Bicycle fines for running a red light?

doozerie

fortywinks86 wrote:

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.

When teenagers make stupid choices on the basis that "sure everyone else does it" we usually describe it as succumbing to peer pressure and we see it as a negative thing that should be discouraged and not pandered to. We assume that by the time they become adults they'll be of strong enough character that they'll appreciate how silly it is to use the "a big boy made me do it" argument as justification for their actions. Don't we?...

droidus

Some fair points, but I think your posts could do with more sanctimony.

doozerie

droidus wrote:

Some fair points, but I think your posts could do with more sanctimony.

"I COULD HAVE, LIKE, DIED. OR WORSE".

...how's that?

lastlaugh

Since I got nabbed earlier in the week I have been a good boy and stopped at all red lights.

It seems 9 out of 10 cyclists will break lights given the chance, I found myself wanting people to get nabbed as I remained stopped obediently at the lights!

It seems ridiculous to bring people to court though. On the spot fines are the way to go, 50 quid straight to charity or something.

The courts will be swamped in a few months with cyclists at the expense of real criminals being done for serious offenses...

tomasrojo

lastlaugh wrote: »

The courts will be swamped in a few months with cyclists at the expense of real criminals being done for serious offenses...

My Spanish teacher was taken aback when she saw a sign in Dublin that said "Littering is a Crime". She would have considered it a misdemeanour. Crimen is a rather strong word in Spanish, as indeed it is when used formally in English.

I like this distinction. The informal use of crime in English allows people to say of any minor offence: "Don't you understand? It's a crime!"

(Red-light jumpers make me want a third word, meaning something like "misdemeanour that needlessly infuriates the general public".)

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

(Red-light jumpers make me want a third word, meaning something like "misdemeanour that needlessly infuriates the general public".)

Arsen?

mcmoustache

doozerie wrote: »

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.

I work near the bridge you mentioned. Winetavern St, right? That's a hill where you could easily be doing 50kph by the time you get to the quays if you have a green light. These sorts of cyclists get me so angry.

Not only are they useless cyclists with their slow speed and poor spacial awareness, they are also dangerous. They are the same type who cycle the wrong way in a cycle lane and cycle on footpaths.

I think they should be taken off the road, bike (or BSO as is often the case) confiscated and on-the-spot fined. They should also be forced to take a really tedious Safe-Cycling course for 3 months. Ideally the course would be given by one of those uncharismatic types from typical Health and Safety videos. Finally, before receiving their bikes back, they should be slapped in the face multiple times while they chant "I will stop being a moron".

These gobsh*tes are the single biggest group that annoy me when cycling. I have fewer encounters with taxis and buses than I do with these muppets. It's a shame that there's no practical system for reporting them.

doozerie

I'd go with "Flatten" as a noun to describe them, but that would suggest they were actually in real danger of being squished. The red light jumpers that I see typically hold back if there is something large enough nearby that it might actually hurt them. Anything bike -sized or pedestrian -sized though they show no fear of impacting with and happily ignore.

Red light jumpers are a concern to me much like base jumpers are - I don't concern myself much about base jumpers who jump off remote clifftops and the like, 'cos they pose no risk to me or anyone I know, whereas if they start to throw themselves off tall buildings that I (or my family or friends) may be walking under then I'd rather they didn't 'cos I don't want to be their soft and squishy safety blanket when it all goes horribly wrong.

fortywinks86

lastlaugh wrote: »

Since I got nabbed earlier in the week I have been a good boy and stopped at all red lights.

It seems 9 out of 10 cyclists will break lights given the chance, I found myself wanting people to get nabbed as I remained stopped obediently at the lights!

It seems ridiculous to bring people to court though. On the spot fines are the way to go, 50 quid straight to charity or something.

The courts will be swamped in a few months with cyclists at the expense of real criminals being done for serious offenses...

Have to say the guard who nabbed me practically aplogised and said that there was nothing he could do about having to send the summons in the post (as opposed to a lesser punishment). I think even he believed it was harsh.

At the bottom of George's Street meeting Dame Street there are usually several RLJs breaking the light and going right. So as usual today I waited at the lights and one lad went through the pedestrian lights as normal. Once the green light came on I noticed two Garda cars just around the corner (just out of sight before you turn) and the lad who broke the lights was getting a bollocking. I smiled.

