Wrong Fixed Penalty - Red Light

magicbastarder

stimpson wrote: »

If that’s the point then it’s a bit ****ing childish to argue that if you accept that primary accidents are actually a thing.

i can see the point to an extent though - i've seen the argument posited that even if cyclists don't get caught up in 'primary' accidents while running red lights, they leave a string of secondary accidents such as fender benders, bent traffic poles, and hurt feelings, as they cycle gormlessly on.

all this is, is - is this actually a thing? or is it just an argument used against cyclists couched in a way we cannot refute it?

yes, it's illegal and unwarranted behaviour, as per Lumen's post. arguing that the above does not happen nearly to the extent claimed is not refuting the illegality of it.

AndrewJRenko

how.gareth wrote: »

Did a cyclist kill a pedestrian in the Phoenix Park recently or vice versa?

Lumen wrote: »

The cyclist died.

And regardless, it's nothing to do with the 'red light' scenario under discussion here, but it's interesting to note the level of desperation of some to point the finger at cyclists, while generally ignoring the 3 or 4 people killed each week by motorists.

stimpson wrote: »

Cyclists who don’t obey the rules of the road are a danger. Pointing the finger at car drivers is just whataboutery. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and not look for excuses or to pass the buck.

Yes, you're right - cyclists who don't obey the rules of the road are a danger. The issue under discussion here is the extent or degree of danger involved. Is it similar to the danger arising from pedestrians with earphones who step out on the road without a glance for cyclists? Or similar to the danger involved in a motorist taking one hand off the wheel to have a smoke?

I guess it's hard to put numbers on it, but it is fairly clear that the level of danger involved hasn't resulted in death or significant injury in living memory in Ireland - so that gives everyone some context of the level of danger involved.

Just curious - do you ever break a speed limit?

stimpson wrote: »

If that’s the point then it’s a bit ****ing childish to argue that if you accept that primary accidents are actually a thing.

I prefer 'collisions' to 'accidents' - the term accident is designed to let the guilty party off the hook.

fritzelly wrote: »

All you are doing is arguing that we shouldn't care if cyclists break red lights because no one (in Ireland) has been very seriously injured. Point is they are breaking the rules of the road that apply to all users of it.
In the case of the taxi driver - who is paying for his repairs and loss of earnings, it's not all down to physical injury.
It's not right that pedestrians have to jump out of the way because of some selfish cyclist is flying thu a pedestrian crossing when he should stop. If it was a car you would be suing the insurance company, with a cyclist you have to take a claim case against the individual
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/pedestrian-who-sued-teen-cyclist-over-collision-settles-case-1.3361483

But if it was one of the 150k approx uninsured vehicles on the road, you wouldn't be suing the insurance company. You'd be paying for that cost on yours (and my) insurance policy via the MRBI. But isn't it strange how that issue rarely gets mentioned in the mad rush to point fingers at cyclists.

Just curious - do you ever break a speed limit?

stimpson

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, you're right - cyclists who don't obey the rules of the road are a danger. The issue under discussion here is the extent or degree of danger involved. Is it similar to the danger arising from pedestrians with earphones who step out on the road without a glance for cyclists? Or similar to the danger involved in a motorist taking one hand off the wheel to have a smoke?

There are no laws against either of those things though. There is a law against running a red light. But, again, if they were as dangerous then so what? Running a red light is still dangerous to you and those around you.

I guess it's hard to put numbers on it, but it is fairly clear that the level of danger involved hasn't resulted in death or significant injury in living memory in Ireland - so that gives everyone some context of the level of danger involved.

Doing a quick search on google is not exactly compelling evidence. Having said that, there was a case last week where a pedestrian was in a critical condition in hospital after a collision with a cyclist: http://irishcycle.com/2018/03/23/woman-critical-after-pedestrian-and-cyclist-collision-in-dublin/

Your attempt to justify putting people at risk (or give context to the level of danger as you put it) is childish.

Just curious - do you ever break a speed limit?

For the little bit of driving I do nowadays, I do not. I have no points on my licence, and never had. I stick on cruise control and relax. Life’s too short.

