Pedestrian Right of way at Junctions

Samuel T. Cogley

I can't seem to find this anywhere but I was sure they did. Any pointers most welcome. I'm sure it was in this forum before but couldn't find it with the search.

GM228

S8 (3) of the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations 1997:-

8. (3) A driver of a vehicle approaching a road junction shall yield the right of way to another vehicle which has commenced to turn or cross at the junction in accordance with these Regulations and to a pedestrian who has commenced to cross at the junction in accordance with these Regulations.

The qualifying criteria is the pedestrian has commenced to cross at the junction in accordance with the regulations so it is not absolute, for example a pedestrian who crosses at a junction against a red pedestrian light contrary to S46 is afforded no right of way.

Caranica

I can't find it right now but I'm 99% certain there's also a jay walking article that makes crossing a junction within 30m(50m?) of a pedestrian crossing illegal. Never heard of any action being taken on it though, this is Ireland.

GM228

Caranica wrote: »

I can't find it right now but I'm 99% certain there's also a jay walking article that makes crossing a junction within 30m(50m?) of a pedestrian crossing illegal. Never heard of any action being taken on it though, this is Ireland.

S46 (6) & (7):-

46. (6) On a roadway where traffic sign number RPC 001 (zebra pedestrian crossing) is provided or where that sign is provided in association with traffic sign number RPC 002 (zig-zag pedestrian crossing lines) a pedestrian shall only cross the roadway at the location of traffic sign number RPC 001

28064212

Caranica wrote: »

I can't find it right now but I'm 99% certain there's also a jay walking article that makes crossing a junction within 30m(50m?) of a pedestrian crossing illegal. Never heard of any action being taken on it though, this is Ireland.

15m:

(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.

Caranica

28064212 wrote: »

15m:

That's the one. Any idea why it's never enforced? Practicalities aside, there must have been a reason for the law, so why ignore it?

beauf

Caranica wrote: »

That's the one. Any idea why it's never enforced? Practicalities aside, there must have been a reason for the law, so why ignore it?

They ignore the majority of laws, rules. What makes this one special.

We've an abysmal record for enforcement.

28064212

Caranica wrote: »

That's the one. Any idea why it's never enforced? Practicalities aside, there must have been a reason for the law, so why ignore it?

How many traffic laws do you see enforced on a day to day basis? Cars blocking yellow boxes and speeding in Dublin city centre, cyclists on footpaths and running red lights, pedestrians crossing against red lights...

28064212

28064212 wrote: »

How many traffic laws do you see enforced on a day to day basis? Cars blocking yellow boxes and speeding in Dublin city centre, cyclists on footpaths and running red lights, pedestrians crossing against red lights...

Many things happen in the city that you were not there to see.

beauf

Deleted User wrote: »

Many things happen in the city that you were not there to see.

You can look at the stats and see the low enforcement.

GM228

Caranica wrote: »

That's the one. Any idea why it's never enforced? Practicalities aside, there must have been a reason for the law, so why ignore it?

Most laws which specify a distance as the qualifying criteria are difficult if not impossible to prove to the standard required for a criminal prosecution.

28064212

Deleted User wrote: »

Many things happen in the city that you were not there to see.

I'm aware. I wasn't saying none of these things are ever enforced, I'm saying that the chances of seeing them be enforced are extremely low

beauf

28064212 wrote: »

I'm aware. I wasn't saying none of these things are ever enforced, I'm saying that the chances of seeing them be enforced are extremely low

Not really. Used to see a lot more enforcement in the past. Hardly see it at all now. Used to be you'd see a Garda check, or speed check a few times a month or a week. Now it's half a year before you see one. People being pulled over, cyclist stopped. Foot patrols.

Peregrinus

Caranica wrote: »

That's the one. Any idea why it's never enforced? Practicalities aside, there must have been a reason for the law, so why ignore it?

beauf wrote: »

They ignore the majority of laws, rules. What makes this one special.

We've an abysmal record for enforcement.

This may come as a surprise to people, but the main point of having laws is not always to enforce them. Very often a large part of the reason is simply to establish norms and set expectations and so contribute to order and efficiency. I know what behaviour is expected of me and other drivers at a junction or a roundabout or whatever; that's the main point of the laws regulating this. That outcome is acheived without many prosecutions, and certainly without prosecuting every infringement

The main point of traffic laws is to keep traffic flowing smoothly and safely. Enforcing them consistently is quite difficult - you'd need a guard stationed every hundred meters along every road in the country 24 hours a day to collect the evidence needed to prosecute every traffic infringement, and even then a lot would be missed. And,ironically, the free flow of traffic would be severely impeded.