They had also stopped a car as well, I assume for driving in the bus gate.

droidus

I know someone who was stopped recently - they were told that 'cyclists injure more people than cars in the city'... true?

mcmoustache

droidus wrote: »

I know someone who was stopped recently - they were told that 'cyclists injure more people than cars in the city'... true?

Anecdotally, I know of several people who've collided with cyclists. In all the cases that I know of, a pedestrian would be crossing whrere traffic has stopped but not near the lights. A cyclist would approach between two lanes of stopped cars and then "BAM".

tomasrojo

droidus wrote: »

I know someone who was stopped recently - they were told that 'cyclists injure more people than cars in the city'... true?

Might be true for minor injuries, but nobody knows because minor injuries don't generally get officially reported.

fortywinks86

doozerie wrote: »

When teenagers make stupid choices on the basis that "sure everyone else does it" we usually describe it as succumbing to peer pressure and we see it as a negative thing that should be discouraged and not pandered to. We assume that by the time they become adults they'll be of strong enough character that they'll appreciate how silly it is to use the "a big boy made me do it" argument as justification for their actions. Don't we?...

Very high and mighty but its only human to do the same. But as I said its not an excuse, I admit it was wrong, just feel hard done by especially the punishment.

I actually didn't realize I'd done anything wrong when I was pulled over, must not have thought it was an offence, like j-walking. Still i've learnt my lesson and won't be doing it again, just wish I didn't have to go to court over it.

check_six

droidus wrote: »

I know someone who was stopped recently - they were told that 'cyclists injure more people than cars in the city'... true?

Wonky footpaths, slippy fallen leaves, and unattended spike trap pits all injure more people in the city than cars and bikes combined. FACT!

I have seen cyclists after falling off their bikes being injured, so I suppose you could call that self-inflicted. I have seen people hit by cars, buses, vans, etc. being injured.

I have seen cyclist vs pedestrian crashes, but I haven't seen one where a pedestrian has been "injured" so to speak. In fact one gruesome incident I can recall involved a pedestrian being hit by a rollerblader. The pedestrian ended up with a cut on the head. Blood everywhere! Ban these four wheels in a line freaks!

To sum up, I think this "stat" was just thrown out there to press home the idea that the cyclist who got stopped was moments away from turning into a two wheeled death tractor.

HivemindXX

droidus wrote: »

I know someone who was stopped recently - they were told that 'cyclists injure more people than cars in the city'... true?

Next time someone gives you a claim like that ask them (as politely as you like) what the rough numbers are.

If they reply they don't know tell them next time they hear something like that they should ask for the numbers because without any numbers to back the claim you always get the feeling that it is simply made up.

droidus

HivemindXX wrote: »

Next time someone gives you a claim like that ask them (as politely as you like) what the rough numbers are.

If they reply they don't know tell them next time they hear something like that they should ask for the numbers because without any numbers to back the claim you always get the feeling that it is simply made up.

It wasnt me, and the reason they didnt ask if because they were meekly trying to avoid being summonsed (they succeeded).

doozerie

fortywinks86 wrote:

Very high and mighty but its only human to do the same. But as I said its not an excuse, I admit it was wrong, just feel hard done by especially the punishment.

No, not high and mighty at all, simply a statement of fact. We could all casually do obnoxious stuff on the basis that others do it regularly, ranging from the likes of jumping a queue to breaking red lights in a car, but most of us don't do that on the basis that we ourselves wouldn't want to be subjected to that behaviour by others. That doesn't make us virtuous, it just makes us regular members of society doing our best not to stomp on others.

So what it boils down to is responsibility. If we all took responsibility for our actions the roads would be a calmer and more pleasant place to be.

Jawgap

lastlaugh wrote: »

......
It seems ridiculous to bring people to court though. On the spot fines are the way to go, 50 quid straight to charity or something.

The courts will be swamped in a few months with cyclists at the expense of real criminals being done for serious offenses...

that........or a more efficient court system to process law breakers. Judges are a lot cheaper to employ now and office space is pretty cheap around the city.

rich.d.berry

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. 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.

How about this one? Happened to me personally in the car. Sitting at the lights in the rain waiting for green. Nobody else at the intersection. I look in the rear-view mirror and see lights approaching rather rapidly. I think, this muppet's not going to stop. Quick look to see that intersection is clear. Check mirror again. Now he's locked up and skidding. I pulled through the intersection with him skidding through behind. He finally came to a stop in the middle of the intersection.

Had I not jumped the lights I would have had him up my rear.