AndrewJRenko

stimpson wrote: »

There are no laws against either of those things though. There is a law against running a red light. But, again, if they were as dangerous then so what? Running a red light is still dangerous to you and those around you.

Interesting that there is no law against pedestrians stepping out on the street, endangering themselves and others though, right?.

And yes, running a red light is still dangerous - but the data seems to suggest that it is not very dangerous.

stimpson wrote: »

Doing a quick search on google is not exactly compelling evidence. Having said that, there was a case last week where a pedestrian was in a critical condition in hospital after a collision with a cyclist: http://irishcycle.com/2018/03/23/woman-critical-after-pedestrian-and-cyclist-collision-in-dublin/

Did the cyclist break a red light in that incident?

stimpson wrote: »

Your attempt to justify putting people at risk (or give context to the level of danger as you put it) is childish.

Quantification of the impact of any risk is the first step in managing a risk, along with quantifying the probability of the risk occurring - fairly basic risk management. Perhaps you'd like to tell the entire risk management profession that they are being childish?

stimpson wrote: »

For the little bit of driving I do nowadays, I do not. I have no points on my licence, and never had. I stick on cruise control and relax. Life’s too short.

Interesting to see that you associate speed limits with motorway style driving. Cruise control is grand on motorways when not in heavy traffic, but doesn't really work in ordinary traffic.

So again, in ordinary urban traffic, with 30 kmph or 50 kmph speed limits, do you ever break that speed limit - honestly now?

stimpson

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Interesting that there is no law against pedestrians stepping out on the street, endangering themselves and others though, right?.

You should always be able to stop within a distance you can see to be clear. it’s in the rules of the road.

And yes, running a red light is still dangerous - but the data seems to suggest that it is not very dangerous.

What data? I haven’t seen you post anything other than heresay.

Did the cyclist break a red light in that incident?

I doubt it matters much to the victim.

Quantification of the impact of any risk is the first step in managing a risk, along with quantifying the probability of the risk occurring - fairly basic risk management. Perhaps you'd like to tell the entire risk management profession that they are being childish?

Oh I totally agree. I’m sure that is the whole basis for putting traffic lights in places where different roads intersect. Has anyone in the risk management profession published a study to support your view that breaking red lights on a bike is not dangerous? You do know they do a bit more than a casual google search?

Interesting to see that you associate speed limits with motorway style driving. Cruise control is grand on motorways when not in heavy traffic, but doesn't really work in ordinary traffic.

So again, in ordinary urban traffic, with 30 kmph or 50 kmph speed limits, do you ever break that speed limit - honestly now?

Most of my driving is on motorway or N roads. Most of my local transport is on food or bike. And I border a 30kmph zone so I tend to be very careful when driving locally. And I have a speed limiter on the car as well as cruise control.

AndrewJRenko

stimpson wrote: »

You should always be able to stop within a distance you can see to be clear. it’s in the rules of the road.

Interesting that you didn't take that view when it came to cyclists breaking lights? You didn't conclude that there is no danger to motorists arising from cyclists breaking lights because motorists should always be able to stop within a distance you can see to be clear. Are we seeing a little double-standard here?

stimpson wrote: »

What data? I haven’t seen you post anything other than heresay.

All the road death and serious injury stats are on the RSA website. Cyclists breaking red lights does not appear in any of them.

Have you any data to support your contention about the dangers of cyclists breaking red lights?

stimpson wrote: »

I doubt it matters much to the victim.

It matters to this debate, unless the cyclist was breaking the red light, it is entirely irrelevant here. I'm assuming that you have no information about the circumstances of this collision, so I've no idea why you mentioned it here. Perhaps part of the desperate rush to point fingers at cyclists without any evidence to support it?

stimpson wrote: »

Oh I totally agree. I’m sure that is the whole basis for putting traffic lights in places where different roads intersect. Has anyone in the risk management profession published a study to support your view that breaking red lights on a bike is not dangerous? You do know they do a bit more than a casual google search?

I didn't say that cyclists breaking red lights is not dangerous. Quite the reverse - I stated that it is dangerous. But not VERY dangerous - and certainly nothing like as dangerous as most the actions of the speeding/texting/phoning/drinking drivers we see all the time.

