Cycle red light break conviction

Paulw

paky wrote: »

nonsense, a form of schoolyard bullying is wht it is. cyclists don't require

(a) a licence

(b) insurance

(c) road tax

So? The law still states that cyclists must obey the rules of the road. Any cyclist failing to do so may end up in court. And it's good to see that more and more are ending up in court, and being fined, especially for breaking red lights.

XxMCRxBabyxX

paky wrote: »

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

A family member of mine died due to being knocked over by a cyclist.

Cyclists don't realise how dangerous they can be by not oveying the traffic laws, both to themselves and others. It is a lot easier to hear and see a car coming than a cyclist.

If you are using the roads you need to follow the rules. Full stop

coming from you, i'd take that with a pinch of salt

btw, that is soooooo hearsay

Hogzy wrote: »

Exactly. They are called the rules of the ROAD for a reaSon, anyone who uses the road must obey the rules

nonsense, a form of schoolyard bullying is wht it is. cyclists don't require

(a) a licence

(b) insurance

(c) road tax

just goes to show how much of a risk they are.

anyone have any stats to prove how dangerous cyclists are in ireland?

I should expected that from you paky but it is totally true and if you want the details I can easily get them for you.

Cyclists can be dangerous whether you want to believe it or not

Procrastastudy

While we're on this... What's the story with the cyclists with no lights (e.g. most of them) is it an atempt at stealth in knocking over pedestrians or do they just have a death wish?

They do realise that reflective gear needs light to work right?

Spunge

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

While we're on this... What's the story with the cyclists with no lights (e.g. most of them) is it an atempt at stealth in knocking over pedestrians or do they just have a death wish?

They do realise that reflective gear needs light to work right?

Im up in court for having no light on my bike(stupid i know). So they are doing something about it at least.

Procrastastudy

Court?! Jesus I quick word would have done no? Can they not give you some sort of ticket?

Spunge

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Court?! Jesus I quick word would have done no? Can they not give you some sort of ticket?

I assume there's no system in place for that(unlike for cars etc) so they have to send you to court.

NoQuarter

Bumping for the actual legislative provision that deals with this? Anyone?

I've had a look through the RTA but its like stabbing my eyes with glass its so messy in there!

ResearchWill

NoQuarter wrote: »

Bumping for the actual legislative provision that deals with this? Anyone?

I've had a look through the RTA but its like stabbing my eyes with glass its so messy in there!

I am only dealing with the law as enacted in 1961, as I really don't have time to go through all the legislation to show amendments there are amendment right upto 2011.

Section 11 of the 1961 Act states

11.—(1) The Minister may make regulations in relation to the use of vehicles in public places. Etc.

One of the regulations can be found here http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/si/0189.html ROAD TRAFFIC (LIGHTING OF VEHICLES) REGULATIONS, 1963

Section 102 of the 1961 Act then sets out general penalties.

102.—Where a person is guilty of an offence under any section or subsection of a section of this Act and, apart from this section and disregarding any disqualification that may be capable of being imposed, no penalty is provided for the offence, such person shall be liable on summary conviction—


(a) in the case of a first offence under that section or subsection—to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds,

(b) in the case of a second offence under that section or subsection, or of a third or subsequent such offence other than an offence referred to in the next paragraph—to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and

(c) in the case of a third or subsequent offence under that section or subsection which is the third or subsequent such offence in any period of twelve consecutive months—to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.



The above may not be the current state of the law as it does not take into account amendments, it is just given as an example of how for example lights on bikes is regulated.

NoQuarter

Thanks for that ResearchWill but the specific provision I'm looking for is what a summons is brought under when a cyclist runs a red light and nothing to do with the lights used to light up the bike!

ResearchWill

NoQuarter wrote: »

Thanks for that ResearchWill but the specific provision I'm looking for is what a summons is brought under when a cyclist runs a red light and nothing to do with the lights used to light up the bike!

Well then in the middle of the above example you insert


S.I. No. 171/1962:
ROAD TRAFFIC (SIGNS) REGULATIONS, 1962

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1962/en/si/0171.html

Again these would have been amended. So section 11 allows the making of regulations and usually section 102 creates the penalty.

Section 95 of the 1961 Act deals with trafic signs. I can't find as I'm using my iPhone the exact regulation that makes breaking a red light an offences, when I get a chance I'll get the reg and section.

NoQuarter

ResearchWill wrote: »

Well then in the middle of the above example you insert


S.I. No. 171/1962:
ROAD TRAFFIC (SIGNS) REGULATIONS, 1962

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1962/en/si/0171.html

Again these would have been amended. So section 11 allows the making of regulations and usually section 102 creates the penalty.

Turns out that SI is about the actual construction of signs themselves!

