Rogue cyclists set to face on-the-spot fines MOD WARNING in first post

micar

ted1 wrote: »

What about lights that need a car to trigger? Stuck at a set coming out if honeypark in dun laoighre

Kavrocks wrote: »

If there are no cars coming cycle in the middle of your lane on approach to the lights.

You would think this would work.

I have same issue each morning around 6.50 going up lower lesson at at junction of hatch street lower. I rarely trigger the lights on the bike and I cycle up the middle of the road. Unfortunately as there aren't buses around, I do once it's safe go through the red light.

rubadub

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

If the value of the fine proves to be an insufficient deterrent, I'm sure they'll move to increase it.

Littering has a fine of €150 and is obviously insufficient. How much do you think they shoudl increase it?

And what do you think the fines should be for cyclists breaking lights, and pedestrians?

Are the parents of children going to be the ones fined? Many whom specifically instruct them to illegaly cycle on paths.

Chips Lovell

I think it's extremely unlikely Guards will issue on the spot fines for kids riding on footpaths.

Macy0161

Just as an example, the Guards do nothing about all the unaccompanied drivers with L plates on our roads and motorways (in their registered, licenced and plated cars) - I can't see there being massive enforcement of cyclists bar an initial surge and then focused targeted campaigns on it tbh. There's little enforcement of any road traffic laws in this state.

RLJ has never been a safety issue. It's just been a stick to hit cyclists with for daring to make better progress than cars. That's what really causes the issue - "I'm stuck in this line of traffic in my car - look at that untc flying down the inside whilst I'm stuck here - look they're breaking a light too".

btw I think most cyclists welcome it - any cyclist who doesn't welcome this is nuts anyway. There's no change to the law, just if you get pulled you've got a fixed penalty rather than a day in court and potential for a much bigger fine.

tomasrojo

Macy0161 wrote: »

btw I think most cyclists welcome it - any cyclist who doesn't welcome this is nuts anyway. There's no change to the law, just if you get pulled you've got a fixed penalty rather than a day in court and potential for a much bigger fine.

Fixed-penalty notices might increase your chances of getting punished for breaking these laws (indeed, that's the rationale given), so if you are a frequent breaker of said laws, you might not welcome the new measures.

I have to say there is a chance that I'll get done at some stage. Nobody's perfect.

Actually, I was listening to a philosophy podcast recently where the discussion turned to laws, and there is a subset of the populace who break certain laws and also believe that the law that would punish them for breaking said law if caught is mostly just. I (very occasionally) fall into this subset. Convenience footpath cycling when footpath is deserted. That sort of level.

CramCycle

rubadub wrote: »

Would you think the same for pedestrians illegally breaking the lights? On a single light sequence they could rake in about €20,000 in some city centres. Easy money, throngs of people at a time.

I wonder what the legalities of this are, I know you have to cross at a lights junction if within 15metres but I wonder does the legislation stipulate a green man is required.
Either way, no, pedestrians, despite all of us being one at some point are the most poorly looked after class of road users. If it were possible and I could build a case, traffic engineers all over this country would be up in court for what is tantamount to bullying of so many people.

I am not happy about it, as its bound to increase journey times.

I used to cycle at night where i typically had a green run most of the way, seems to make no difference now stopping at every second light. Interval training might be good for some.

rubadub wrote: »

Littering has a fine of €150 and is obviously insufficient. How much do you think they shoudl increase it?

Look at the numbers fined, its not a case of the fine being a deterrent, if its not enforced then its not a deterrent, much like the dogs mess by laws, I think there was either 0 or 1 fine last year. Much like the mobile phone fine, I see more people driving and using mobiles than there was before the fine jumped to a grand. The feeling of its not enforced with the fact the fine is so high, people can't believe a garda would land them with it means it seems to have gotten worse. A smaller fine that is heavily enforced is the way to go.

tomasrojo

Laws are sometimes passed to show that you take something seriously, but without dedicating resources that would really show that you take it seriously. Gordon Brown outlawed child poverty in the UK. Spoiler alert: they still have child poverty.

