Bicycle fines for running a red light?

tjc28

I got stopped last night but the guard was fairly sound and let me away with a warning. I work shift and often break a light as there's very little traffic when I'm on the bike but I'll be more careful now.

Ciaran_B

I saw a couple of people getting their names takes by a Guard on the Rathmines Rd on Thursday last. I don’t think they were the first cyclists she nabbed that night.

07Lapierre

I saw a Garda stopping MOTORISTS for driving in a bus lane yesterday! Geez there everywhere!

Chips Lovell

opinion =/= documented evidence

saa

I know someone who got a €500 fine for doing that a few years ago in Rathmines,


In fairness though there is one death every two years in the UK caused by cyclists,and that's not from running red lights, so yeah its pretty innocent compared to a car going through a red light but its a nuisance,

Over the years cycling I've learned to calm down about getting somewhere in a rush. Be late, if you get caught in the rain you're already wet.

saa

Ciaran_B wrote: »

I saw a couple of people getting their names takes by a Guard on the Rathmines Rd on Thursday last. I don’t think they were the first cyclists she nabbed that night.

Same place my friend got caught, from Rathmines to Camden street every time I'm near there I see at least one Garda car if not two

To be honest if they want to arrest people for petty crimes there why not implement a no j walking policy around the Swan centre to the Spar, its like playing frogger cycling there :pac:

Beasty

saa wrote: »

I
In fairness though there is one death every two years in the UK caused by cyclists,and that's not from running red lights, so yeah its pretty innocent compared to a car going through a red light but its a nuisance,

No it's not - it's the safety of the cyclist we are mainly talkng about here. Jump red lights and you're increasing the risk of encountering a motorist coming from the side - this thread is very little to do with deaths of third parties caused by cyclists (although clearly cyclists do put other road users and pedestians at risk, either through direct collision, or causing someone to swerve to avoid a cyclist)

Ray Palmer

doozerie wrote: »

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

I'll speak for what I see on the roads. I would take it that you interpret what is a "hard" rule and as such others disagree. Which is just semantics of what rules you deem important.

swingking

RT66 wrote: »

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

Born and bred actually.

swingking

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'll break lights if I deem it safe simples.

So your justification for breaking the rules of the road is other people do it. What are you ? 5

doozerie

Ray Palmer wrote:

I would take it that you interpret what is a "hard" rule and as such others disagree.

Try as I might I can't make any sense of that sentence.

Nobody adheres to the basic laws of grammar any more. It's shocking but if you can't beat them, then join them so rules the fook says grammar I.

RobertFoster

Anyone nabbed yet for treating a left turn at a stop sign as a yield? There are less stop signs in urban areas where this zero tolerance policy seems to be enforced, so perhaps the Gardaí aren't as strict about stop signs so they've not set any traps at them.

When I was learning to drive I believe my instructor told me a stop was defined as going into first gear before proceeding. Obviously working down to first on a bike wouldn't be very efficient for taking off again, so how would you define it there? Unclipping one foot? What about track stands, holding on to a pole, etc.?

I do enjoy operation free-flow - it means Christmas is coming

Lumen

RobertFoster wrote: »

When I was learning to drive I believe my instructor told me a stop was defined as going into first gear before proceeding. Obviously working down to first on a bike wouldn't be very efficient for taking off again, so how would you define it there?

Going slow enough that your spokes can be counted.

Dermot Illogical

swingking wrote: »

Born and bred actually.

I meant you can't have been at the junction too long if you only saw 6

Ray Palmer

doozerie wrote: »

Try as I might I can't make any sense of that sentence.

Nobody adheres to the basic laws of grammar any more. It's shocking but if you can't beat them, then join them so rules the fook says grammar I.

Gramatically the sentence is fine. You choose what is a "hard" and others would disagree with you. You are just talking semantics about what I have decided to adhere to versus what you think you should adhere to. Deciding which rules to follow is what we both do.

Matter of opinion about what rules to follow is no different to what I do. You are making a hypocritical statement and doing so with outrage.

saa

Beasty wrote: »

No it's not - it's the safety of the cyclist we are mainly talkng about here. Jump red lights and you're increasing the risk of encountering a motorist coming from the side - this thread is very little to do with deaths of third parties caused by cyclists (although clearly cyclists do put other road users and pedestians at risk, either through direct collision, or causing someone to swerve to avoid a cyclist)

Waoh woah woah woah, I don't jump red lights so lets calm down the PSA here.

It's not about deaths but a few folk have said oh yeah red lights its illegal but within that a car breaking a red light is a hazard a cyclist is a nuisance, I've only seen cycling go through red lights parallel to paths so I don't a see a car swerving instance as being a majour threat.

