Dublin North Quays - now double bus lane

bobbyss

Muahahaha wrote:

Which shows how far behind civilianisation of the police force we actually are. And just to illustrate how inefficient this is only a week ago I gave a witness statement on a road traffic accident. To save everyone time I typed it up at home in 15 minutes and brought it to the station. But the Garda wasnt allowed accept it and instead I had to dictate the statement to her while she wrote it down word for word. That took 45 minutes. All of which was work that could have easily been done by a civilian who would have had it done even quicker than the 15 minutes it took me. But instead the Garda unions would prefer their members to be working inefficiently rather than employ civilians. Its a power thing for them, they are not interested in what is for the good of policing and the public.

Why wasn't the garda allowed to accept It? Did you ask?

monument

This thread is not about gardai work practices -- please get back on topic.

-- moderator

AlekSmart

Muahahaha wrote: »

You certainly are open to correction. Where is AGS using illegal versions of Win98? And are you telling us that Gardai never make spelling mistakes in their written statements?

If a SC embarrasses a Garda in court it is usually to do with the Garda cocking up the chain of evidence, not to do with spelling mistakes or using illegal software, as you say is happening right now.

Nope I am not telling you anything about the Gardai's version of W98.....it's YOUR version,or your Typewriter,WP or PC that would be the issue for our Brief in such a scenario.

The old Garda Biro,for all of it's failings,may often be a safer bet.

However,to get back to the North Quays Bus Priority scheme,I would fully agree that,with the Gardai appearing to be disinterested in,unwilling or unable to support the enforcement of the law here,the City Council should,as a matter of some urgency,investigate alternative methods of enforcement.

Given that DCC already has a long running arrangement with DSPS,and the Government with Go-Safe,there are already two well established entities who could monitor and enforce this (and other) Public Transport Priority measures.

With just over 700 Garda Traffic Corps members available to provide 24/7/365 coverage over the 26 Counties it is hardly surprising that so few of them are to be seen around the City.

yer man!

I don't understand why the council don't explore ANPR camera options over bus lanes, especially on this stretch. Tender it out to a private company to manage and give them half the profits. Would see an explosion of them around the city. The tech isn't that expensive and would pay itself off very quickly. I think they even have some of these on Amiens street but no idea what they're actually used for. The guards simply don't care unless it's the traffic corps. I drive the north circular road every day and see loads of people drive in the bus lane and the guards just drive behind and don't pull them over, it's ridiculous, why bother with rules at all.

cython

yer man! wrote: »

I don't understand why the council don't explore ANPR camera options over bus lanes, especially on this stretch. Tender it out to a private company to manage and give them half the profits. Would see an explosion of them around the city. The tech isn't that expensive and would pay itself off very quickly. I think they even have some of these on Amiens street but no idea what they're actually used for. The guards simply don't care unless it's the traffic corps. I drive the north circular road every day and see loads of people drive in the bus lane and the guards just drive behind and don't pull them over, it's ridiculous, why bother with rules at all.

Agree with all bar the bolded - linking profits/payment to enforcement like that is a bad idea, as it makes a commodity of it. GoSafe get enough stick for being "flash for cash" even though they are paid a flat fee and get nothing extra for the numbers caught that legitimising that opinion by sharing the fine "profits" would be a terrible idea, IMHO.

bk

cython wrote: »

Agree with all bar the bolded - linking profits/payment to enforcement like that is a bad idea, as it makes a commodity of it. GoSafe get enough stick for being "flash for cash" even though they are paid a flat fee and get nothing extra for the numbers caught that legitimising that opinion by sharing the fine "profits" would be a terrible idea, IMHO.

I honestly don't see what the problem with it is. If you follow the rules of the road, then you have nothing to worry about from these sort of people. If on the other hand you break the rules, for instance turning right here, then you get fined and penalty points. Simple as that.

It is not as if any of these people are catching people who aren't breaking the law.

Ben D Bus

bk wrote: »

I honestly don't see what the problem with it is. If you follow the rules of the road, then you have nothing to worry about from these sort of people. If on the other hand you break the rules, for instance turning right here, then you get fined and penalty points. Simple as that.

It is not as if any of these people are catching people who aren't breaking the law.

Optics. Perception matters.

bk

Ben D Bus wrote: »

Optics. Perception matters.

People not breaking the law is what really matters. If people stop breaking the law here, then the vast majority of people stuck in buses, will benefit greatly, instead of an incredibly small number of self entitled people.

Ben D Bus

bk wrote: »

People not breaking the law is what really matters.

Public support for law enforcement matters. See todays domestic news headline.

bk

Ben D Bus wrote: »

Public support for law enforcement matters. See todays domestic news headline.

The truth is some people will moan no matter who tries to enforce these rules. Gardai, traffic wardens, ticket inspectors, private contractors.

Some Irish people just don't like following the rules, no matter who is enforcing it. We have too much, chance your arm about us.

cython

bk wrote: »

I honestly don't see what the problem with it is. If you follow the rules of the road, then you have nothing to worry about from these sort of people. If on the other hand you break the rules, for instance turning right here, then you get fined and penalty points. Simple as that.