That said, I am not an advocate of jumping red lights. But you did make a statement that I know, from personal experience, to be false. I suggest that there are very rarely circumstances where you can say that you are safer going through the light than waiting for green.

psychward

I was stopped cycling safely and linearly through a city centre red light with no pedestrians in sight. I could tell the particular Garda was itching to summons me but I talked my way out of it. For those who got a summons instead of a ''friendly'' warning maybe a different approach when stopped might have helped ?
Anyway I am now going to be the idiot who cycles like a German but I do so under protest and disagree with a lot of the laws regarding cycling. It's tempting to treat pedestrians the way they treat others (but of course with regard for safety). Already today I've had at least 5 pedestrians walk across my path onto a busy road without looking where they are going and it happens daily. It doesn't excuse bad cycling but there seems to be a lot of spatially unaware pedestrians about the place.
I had an idiot in a car cutting across into my right hand lane today when I was going straight on and expected him to turn left. The list goes on and on. I think cyclists should be a lower priority really.

Jawgap

psychward wrote: »

........ I think cyclists should be a lower priority really.

The reality is that cyclists are a low priority - that may not be right, but it's how it is - cycling like you're not only leads to A&E - where you run the risk of being a priority for all the wrong reasons.

rp

This article is interesting and kind of related, making a case for a relaxation of stop sign rules for cyclists: Idaho Stop

Skopzz

jin.ie wrote: »

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.

It's the Law - plain and simple. If you run a red light, you are not being considerate for other road users as well an endangerment.

psychward

Skopzz wrote: »

It's the Law - plain and simple. If you run a red light, you are not being considerate for other road users as well an endangerment.

It's the law however it's not about consideration for other road users or about safety if the road is deserted. Of interest to me is how the Guards pick and choose when to enforce the law. I saw a Garda car cruise slowly past a beggar at an ATM on Grafton Street. He was breaking the law in their faces and was harassing citizens trying to use the machine. Yet nothing was done. Similarly cars are always double and triple parked outside Pearse Street Garda Station. A civilian car would be clamped and towed away. It's the law - plain and simple right ?

CramCycle

psychward wrote: »

Similarly cars are always double and triple parked outside Pearse Street Garda Station. A civilian car would be clamped and towed away. It's the law - plain and simple right ?

There is a big sign saying garda vehicles only there, clampers cannot clamp official vehicles. A civilian car would be towed, and rightly so, as it shouldn't be there.

psychward

CramCycle wrote: »

There is a big sign saying garda vehicles only there, clampers cannot clamp official vehicles. A civilian car would be towed, and rightly so, as it shouldn't be there.

Off duty cars park there with absolutely nothing to do with official duties and the clamper etc wont dare touch them. Also the Garda vehicles only sign doesnt absolve them from a requirement to lawful safe parking and it doesnt entitle them to park in the middle of the road. If you look how the council handled such behaviour in Store Street Garda Station it becomes evident whats going on. Instead of enforcing laws against double and triple parking on the pavement etc there the council decided to put bollards and concrete obstacles on the pavement as they didn't dare confront a ''special group'' about their law breaking but instead took away the temptation instead.

partyguinness

On Friday, a cyclist had the neck to hurl abuse at me as he nearly hit me at a pedistrian crossing.....this green man was on the cars were stopped at a red light but this gob****e just went straight the red light as if it wasnt there and I had the cheek to be abiding by the rules of the road...

I hope to God some day a cyclist hits me as they break a red light and so help me God I will kick him to within an inch of their life

CramCycle

partyguinness wrote: »

I hope to God some day a cyclist hits me as they break a red light and so help me God I will kick him to within an inch of their life

You want someone to hit you? There are some very odd tastes on this forum of late.

Personally I hope that someday there will be no RLJers with the exception of emergencies, I think its a nicer thought.

partyguinness

CramCycle wrote: »

You want someone to hit you? There are some very odd tastes on this forum of late.

Personally I hope that someday there will be no RLJers with the exception of emergencies, I think its a nicer thought.

Exactly, I want a cyclist who intentionally breaks/ignores red lights to hit me as I am legitimately crossing the road so I can kick the absolute crap out of him and take out all my frustrations on him...:mad:

My best friend who is an avid cyclist thinks it's nonsense that he should stop at a red light like cars...

Personally I love cycling but just too much traffic.

Am afraid I don't know what an "RLJers" is