Why do Gardaí not enforce Traffic Law?

corktina

double yellow lines doesnt always mean no parking though....loading for instance could be permitted and what happens then is someone parks there car next to a van loading without looking at the regulations and rthen someone esle does and it escalates....

( Off Topic Pet Hate: cars and service vehicles parked in Loading Bays)

cyclopath2001

corktina wrote: »

double yellow lines doesnt always mean no parking though....loading for instance could be permitted

The converse can also be true - where there is no explicit restriction on parking, it can still be illegal to park if it interferes with the normal flow of traffic.

So, for example, it's often permitted to park on cycle tracks. But if this causes cyclists to move out to overtake the car (or, more often, cars) and, in so doing, hold up other traffic, it would be illegal. I see this quite kind of illegal parking quite often, but I've never seen the Gardai enforce the law.

There's a spot outside 'Oddbins' near the wooden bridge where there's a continuous white line & parking is therefore not allowed at any time. Cars are always parked illegally there. Again, I've never seen any action taken against the drivers.

L1011

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Traffic flow? Intimidation effect on pedestrians and cyclists? Noise? Cars exist in a social environment.

Traffic flow can and should be controlled with other means. Intimidation effect is a safety issue. Noise is an issue of poor road design and screening and/or poor surfacing.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

More likely, motorists are trying to suppress a rule that they fid inconvenient.

There are objective ways of measuring stopping distances at speed and we all know that every day there are blatantly obvious instances of drivers not stopping on amber. You might be able to kid yourself on this but it's quite obvious to any well-informed road user.

Explain to me how a camera is going to be able to factor in the wetness of the road, condition and power of the approaching cars brakes and the closneness of vehicles behind the car in deciding whether the car broke the amber light illegally or passed through it as they were unable to stop safely?

It can't. Its not something which can ever be controlled by an automated system, which was my point before you dragged it desperately off-topic.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Limiting your cooperation with road-traffic rules to matters of safety and danger is like a criminal agreeing not to murder or injure anyone, but thinking that a bit of theft and intimidation is fair enough.

I'm not sure where you've invented the bit about cooperation with traffic rules from. I never said such a thing, and I've no idea why you're banging on about it. My point was that cameras can only cover a tiny range of offenses whereas you seemed to claim they can be the all seeing eye for minor traffic offenses.

cyclopath2001

MYOB wrote: »

Noise is an issue of poor road design and screening and/or poor surfacing.

And the speed of the vehicle.

MYOB wrote: »

Explain to me how a camera is going to be able to factor in the wetness of the road, condition and power of the approaching cars brakes and the closneness of vehicles behind the car in deciding whether the car broke the amber light illegally or passed through it as they were unable to stop safely?

The law places the onus of prrof on the driver. It's prima-facie illegal not to stop at an amber light unless you can show a good reason for not doing so.

MYOB wrote: »

I'm not sure where you've invented the bit about cooperation with traffic rules from. I never said such a thing, and I've no idea why you're banging on about it.

I never said that you did. It's a general observation that road-users are clearly not cooperating with traffic rules & are constantly inventing excuses to break the law. This is wasting Garda resources.

MYOB wrote: »

My point was that cameras can only cover a tiny range of offenses whereas you seemed to claim they can be the all seeing eye for minor traffic offenses.

My point is that they have a role to play in supporting the Gardai in the face of widespread non-compliance by road users.

L1011

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

And the speed of the vehicle.

Only a factor when the surface or screening is not up to the job.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The law places the onus of prrof on the driver. It's prima-facie illegal not to stop at an amber light unless you can show a good reason for not doing so.

Is guilty until proven innocent your general policy?

corktina

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The converse can also be true - where there is no explicit restriction on parking, it can still be illegal to park if it interferes with the normal flow of traffic.

So, for example, it's often permitted to park on cycle tracks. But if this causes cyclists to move out to overtake the car (or, more often, cars) and, in so doing, hold up other traffic, it would be illegal. I see this quite kind of illegal parking quite often, but I've never seen the Gardai enforce the law.

There's a spot outside 'Oddbins' near the wooden bridge where there's a continuous white line & parking is therefore not allowed at any time. Cars are always parked illegally there. Again, I've never seen any action taken against the drivers.

Thats true, as far as I know you are only ENTITLED to park on the road where there are specific P signs. Anywhere else you park, whether there are signs or not you COULD be booked for obstruction .Whats more the legal defintion of the carriegway includes the verges.

I dont think many people realise its illegal to park where there are continuos middle lines.I'm not sure Id think of it myself when parking.

I was on the quays by O'connell bridge on Weds waiting for a lift and wondering why noone was parked in a certain area with no yellow lines, divided from the carrigeway with a dotted white lne....took me a while to realise its a Clearway....

ANother pet hate with me, which seems unioversal in Ireland, is parking on the kerb...

cyclopath2001

corktina wrote: »

Thats true, as far as I know you are only ENTITLED to park on the road where there are specific P signs.

Its not an entitlement, merely an indication that you may park there. To be 'entitled', you'd have to own the parking space and have the deeds to prove it. The over-riding rule about not interfering with traffic still applies. It's similar to traffic lights, which when green, indicate that you may proceed, but you're still required to exercise due care. So, parking on cycle tracks is permitted only as long as it does not result in a safety hazard or result in an interference in the flow of traffic. This is a law I'd like to see enforced more rigorously.

corktina wrote: »

I dont think many people realise its illegal to park where there are continuos middle lines.

Perhaps because the law is not enforced.

36. (1) ...
(2) A vehicle shall not be parked—
( c ) within 5 metres of a road junction;
( d ) on a section of roadway with less than 3 traffic lanes and where traffic sign number RRM 001 [continuous white line] has been provided;
( k ) in a manner in which it will interfere with the normal flow of traffic or which obstructs or endangers other traffic;

djpbarry

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

Also, I am a cyclist, but cyclists assuming traffic lights are not for them.

I’ve just had a cup of coffee knocked all over me by a passing cyclist as I crossed Camden St at a pedestrian crossing – the bastard had the cheek to tell me to watch where I was going. He was followed through the red light by about five more. How many of the cyclists in this city are colour-blind?