Whacking up the size of the fine is a cheap way to attempt to compensate for a lack of resources dedicated to enforcement. As CramCycle says, it doesn't usually work.

Funnily enough, it sort of works the other way around: despite the extreme unlikeliness of winning the national lottery, the size of the prize is a very significant lure.

rubadub

CramCycle wrote: »

I wonder does the legislation stipulate a green man is required.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a46

46. (1) A pedestrian shall exercise care and take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians.

(2) A pedestrian facing a traffic light lamp which shows a red light shall not proceed beyond that light.

(3) A pedestrian about to cross a roadway at a place where traffic sign number RPC 003 or RPC 004 [pedestrian lights] has been provided shall do so only when a lamp of the facing pedestrian lights is lit and emits a constant green light.

(4) Subject to sub-article (5), save when crossing the roadway, a pedestrian shall use a footway if one is provided, and if one is not provided, shall keep as near as possible to the right edge of the roadway.

(5) At a road junction where traffic is controlled either by traffic lights or by a member of the Garda Síochána, a pedestrian shall cross the roadway only when traffic going in the direction in which the pedestrian intends to cross is permitted (by the lights or the member) to proceed.

(6) Within a pedestrian crossing complex [traffic sign number RPC 002] a pedestrian shall only cross the roadway at the location of traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing].

(7) On a roadway on which a traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing] has been provided, a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing, except by the crossing.

(8) For the purposes of this article, each carriageway of a dual carriageway shall be deemed to be a separate roadway, and where there is a traffic refuge on a roadway the portion of the roadway on each side of the refuge shall be deemed to be a separate roadway.

CramCycle wrote: »

I used to cycle at night where i typically had a green run most of the way, seems to make no difference now stopping at every second light.

I was actually speaking as a motorist there, as the person presumed most drivers would welcome it, I will be held up as more cyclists take to the roads, and delay cars taking off when lights go green and the cyclist is still there, who would previously have taken off a few seconds before or broken the light (most I see do it in a safe manner).

I also would not like to see jaywalking laws enforced for the same reason. There was a pedestrian light installed near my house a few years ago, which the majority of people crossing do not use. The road is often empty, if people did stick to the law they would delay themselves and traffic.

clod71

rubadub wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html#zzsi182y1997a46



I was actually speaking as a motorist there, as the person presumed most drivers would welcome it, I will be held up as more cyclists take to the roads, and delay cars taking off when lights go green and the cyclist is still there, who would previously have taken off a few seconds before or broken the light (most I see do it in a safe manner).

I also would not like to see jaywalking laws enforced for the same reason. There was a pedestrian light installed near my house a few years ago, which the majority of people crossing do not use. The road is often empty, if people did stick to the law they would delay themselves and traffic.

I do agree that traffic lights are and should continue to be mostly a thing for cars and you explained very well why that is above. Cyclists and pedestrians breaking lights or jaywalking cannot be even compared to cars, when this is done "in a safe manner".

Chips Lovell

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

There is no mention of lights here. There is no need for special clothing but lights of a required design with a prescribed light output should be required, LEDs and rechargeable batteries make these very feasible, and a similar fine if they are absent.

Cian Ginty got his hands on the draft list of offences to come under the new legislation. No lights is on the list alright.

Tenzor07

Yea this one is always kinda worrying

"There will also be a fine for cycling “without reasonable consideration”, which is not well-defined in law."

Which basically means the Gards can decide to stop and fine you for pretty much any sort of behaviour they don't like...

RainyDay

Macy0161 wrote: »

RLJ has never been a safety issue. It's just been a stick to hit cyclists with for daring to make better progress than cars. That's what really causes the issue - "I'm stuck in this line of traffic in my car - look at that untc flying down the inside whilst I'm stuck here - look they're breaking a light too".

The truth ^^^

Chips Lovell

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Yea this one is always kinda worrying

Which basically means the Gards can decide to stop and fine you for pretty much any sort of behaviour they don't like...

The offence is a general one, i.e. it applies to all vehicle types. AFAIK this is what's colloquially known as "dangerous driving". TBH, since Guards aren't going around prosecuting motorists for small infractions, I can't see them doing it for cyclists.