But they are not designed to be enforced consistently. Where you do find them enforced, it's usually because (a) they haven't worked to keep traffic flowing safely - there has been an accident; or (b) there's a targetted programme of enforcement to raise public awareness - e.g. speed traps, spot checks for drink-driving; or (c) there's revenue to be raised (parking restrictions).

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

(c) there's revenue to be raised (parking restrictions).

Most parking restrictions are about safety and the free flow of traffic - raising revenue from this is not an objective. Indeed enforcement often costs more than the revenue received. With pay parking, revenue is one of the objectives, but provision of available parking is the main one.

Peregrinus

Oh, sure - didn't mean to suggest that revenue-rasiing was the sole motivation. Mixed motivations are usual. You're quite right that main point of parking restrictions is safety, traffic flow and also equitable rationing of limited parking space. Enforcement is relatively high because these are laws that people will flout if they think they can get away with it, much more than they will, say, drive on the wrong side of the road. But sytematic ticketing of cars that are otherwise lawfully parked except that they haven't paid the fee is at least partly revenue-driven.

(Which I don't object to. Provision of parking spaces comes at a significant cost. Who should pay this, if not the people who park in them?)

beauf

Peregrinus wrote: »

This may come as a surprise to people, but the main point of having laws is not always to enforce them. Very often a large part of the reason is simply to establish norms and set expectations ....

If there is a low rate of enforcement there is no expectation of being caught so the norm is to ignore them. Which is why people ignore them.

One was the cycling in the short fines. There were two per day for the entire country.

You can see the effect of this in people habits and behaviour every day.

There are studies to show that high rates of enforcement even for a short time change peoples behaviour. So a speed trap once a week might influence behaviour for two weeks.

I think we'll see more of these stories soon...

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/its-totally-inadequate-gra-raise-concerns-over-level-of-garda-patrols-to-protect-longford-from-pure-thugs-948191.html

Peregrinus

beauf wrote: »

If there is a low rate of enforcement there is no expectation of being caught so the norm is to ignore them. Which is why people ignore them.

For most traffic laws, the main reason not to breach them is not so you won't get caught; it's so that you won't get killed. Enforcment is only an issue where the safety case for obeying the law is not immediately obvious.

beauf

Peregrinus wrote: »

...Enforcement is relatively high because these are laws that people will flout if they think they can get away with it, much more than they will, say, drive on the wrong side of the road. But sytematic ticketing of cars that are otherwise lawfully parked except that they haven't paid the fee is at least partly revenue-driven.

(Which I don't object to. Provision of parking spaces comes at a significant cost. Who should pay this, if not the people who park in them?)

.. It's enforced because it's been out sourced and privately operated. Thus revenue is an incentive for the private company.

There is no incentive for Garda if the legal system creates a revolving door for repeat offenders.

beauf

Peregrinus wrote: »

For most traffic laws, the main reason not to breach them is not so you won't get caught; it's so that you won't get killed. Enforcment is only an issue where the safety case for obeying the law is not immediately obvious.

Enforcement is always an issue. There's is demonstrated link between enforcement of minor crimes (law breaking) and major crimes.

.. besides we have low enforcement of law breaking where there is a clear safely issue also.

Peregrinus

beauf wrote: »

.. It's enforced because it's been out sourced and privately operated. Thus revenue is an incentive for the private company.

There is no incentive for Garda if the legal system creates a revolving door for repeat offenders.

"revolving door" isn't an issue for Road Traffic offences, which rarely if ever attract a custodial sentence. In so far as enforcement is revenue-driven, repeat offenders are actually a good thing; they generate more revenue.

GM228

beauf wrote: »

.. It's enforced because it's been out sourced and privately operated. Thus revenue is an incentive for the private company.

There is no incentive for Garda if the legal system creates a revolving door for repeat offenders.

The private companies are awarded fixed price contracts, they don't retain any revenue therefore revenue is not an inventive for them.

The contracts weather they be for clamping or speed enforcement cost more to operate than the revenue they generate.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

In so far as enforcement is revenue-driven, repeat offenders are actually a good thing; they generate more revenue.

But remember, enforcement costs money, more than it brings in in fines.

If they are repeat offenders, they obviously aren't learning the safety message.

GM228 wrote: »

The contracts weather they be for clamping or speed enforcement cost more to operate than the revenue they generate.

Yes. The real benefit comes from preventing the relevant behaviour (speeding or obstructing traffic / not paying for your parking).

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

But remember, enforcement costs money, more than it brings in in fines.

If they are repeat offenders, they obviously aren't learning the safety message.

I think it's mainly parking enforcement that's revenue driven. Does that cost more than it brings is? I don't know, but it would surprise me.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think it's mainly parking enforcement that's revenue driven. Does that cost more than it brings is? I don't know, but it would surprise me.