The RTA's are a mess, I hate trying to find stuff in them!

ResearchWill

NoQuarter wrote: »

Turns out that SI is about the actual construction of signs themselves!

The RTA's are a mess, I hate trying to find stuff in them!

Found it section 13 of the 1964 regs

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html

Driver seems to include bikes as section 16 says

16.—(1) A driver (other than a pedal cyclist) shall not drive wholly or partly along or across a cycle track.

And

(2) For the purposes of such of these bye-laws as refer to a driver, a person leading or riding an animal (whether or not the animal is pulling a vehicle) shall be deemed to be a driver.

As a person leading or riding an animal is a driver I think it's safe to assume that a person on a bike, I am guessing that amendments have changed a lot of this. But I agree the RTA law is a mess.

barman linen

johnfás wrote: »

I suppose it's for the same reason that many drivers believe they aren't obliged to indicate when turning left and there is a cyclist on their inside. Which can and does have lethal consequences yet is a daily experience. And let's not even begin to talk about pedestrians.

if the Bicycle is behind the car / the car is physically ahead of the bicycle then the cyclist is obliged - like any car - to react to the turning vehicle...there is no 'inside lane' ( unless marked ) that cyclists are using that the car driver has to take account of. In essence a cyclist moving to the left of a car in a single motor lane is overtaking on the inside. There are noted times when overtaking is allowed on the inside - any other time is a traffic offence. The cyclist must slow down and fall in behind the car and allow it to make the turn.

I'm sure there are some drivers that drive past a cyclist and suddenly turn left ...but I would suggest it is far fewer than the cyclists that 'overtake' on the inside.

Cue flaming from every cyclist.

seamus

barman linen wrote: »

I'm sure there are some drivers that drive past a cyclist and suddenly turn left ...but I would suggest it is far fewer than the cyclists that 'overtake' on the inside.

Considering that cars by design routinely travel faster than bikes, I would suggest that your theory that the majority of incidents involve bicycles overtaking on the left is incorrect.
It happens, no doubt about it. The two main times it occurs are when a bicycle stops in the blind spot of a left-turning vehicles (e.g. at lights) or overtakes slow-moving traffic. Both of which make up a minority of the time spent on the road, even in heavy traffic. It's also worth noting that in the latter case if the cyclist is in a cycle lane, then the motorist is required to yield to a cyclist overtaking on the left, since the cycle lane is considered a distinct lane and therefore the motorist must yield before entering or crossing it.
Most near-hit incidents I see involve cars speeding up to get past a cyclist and around the corner, or cars in traffic failing to indicate before turning left.
The status of the latter, and who would be at fault, is unclear. It is not illegal for a cyclist to overtake on the left, even if there is no cycle lane.

NoQuarter, this is probably what you're looking for (though I imagine it's been tweaked since):
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html#zzsi294y1964a13

Traffic lights

13.—(1) Subject to paragraph (4) of this bye-law, a driver facing a traffic light lamp which shows a red light shall not proceed beyond the stop line at that light or, if there is no such stop line, beyond that light.

While it may appear that "driver" is unclear, it's generally considered to include all persons in control of any vehicle or animal. This is implied also by a later section which states

use of cycle tracks
16.—(1) A driver (other than a pedal cyclist) shall not drive wholly or partly along or across a cycle track.

This indicates that the word "driver" in the act, inherently includes pedal cyclists.

barman linen

I did refer to a distinct 'marked lane' in my post. Any vehicle ( incl Bikes & Horseriders) approaching from the rear has to take account of the actions of the vehicle in front - if they are acting within the law or without. In my experience many cyclists dont seem to take this into account.

I am not a Lawyer, Guard or a Driving Instructor however....

slimjimmc

seamus wrote: »

While it may appear that "driver" is unclear, it's generally considered to include all persons in control of any vehicle or animal. This is implied also by a later section which states
This indicates that the word "driver" in the act, inherently includes pedal cyclists.

The principle act (1961) clears up any confusion. A cyclist is a driver of a vehicle.

“driving” includes managing and controlling and, in relation to a bicycle or tricycle, riding, and “driver” and other cognate words shall be construed accordingly;
:
:
“pedal cycle” means a vehicle which is a pedal bicycle or pedal tricycle;

“pedal cyclist” means a person driving a pedal cycle;

leeomurchu

I'll bet a fiver that this case is thrown out and all this discussion will be over nothing they love to see you take a day off work and waste it hanging around the court house. You more than likely won't even set foot inside a court room.

ResearchWill

slimjimmc wrote: »

The principle act (1961) clears up any confusion. A cyclist is a driver of a vehicle.

This is why I like boards, between a number of posters the legal question was answered. Thanks for that forgot to look back at the Act for the definition.