Beasty

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Cian Ginty got his hands on the draft list of offences to come under the new legislation. No lights is on the list alright.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

The offence is a general one, i.e. it applies to all vehicle types. AFAIK this is what's colloquially known as "dangerous driving". TBH, since Guards aren't going around prosecuting motorists for small infractions, I can't see them doing it for cyclists.

Any Cian essentially makes the point

The draft list which is subject to consultation with the Gardai and the Road Safety Authority, includes fines only for offences which already exist. No new offences will be created as part of the process

So essentially it's all about introducing a more sensible basis for enforcement (and on an equal footing to motorists, even if the actual penalties are for differing amounts), which a lot of us on here have made quite clear we are supportive of - it's far better than heading off to court for a day. Equally it's more likely to be enforced which can only help deter people from offending

galwaycyclist

Discussed on Matt Cooper yesterday
http://www.todayfm.com/Cyclists:-Menace-or-Misunderstood--

Player
http://www.todayfm.com/player/podcasts/The_Last_Word_with_Matt_Cooper/The_Last_Word_with_Matt_Cooper/35437/2/Cyclists:_Menace_or_Misunderstood

CramCycle

Jebus, it's like Finian McGrath watched a hipster courier movie and has confused it with reality.

Finian McGrath, neutral (I will admit he sounded fairer than usual, not that means much), according to Finian kids are getting knocked down daily by cyclists in Clontarf, and getting away with it. If this were true, the Gardai would have them lifted, people really think cyclists get away with murder but anyone who knows anything about the Gardai would know that if kids were getting knocked down and it was reported, the gardai would have the cyclists lifted in a matter of days, it's not like you need a detective of Sherlock Holmes standing to catch these people.

Macy0161

tomasrojo wrote: »

Fixed-penalty notices might increase your chances of getting punished for breaking these laws (indeed, that's the rationale given), so if you are a frequent breaker of said laws, you might not welcome the new measures.

It may do, but as has been said many times on this thread (and others) enforcement of road traffic laws is pathetic.

Car or bike commute every single day I see vehicles regularly speeding, breaking red lights (never mind amber gambling), driving on mobile phones, illegally parked (on cycle paths, pavements and yellow lines), blocking yellow boxes, cars displaying L plates unaccompanied, HGV's in the overtaking lane of motorways/ dual carriageways, left and right turns contrary to the signage, u-turns contrary to the signage, motorised vehicles in mandatory cycle lanes, cars/ vans and motorbikes in the bus lanes etc.

Cyclists breaking red lights or on pavements are in the ha'penny place when it comes to breaking the road traffic laws - I see no reason that there'll be any more enforcement of cyclists than any other section, once the initial buzz wears off...

Chips Lovell

In theory, FPNs should allow for more enforcement of road traffic offences since Garda time isn't being spent attending court for prosecution of relatively minor offences.

Jawgap

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

In theory, FPNs should allow for more enforcement of road traffic offences since Garda time isn't being spent attending court for prosecution of relatively minor offences.

Assuming FPNs are paid. If a lot are issued, and even a small proportion go unpaid then, relative to the amount of time involved in 'cycling enforcement' currently, the Guards could find more time hoovered up chasing the non-payers.

I suspect the % of unpaid cycling FPNs will be higher than the % of unpaid motoring FPNs - by a noticeable margin.

Chips Lovell

Probably be comparable to Luas or Dublin Bus fines. Maybe a small bit higher because of the fear factor of a Garda issuing them.

galwaycyclist

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

In theory, FPNs should allow for more enforcement of road traffic offences since Garda time isn't being spent attending court for prosecution of relatively minor offences.

Its not just a time issue. Having discussed it with a guard, there is a perception among some gardai that if they tried bringing prosecutions for cycling offences they would be laughed out of court.

There is a perception that some judges, barristers, more senior garda etc would treat cycling safety as a joke and as a waste of court time.

Jawgap

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Its not just a time issue. Having discussed it with a guard, there is a perception among some gardai that if they tried bringing prosecutions for cycling offences they would be laughed out of court.