So do YOU have any published studies highlighting the dangers of cyclists breaking red lights?

stimpson wrote: »

Most of my driving is on motorway or N roads. Most of my local transport is on food or bike. And I border a 30kmph zone so I tend to be very careful when driving locally. And I have a speed limiter on the car as well as cruise control.

Are you being a touch evasive? I asked a fairly clear question as to whether you ever break a speed limit, and I haven't got a straight answer.

stimpson

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Interesting that you didn't take that view when it came to cyclists breaking lights? You didn't conclude that there is no danger to motorists arising from cyclists breaking lights because motorists should always be able to stop within a distance you can see to be clear. Are we seeing a little double-standard here?

Not at all. You should also be able to stop in the distance you can see. But you must also stop at a red light. It’s not an either/or situation.

All the road death and serious injury stats are on the RSA website. Cyclists breaking red lights does not appear in any of them.

Have you any data to support your contention about the dangers of cyclists breaking red lights?

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It matters to this debate, unless the cyclist was breaking the red light, it is entirely irrelevant here. I'm assuming that you have no information about the circumstances of this collision, so I've no idea why you mentioned it here. Perhaps part of the desperate rush to point fingers at cyclists without any evidence to support it?

I’m not pointing fingers at cyclists. I’m pointing out the danger to a pedestrian from a cyclist. If a pedestrian is crossing on a Green man, then the risk of a cyclist coliding with one is greatly increased.

I didn't say that cyclists breaking red lights is not dangerous. Quite the reverse - I stated that it is dangerous. But not VERY dangerous - and certainly nothing like as dangerous as most the actions of the speeding/texting/phoning/drinking drivers we see all the time.

You keep asserting that without providing evidence. And the whataboutery again. It is certainly more dangerous than obeying the law and stopping at a red light.

So do YOU have any published studies highlighting the dangers of cyclists breaking red lights?

You are making the assertion. It’s for you to prove your argument.

Are you being a touch evasive? I asked a fairly clear question as to whether you ever break a speed limit, and I haven't got a straight answer.

I gave you a straight answer the first time. I do not break the speed limit. Is that clear enough for you?

RobertFoster

I love it on boards when a thread descends into line-by-line quote nitpicking session between two users. Makes for interesting reading.

stimpson

RobertFoster wrote: »

I love it on boards when a thread descends into line-by-line quote nitpicking session between two users. Makes for interesting reading.

Snip

Mod note - Any more name calling an you can take a break. Keep it civil.

The Bishop Basher

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Interesting that you didn't take that view when it came to cyclists breaking lights? You didn't conclude that there is no danger to motorists arising from cyclists breaking lights because motorists should always be able to stop within a distance you can see to be clear. Are we seeing a little double-standard here?

I'm just a casual observer here but man you take whataboutery to a whole new level for boards.ie and that's saying something when it comes to a cycling v's cars debate.

stimpson

stimpson wrote: »

Snip

Mod note - Any more name calling an you can take a break. Keep it civil.

Apologies. It was more of a general statement, not directed at any poster in particular.

AndrewJRenko

Swanner wrote: »

I'm just a casual observer here but man you take whataboutery to a whole new level for boards.ie and that's saying something when it comes to a cycling v's cars debate.

What I think is happening here is that we've had such a car-dominated culture for so long, backed up by the usual suspect dinosaurs in the media, that when someone comes out with a contrarian viewpoint - that the main dangers on the road are caused by motorists - even with overwhelming supporting evidence, it takes people a little while to face up to reality.

stimpson wrote: »

Not at all. You should also be able to stop in the distance you can see. But you must also stop at a red light. It’s not an either/or situation.

You can't have it both ways. If cyclists breaking red lights are a danger, then pedestrians stepping out on the road is a danger. If you absolve pedestrians of responsibility based on the 'motorists must be able to stop', then the same absolution logically applies to cyclists.

stimpson wrote: »

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It literally is evidence of absence. An absence of evidence of deaths or serious injuries caused by cyclists breaking red lights is absolutely reliable evidence that deaths or serious injuries do not occur as a result of cyclists breaking red lights. Deaths or serious injuries get loads of publicity and proper investigations by Gardai and others. It is preposterous to suggest that deaths or serious injuries are being caused by cyclists breaking red lights but this is not showing up on Garda reports, press reports, coroner's reports, court cases or any other source.