Fines for clamping don't earn enough to pay for the clamping / towing. Parking income is a multiple of clamping income, certainly for Dublin City.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

Fines for clamping don't earn enough to pay for the clamping / towing. Parking income is a multiple of clamping income, certainly for Dublin City.

You've got your charges paid at the meter. You've got your clamping fees. And you've got your parking ticket payments. Gross revenue from enforcement is [clamping fees + parking tickets] less [costs of clamping/issuing tickets] plus [increased parking fees from people who wouldn't otherwise pay, but are incentivised to do so by the risk of ticketing/clamping]. The latter, admittedly, must be hard to measure.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think it's mainly parking enforcement that's revenue driven. Does that cost more than it brings is? I don't know, but it would surprise me.

Tazbell Group recently won the Dublin City Council parking enforcement contract which is a €36.67M contract, in 2018 revenue generated from parking tickets and clamping for DCC was €31.1M.

Edit: Actually the €36.67M is for a five year contract...

Peregrinus

GM228 wrote: »

Tazbell Group recently won the Dublin City Council parking enforcement contract which is a €36.67M contract, in 2018 revenue generated from parking tickets and clamping for DCC was €31.1M.

OK. You need to factor in additional parking fee revenue that is attributable to higher rates of compliance as a response to enforcement efforts. This is hard to measure, but I doubt that it's a negligible figure.

beauf

GM228 wrote: »

The private companies are awarded fixed price contracts, they don't retain any revenue therefore revenue is not an inventive for them.

The contracts weather they be for clamping or speed enforcement cost more to operate than the revenue they generate.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/dublin-clampers-given-target-of-60000-clamps-a-year--report-624450.html

The revenue is retaining the contract. I doubt a private firm does it as loss making activity.

batman2000

If I was to approach a junction (intersection) of road of equal importance. It was my thinking that the vehicle that arrived at the Stop line first had the right of way if turning onto the same road. However, it appears not

If you are turning right at a junction, the traffic coming straight through
the junction from the opposite direction has right of way

If you plan to turn right at a junction and a vehicle from the opposite
direction wants to turn into the same road, the vehicle that is turning
left has right of way. If yours is the vehicle turning right, you must wait
for the other vehicle to turn first

beauf

Peregrinus wrote: »

"revolving door" isn't an issue for Road Traffic offences, which rarely if ever attract a custodial sentence. In so far as enforcement is revenue-driven, repeat offenders are actually a good thing; they generate more revenue.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/almost-90-of-banned-drivers-refusing-to-surrender-licence-1.3886961

I don't think you get that if there is no consequence to their actions, they keep doing it.

Peregrinus

beauf wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/almost-90-of-banned-drivers-refusing-to-surrender-licence-1.3886961

I don't think you get that if there is no consequence to their actions, they keep doing it.

I don't think you get that, if your object is to generate revenue from fines, you want them to keep doing it.

beauf

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think you get that, if your object is to generate revenue from fines, you want them to keep doing it.

Why its enforced is one thing.

Regardless it still changes people behavior the more its enforced.

Caranica wrote: »

That's the one. Any idea why it's never enforced? Practicalities aside, there must have been a reason for the law, so why ignore it?

Not enforcing things also has a the opposite effect.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/majority-of-people-want-fines-imposed-for-jaywalking-30361305.html
https://www.cartell.ie/2014/06/irish-want-properly-enforced-jaywalking-laws/

Danzy

Caranica wrote: »

That's the one. Any idea why it's never enforced? Practicalities aside, there must have been a reason for the law, so why ignore it?

Guards view it as wasting their time.

RebelButtMunch

Danzy wrote: »

Guards view it as wasting their time.

Hey Buddy! You're Jay Walkin over here.

Peregrinus

beauf wrote: »

Why its enforced is one thing.

Regardless it still changes people behavior the more its enforced.

Yes.

But what this sets up is a tension, depending on what's driving your enforcement policy.

To the extent that your object is revenue-raising, you don't want to enforce too effectively, because if people change their behaviour you get less revenue, not more.

To the extent that your object is to secure compliance, then the more enforcement the better, generally speaking, so that people will change their behaviour. The problem is that enforcement gets more and more expensive, the more and more of it you do, and the funds you have to fund it are getting less and less, because fine revenue is falling.

In other words, finding the "sweet spot" for maximising enforcement cost/benefit is quite tricky. Expecially if you haven't clearly defined what benefit it is you want to secure, or if people disagree about what benefit should be targetted.

beauf

None of that has anything to do with why our enforcement is abysmal in this country.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0323/949701-garda-crime-figures/
https://www.thejournal.ie/cso-crime-stats-gardai-accuracy-3926097-Mar2018/

Its become culture and systemic.

If the police pulled you for broken lights or bald tyres in the UK, you've would be not be surprised.
Here it would make the national news/media