Road traffic bill (soon to be act) 2016

Phil.x

Buffman wrote: »

Ye, that's why I'd be concerned that the new 20km/h speed limit will be abused by some councillors just pandering for votes. If we were using mph, I don't think a 12.4mph speed limit would have been approved.

Will that speed limit apply to cyclists? As I've hit 43km/h on wolftone quay on a number of times.

Comhrá

Surprised there seems to be no update on the mobile phone usage while driving.

Given that it's possibly the most common and flagrant violation and so highly visible, I expected both the fine and no. of p/points to have been increased.

Is that flawed legislation about texting & €1000 fine still unenforceable too?

pa990

tippman1 wrote: »

Surprised there seems to be no update on the mobile phone usage while driving.

Given that it's possibly the most common and flagrant violation and so highly visible, I expected both the fine and no. of p/points to have been increased.

Is that flawed legislation about texting & €1000 fine still unenforceable too?

Almost completely unenforceable.. I think only a very small amount of people were ever done for it.
I mean, if the phone is in a holder, and you touch it, that's not breaking the law, but if you sent an sms you are breaking the law.
But sending a whatsapp/viber/Facebook message or post is legal.

It's a law that would have been more applicable in the early 00's , before smartphones.

The romberg test for drug impared drivers is unworkable, and will be struck down on its first challenge.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

pa990

Patww79 wrote: »

Can they check to see if you sent an SMS? I send messages by voice using Android Auto on my phone without touching anything but I'd you look in my message threads it doesn't differentiate between ones sent that way or typed ones.

How would they get that info.. a warrant would be needed to obtain that info (sms logs) from the phone company.
The driver is no way compelled to provide that info.

pa990

And another thing about the romberg tests..


, how can the garda explain how to do the test, and keep an eye on the driver, it involves tilting your head back and looking to the sky, and when doing the walk, the Garda will at some point have his back turned.

It also involves filling a form, while all the time keeping and eye on the driver.

And to top it all off, a series of walking & standing and nose touching all has to be done at the roadside with traffic passing.

And I almost forgot about the pupil measuring, which is completely unscientific due to varying light conditions.

Another unworkable, unusable, unenforceable law.


Rant over

pa990

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

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

It'll be some craic watching them try and do that at the side of any motorway, national route, with traffic whizzing by, and risking the suspected impaired driver falling into the path of an oncoming truck, or down a boreen with grass growing up the middle in the middle of the night with no street lighting.

Buffman

Phil.x wrote: »

Will that speed limit apply to cyclists? As I've hit 43km/h on wolftone quay on a number of times.

As far as I know the offence of exceeding speed limits only applies to mechanically propelled vehicles.

47.—(1) A person shall not drive a mechanically propelled vehicle at a speed exceeding a speed limit applying in relation to the vehicle.

However, there is a €40 fine for:

Cyclist driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration.

It depends on the situation, but if you're exceeding the speed limit, they may try to say that's cycling without resonable consideration.

endagibson

Buffman wrote: »

It depends on the situation, but if you're exceeding the speed limit, they may try to say that's cycling without resonable consideration.

To who?

Buffman

endagibson wrote: »

To who?

Other road users I guess, it's a bit of a 'catch all' offence.

endagibson

Buffman wrote: »

Other road users I guess, it's a bit of a 'catch all' offence.

So, being inconsiderate to people in their heavier metal cars doing the same speed as the chap on the 10kg bike, and likely more.

Seems a stretch.

seamus

Buffman wrote: »

Ye, I think an obvious one with the new learner driver/owner law would be for the owner to just say the car was taken without consent. (A scenario actually mentioned in the act as a valid defence.)

It's going to be the owners word against the learner driver. And if the learner's already getting prosecuted for something like death by dangerous driving, having car theft added on isn't going to worry them.

This is designed to tackle learner drivers driving a parent or partner's vehicle unaccompanied.

If they drive it and get caught, Mammy is likely to get in trouble. If Mammy says it was taken without consent, little Johnny gets a theft charge on top of a driving unaccompanied charge.

So Mammy will take the rap.

But for the most part Mammy and Daddy won't want to take that risk and just won't let him take the car out on his own.

It depends on the situation, but if you're exceeding the speed limit, they may try to say that's cycling without resonable consideration.