I'm sure that there are cases of injuries caused by cyclists breaking red lights, and that's not good or acceptable. I've seen cyclists do stupid stuff at the junction where that pedestrian was injured fairly frequently. Most of the time, they don't endanger anyone but themselves. But occasionally, they do endanger pedestrians. But the frequency and degree of injuries arising are both so low that this isn't appearing in the death or serious injury data.

stimpson wrote: »

I’m not pointing fingers at cyclists. I’m pointing out the danger to a pedestrian from a cyclist. If a pedestrian is crossing on a Green man, then the risk of a cyclist coliding with one is greatly increased.

There is indeed a degree of danger to pedestrians arising from cyclists who break red lights. The data indicates that the degree of danger is relatively low.

stimpson wrote: »

You keep asserting that without providing evidence. And the whataboutery again. It is certainly more dangerous than obeying the law and stopping at a red light.

Yes, I agree - in most cases, breaking a red light is more dangerous than stopping. The degree of danger arising is very low.

stimpson wrote: »

You are making the assertion. It’s for you to prove your argument.

Actually, you're making the assertion that cyclists breaking red lights is seriously dangerous. So isn't it up to YOU to produce some supporting data or research?

stimpson wrote: »

I gave you a straight answer the first time. I do not break the speed limit. Is that clear enough for you?

Good to hear. I presume you frequently find a line of cars tailing back behind you, with probably one or two beeping in protest at your compliance with the law? Because the vast majority of drivers break speed limits, as shown in the RSA Speed Surveys.

monument

Eamonnator wrote: »

The Sergeant may well be correct. Here's a case from 2010:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/injured-cyclist-gets-driving-ban-for-breaking-red-light-26661405.html

This lad was banned from driving. I don't see why penalty points could not also be applied.

A judge has some discretion to make up punishments (sometimes it has been shown that they go too far, ie use of the poor box when they were expressly forbidden from applying it for traffic offences), Gardai issuing on-the-spot fines do not have discretion in terms of what punishment is applied — besides a warning or fine or going to court.

When a Gardai chooses to fine the person on a bicycle, there are no points supposed to be applied.

Eamonnator

monument wrote: »

A judge has some discretion to make up punishments (sometimes it has been shown that they go too far, ie use of the poor box when they were expressly forbidden from applying it for traffic offences), Gardai issuing on-the-spot fines do not have discretion in terms of what punishment is applied — besides a warning or fine or going to court.

When a Gardai chooses to fine the person on a bicycle, there are no points supposed to be applied.

Sorry, I phrased my post badly.
I meant, that if the judge could ban the cyclist from driving, he could also apply penalty points to a cyclist.

Kaisr Sose

Eamonnator wrote: »

Sorry, I phrased my post badly.
I meant, that if the judge could ban the cyclist from driving, he could also apply penalty points to a cyclist.

If the statue does not prescribe a driving ban or points for a cyclist passing a red light when lit (which it does not as far as am aware); how can a judge impose points or driving ban for a cycling offence?

Furthermore, sentencing for a cyclist with a driving licence can’t be more harsh than sentencing for the same offence where there was no driving licence.

Although, a district court level, some decisions of judges defy belief, and it’s quite possible to get one that has a beef with cyclists.

km991148

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

If the statue does not prescribe a driving ban or points for a cyclist passing a red light when lit (which it does not as far as am aware); how can a judge impose points or driving ban for a cycling offence?

Furthermore, sentencing for a cyclist with a driving licence can’t be more harsh than sentencing for the same offence where there was no driving licence.

Although, a district court level, some decisions of judges defy belief, and it’s quite possible to get one that has a beef with cyclists.

This is the fear - I would have thought that technically the wrong ticket was issued, therefore it is illegal - but taking it to court is risky as some Judge could do what he wants?

cython

km991148 wrote: »

This is the fear - I would have thought that technically the wrong ticket was issued, therefore it is illegal - but taking it to court is risky as some Judge could do what he wants?

