It's bad when the Gardaí don't even know...

Mycroft H

The garda Twitter account has being getting a lot of good press lately with lots of information on there. However, they're not exactly up to speed on cycling and the road traffic act. Not good enough to be honest...

daragh_

Squidgy Black

They said they'll have to "ask the experts to check" to see if they were correct.

Zyzz

stetyrrell wrote: »

They said they'll have to "ask the experts to check" to see if they were correct.

Aren't the Guards the experts? :rolleyes:

Mycroft H

Zyzz wrote: »

Aren't the Guards the experts? :rolleyes:

Shouldn't be correcting someone if they don't have a notion....

Zyzz

Just spotted in the Garda Twitter HQ..

buffalo

That's pretty shocking, but not exactly surprising.

Squidgy Black

Doesn't exactly instill confidence, especially since they're being given the power to hand out on the spot fines to cyclists now.

hardCopy

That's a pretty poor reflection on AGS's continuous training. Especially when they claim to have asked twice and still waiting for an "expert" to weigh in.

Anyone in the building who read the newspapers over the last year should be able to correct them.

catastrophy

I wouldn't be too worried tbh. Lets be fair, it's human error on the behalf of a single garda, who prob isn't even operational.

hardCopy

catastrophy wrote: »

I wouldn't be too worried tbh. Lets be fair, it's human error on the behalf of a single garda, who prob isn't even operational.

They said they checked before tweeting so more than one member is misinformed.

Beasty

catastrophy wrote: »

I wouldn't be too worried tbh. Lets be fair, it's human error on the behalf of a single garda, who prob isn't even operational.

I'm assuming it's an "official" account - if so such "pronouncements" really must undergo a check before they go public

noby

Beasty wrote: »

I'm assuming it's an "official" account - if so such "pronouncements" really must undergo a check before they go public

Not to mention the grammar.

Beasty

noby wrote: »

Not to mention the grammar.

Why bring her up - she died nearly 30 years ago ...

catastrophy

hardCopy wrote: »

They said they checked before tweeting so more than one member is misinformed.

Quite possibly.

Chips Lovell

In fairness to the cops they admitted they could be wrong went off to check. Don't see much wrong with that.

oflahero

It's not really got the whiff of rigorous control about it:

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/08/21/is-this-your-own-comedy-veh-icle/

Darkglasses

What more can you do? Seriously?

Great job guys.

catastrophy

Beasty wrote: »

I'm assuming it's an "official" account - if so such "pronouncements" really must undergo a check before they go public

Ideally yes. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its not embarrassing but its only a minor issue in the grand scheme of things.

Dermot Illogical

hardCopy wrote: »

That's a pretty poor reflection on AGS's continuous training.

That's in the grave with the tiger.

Oink

I've been looking for an official link to the changes affecting cyclists.
I haven't had much luck with google. Does anybody know where to find that?
Cheers.

Beasty

catastrophy wrote: »

Ideally yes. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its not embarrassing but its only a minor issue in the grand scheme of things.

Embarrassing for sure - the point is they are tasked with enforcing the law, so any public statement like this even if made via social media should be properly checked. I appreciate someone has already posted it was checked with someone else, but clearly that check was inadequate

They must realise that in this day an age people will jump down their throats at anything like this (and I appreciate I'm as guilty as anyone of doing so given my comments already in this thread)

copacetic

They are trying to interact with public and respond quickly, if they went and triple checked everything with loads of people they may as well not bother.

Made a mistake and quickly said would check it out. The usual over the top predictable outrage is just tiring to see.

Squidgy Black

Ah c'mere it'd take all of two seconds to check the legislation on a certain infraction or question, instead of just blurting out stuff.

Zyzz

copacetic wrote: »

They are trying to interact with public and respond quickly, if they went and triple checked everything with loads of people they may as well not bother.

Made a mistake and quickly said would check it out. The usual over the top predictable outrage is just tiring to see.

Its not outrage..they are trying to 'spread the word' and enforce a law that does not exist.. :rolleyes:

Beasty

... but everything they say will be taken down and may be used in evidence against them ...

catastrophy

Beasty wrote: »

Embarrassing for sure - the point is they are tasked with enforcing the law, so any public statement like this even if made via social media should be properly checked. I appreciate someone has already posted it was checked with someone else, but clearly that check was inadequate

They must realise that in this day an age people will jump down their throats at anything like this (and I appreciate I'm as guilty as anyone of doing so given my comments already in this thread)

I agree fully with you Beasty. I'm just lamenting the lack of reason being shown.

tomasrojo

Nearly the anniversary of the law change. It should be marked annually with festivities, lest we forget.

hardCopy

Zyzz wrote: »

Its not outrage..they are trying to 'spread the word' and enforce a law that does not exist.. :rolleyes:

Asking people to "please RT" a tweet backing up an already too common misconception about road traffic law is not just a trivial mistake.

Hopefully this will be corrected shortly and may draw some attention to this change in the law around cycle lanes.

catastrophy

copacetic wrote: »

They are trying to interact with public and respond quickly, if they went and triple checked everything with loads of people they may as well not bother.

Made a mistake and quickly said would check it out. The usual over the top predictable outrage is just tiring to see.

