How did it all come to this? AGS charging NTA to enforce bus gate

Peregrine

A letter from the NTA shows that the guards claimed they didn't have enough resources to police the College Green bus gate during Luas Cross City construction and offered to do it on a voluntary basis if the Luas Cross City project paid for Garda overtime. These 'non-public duty services' arrangements are usually between AGS and organisers of large events. AGS charging the NTA to police roads is just all kinds of wrong. One state body paying another to do a job that they're already responsible for doing.

Same thing happened when cars kept blocking the yellow boxes at Luas junctions after construction and when taxis were banned from going southbound through College Green in the morning.

AGS have been saying they don't have enough resources to keep the bus lanes and footpaths clear at minor locations. And they can't even do the major locations without the NTA paying them. What exactly do they do? Where do the resources go?

Is this still happening?

https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1273365095360405506?s=20

SeanW

If the Gardai needs money to enforce the bus gate on College Green, they can put a member of the Traffic Corps on Sean O'Casey bridge and fine all the lawbreaking cyclists who ignore the "no cycling" signs. With the resulting fines, they could easily pay for the overtime or whatever to enforce the bus gate.

Peregrine

SeanW wrote: »

If the Gardai needs money to enforce the bus gate on College Green, they can put a member of the Traffic Corps on Sean O'Casey bridge and fine all the lawbreaking cyclists who ignore the "no cycling" signs. With the resulting fines, they could easily pay for the overtime or whatever to enforce the bus gate.

Did a cyclist break up with you or something?

If that's how it worked then they could put that guard at the College Green bus gate in the first place and collect fines there.

AGS says they have no resources to enforce one widely ignored law and your idea is to find resources to enforce another widely ignored law to enforce the first widely ignored law? Since that makes no sense because it uses the same resources as enforcing the bus gate in the first place, I'm just going to assume the only purpose of your post was to bring cyclists into this to stir the pot and get a reaction out of me so I won't be engaging any further. You're welcome to continue this conversation with yourself.

magicbastarder

i do recall that when the council changed the traffic flow along the quays, the response from the gardai was pretty much 'it's not our job to police this'. and i'm not parodying their response, unless my memory is playing tricks.

Phil.x

A sure sign of an extremely bad design when an garda are needed to protect a junction.

Get Real

Phil.x wrote: »

A sure sign of an extremely bad design when an garda are needed to protect a junction.

Pretty much this. How the length of a tram, and the signal timings, deliberately mean a Luas has no option but to block a yellow box, is mind blowing.

All the planners, surveys, meetings and the NTA plough ahead anyway, and then "ah sure the guards can deal with it"

Even though it's impossible to deal with as there's physically nowhere to move traffic.

Imo, I see no problem with the NTA paying for their mistake, so an extra guard is free to attend my car thats been broken into, rather than being taken up standing at a yellow box. It might also mean the NTA and others consider these issues seriosuly in future developments.

magicbastarder

Phil.x wrote: »

A sure sign of an extremely bad design when an garda are needed to protect a junction.

'a sure sign of bad motorist behaviour when an garda are needed to protect a junction' is probably closer to the truth, i suspect.

Peregrine

Get Real wrote: »

Pretty much this. How the length of a tram, and the signal timings, deliberately mean a Luas has no option but to block a yellow box, is mind blowing.

All the planners, surveys, meetings and the NTA plough ahead anyway, and then "ah sure the guards can deal with it"

Even though it's impossible to deal with as there's physically nowhere to move traffic.

Imo, I see no problem with the NTA paying for their mistake, so an extra guard is free to attend my car thats been broken into, rather than being taken up standing at a yellow box. It might also mean the NTA and others consider these issues seriosuly in future developments.

Conveniently absolving the law breakers of any blame there. They expected people to obey the rules of the road and the Gardaí to enforce them so now they should pay extra for it? Nowhere to move traffic? They could not drive into the box junction. It's a simple rule of the road. Nothing impossible about it.

Most of the design for Luas Cross City was complete by the time the NTA was even founded. It was DCC's decision to let cars drive onto Eden Quay after the car park operator's resisted restrictions to let the Luas operate freely. It's no secret that I'm not a fan of 55m trams in the city but it's mental if you think the law breakers are not to blame for this. Decades of poor enforcement has lead to lawlessness on our roads. Now AGS wants to be paid extra to enforce them. And you think it's the NTA's fault?

And what about the College Green bus gate? Is it the NTA's fault that 500 drivers drove illegally through it in six hours too?

Atlantic Dawn

Why not just fit ANPR cameras and any number plate of a vehicle which is not bus or taxi gets a €100 fine?

Seth Brundle

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Why not just fit ANPR cameras and any number plate of a vehicle which is not bus or taxi gets a €100 fine?