It is not as if any of these people are catching people who aren't breaking the law.

As soon as you commoditise it, then those contracted with enforcing it will look at points where they can nail people at the highest frequency rather than where it has a net effect, compromising the whole thing. For example, while it's strictly speaking illegal to cut across a bus lane early to turn left, there are places where many people do this with no impact if they make sure the bus lane is clear first. By contrast, infrequent occurrences of someone flying up a bus lane and getting stuck and thus obstructing buses cause more problems. As soon as you link payment to rate of detection, then the first of these is where they will prioritise setting up the checkpoint.

The other alternative is to tie their hands to such an extent that this isn't an option, but at that rate you might as well make it a flat rate contract.

bk

cython wrote: »

As soon as you commoditise it, then those contracted with enforcing it will look at points where they can nail people at the highest frequency rather than where it has a net effect, compromising the whole thing.

You mean people breaking the law.

I'm sorry, but all I'm hearing is people complaining about getting caught breaking the law!

Ben D Bus

bk wrote: »

You mean people breaking the law.

I'm sorry, but all I'm hearing is people complaining about getting caught breaking the law!

The problem is if the application of the law is perceived to be of direct benefit to those applying it then even those who obey the law will feel they are not fairly treated by said law.

This becomes public pressure on those deciding the laws. The media jumps on it too and before you know it populist politicians are offering to repeal the law, or remove the bus lane, or the water charges or whatever. Traffic returns to chaos, water mains continue bursting etc.

Nobody wins.

Law enforecement MUST have public support. It's not optional because it is doomed to failure without it.

cython

bk wrote: »

You mean people breaking the law.

I'm sorry, but all I'm hearing is people complaining about getting caught breaking the law!

Technically if you walk outside the lines at a pedestrian crossing you are breaking the law - would you also like to see profit-incentivised enforcement of that? If so, then happy days (well not really, but it suggests a slavish adherence for the sake of adherence that can't be argued with), but black and white application combined with a vested interest is a dangerous combination, IMHO.

devnull

The lack of zero tolerance and the abuse of discretion is why low level law breaking is much more common in this country than others.

Everything from the taxi drivers who park in illegal places to the people driving in the bus lanes and all of the other traffic offences that happen on a regular basis would happen far less if the offenders knew they'd be nailed every time.

At the moment they just know nothing is going to get done, so keep doing the same thing over and over as a Garda will simply tell them not to do it again and they move up the road and do the same.

Same with the vandals stoning the buses, if they actually got some real punishment they'd think twice about doing it again, but that needs more of a zero tolerance attitude to crime and proper enforcement by the courts.

Ben D Bus

devnull wrote: »

The lack of zero tolerance and the abuse of discretion is why low level law breaking is much more common in this country than others.

Everything from the taxi drivers who park in illegal places to the people driving in the bus lanes and all of the other traffic offences that happen on a regular basis would happen far less if the offenders knew they'd be nailed every time.

At the moment they just know nothing is going to get done, so keep doing the same thing over and over as a Garda will simply tell them not to do it again and they move up the road and do the same.

Same with the vandals stoning the buses, if they actually got some real punishment they'd think twice about doing it again, but that needs more of a zero tolerance attitude to crime and proper enforcement by the courts.

I agree with all of this. It's just the idea of rewarding a 3rd party on a per-detection basis that I think would be a PR disaster and result in a populist withdrawl of enforecement altogether.

devnull

Ben D Bus wrote: »

I agree with all of this. It's just the idea of rewarding a 3rd party on a per-detection basis that I think would be a PR disaster and result in a populist withdrawl of enforecement altogether.

The problem is that if you don't pay them on a per detection basis, there's no incentive for them to do the job properly and actually properly enforce what they are paid to enforce rather than just taking it easy and not being arsed since they're paid the same whether they actually put in any effort or not.

cython

devnull wrote: »

The problem is that if you don't pay them on a per detection basis, there's no incentive for them to do the job properly and actually properly enforce what they are paid to enforce rather than just taking it easy and not being arsed since they're paid the same whether they actually put in any effort or not.

And in the utopia where we have 100% compliance there eventually becomes no incentive to actually tender for it, and you end up going to a flat rate anyway in order for them to cover their costs because as soon as enforcement ceases, abuse commences. So if we ensure to pay enough in the flat rate to cover the operational costs should that scenario arise, then it's profiteering to give the fines (or a fraction thereof) to the operator. I'd much rather see 100% of them ploughed back into the public coffers. There are simply too many downsides to "profit-sharing" in law enforcement - can you imagine the uproar and abuse if Gardai were given a financial incentive for every road traffic detection, for example? And that's without involving private enterprise.

Ben D Bus

devnull wrote: »

The problem is that if you don't pay them on a per detection basis, there's no incentive for them to do the job properly and actually properly enforce what they are paid to enforce rather than just taking it easy and not being arsed since they're paid the same whether they actually put in any effort or not.