They can try, but given that a cyclist won't have any idea of what speed he is doing, it's a bit difficult to claim he was cycling too quickly. Careless cycling would really only be reserved for cases where the cyclist has created an obvious danger to himself or others. Simply exceeding an arbitrary speed wouldn't really cut it (unless he was drafting a truck at 100km/h or something).

Buffman

endagibson wrote: »

So, being inconsiderate to people in their heavier metal cars doing the same speed as the chap on the 10kg bike, and likely more.

Seems a stretch.

I'd be thinking more along the lines of more vulnerable road users like pedestrians and other cyclists, the very people who these very low speed limits were brought in for.

ED E

Cyclists have never been included in many clauses, such as there being no BAL for a cyclist (I can have 12 pints and cycle home as long as Im able to do it safely). The "reasonable consideration" offence is a catch all for most cycling offences, they added the fines the last time but for a long time AGS have had the power to just take the bike (for a week IIRC, sat to sat or something along those lines).


The discretion one really is a thorn in my side. Sure I'm happy for a member to be allowed to not give an FCPN for 54 in a 50 or NCT one day overdue but for the like of beat cops that walk an entire main artery and pass 20-30 vehicles blocking a QBC and do nothing? A legal requirement to act might do something to quash the disastrous small offences don't matter stance of AGS.

PS: A radar gun won't work against a cyclist so it'd never be enforceable without average speed cameras.

endagibson

Buffman wrote: »

Ye, I think an obvious one with the new learner driver/owner law would be for the owner to just say the car was taken without consent. (A scenario actually mentioned in the act as a valid defence.)

It's going to be the owners word against the learner driver. And if the learner's already getting prosecuted for something like death by dangerous driving, having car theft added on isn't going to worry them.

Certainly if you have at least a second offense that carried a significant penalty, with our judiciary's preference for concurrent sentencing, it doesn't make much sense. But if there's nothing more serious pending, then a car theft has to be a serious matter.

Please correct if I'm wrong.

Sierra Oscar

pa990 wrote: »

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

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

It'll be some craic watching them try and do that at the side of any motorway, national route, with traffic whizzing by, and risking the suspected impaired driver falling into the path of an oncoming truck, or down a boreen with grass growing up the middle in the middle of the night with no street lighting.

The new legislation should replace the need for these tests. You will be tested using a device similar to the alcohol breathalyzer, it tests saliva. If you fail that you will be brought back to the station for a conclusive test. If a Garda suspects you of being under the influence of a substance not detected by the new device (the device can detect cannabis, cocaine & heroin) then the old impairment test could be used.

This device is what gardaí will use to test who’s been drug driving

BorneTobyWilde

To take away discretion is silly.
The whole point of discretion is it's not documented
So how do you take it away
Will always be there
If a guard pulls over a guy he knows and his tyre is just gone under limit he will still tell him to buy new ones, who the hell will know.

Buffman

seamus wrote: »

Originally Posted by Buffman
And if the learner's already getting prosecuted for something like death by dangerous driving, having car theft added on isn't going to worry them.

This is designed to tackle learner drivers driving a parent or partner's vehicle unaccompanied.

If they drive it and get caught, Mammy is likely to get in trouble. If Mammy says it was taken without consent, little Johnny gets a theft charge on top of a driving unaccompanied charge.

So Mammy will take the rap.

But for the most part Mammy and Daddy won't want to take that risk and just won't let him take the car out on his own.

I was talking more about the situation where little Johnny is looking a jail time anyway.

seamus wrote: »

But for the most part Mammy and Daddy won't want to take that risk and just won't let him take the car out on his own.

Hopefully that's the way it'll work out. Unfortunately I think little Johnny will just buy/be bought his own car and still chance it.

Originally Posted by Buffman
It depends on the situation, but if you're exceeding the speed limit, they may try to say that's cycling without resonable consideration.

seamus wrote: »

They can try, but given that a cyclist won't have any idea of what speed he is doing, it's a bit difficult to claim he was cycling too quickly. Careless cycling would really only be reserved for cases where the cyclist has created an obvious danger to himself or others. Simply exceeding an arbitrary speed wouldn't really cut it (unless he was drafting a truck at 100km/h or something).