There is a perception that some judges, barristers, more senior garda etc would treat cycling safety as a joke and as a waste of court time.

Talking previously to 'de brudder' who's a sergeant, he said if any of his Guards did a cyclist, he'd b0ll0ck them for wasting their time.

Saying that, there's plenty of examples where 'rogue' cyclists have been plonked before a cranky district judge and paid heavily for their behaviour!

Personally, I don't think these powers will be used routinely - but will be used as part of campaigns - for example in the autumn when the RSA's hi-viz tree blooms, and the Guards start looking at lights on bikes. I can see a few FPNs being issued then.

I'm cautiously in favor of this measure as long is it's implemented fairly.

Beasty

ronoc wrote: »

I'm cautiously in favor of this measure as long is it's implemented fairly.

If you've broken the law you face the consequences - what can be unfair about that? Obviously many will continue to get away with stuff, as also happens with motorists. So long as there is nothing discriminatory in the way the rules are applied I really cannot see how their application could be considered "unfair"

magicbastarder

Beasty wrote: »

So long as there is nothing discriminatory in the way the rules are applied I really cannot see how their application could be considered "unfair"

i assume that's what most people would refer to as 'unfair' though - in the 'go out and catch us some cyclists to show the law is being used' way, to boost numbers.

shansey

Got stopped by a Garda at Harolds cross years ago for skipping a light. took details and got summons.

Never broke it again!!

Kavrocks

micar wrote: »

You would think this would work.

I have same issue each morning around 6.50 going up lower lesson at at junction of hatch street lower. I rarely trigger the lights on the bike and I cycle up the middle of the road. Unfortunately as there aren't buses around, I do once it's safe go through the red light.

I've only ever encountered 1 set of traffic lights it hasn't worked at but those wouldn't even change unless there was more than 1 car waiting.

Jawgap

Beasty wrote: »

If you've broken the law you face the consequences - what can be unfair about that? Obviously many will continue to get away with stuff, as also happens with motorists. So long as there is nothing discriminatory in the way the rules are applied I really cannot see how their application could be considered "unfair"

A lot of the offences are fairly straightforward - either you ran the light or you didn't; you're on the pavement or you're not etc.

The cycling 'without reasonable consideration' is potentially arbitrary, but I imagine the Guards would use that as a 'catch all' to punish serious twattery not catered for in the rest of the legislation.

Wasn't there also supposed to be an offence of 'dangerous overtaking' - mostly aimed at stopping cyclists from filtering through traffic in a manner likely to present a danger to themselves and other road users?

Darkglasses

Jawgap wrote: »

Talking previously to 'de brudder' who's a sergeant, he said if any of his Guards did a cyclist, he'd b0ll0ck them for wasting their time.

Seriously? Maybe I'm naive, but isn't that the kind of thing Guards are supposed to be doing when they're on traffic duty in the middle of the day?

Jawgap

Darkglasses wrote: »

Seriously? Maybe I'm naive, but isn't that the kind of thing Guards are supposed to be doing when they're on traffic duty in the middle of the day?

No, because, let's face it, despite the reams of anecdotes, RLJing and cycling on the footpad is bloody annoying as anything to see - but in reality doesn't present a risk to anyone.

EDIT: It's like dog fouling - it would be nice if the Guards could carry out summary executions in respect of it, but really in terms of public safety it's not a significant issue.

Personally, if a Guard has a spare hour during the day I'd prefer if he got his arse down to the quays and started pinging truck, bus and HGV drivers for using their phones while driving.

magicbastarder

Darkglasses wrote: »

Seriously? Maybe I'm naive, but isn't that the kind of thing Guards are supposed to be doing when they're on traffic duty in the middle of the day?

the gardai are allowed use their discretion on whether to prosecute minor offences, so this probably is just a direction to use their discretion.
if a garda spent his entire day doing jaywalkers, his superiors might have reason to believe his time could be better spent on other matters.

Darkglasses

Jawgap wrote: »

No, because, let's face it, despite the reams of anecdotes, RLJing and cycling on the footpad is bloody annoying as anything to see - but in reality doesn't present a risk to anyone.

