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

magicbastarder

you could base the fine on the value of the car, an estimate of which is easily accessible to gardai without data protection concerns.

lismuse

Well I consider this one a near miss as I'm still alive and intact.
I was T-boned at a junction by a car which then accelerated away and kept going. Usual cuts and bruises,badly hurt wrist and shoulder, badly shaken but nothing broken. I was hurt more by the fact that he decided to leave the scene.
Have the reg no. I think. A big thanks to the other drivers that stopped and helped out. Guards are on the trail so hopefully he gets nabbed. First time getting hit and hopefully it's the last.

LpPepper

lismuse wrote: »

Well I consider this one a near miss as I'm still alive and intact.
I was T-boned at a junction by a car which then accelerated away and kept going. Usual cuts and bruises,badly hurt wrist and shoulder, badly shaken but nothing broken. I was hurt more by the fact that he decided to leave the scene.
Have the reg no. I think. A big thanks to the other drivers that stopped and helped out. Guards are on the trail so hopefully he gets nabbed. First time getting hit and hopefully it's the last.

I sincerely hope the Garda catch the cu*t

BoardsMember

mr spuckler wrote: »

i understand the question being asked.
did i not explain why i was in front of the car at the 2nd set of lights and that i then took action to ensure my own well being? if you disagree with what i did then fine but i consciously took steps to preserve my safety rather than act as you suggested.

Ok, fair enough. I would have stayed behind him the 2nd time, seeing as being in front of him the first time led to the first issue. You're completely in the right, not disputing that.

Annie get your Run

buffalo wrote: »

Is someone being fined €100 when that's their weekly wage being treated the same as someone paying €100 when that's an hour's pay? What if poorer people were being put in prison for a week, and richer people only went in for an hour? Does that sound equitable?

As for your first point, there is a lot of protected information that Gardaí can access when warranted. The need is not to cut this off, but ensure it is only accessed appropriately.

I'm not sure I understand why we would have different penalties for people based on their income, the penalty is surely based on the offense? - unless it's because you feel people with more income are more likely to ignore the rules because they can afford the fines? I guess that makes sense but isn't that the case in all walks of life with regard to law breaking? I'm not arguing one way or the other by the way, am just curious on the why's and wherefores.

Chuchote

Annie get your Run wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand why we would have different penalties for people based on their income, the penalty is surely based on the offense? - unless it's because you feel people with more income are more likely to ignore the rules because they can afford the fines? I guess that makes sense but isn't that the case in all walks of life with regard to law breaking? I'm not arguing one way or the other by the way, am just curious on the why's and wherefores.

Yes, that's it.

mr spuckler

BoardsMember wrote: »

Ok, fair enough. I would have stayed behind him the 2nd time, seeing as being in front of him the first time led to the first issue. You're completely in the right, not disputing that.

yeah and maybe i replied a bit too robustly so apologies if so.

there was the option not to even try to advise him that his previous manouevre was dangerous, i obviously didn't take that option.

some drivers are fine when you speak to them politely and without giving out to them, some just fly off the handle regardless. i was unfortunate enough to deal with option B this morning, plenty of times in the past it's been option A and you actually go away from the incident feeling better than before it even happened. that's what i was aiming / hoping for.

magicbastarder

having a penalty for an offence which is financially based only makes sense if the penalty is likely to have any impact on the person being fined. hence the suggestion.

DanDublin1982

Had my first real scare in a long time this morning. Coming up north quays just before the junction with Capel St. I generally take the lane there or just beyond the junction as cars are inclined to use/cut into the bus lane for a good bit before they should be doing for the left turn at The Morrison and just as I was glancing back to see if the road was clear for me to move out a Micra whizzed by me with about a foot to spare. Apologies to any passers by who were within earshot of the many profanities I used to convey my displeasure.

Fian

magicbastarder wrote: »

how about this for a classic example?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ban-lifted-for-taxi-driver-who-ran-down-passenger-1.3127165

A disqualification of less than 2 years, and a suspended sentence, for a professional driver who admitted deliberately running a pedestrian over causing serious bodily harm.

The mind boggles.

Chuchote

In other news, George Hook is tweeting that he's going to run for President

CramCycle

This morning coming through Bray, there are a few buses that use an identical route to me, St. Kevins, Finnegans and some gray small fancy bus. No issues with either of the first two, both gave me space and in return I waited behind them at traffic lights as it made more sense, as i know they don't stop for a bit.

Anyway, coming out of Shankhill onto the N11, there is a stretch where you either go down a different road and cross at the ped lights, or you stay in the bus lane and hop into the bike lane when the foot high kerb disappears. Finnegan did not mind, St. Kevins just went into the driving lane for this stretch to overtake. It's not busy, it certainly does not slow anyone down, but not Gray fancy bus. He decides beeping and wildly gesticulating are the ways forward. I wanted him to stop and explain so I could point out that I was going to be on the bike path in less than 30seconds, but why bother.