The main issue with that is that the judge would have to convict someone of an offence that was not committed to impose the penalty in this instance. There's a huge difference between imposing a "customised" penalty, and that, and it would be wide open to appeal.

km991148

cython wrote: »

The main issue with that is that the judge would have to convict someone of an offence that was not committed to impose the penalty in this instance. There's a huge difference between imposing a "customised" penalty, and that, and it would be wide open to appeal.

So the judge cannot impose a penalty for a cyclist going through a red light if they are in court for a motoring offence?

It would be ridiculous waste of court time anyway!

GM228

magicbastarder wrote: »

interestingly, the caption on the photo mentions an intended appeal; any way to check if such an appeal was lodged?

He never got a chance to as he is too busy serving 6 years in prison for some of his other 41 offences!

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-who-rammed-garda-car-fails-in-appeal-against-eightyear-sentence-30742651.html

GM228

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Interesting that there is no law against pedestrians stepping out on the street, endangering themselves and others though, right?.

There is such a law, and it potentially carries a hefty penalty of up to €1000 for first offence, €2000 for second, third* or subsequent* offences. (*A third or subsequent offence within 12 months can also carry 3 months imprisonment).

cython

km991148 wrote: »

So the judge cannot impose a penalty for a cyclist going through a red light if they are in court for a motoring offence?

It would be ridiculous waste of court time anyway!

I'm not sure, but given that the judge's job is to hear the case before them, and not to prosecute the case, it may well be the case that they can't. Issuing the correct penalty should not be too much to expect of the prosecution and/or the Gardai, and it would (or at least should) be their job to bring a new prosecution and have the original invalid one thrown out/acquitted. The judge is supposed to be an impartial party between the prosecution and defendant, and so should not be able to dig the prosecution out like that, but I am far from a lawyer, and common sense does not always apply in legal circles!

GM228

km991148 wrote: »

So the judge cannot impose a penalty for a cyclist going through a red light if they are in court for a motoring offence?

No they can't.

irishrover99

How the **** did a simple question about a fine/ticket turn into a 80+ post thread.

Kaisr Sose

irishrover99 wrote: »

How the **** did a simple question about a fine/ticket turn into a 80+ post thread.

It got stopped at roadworks, then lots of red lights before having to go cross country for a bit to get back on course!
Great to see it back on topic!

km991148

I was going to put a request on the original to try and make it NOT about cars vs cyclists, wearing helmets, high viz, cycling on pavements etc.. but would have been a waste of time

Zen0

GM228 wrote: »

There is such a law, and it potentially carries a hefty penalty of up to €1000 for first offence, €2000 for second, third* or subsequent* offences. (*A third or subsequent offence within 12 months can also carry 3 months imprisonment).

What!!! Can you name the Act please.

Carawaystick

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Interesting that you didn't take that view when it came to cyclists breaking lights? You didn't conclude that there is no danger to motorists arising from cyclists breaking lights because motorists should always be able to stop within a distance you can see to be clear. Are we seeing a little double-standard here?

There's No Danger to Motorists from people cycling, because motorists are in a metal box
This can be refuted by providing evidence of motorists injured by people cycling.

Children below the age of criminal responsibility need not stop at red lights. People driving cars need to anticipate this and drive accordingly.

plodder

Zen0 wrote: »

What!!! Can you name the Act please.

Well, it's in the rules of the road, but this is where I think it comes from legally.

ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997.

46 Rules for Pedestrians

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.

Road Traffic Act 1994 wrote:

35 (5) (a) A person who contravenes a regulation under this section shall be guilty of an offence.

The penalty is a catch-all that applies generally to offences that don't have more specific ones. So, it's not specifically for jay-walking.

I don't know how many people have ever been charged under that.

seamus

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

If the statue does not prescribe a driving ban or points for a cyclist passing a red light when lit (which it does not as far as am aware); how can a judge impose points or driving ban for a cycling offence?

The road traffic act includes a general provision for a judge to impose a discretionary driving ban where deemed appropriate.

Points, not so much.

Zen0

Thanks Plodder. I didn’t know we had laws against jaywalking here. I thought that was only car obsessed places like the US. It would be interesting to know if those provisions have ever been used. I certainly don’t have a sense that the Gardaí are stopping jaywalkers as a matter of routine.