EDIT: It's like dog fouling - it would be nice if the Guards could carry out summary executions in respect of it, but really in terms of public safety it's not a significant issue.

Personally, if a Guard has a spare hour during the day I'd prefer if he got his arse down to the quays and started pinging truck, bus and HGV drivers for using their phones while driving.

And so without meaning to be facetious, what do traffic corps gardai spend their time on when they are out on the street?

Jawgap

Darkglasses wrote: »

And so without meaning to be facetious, what do traffic corps gardai spend their time on when they are out on the street?

Road Traffic enforcement I'd imagine.

Based on their twitter feed they do a lot of speed and mandatory alcohol checks, presumably in addition to investigating collisions resulting in injury.

Again, if you have a Traffic Corps car at a loose end - which would be the better use of it's time - running speed checks near school (or on some of the minor roads where people never expect to see them) or nabbing inconsiderate cyclists?

Jawgap

Darkglasses wrote: »

And so without meaning to be facetious, what do traffic corps gardai spend their time on when they are out on the street?

According to their 2014 Report the dealt with or investigated ......

Driving while intoxicated incidents: 7,962

MAT Checkpoints: 78,290
Total breath tests at MAT checkpoints: 441,380

Road Transport incidents: 5,170
Dangerous Driving: 3,438
Section 41 Detention of Vehicles: 20,244

Fixed Charge Notices
Speeding: 207,919
Seatbelts: 12,024
Mobile Phones: 28,938

tunney

magicbastarder wrote: »

the gardai are allowed use their discretion on whether to prosecute minor offences, so this probably is just a direction to use their discretion.
if a garda spent his entire day doing jaywalkers, his superiors might have reason to believe his time could be better spent on other matters.

Jaywalking is not an offense in ireland though is it?

Jawgap

tunney wrote: »

Jaywalking is not an offense in ireland though is it?

Depends - I think it's an offence to cross the road within a certain distance of a pedestrian crossing - essentially you're being prosecuted for being lazy:D

Plus, I don't think the Guards can give you an FPN for it - it's a summons and the District Court.

Eamonnator

Darkglasses wrote: »

And so without meaning to be facetious, what do traffic corps gardai spend their time on when they are out on the street?

In the Garda division, where I live, there are two Traffic Corps. One unit has a notional strength of 2 sergeants and 12 gardai. It actually has a strength of 1 sgt. and 6 gardai. The other unit has the same notional strength and actually has a strength of 1sgt. and 4 gardai.
I think, this is pretty much replicated throughout the country.
So, to answer your question, quite a lot of the members of traffic units have been promoted or transferred out of the Corps and have not been replaced.

Beasty

Beasty wrote: »

If you've broken the law you face the consequences - what can be unfair about that? Obviously many will continue to get away with stuff, as also happens with motorists. So long as there is nothing discriminatory in the way the rules are applied I really cannot see how their application could be considered "unfair"

As long as it isn't a stick to beat cyclists with.

With some exceptions, the vast majority of cycling offenses are in the "jaywalking" category of seriousness.

magicbastarder

Jawgap wrote: »

Depends - I think it's an offence to cross the road within a certain distance of a pedestrian crossing - essentially you're being prosecuted for being lazy:D

Plus, I don't think the Guards can give you an FPN for it - it's a summons and the District Court.

in germany (well, in nordrhein-westfalen), jaywalking has a fixed penalty of €5. the cops carry around credit card machines so you pay on the spot.

ArmaniJeanss

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Cian Ginty got his hands on the draft list of offences

The draft list also includes cycling more than two abreast, not cycling in single file when overtaking traffic, having no brakes on your bicycle

Curious one this or maybe I'm reading it wrong.
Does it make me responsible for my fellow cyclists, i.e. I'm overtaking in single file but another cyclist comes up on my outside (or inside) are we both now committing an offence?

Sheldons Brain

Macy0161 wrote: »

It's €80 for a motorised vehicle.

Part of the logic for FPN is to make the consequences more proportionate to motorised vehicles, and you want to go the other way?