BoardsMember

mr spuckler wrote: »

yeah and maybe i replied a bit too robustly so apologies if so.

there was the option not to even try to advise him that his previous manouevre was dangerous, i obviously didn't take that option.

some drivers are fine when you speak to them politely and without giving out to them, some just fly off the handle regardless. i was unfortunate enough to deal with option B this morning, plenty of times in the past it's been option A and you actually go away from the incident feeling better than before it even happened. that's what i was aiming / hoping for.

If I am honest, I would likely have done exactly what you did, I tend to be righteous in these situations, i.e. I would have a typically male response of battling my own corner, knowing that I am right and yer man is a d1ck, and determined to show him. I have got a bit better with age, but not a lot, instinct is still to assert myself when I am on a bike and up against a very heavy metal object.

cython

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Really - I'd have said that the golden rule of the overtake is to have plenty of time to do it.

How can doing it quickly make it safer?

If the overtake involves crossing to the other side of the road (as opposed to passing traffic in another lane travelling in the same direction, or the cyclist being in a hard shoulder or on a wide road where crossing is not necessary), then completing it promptly is actually critical. The longer the overtaking vehicle is on the other side of the road, the greater the likelihood that an oncoming vehicle will appear (ultimately there will always be a vehicle that will pass in the other direction, you just have to wait long enough), and the longer the car is in a risky position. Coupling this with the likelihood that if the driver is not confident to overtake quickly, they may not react to the new hazard very well either is a recipe for potential disaster.

All else being equal, and assuming that both overtakes involve adequate clearance, I'd rather a car pass me at 40-50kph+, than to crawl past me at 30-35kph, assuming I'm doing 25-30kph myself, for example.

Chuchote

There are some junctions where it is simply safer to go through (cautiously) against the lights if you're on a bike - for instance the right turn from Harold's Cross Road into Leinster Road, where if you don't turn you're standing in the centre of a road with buses and trucks and cars racing past.

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Leinster+Rd,+Dublin+6/@53.3215858,-6.2791281,50m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48670c04cbe234c5:0xef03e7617975e75f!8m2!3d53.322856!4d-6.272303

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

having a penalty for an offence which is financially based only makes sense if the penalty is likely to have any impact on the person being fined. hence the suggestion.

I know plenty of jobs where due to poor income, the declared profits (essentially wages) are practically zero. A % of zero is zero. Do I think that rich people should be able to afford to commit more crimes, no, of course not. It will just be a minefield of people sending in letters about their hours being cut. It needs a solid, reasonable fine coupled with penalty points. So no matter who you are, you cannot commit an offence with impunity, at some point you will be banned from driving altogether.

If you really want to go down that route, the gardai would only need access to the gross wage figure and fines could be allocated in bands. Using USC and tax limits as a basis:

Up to ?12,012 - Penalty points only
From ?12,012.01 to ?18,772 - Penalty points plus 50euro
From ?18,772.01 to ?33,800 - Penalty points plus 100euro
From ?33,800.01 to ?70,044 - Penalty points plus 200euro
From ?18,772.01 to ?70,044 - Penalty points plus 400euro
From ?70,044.01 to ?100,000 - Penalty points plus 1000euro
Any income over ?100,000 - Penalty points plus 2000euro

These would be minimum fines, if someone contested it in court and was found guilty, they would have it doubled plus contribution to the court poor box amounting to the relevant garda and court official pay packets for the hour.

Fian wrote: »

A disqualification of less than 2 years, and a suspended sentence, for a professional driver who admitted deliberately running a pedestrian over causing serious bodily harm.

The mind boggles.

I did not realise that he needed a license to walk behind a bar.

CramCycle

Chuchote wrote: »

There are some junctions where it is simply safer to go through (cautiously) against the lights if you're on a bike - for instance the right turn from Harold's Cross Road into Leinster Road, where if you don't turn you're standing in the centre of a road with buses and trucks and cars racing past.

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Leinster+Rd,+Dublin+6/@53.3215858,-6.2791281,50m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48670c04cbe234c5:0xef03e7617975e75f!8m2!3d53.322856!4d-6.272303

ANPR with a clear sign that close passes and or failure to reduce speed when overtaking on the left, will result in penalty points. Lets say 6 points. There would not be much speeding or close passes.

People on the roads in Ireland need to be treated like children, they are clearly lacking in adultness (I stand over my use of the word). If they cannot behave, they need to be punished. If the government will not increase gardai numbers to enforce these basic tenants of civility, then other financial methods need to be used.

Kaisr Sose

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Had a very close one yesterday evening cycling home along the Rock Road, Taxi driver came within i'd say 2 inches of my handlebars, felt like he was going very fast but probably 50km/h. I was in the cycle lane, hadn't had an incident with him beforehand, he just didn't care about my safety.
Pulled into the park at Booterstown to collect my thoughts and write down his plate number. A couple of cyclists came over and said "that was close!" So thankfully have a couple of witnesses. Tried ringing Traffic Watch, on hold for 10 minutes so gave up, rang again an hour later when i'd got home and same thing.
Rang this morning and got through straight away, not letting this one go, one too many and this was way too close.
When you think of the poor guy in Rathfarnham, I think we all need to inundate Traffic Watch with these reports, way too much dangerous driving going on.

That sounds scary. Report it - especially if you have witnesses. He/she is a potential 'killer available for hire' everyday!

