Query about red light fines

droidus

Sure, but I guess it depends on what lights are being broken and how they are broken. A cyclist treating a red light as yield to make a left hand turn or slowing down and then going through an empty pedestrian crossing - treating it essentially as a zebra crossing - I dont see how anyone is harmed, or could be harmed in those circumstances.

You can make the slippery slope argument, or talk about earning 'respect', but TBH, Ive been commuting by bike since in Dublin for over 30 years. Ive gone from pretty much ignoring the law, to being very respectful of it, to having a somewhat flexible attitude, and during that time Ive seen some consistently awful driver behaviour and hysterical demonisation of cyclists culminating to create an appalling environment for cyclists and one where egregiously reckless and dangerous driving is seemingly accepted as the norm.

My attitude now is that until action is take to reign in the toxic scourge of dangerous driving and the appalling consequences of car-first policies on our health, our cities and our environment, then condemnation of cyclist behaviour is like complaining about a scuffed teacup on the titanic.

tomasrojo

Yeah, a lot of it is fairly harmless, though I find some people's capacity to judge when that's the case lacking. There is a fair bit of passing through the pedestrian green signal at speed, which isn't ok. Pedestrians get almost no time allocated for them to cross most roads. They should be left alone when they finally get the signal. I also find quite a few people breaking the light then set themselves on a collision course with, for example, me on a bike when I have the green light. It's not so much the breaking of the light that's so irritating in this case, as the blithe assumption that the people not breaking the light will compensate for your action.

My basic take is that breaking red lights on a bike isn't enormously advantageous, apart from making your journey very slightly shorter, so I don't have see it as worth the discomfiture or annoyance of others, should that be the case. There are some scenarios involving trucks and buses where you should make getting away from the bus or truck your priority though.

If there's nobody else around, and sight lines are good so you're sure that nobody is about to be around in the very near future, I can't see how you can discomfit or annoy others. Or, indeed, how you're going to pick up a FPN.

ted1

Amouar wrote: »

I recently started cycling to work and the number of bicycles breaking the red light is just alarming. I very rarely see a cyclist stopping at a red light. I'm struggling to understand why they break the red light? Is everyone in such a hurry that they can't afford to wait for a few seconds when the lights are red?

They do it because turning left when hugging the kerb isn’t really a hazard or dangerous. Going straight through a cross road is different altogether.
It also gives you a head start of traffic and puts you clearly in a better position than m from of the line of traffic.

They do it because they’ve often built up momentum and if there’s no one at a pedestrian crossing there’s no risk. ( assuming they’ve checked and have a clear view) often pedestrian crossings are also bike crossings. Just like shared spaces , you see some of the time cyclists are grouped with pedestrians and some of the time like traffic. This mixed message , encourages cyclists to not strictly obey the rules of the road which are written with cars and hgv in mind.

Donald Trump

When people say "break red lights" are there pedantic people that complain about any instance when a cyclists moves beyond a light that is currently red or do they mean an eejit not even slowing down and flying through a red light as if it didn't exist?

When I used to cycle around the city I tended to move forward to the top of the line of traffic and then when the cross lights went red and that traffic stopped I'd take off (I'd also know the sequence of lights and the junction). I would get maybe 1.5 seconds headstart before "my" light actually switched to green.

Technically breaking a red light but I'd usually be passed by a car before getting to the other side of the junction or soon after. Seemed safer to me than waiting on that instant for the lights to go green and have an immediate horn blaring behind me by a motorist who was siting there with his hand hovering over his horn (ooh er missus) ready to let rip the instant the light went green

I had a simple reason for not zipping through red lights without slowing down and that was that I did not want to end up in hospital.

That strategy used to be a good one, now though I find you won't have the impatient driver behind you as they are fully expecting 2 or 3 cars to continue through a red after you and they get a green.

tomasrojo

I *think* that you can to the left turn against red if you wheel the bike. Though my source for this appears to be Mr. Bean.

tuxy

tomasrojo wrote: »

I *think* that you can to the left turn against red if you wheel the bike. Though my source for this appears to be Mr. Bean.

As soon as you dismount you are a pedestrian and only pedestrian laws apply?

tomasrojo

I assume so, but the thing you often want to do is wheel it round the corner on the road, rather than over the footpath, because there are pedestrians waiting to cross on the footpath.

Thelonious Monk

It's so ridiculous. There's no one there, if you slow down and go through what's the problem? I've been in this situation in front of Garda before, I just step off the bike, wheel it through the lights after mounting the footpath, and carry on. For some reason that's ok but cycling through it carefully isn't. The same rules can't apply to cars as bikes.

St1mpMeister

That's why it's legalised in many countries. Yield on red. If it was a fully criminal offence it wouldn't be legalised in those countries.

Tenzor07

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

It's so ridiculous. There's no one there, if you slow down and go through what's the problem? I've been in this situation in front of Garda before, I just step off the bike, wheel it through the lights after mounting the footpath, and carry on. For some reason that's ok but cycling through it carefully isn't. The same rules can't apply to cars as bikes.

Jump off and back on cyclocross style!

Though i'm sure if you get the wrong Gard he or she will still fine the cyclist...

St1mpMeister

Bit of a workout to do that on a Dublin Bike (as in this instance)

Rechuchote

I'm curious about the statements that gardaí on duty are exempt from traffic law. Surely the intention here is to protect gardaí when, for instance, in hot pursuit. It's not intended that they treat the laws generally with contempt and are doing so visibly, so people will say "Sure even the Gardaí park on pavements/speed/block cycle lanes/run red lights, so there can't be much wrong with doing it".