The delivery of the contract must be monitored by those awarding the contract regardless of the payment method. So I don't believe that is an argument for a pay per detection contract.

Has someone already said the speed detection contract is fixed price?

Anyway, my preference would be for ANPR camera enforcement. Possibly in a supply and maintenance fixed contract with a 3rd party but all fine revenue to the the local authority. And let's cynically ring fence it for something like homeless accommodation so nobody can kick up a fuss

bk

Ben D Bus wrote: »

The delivery of the contract must be monitored by those awarding the contract regardless of the payment method. So I don't believe that is an argument for a pay per detection contract.

There is a reason why every big company in the world pays it's sales staff a commission for each sale. It has proven time and again to be the most effective way to get people to do the job. Monitoring can often be abused, e.g. call center staff simply hanging up on customers before solving the problem, to get their call per hour number up.

Having said that ANPR would do for this particular case. However it would offer less flexibility over all in terms of enforcing taxi drivers, etc.

Ben D Bus

bk wrote: »

There is a reason why every big company in the world pays it's sales staff a commission for each sale. It has proven time and again to be the most effective way to get people to do the job. Monitoring can often be abused, e.g. call center staff simply hanging up on customers before solving the problem, to get their call per hour number up.

Having said that ANPR would do for this particular case. However it would offer less flexibility over all in terms of enforcing taxi drivers, etc.

I've no doubt it's the best way for a company to make sales. But this is law enforcement. I'm sure commission would increase the number of penalties issued and if that's the goal then great. However I'd prefer a goal of changing the public mindset on following rules and on choosing the public transport option to commute.

Treating the public like targets (even those asses who ignore the rules) will not achieve this. It will alienate the public and build resistance to this and any new changes that are for the common good.

Law enforcement needs to be seen by the public as a public service not a corporate enterprise. And BTW, I've no problem with a 3rd party making a decent profit out of enforcing the bus lanes. I just wouldn't want to lose the public's support over it.

bk

The only thing Irish people understand is strong and forceful enforcement. If you give us any leeway we will take the piss and chance our arm. It is just in our nature.

You claim you need public support, not really, the public HATES traffic wardens, clampers, etc. yet they have been working away for years now doing a pretty vital job.

Ben D Bus

bk wrote: »

The only thing Irish people understand is strong and forceful enforcement. If you give us any leeway we will take the piss and chance our arm. It is just in our nature.

OK so.

yer man!

I can understand the point of the wanting the public on your side and not too try and make it all about profit. In saying that though, I don't think there's much other way of getting an effective scheme in place, no way in hell would DCC implement something like that. They don't have the resources or the will to do it, needs to be a third party and the contract needs to be attractive enough for them to expand and be as self financing as possible. The quays are gonna turn into a free for all if something like this isn't brought in.

AlekSmart

yer man! wrote: »

I can understand the point of the wanting the public on your side and not too try and make it all about profit. In saying that though, I don't think there's much other way of getting an effective scheme in place, no way in hell would DCC implement something like that. They don't have the resources or the will to do it, needs to be a third party and the contract needs to be attractive enough for them to expand and be as self financing as possible. The quays are gonna turn into a free for all if something like this isn't brought in.

The good thing is how the concept of removing the Gardai's monopoly on Traffic By-Law enforcement is now being actively discussed.
That ensures it is only a matter of time before it is picked up by a Political Party's detectors.

The traditional Irish administrative approach of Do-Nothing,will kill these initiatives if they are not policed by somebody....anybody

Phil.x

On the radio (Newstalk) this morning about the increase in traffic in and around the stoneybatter area due to bus lanes on the quays.

Apparently it's made the area more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians.

BeerNut

Phil.x wrote: »

Apparently it's made the area more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians.

That's not very meaningful without knowing who said it and what it's based on.

AndrewJRenko

BeerNut wrote: »

That's not very meaningful without knowing who said it and what it's based on.

It was a guy pushing the NIMBY campaign for Smithfield and Manor St.

DaveyDave

Haven't read this whole thread, but the new layout seems interesting. I only rarely drive over O'Connell bridge so that will be interesting but I only drive through the city after 6pm.

I have cycled it a bit though. Interesting so far. Got beeped by a coach behind me who wanted to turn at Jervis and wasn't happy with me only doing 32kph :rolleyes: the issue I've noticed though is the bus traffic lights I think after the Hapenny bridge, cars like to move into the lane because there's no motor traffic but the bike lane doesn't need to stop so you'll definitely get cut off by some twat not using their mirrors. Happened to me on my second journey on the new layout.

I feel like there's more space as a cyclist but I still see **** in taxis passing as if bikes aren't there along the Four Courts area without bike lanes...

sweetie

Phil.x wrote: »

On the radio (Newstalk) this morning about the increase in traffic in and around the stoneybatter area due to bus lanes on the quays.

Apparently it's made the area more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians.

I drive through it crossing the quays and heading towards D8 most mornings and i've not noticed any increase yet on my route (stanley st - brunswick st - church st) since school started back.