Why should we let taxis through? How are they different to a regular car?

Peregrine

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Why not just fit ANPR cameras and any number plate of a vehicle which is not bus or taxi gets a €100 fine?

An Garda Síochána have had the power to do this for a long time. Neither DCC or the NTA has the power. AGS has never shown any interest in doing it.

DCC and NTA worked with them to trial red light cameras at Blackhall Place where cars keep breaking the red light across the Luas Red Line. That started in 2015. After a while, AGS stopped issuing fines. A year ago, DCC said they've come to an arrangement with AGS to enforce 3 permanent red light cameras in Dublin city. There have been no updates on that. So it's taken 5 years and we're still waiting for just three red light cameras.

DCC, FCC, SDCC and DLCC are also trying to get AGS to trial enforcing bus lanes using cameras. I don't know if AGS has agreed yet or not.

NTA are trying to get legislation changed to let them enforce it using cameras.

Del2005

Peregrine wrote: »

A letter from the NTA shows that the guards claimed they didn't have enough resources to police the College Green bus gate during Luas Cross City construction and offered to do it on a voluntary basis if the Luas Cross City project paid for Garda overtime. These 'non-public duty services' arrangements are usually between AGS and organisers of large events. AGS charging the NTA to police roads is just all kinds of wrong. One state body paying another to do a job that they're already responsible for doing.

Same thing happened when cars kept blocking the yellow boxes at Luas junctions after construction and when taxis were banned from going southbound through College Green in the morning.

AGS have been saying they don't have enough resources to keep the bus lanes and footpaths clear at minor locations. And they can't even do the major locations without the NTA paying them. What exactly do they do? Where do the resources go?

Is this still happening?

https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1273365095360405506?s=20

If the NTA, or anyone else, want full time enforcement of a specific offence at a particular place why shouldn't they pay for it? Compliance with the bus gate should be improved by enforcement of all our legislation not just the bus gate.

If a Garda is to be dedicated to enforcing minor traffic offences why not do it at schools or churches where it will improve road safety by making people park correctly instead of keeping a few cars illegally going through a junction which has very little affect on anything.

Atlantic Dawn

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Why should we let taxis through? How are they different to a regular car?

Same reason they can use active bus lanes and regular cars can't.

Seth Brundle

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Same reason they can use active bus lanes and regular cars can't.

Another "privilege" that should have been revoked a long time ago!

sydthebeat

Peregrine wrote: »

Did a cyclist break up with you or something?
.

yeah, she was riding all around him......






















ill get my coat....

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

If the Gardai needs money to enforce the bus gate on College Green, they can put a member of the Traffic Corps on Sean O'Casey bridge and fine all the lawbreaking cyclists who ignore the "no cycling" signs. With the resulting fines, they could easily pay for the overtime or whatever to enforce the bus gate.

Or they could just fine the many drivers who ignore the bus gate at College Green, and the majority of drivers using their phones at the wheel and use the income to fund extra Gardai to keep the bus lane clear on Pearsse St?

Why would you want to divert Garda resources away from reducing the death toll on the road?

magicbastarder

Del2005 wrote: »

If the NTA, or anyone else, want full time enforcement of a specific offence at a particular place why shouldn't they pay for it?

If I build a new house, should I have to pay the gardai to potentially police a property they did not have to police before?

Peregrine

Del2005 wrote: »

If the NTA, or anyone else, want full time enforcement of a specific offence at a particular place why shouldn't they pay for it? Compliance with the bus gate should be improved by enforcement of all our legislation not just the bus gate.

If a Garda is to be dedicated to enforcing minor traffic offences why not do it at schools or churches where it will improve road safety by making people park correctly instead of keeping a few cars illegally going through a junction which has very little affect on anything.

Because it's the result of poor enforcement from AGS in the first place.



83 cars per hour going through the bus gate illegally causing major delays to the bus network is not "a few cars illegally going through a junction which has very little affect on anything". Blocking the Luas with 300+ people in it by sitting in the middle of a junction illegally is not minor. Stopping and preventing this level of law breaking is the every day job or the Gardaí. It's the purpose of the Roads Policing Unit. Why should they be paid extra because they never bothered to do it in the first place?

Who should be allowed to get extra everyday policing using a set up that's designed for policing concerts etc.? Can I pay for AGS to clear the footpaths near my house? There's nothing in law that I'm aware of that lets the NTA preferentially pay for additional policing of existing laws. If there's precedent for accepting a request to police a bus lane as an event like a concert then why can't I request the same for road traffic offences? Can I pay for a few extra patrols of my estate?

jimmycrackcorm

SeanW wrote: »

If the Gardai needs money to enforce the bus gate on College Green, they can put a member of the Traffic Corps on Sean O'Casey bridge and fine all the lawbreaking cyclists who ignore the "no cycling" signs. With the resulting fines, they could easily pay for the overtime or whatever to enforce the bus gate.