As for cyclists and red lights, yes, many cyclists do cross against red lights, but fewer than drivers, whatever the perception of drivers. There's a multiplicity of studies of this; here's one: http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/cameras-benburb-blackhall-luas-red-lights/

Meanwhile, it's time we brought in the Idaho Stop here. And built safe, separated cycling infrastructure.

plodder

tomasrojo wrote: »

I *think* that you can to the left turn against red if you wheel the bike. Though my source for this appears to be Mr. Bean.

IIRC Mr Bean tried that with his mini, which might not actually be legal.

Though, the point is valid for bikes. I've seen people do it in the UK. I'd sometimes do a version of it here, where I scoot slowly round the corner on the path with one foot on the ground, though not completely certain if it's legal here.

St1mpMeister

plodder wrote: »

where I scoot round the corner with one foot on the ground.

but sitting on the bike saddle?

I'd wager they'd still catch you as "riding the bike" in that instance. Probably safer just to fully be off the saddle and have the frame out from between your legs.

plodder

St1mpMeister wrote: »

but sitting on the bike saddle?

I'd wager they'd still catch you as "riding the bike" in that instance. Probably safer just to fully be off the saddle and have the frame out from between your legs.

not sitting on it, but still "astride" it, so to speak.

Rechuchote

Someone posted here a while ago about a garda fining him for "avoidance of traffic lights" or some such nonsense when he walked his bike across.

AndrewJRenko

Rechuchote wrote: »

I'm curious about the statements that gardaí on duty are exempt from traffic law. Surely the intention here is to protect gardaí when, for instance, in hot pursuit. It's not intended that they treat the laws generally with contempt and are doing so visibly, so people will say "Sure even the Gardaí park on pavements/speed/block cycle lanes/run red lights, so there can't be much wrong with doing it".

I think there is a qualifier about 'where necessary for the performance of their duties' in the Irish legislation.

RobbieMD

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I think there is a qualifier about 'where necessary for the performance of their duties' in the Irish legislation.

The exemption they avail of states “in the performance of the duties” The “where necessary” isn’t necessary as such. It’s a very subtle difference. There are caveats to it though. They can still be prosecuted for drunken driving and dangerous driving type offences.

tomasrojo

plodder wrote: »

IIRC Mr Bean tried that with his mini, which might not actually be legal.

Ah yes, but he was copying someone who had just done it with a bike.

atticu

droidus wrote: »

Sure, but I guess it depends on what lights are being broken and how they are broken. A cyclist treating a red light as yield to make a left hand turn or slowing down and then going through an empty pedestrian crossing - treating it essentially as a zebra crossing - I dont see how anyone is harmed, or could be harmed in those circumstances.

You can make the slippery slope argument, or talk about earning 'respect', but TBH, Ive been commuting by bike since in Dublin for over 30 years. Ive gone from pretty much ignoring the law, to being very respectful of it, to having a somewhat flexible attitude, and during that time Ive seen some consistently awful driver behaviour and hysterical demonisation of cyclists culminating to create an appalling environment for cyclists and one where egregiously reckless and dangerous driving is seemingly accepted as the norm.

My attitude now is that until action is take to reign in the toxic scourge of dangerous driving and the appalling consequences of car-first policies on our health, our cities and our environment, then condemnation of cyclist behaviour is like complaining about a scuffed teacup on the titanic.

There is never an excuse for going through a red light.
Pedestrian lights are there for pedestrians to cross safety.

If the lights are red - stop.
It is very simple.

plodder

tomasrojo wrote: »

Ah yes, but he was copying someone who had just done it with a bike.

Now you mention it, I wonder if Mr Bean is my source also

tomasrojo

plodder wrote: »

Now you mention it, I wonder if Mr Bean is my source also

How do you switch off your ceiling light when you want to go to sleep?

magicbastarder

atticu wrote: »

There is never an excuse for going through a red light.

not true. you're allowed proceed through a 'stuck' light, one that is obviously not changing.

sy_flembeck

Why do so many people try to justify breaking red lights? If they're red we're obliged to stop. End of

AndrewJRenko

atticu wrote: »

There is never an excuse for going through a red light.
Pedestrian lights are there for pedestrians to cross safety.

If the lights are red - stop.
It is very simple.

What do you do when lights won't trigger for a cyclist and there's no cars around?

Weepsie

magicbastarder wrote: »

not true. you're allowed proceed through a 'stuck' light, one that is obviously not changing.

This keeps happening on Collins avenue. Annoying as hell.

Anyway, as I say in every single one of these threads. You stop on amber (unless unsafe or flashing), and stay stopped on red. This isn't hammered home enough. The punishment for amber gambling should be whatever it is for reds now and running reds should be a heftier punishment.

It's not only safety, but it's completely wrecks traffic flow too and only serves to slow everyone down which people don't get.

droidus

Until we have a system where drivers cannot act with the insane reckless impunity they currently do I reserve the right to break a red light if it harms no one and ensures my safety.

plodder

tomasrojo wrote: »

How do you switch off your ceiling light when you want to go to sleep?

I do it the regular way, but I have been known to get into ridiculous contortions when I put on my "togs" at the seaside, even with a towel.

bangkok

A gardai on a powertrip no doubt. A joke of a fine in fairness