Fian

CramCycle wrote: »

I did not realise that he needed a license to walk behind a bar.

His new job is in a pub, however at the time of the offence he was a taxi driver.

schemingbohemia

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

That sounds scary. Report it - especially if you have witnesses. He/she is a potential 'killer available for hire' everyday!

Well I have reported it to Traffic Watch, waiting to hear from (presumably) Blackrock Garda. Could be waiting.

CramCycle

Fian wrote: »

His new job is in a pub, however at the time of the offence he was a taxi driver.

I am referring to the reasons for applying for his reinstatement:

Lawyers for Ryan on Tuesday asked the court to reinstate his driving licence as he needed it for his work as a rural publican in Cappaghwhite, Co Tipperary.

Which is odd, as Cappaghwhite is a reasonable enough sized village/town, not rural.

Alanstrainor

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Well I have reported it to Traffic Watch, waiting to hear from (presumably) Blackrock Garda. Could be waiting.

I had a response in a week after my last traffic watch call. I wouldn't expect anything immediate, but it should hopefully not be an eternity either.

Cameras won't prevent a dangerous manoeuvre, but they certainly help with reporting them. They can be had cheaply and produce fantastic footage. I'd recommend readers of this thread to at least consider one under their handlebars.

LpPepper

Alanstrainor wrote: »

I had a response in a week after my last traffic watch call. I wouldn't expect anything immediate, but it should hopefully not be an eternity either.

Cameras won't prevent a dangerous manoeuvre, but they certainly help with reporting them. They can be had cheaply and produce fantastic footage. I'd recommend readers of this thread to at least consider one under their handlebars.

A fairly decent camera setup is also cheaply obtained, e.g.:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Love2pedalUK-Aluminium-25-4mm-Handlebar-Session/dp/B06VXH8N6S/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1498052037&sr=8-2&keywords=bike+gopro+mount

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Waterproof-Wide-Angle-Mounting-Accessories-Swimming/dp/B01N3Q4DLS/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1498052095&sr=8-4&keywords=action+camera

Danbo!

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Well I have reported it to Traffic Watch, waiting to hear from (presumably) Blackrock Garda. Could be waiting.

I got a very quick response a couple of months back - unfortunately the garda seemed uninterested but I pressed on and arranged to make a statement. By accident, another garda called me, assuming it hadnt been followed up, but this was a garda on a bike who seemed very excited to take a statement. Again unfortunately, we had a family emergency and I never made it to the station to make the statement.

I might actually still follow up - the offender backed off sheepishly after I pointed out the camera, reckon at this stage he's presumed he's getting away with it.... Hmmm... :cool:

Kaisr Sose

buffalo wrote: »

Is someone being fined €100 when that's their weekly wage being treated the same as someone paying €100 when that's an hour's pay? What if poorer people were being put in prison for a week, and richer people only went in for an hour? Does that sound equitable?

As for your first point, there is a lot of protected information that Gardaí can access when warranted. The need is not to cut this off, but ensure it is only accessed appropriately.

Your first point is the exact opposite of equitable. Of course a rich person should do the same jail time as a poor person (for the same offence under the RTA) if applicable. Outside the RTA, mitigation in sentencing can mean a richer person does more jail time - it's a debate for another thread. If the fine is €100 for speeding, and the poor person knows that, claiming poverty is not a mitigating factor.

Garda have been found to access PULSE for the wrong reasons. Recently a case came to light where a Garda checked his girlfriend data!

Kaisr Sose

magicbastarder wrote: »

having a penalty for an offence which is financially based only makes sense if the penalty is likely to have any impact on the person being fined. hence the suggestion.

Short term bans (that are enforced) leading to longer bans and automatic loading of insurance each time would be far better as a safety measure / solution than fiscal penalties that don't change behaviour.

ED E

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

What one earns and pays in tax is protected/subject to data protection legislation. Would you want the Garda to have access to that just by a phone call or accessing PULSE?

As for proportionality of fine to income, it's a grey area. Why should two people committing the same offence (say 60kmph in the same 50kph zone, on the same day /situation) be treated differently for the same offence?

Not in the jurisdiction where its currently used. Your tax return is public record (a great idea IMO).

Fines should be a deterrent. €80 isn't a sandwich to Michael OLeary. €10K might be.

Chuchote

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Short term bans (that are enforced) leading to longer bans and automatic loading of insurance each time would be far better as a safety measure / solution than fiscal penalties that don't change behaviour.

…except that 8,000 people who are banned, many multiple times, are driving around ignoring the bans. Nope. Take the car. And if a percentage of wages isn't fair, then a percentage of the car's value; if you've borrowed the car, the owner pays.

Kaisr Sose

Chuchote wrote: »

…except that 8,000 people who are banned, many multiple times, are driving around ignoring the bans. Nope. Take the car. And if a percentage of wages isn't fair, then a percentage of the car's value; if you've borrowed the car, the owner pays.

I did say "that are enforced"

The current situation of banned drivers still on the road is a joke!

I love Sean nos

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Remind me on that one please?

It's how I'm describing the financial antics at Templemore.