Near misses - mod warning 22/04 - see OP/post 822

jive

They should run an ad campaign on close overtaking as it's no joke and it's fairly prevalent. I think if people could see it from a cyclists POV they would be more considerate, I'm sure most of them do it out of ignorance rather than any kind of malice.

If they can run a campaign with some guys tonsils talking absolute tosh then surely they can run a campaign for this which is a genuine issue.

magicbastarder

jive wrote: »

I think if people could see it from a cyclists POV they would be more considerate, I'm sure most of them do it out of ignorance rather than any kind of malice.

yeah, they could licence some of the close pass videos which would be shared here from time to time. i think it's an empathy thing, many drivers don't think what their manouevre feels like for the person being outmanouevred.

Jawgap

jive wrote: »

They should run an ad campaign on close overtaking as it's no joke and it's fairly prevalent. I think if people could see it from a cyclists POV they would be more considerate, I'm sure most of them do it out of ignorance rather than any kind of malice.

If they can run a campaign with some guys tonsils talking absolute tosh then surely they can run a campaign for this which is a genuine issue.

No, they should just enforce the existing law.

We've seen it over the years, driver behaviour only changes when there is a credible threat of sanction. Barely 1500 FCPNs are issued each ear for offences relating to overtaking - all that needs to happen is for the Guards to start taking it as a serious issue and enforce it.

.....and forget about a minimum passing distance law - that will be an utter, unenforceable disaster if it comes in.

magicbastarder

a colleague yesterday was claiming that there's now talk of disbanding the traffic corps. if true, it sounds like a 'change for the sake of change' gesture rather than an attempt to actually fix the problem.
to be fair, the traffic corps is operating at just over half the numbers they had at their peak.

punisher5112

magicbastarder wrote: »

a colleague yesterday was claiming that there's now talk of disbanding the traffic corps. if true, it sounds like a 'change for the sake of change' gesture rather than an attempt to actually fix the problem.
to be fair, the traffic corps is operating at just over half the numbers they had at their peak.

They would do their own mother.

I came across one he lied about my speed and summoned me to court lied some more. My solicitor made a show of him and was dismissed.

Same cop was looking for me and removed my sister from her car outside our family home and kept her there for 20 minutes. He didn't notice CCTV all over house and lied about this also.

Not the brightest to be honest but dangerous when there are ones like that in a position like that.

Eamonnator

magicbastarder wrote: »

a colleague yesterday was claiming that there's now talk of disbanding the traffic corps. if true, it sounds like a 'change for the sake of change' gesture rather than an attempt to actually fix the problem.
to be fair, the traffic corps is operating at just over half the numbers they had at their peak.

I think, what may happen is the Divisional Traffic Corps may be disbanded, and new units set up under a different name. Members of the current Traffic Corps would have to apply for new positions.

Kaisr Sose

punisher5112 wrote: »

They would do their own mother.

I came across one he lied about my speed and summoned me to court lied some more. My solicitor made a show of him and was dismissed.

Same cop was looking for me and removed my sister from her car outside our family home and kept her there for 20 minutes. He didn't notice CCTV all over house and lied about this also.

Not the brightest to be honest but dangerous when there are ones like that in a position like that.

Power can be abused and it can corrupt. Most are good.

Driving behaviour of a very noticeable some (as in not a generalisation) has deteriorated and will continue to do so until it's tackled with the blunt force of the law. My concern is that Garda are told by Dept of Justice to be lenient because motorists are also voters and what politician wants to be the one being blamed for hundreds or motorist being banned/disqualified or in serious cases imprisioned?

The biggest mistake made was cutting back on policing resources. It's there as a deterrent and when it's not an effective one, those that believe they should be able to speed, run red lights or generally behave like they own the road, will take advantage. As a result of the Govt cut backs, lives were lost, people injured (adding indirect cost to HSE) and ordinary citizens have had to front up more money in insurance costs.

All in all, I would say the cutbacks have added more cost into the coffers/economy than they saved.

The usual totally short sight economics from the usual short sighted people.

magicbastarder

one easy one is why the gardai don't have ANPR systems in their cars to spot insurance or tax defaulters; at the moment, you can drive around in complete impunity really if you're not taxed or insured.