I would favour a much higher fine for motorists too, some of these fines were set in the past.

But motorists will also accumulate points, which may be a more effective punishment, it isn't clear that any number of offences will put a cyclist off the road.

No, because, let's face it, despite the reams of anecdotes, RLJing and cycling on the footpad is bloody annoying as anything to see - but in reality doesn't present a risk to anyone.

It presents a risk to cyclist of being killed and for pedestrians of being injured. Nobody is suggesting that Gardai divert from detective duties for this, but if they are present they should enforce the law. If this happens and if the penalities are realistic, and not a nonsense €50, then there will be many fewer offences and it will be more realistic to then focus on the remaining lawbreakers.

RainyDay

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

It presents a risk to cyclist of being killed and for pedestrians of being injured.

Is this a theoretical risk or a practical risk? Is there any case in Ireland in living memory of a cyclist being killed as a result of RLJ-ing?

Are there many cases of pedestrians being injured?

Chips Lovell

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Curious one this or maybe I'm reading it wrong.
Does it make me responsible for my fellow cyclists, i.e. I'm overtaking in single file but another cyclist comes up on my outside (or inside) are we both now committing an offence?

My reading of it would be that he's committing the offence, not you.

CramCycle

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

It presents a risk to cyclist of being killed and for pedestrians of being injured. Nobody is suggesting that Gardai divert from detective duties for this, but if they are present they should enforce the law. If this happens and if the penalities are realistic, and not a nonsense €50, then there will be many fewer offences and it will be more realistic to then focus on the remaining lawbreakers.

I wouldn't call 50 euro nonsense, I would struggle to pay it but I don't break the rules so I am not overly worried.

There is more than one reason for the penalty being a "nonsense" 50euro. Compliance being the main one, if the fine is too high, at a certain point so many people will decide its worth going through the courts is worth the chance it will be struck out.

This makes it a stupid level as it will defeat the purpose of the FPN in the first place and enforcement will fall. Whereas 50euro is of a level that most people will pay it rather than take a day to go to court over it.

The way you post you think no one put any thought into it whatsoever.

schemingbohemia

Is there any point in anyone replying to Sheldons Brain's posts? All s/he does is troll on here.

CramCycle

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Is there any point in anyone replying to Sheldons Brain's posts? All s/he does is troll on here.

MOD VOICE: If there is an issue with a post, report it, back seat modding is not tolerated

rubadub

Beasty wrote: »

If you've broken the law you face the consequences - what can be unfair about that?

The laws are made to stop certain actions, many benign actions will also fall under the legal description, even though the law makers may have had no real intention of preventing that action.

So if a woman illegally runs across an empty road at a pedestrian crossing to escape a mugger and the garda takes the easy option and prosecutes her I would think its unfair. It is not what the law actually set out to prevent happening.

The headline said

Cyclists face on-the-spot fines of at least €50 for breaking red lights and other dangerous habits under new rules.

Breaking a red light on foot, on a bike or in a car is not necessarily dangerous, and most gardai are sensible about enforcing the law and do it fairly.

tunney wrote: »

Jaywalking is not an offense in ireland though is it?

I posted the law a while ago today. In the most threads where I mention jaywalking someone posts questioning if its a law. This just shows how unenforced it is, and shows the general ignorance pedestrians have of the law. In after hours there is a call for a theory test for cyclists, I likened this to having theory tests for burglars. 99.9% of cyclists and burglars are fully aware they are breaking the law -but many pedestrians have no idea.

JamJamJamJam

So high vis doesn't look like it will be mandatory? Lights after dark is fair enough in my opinion.

Regarding cycling "without reasonable consideration", when cars are stopped at lights, is it generally considered okay to cycle past them to the front of the queue? If so, is that only on the left hand side (even though you never overtake on the left in a car), or on the right hand side (even though you probably normally cycle towards the left hand side of the lane, so you'd be doing a bit more weaving)?

Chips Lovell

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

So high vis doesn't look like it will be mandatory?

It never was. The FPNs are only for a number of existing offences.

buffalo

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

some of these fines were set in the past

Only some? How many were set in the future?