reds when turning left.

While cycling I've nearly collided with cyclists who broke a red light to turn left into my path, on more occasions than I care to remember. It has happened while I'm driving too, but less often. There seems to be an assumption on the part of those people I've encountered that every other road user will go to any length necessary, including swerving into moving traffic to the right, to avoid hitting them. That has certainly been the response of those that I've "had words" with, typically they are completely unapologetic, sometimes downright aggressive.

Whatever about their response at the time of the incident, these people never seem to engage in discussions on the topic of the dangers posed (to others) by their actions at any other time though - the only people that ever actively argue that breaking a red light is perfectly safe are those that "do so safely". Either the dangerous people never talk about it, or at least some of the people that do talk about it are very good at deluding themselves that their actions endanger no-one.

doozerie

Ray Palmer wrote:

I'll break lights if I deem it safe simples.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I'll make this real simple I don't agree. Nobody is adhering to the hard rules.

Well you certainly aren't. Don't try to speak for me though.