Wishbone Ash

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

....All in all, I would say the cutbacks have added more cost into the coffers/economy than they saved....

A case in point being the closure of 40 Garda stations which only saved a derisory €750,000.

Kaisr Sose

magicbastarder wrote: »

one easy one is why the gardai don't have ANPR systems in their cars to spot insurance or tax defaulters; at the moment, you can drive around in complete impunity really if you're not taxed or insured.

Agreed and loads are ..old cars too. Expired NCT's. Worst case the car gets confiscated. If it's only worth a few hundred Euro, it's a disposable car and worth the risk.

Meanwhile in the UK they have introduced average speed recording on one section of (I think tolled) motorway. Again, easy to do with ANPR.

ThisRegard

magicbastarder wrote: »

one easy one is why the gardai don't have ANPR systems in their cars to spot insurance or tax defaulters; at the moment, you can drive around in complete impunity really if you're not taxed or insured.

They do, but not in every car.

punisher5112

magicbastarder wrote: »

one easy one is why the gardai don't have ANPR systems in their cars to spot insurance or tax defaulters; at the moment, you can drive around in complete impunity really if you're not taxed or insured.

They do have anpr but insurance is still not updated correctly and also another issue is people driving cars that aren't insured but the person is.

Anpr is on a good few of the traffic corps vehiclesand a handful of others but you are right it needs to be across them all to catch those that really shouldn't be on the road.

Chiparus

The problem with the APNR was that cars were seized that were insured , in a typical " computer says no" where the data was incorrect.

Pretty terrible if you are law abiding and suddenly left with your family on the side of the road.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/garda-it-system-suspended-over-insurance-errors-31192839.html

Tenzor07

As least the PSNI are doing more than our useless Gardai:

magicbastarder

Chiparus wrote: »

The problem with the APNR was that cars were seized that were insured , in a typical " computer says no" where the data was incorrect.

Pretty terrible if you are law abiding and suddenly left with your family on the side of the road.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/garda-it-system-suspended-over-insurance-errors-31192839.html

quelle surprise.
is there a similar issue with the data from NCT and motor tax databases? or were they only looking for insurance issues?

Kaisr Sose

Chiparus wrote: »

The problem with the APNR was that cars were seized that were insured , in a typical " computer says no" where the data was incorrect.

Pretty terrible if you are law abiding and suddenly left with your family on the side of the road.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/garda-it-system-suspended-over-insurance-errors-31192839.html

WTF is it that systems that work perfectly well in other developed countries do not or cannot work here....it's like we are in the land of the abacus and ruler when the world has moved to calculators and laser measurement.

Chuchote

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Agreed and loads are ..old cars too. Expired NCT's. Worst case the car gets confiscated. If it's only worth a few hundred Euro, it's a disposable car and worth the risk.

Meanwhile in the UK they have introduced average speed recording on one section of (I think tolled) motorway. Again, easy to do with ANPR.

Which is why I think insurance, tax & NCT should all be put onto the price of petrol. It would clear out the foliage a lot. Only those whose cars were dangerous would avoid the NCT if the first go-through was already paid for, and there would be no insurance-dodgers if you paid every time you bought petrol. Besides, the more you drove ( = the more carbon you produced) the more you'd pay. And an army of administrators could be spared for other work.

Wishbone Ash

Chuchote wrote: »

Which is why I think insurance, tax & NCT should all be put onto the price of petrol. It would clear out the foliage a lot. Only those whose cars were dangerous would avoid the NCT if the first go-through was already paid for, and there would be no insurance-dodgers if you paid every time you bought petrol. Besides, the more you drove ( = the more carbon you produced) the more you'd pay. And an army of administrators could be spared for other work.

I know this has been raised before and it happens in other countries but I don't understand how the insurance would work as we'd all be paying the same even though my insurance in typically about 10% of what a young male would be paying for a similar vehicle.

Chuchote

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I know this has been raised before and it happens in other countries but I don't understand how the insurance would work as we'd all be paying the same even though my insurance in typically about 10% of what a young male would be paying for a similar vehicle.