I agree, it would not be fully related to speed only, as I said, depends on the situation. I have read posts on here about people who've been prosecuted for speeding on a bicycle, I don't know what law it was under though.

pete4130 wrote: »

A friend of mine got a ticket for cycling above 30mph in the Phoenix park several years ago. He thanked the Garda for the ticket. In court the Judge had heard he'd been cheeky to the officer and he got fined. He has the ticket framed.

endagibson

pete4130 wrote: »

A friend of mine got a ticket for cycling above 30mph in the Phoenix park several years ago. He thanked the Garda for the ticket. In court the Judge had heard he'd been cheeky to the officer and he got fined. He has the ticket framed.

Would love to know the details of that. That post is from 2012 and the incident was from "several years" before. The new legislation didn't exist then. The lack of a speedometer isn't the issue, it's more that a bicycle doesn't have an engine and the speed law is for motorised vehicles.

In London the Parks folks have their own bye-laws. Is it the same for the Phoenix park?

Sorry for going off-topic.

Buffman

endagibson wrote: »

Originally Posted by Buffman
Ye, I think an obvious one with the new learner driver/owner law would be for the owner to just say the car was taken without consent. (A scenario actually mentioned in the act as a valid defence.)
It's going to be the owners word against the learner driver. And if the learner's already getting prosecuted for something like death by dangerous driving, having car theft added on isn't going to worry them.

It's going to be the owners word against the learner driver. And if the learner's already getting prosecuted for something like death by dangerous driving, having car theft added on isn't going to worry them.
Certainly if you have at least a second offense that carried a significant penalty, with our judiciary's preference for concurrent sentencing, it doesn't make much sense. But if there's nothing more serious pending, then a car theft has to be a serious matter.

Please correct if I'm wrong.

Ye, I was referring to more serious cases, like the case of death by dangerous driving which brought about this law. As I said above, what I suspect will happen is the learner will now just buy/be bought his/her own car and still chance it.

endagibson

Buffman wrote: »

I'd be thinking more along the lines of more vulnerable road users like pedestrians and other cyclists, the very people who these very low speed limits were brought in for.

Good point. Didn't think of them.

seamus

endagibson wrote: »

In London the Parks folks have their own bye-laws. Is it the same for the Phoenix park?

Sorry for going off-topic.

Yes, the Phoenix Park is technically private land under the jurisdiction of the OPW and has its own bye-laws:
http://www.phoenixpark.ie/about/phoenixparkbyelaws/

The Gardai have the power to enforce all traffic law which applies to a "public place", but specific things like adhering to speed limits and obeying signs are not within their remit.

I reckon the story about the 30mph limit has been embellished somewhat in the years since it happened

Buffman

endagibson wrote: »

Would love to know the details of that. That post is from 2012 and the incident was from "several years" before. The new legislation didn't exist then. The lack of a speedometer isn't the issue, it's more that a bicycle doesn't have an engine and the speed law is for motorised vehicles.

In London the Parks folks have their own bye-laws. Is it the same for the Phoenix park?

Ye, my first though was bye-laws, but other than one for motorists I don't see any mention of bicycles.

16. All motorists must adhere to the speed limit of 50 km

endagibson wrote: »

Sorry for going off-topic.

No worries, once we don't end up in one of those crazy 'going round in circles' cyclists V motorists threads that tend to get locked, it's all good!:D

pa990

ED E wrote: »

Cyclists have never been included in many clauses, such as there being no BAL for a cyclist (I can have 12 pints and cycle home as long as Im able to do it safely). The "reasonable consideration" offence is a catch all for most cycling offences, they added the fines the last time but for a long time AGS have had the power to just take the bike (for a week IIRC, sat to sat or something along those lines).


The discretion one really is a thorn in my side. Sure I'm happy for a member to be allowed to not give an FCPN for 54 in a 50 or NCT one day overdue but for the like of beat cops that walk an entire main artery and pass 20-30 vehicles blocking a QBC and do nothing? A legal requirement to act might do something to quash the disastrous small offences don't matter stance of AGS.

PS: A radar gun won't work against a cyclist so it'd never be enforceable without average speed cameras.

A drunk cyclist can be prosecuted by using the smplicitor charge.