Lumen

saa wrote: »

It's not about deaths but a few folk have said oh yeah red lights its illegal but within that a car breaking a red light is a hazard a cyclist is a nuisance, I've only seen cycling go through red lights parallel to paths so I don't a see a car swerving instance as being a majour threat.

What you talkin'bout Willis?

doozerie

Ray Palmer wrote:

You are making a hypocritical statement and doing so with outrage.

What hypocritical statement? And what outrage?

HivemindXX

RobertFoster wrote: »

Obviously working down to first on a bike wouldn't be very efficient for taking off again, so how would you define it there? Unclipping one foot? What about track stands, holding on to a pole, etc.?

In Washington state in the US as far as the police were concerned you only counted as stopping if you put a foot on the ground. This annoyed track standers but as far as I know the rule stood.

I wouldn't be particularly worried about this in Ireland. Do motorists ever get done for treating a Stop on a quiet road as a Yield?

I did see signs this morning warning cyclists to keep off the footpath ("Footpaths are for Pedestrians") so this might be in for some enforcement soon as well. Which is fine with me in case anyone cares.

monkeybutter

If only we could somehow combine cyclist breaking red lights with people hogging the middle lane on the m50 we would hit the motherload of moaning michaels. :P

le petit braquet

monkeybutter wrote: »

If only we could somehow combine cyclist breaking red lights with people hogging the middle lane on the m50 we would hit the motherload of moaning michaels. :P

I'm sure spelling pedants will be in that motherlode

monkeybutter

Dude english is sooo last centurary at this point

saa

Lumen wrote: »

What you talkin'bout Willis?

I didn't bring this up believe me, misinterpreted

Idleater

fortywinks86

Got pulled over there today at the junction between Trinity and Merrion. Name and address taken and was told a summons would be sent in the post. I admit i'd no excuse but a summons seems too strict as I would have easily learned my lesson with a warning. I would have gladly paid a fine too but heading to court is a joke. I think most ppl posting here that were caught do admit they were out of order but the problem is the punishment is too severe. Also there's a serious cyclist red light jumping culture in Dublin (not flying into junctions now but more considered approach) and its hard not to succumb to it. Not an excuse I suppose but should be considered with the severity of punishment.

Wheely GR8

If the guards are pulling people like this ,it's probably to be pro-active for the sake of cycling. There must be a considerably higher chance of a cyclist being killed now than ever before and the dublin bikes scheme probably needs all the help it can get.

tomasrojo

Wheely GR8 wrote: »

If the guards are pulling people like this ,it's probably to be pro-active for the sake of cycling. There must be a considerably higher chance of a cyclist being killed now than ever before and the dublin bikes scheme probably needs all the help it can get.

Not sure about "considerably". The Safety in Numbers theory holds that large increases in numbers cycling are usually accompanied by at most modest increases in fatality numbers and therefore lower fatality rates. Certainly, the numbers of cyclists killed in the last few years is mostly down on about ten years ago, while there are more cyclists.

Don't understand your comment about the dublinbikes scheme. The scheme is a phenomenal success.

Wheely GR8

tomasrojo wrote: »

Don't understand your comment about the dublinbikes scheme. The scheme is a phenomenal success.

Thats what I meant ,we need to protect our investment by promoting safety aswell.
Looking at posts on the forum ,theres some loons on the dublin bikes.

tomasrojo

Wheely GR8 wrote: »

Thats what I meant ,we need to protect our investment by promoting safety aswell.
Looking at posts on the forum ,theres some loons on the dublin bikes.

Ah, ok.

doozerie

On my way to work this morning I came down past Christchurch and over the bridge to turn onto Upper Ormond Quay. Unusually there was no traffic in front or behind me and I had green lights on both sides of the bridge. Great, I thought, I don't have to fight for lane space this morning to make my right turn, that'll make for a slightly less stressful stretch of road. But as I neared the far side of the bridge a guy on a bike coming from the left (Inns Quay) broke his red light to cycle across the junction in front of me.

As is often the case with red light jumpers speed wasn't exactly his strong point so he casually ambled across the junction and cast a lazy glance in my direction as he did so. His expression seemed to suggest a thought process along the lines of "Any cars? No, no cars. I'm grand. Oh look, a cyclist coming towards me. What a curious thing. I wonder what he is doing there?". He seemed bemused when I vocalised my disgruntlement at having to haul on the brakes to avoid hitting him.

I imagine that in his mind this played out as another successful incident of "carefully" and "safely" sneaking through a red light and saving himself some precious seconds on his journey. To me he is just another arse that puts his desire to save time way ahead of any safety considerations for others. I expect he'll continue to impose his ignorance and selfishness on others, fully expecting the world around him to bend to his whims.