In effect all would be paying somewhat less, since currently a good proportion of drivers don't have insurance; economies of scale would kick in.

Wishbone Ash

Chuchote wrote: »

In effect all would be paying somewhat less, since currently a good proportion of drivers don't have insurance; economies of scale would kick in.

I'd imagine claims would sky rocket too as people would be less concerned about a rise in premiums and will claim for stuff they wouldn't claim for under an individual policy.

AndrewJRenko

magicbastarder wrote: »

one easy one is why the gardai don't have ANPR systems in their cars to spot insurance or tax defaulters; at the moment, you can drive around in complete impunity really if you're not taxed or insured.

There was a PQ last year which noted that they have ANPR in about 1/3 of Garda cars.

Chuchote

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I'd imagine claims would sky rocket too as people would be less concerned about a rise in premiums and will claim for stuff they wouldn't claim for under an individual policy.

I get the impression that people are getting so annoyed at the frivolous claims ("I slipped on a drop of mayonnaise and I'm now unable to dance the tango, gimme sixty grand") that there's about to be a stark backlash against entertaining them.

By the way, Wishbone Ash, it happens in other countries? How does it work there? I wasn't aware of this. But to take a similar Irish scamology, in France, there's only one lawyer - the notary - involved in buying and selling the house, and I'm told stamp duty is a fraction of what's paid here as well.

punisher5112

This thing about add it to fuel won't work as how would you get the charge from EV ?

Chuchote

punisher5112 wrote: »

This thing about add it to fuel won't work as how would you get the charge from EV ?

EV? Oh, Electric Vehicles? How do people currently pay for their electric charge? (Obviously, since these are less polluting, the 'road tax' element would be lower.)

punisher5112

Chuchote wrote: »

EV? Oh, Electric Vehicles? How do people currently pay for their electric charge? (Obviously, since these are less polluting, the 'road tax' element would be lower.)

Road tax is €120 and free charge on street and even fast chargers also.

If you charge at home you get if buying new a charge point installed and a night meter so you get night rate if charged from 11pm to 8am and summer is 12am to 9 am.

So quite a lot pay nothing as all away from home charging is free.

Kaisr Sose

Chuchote wrote: »

In effect all would be paying somewhat less, since currently a good proportion of drivers don't have insurance; economies of scale would kick in.

But how do you reward good /safe low risk drivers or load the policies of dangerous drivers?? What about those driving on laundered diesel? What about cross land border fuel purchases?

It's an interesting concept though. I think it should be there for road tax...drive more or consume more , pay more. Polluter pays concept.

Chuchote

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

But how do you reward good /safe low risk drivers or load the policies of dangerous drivers?? What about those driving on laundered diesel? What about cross land border fuel purchases?

It's an interesting concept though. I think it should be there for road tax...drive more or consume more , pay more. Polluter pays concept.

Laundered diesel - the whole expensive nonsense of dyeing diesel and checking for it could be ended by simply setting up a system where farmers had special cards to buy diesel at a cheaper rate for agricultural use.

cython

Chuchote wrote: »

Laundered diesel - the whole expensive nonsense of dyeing diesel and checking for it could be ended by simply setting up a system where farmers had special cards to buy diesel at a cheaper rate for agricultural use.

Some/all of said farmers would then use it for non-agri use with impunity and could also top up their family and friends' vehicles with the same stuff. This is a huge part of why we have marked diesel to begin with, so removing the differentiator and just giving them those cards is too open to abuse.

Chuchote

cython wrote: »

Some/all of said farmers would then use it for non-agri use with impunity and could also top up their family and friends' vehicles with the same stuff. This is a huge part of why we have marked diesel to begin with, so removing the differentiator and just giving them those cards is too open to abuse.

Not at all; it would easy enough for Department of Agriculture people on the ground to calculate how much fuel would be used and give an allowance for that alone.

HivemindXX

Chuchote wrote: »

Not at all; it would easy enough for Department of Agriculture people on the ground to calculate how much fuel would be used and give an allowance for that alone.

Where do you think all the laundered diesel comes from in the first place? If it was 'easy enough' to catch someone using more fuel than they should then there would be no issue finding who is providing all the marked diesel that gets laundered.