This is crux of the issue. I've yet to meet an expert in all areas of legislation.

buffalo

Oink wrote: »

I've been looking for an official link to the changes affecting cyclists.
I haven't had much luck with google. Does anybody know where to find that?
Cheers.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html

EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Instrument and does not purport to be a legal interpretation)

...(only use of contraflow cycle track and of any cycle track in pedestrianised area is mandatory)...

ThisRegard

copacetic wrote: »

They are trying to interact with public and respond quickly, if they went and triple checked everything with loads of people they may as well not bother.

Made a mistake and quickly said would check it out. The usual over the top predictable outrage is just tiring to see.

I agree that some of the outrage seen in some of the tweets in response are over the top, but it's the social network face of the gardai so I don't think a quick response is an excuse for such a mistake. I don't think any of us would send a mail to a client with information that hasn't been completely checked for its veracity.

tomasrojo

hardCopy wrote: »

Asking people to "please RT" a tweet backing up an already too common misconception about road traffic law is not just a trivial mistake.

Hopefully this will be corrected shortly and may draw some attention to this change in the law around cycle lanes.

The request to retweet makes it worse all right.

Darkglasses

It was 3 hours ago now. How long does it take to look it up exactly? Even a simple Google could set them straight. Or presumably, they work in a building with at least one well-informed Garda.

LeinsterDub

Darkglasses wrote: »

What more can you do? Seriously?

Great job guys.

Stop using revert when you mean reply?

cython

The combination of jumping in to "correct" a tweet with misleading information along with the request to retweet have to be the two worst aspects of this. I think we can all appreciate that people make mistakes, even when such mistakes can be costly and/or reflect badly.

However an exacerbating factor here (in my view) is that the information was unsolicited, and didn't need to be provided if there was any doubt whatsoever over its accuracy. Then as noted there is the request to spread the misinformation to ensure that as many people as possible are misinformed :pac:

It all comes back to that proverb about better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

No Pants

catastrophy wrote: »

it's human error on the behalf of a single garda, who prob isn't even operational.

It's an android? :eek:

super_furry

No Pants wrote: »

It's an android? :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMkTlCJKiew

Something like that.

buffalo

cython wrote: »

However an exacerbating factor here (in my view) is that the information was unsolicited, and didn't need to be provided if there was any doubt whatsoever over its accuracy..

It wasn't quite unsolicited - they believed they were correcting the info in this tweet: https://twitter.com/cyclingindublin/status/372642157251006464

Jawgap

Hope they are not checking with the two 'experts' who took me to task recently

Squidgy Black

Nearly five hours later, the experts have quoted the piece of legislation.

That's the efficiency of the Irish police force summed up right there.

Jawgap

That's Garda-ese for "we were wrong, we made a mistake!"

quozl

To be fair they did ask for that to be re-tweeted rather than quote the statute and leave it at that.

I think that's a good reply from them.

Chips Lovell

Same day response on non-urgent query is pretty decent in my book.

catastrophy

stetyrrell wrote: »

Nearly five hours later, the experts have quoted the piece of legislation.

That's the efficiency of the Irish police force summed up right there.

I think that's pretty decent for a non urgent issue.

spyderski

Sorry, I've just read their tweet - what sort of a response is that? How about they just write it in plain English for the benefit of us who didn't receive a Templemore education? ;-)

EDIT They have send another, clearer tweet, containing an apology. Fair enough.

"You were right I was wrong The only cycles lanes that are mandatory are contraflow cycle track & pedestrian area S! 332/2012 refers RT"

Cee-Jay-Cee

catastrophy wrote: »

I wouldn't be too worried tbh. Lets be fair, it's human error on the behalf of a single garda, who prob isn't even operational.

Exactly, that was a sole garda sitting in an office in the Phoenix park probably who wasnt up to speed. It isn't a reflection on the whole force.

There are many here who like to complain and bitch about cyclists who ignore the rules of the road and break traffic laws etc etc...OP remember that when your tarring everyone with the one brush in future.

copacetic

@GardaTraffic: Si 332/2012 Only use of contraflow cycle track (sign RUS 058) & of any cycle track in pedestrian area (sign Rus 059 is mandatory. Please RT

How could anyone not understand that? Now people are upset becasuse fhey themselves that they can't understand simple English? Only issue I see is missing close bracket, which is quite something to be complaining about..

Darkglasses

Five hours to get enough information for a tweet that pretty much all of us know off-hand doesn't impress me.

hardCopy

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Same day response on non-urgent query is pretty decent in my book.

That would have been fine if they had waited five hours for correct information before replying in the first place.


EDIT: They've been as humble and to the point as they can be at least.

GardaTraffic wrote:

You were right I was wrong The only cycles lanes that are mandatory are contraflow cycle track & pedestrian area S! 332/2012 refers RT

An Garda Síochána (@GardaTraffic)

aFlabbyPanda

CJC999 wrote: »

Exactly, that was a sole garda sitting in an office in the Phoenix park probably who wasnt up to speed.

I think its actually worse. If you are going to make public statements on behalf of any organisation you need to be 100% correct BEFORE you publish anything.

The attitude of 'ah well, sure thats grand' isn't good enough.