Given the number of cyclists killed by motorists every year and no pedestrians killed by cyclists, wouldn't it make sense to concentrate fines on motorists behaviours more so?

Del2005

Peregrine wrote: »

Because it's the result of poor enforcement from AGS in the first place.



83 cars per hour going through the bus gate illegally causing major delays to the bus network is not "a few cars illegally going through a junction which has very little affect on anything". Blocking the Luas with 300+ people in it by sitting in the middle of a junction illegally is not minor. Stopping and preventing this level of law breaking is the every day job or the Gardaí. It's the purpose of the Roads Policing Unit. Why should they be paid extra because they never bothered to do it in the first place?

Who should be allowed to get extra everyday policing using a set up that's designed for policing concerts etc.? Can I pay for AGS to clear the footpaths near my house? There's nothing in law that I'm aware of that lets the NTA preferentially pay for additional policing of existing laws. If there's precedent for accepting a request to police a bus lane as an event like a concert then why can't I request the same for road traffic offences? Can I pay for a few extra patrols of my estate?

I've no idea but having a Garda standing at one junction is not a good use of their limited resources. If they are to start enforcing our laws I'd rather they enforce the dangerous ones like red light ignoring/phones/speeding in housing estates and outside school's not the inconveniencing of a few people.

CrankyHaus

Del2005 wrote: »

I've no idea but having a Garda standing at one junction is not a good use of their limited resources. If they are to start enforcing our laws I'd rather they enforce the dangerous ones like red light ignoring/phones/speeding in housing estates and outside school's not the inconveniencing of a few people.

This. Using a trained and salaried Garda to do a camera's job is ridiculous.

LeinsterDub

Del2005 wrote: »

If the NTA, or anyone else, want full time enforcement of a specific offence at a particular place why shouldn't they pay for it? Compliance with the bus gate should be improved by enforcement of all our legislation not just the bus gate.

If a Garda is to be dedicated to enforcing minor traffic offences why not do it at schools or churches where it will improve road safety by making people park correctly instead of keeping a few cars illegally going through a junction which has very little affect on anything.

It's AGS job to police the roads. Why should they be paid extra to do their job?

LeinsterDub

Del2005 wrote: »

I've no idea but having a Garda standing at one junction is not a good use of their limited resources. If they are to start enforcing our laws I'd rather they enforce the dangerous ones like red light ignoring/phones/speeding in housing estates and outside school's not the inconveniencing of a few people.

Then remove their powers of enforcement and give it to an agency that will. AGS could have simply installed ANPR here. I'm sure the NTA would have covered the implementation costs.


Inconveniencing a few people? You must of forgotten how this law breaking basically shutdown the city for hours at a time

Peregrine

Del2005 wrote: »

I've no idea but having a Garda standing at one junction is not a good use of their limited resources. If they are to start enforcing our laws I'd rather they enforce the dangerous ones like red light ignoring/phones/speeding in housing estates and outside school's not the inconveniencing of a few people.

I'd rather they enforced all laws. They don't seem to be doing anything. You can ask what Garda Traffic Corps are actually doing with their resources, why there aren't more resources and question the implications of a deal to pay for extra overtime like I am or you can give up and say "If they start enforcing our laws, I'd rather they enforced these ones over those".

And tens of thousands of people go through College Green every day on buses, Luas and on a bike that are affected by illegal usage. Everytime you say "a few people", it looks like either don't know College Green or you're playing it down on purpose. Neither looks good on you.

CrankyHaus wrote: »

This. Using a trained and salaried Garda to do a camera's job is ridiculous.

No disagreements there. But they have taken zero initiative to use their camera enforcement powers. And, since they're not using them, should they just be able to ignore most laws? Are you okay with that?

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Or they could just fine the many drivers who ignore the bus gate at College Green, and the majority of drivers using their phones at the wheel and use the income to fund extra Gardai to keep the bus lane clear on Pearsse St?

Why would you want to divert Garda resources away from reducing the death toll on the road?

It's clearly not just motorists and taxi drivers that need to have their behaviour checked by law enforcement in Dublin.

There are so many lawbreakers on Sean O'Casey bridge that you could easily fund the enforcement of the bus gate with fines from it. (Assuming that the cost of enforcement did not exceed the fines, but I doubt it would, at least not in the beginning).

Someone mentioned 83 lawbreaking motorists per hour at the bus gate. You can easily get that from cyclists in one or two minutes at certain times on various footways.

BTW as far as I know, there are no deaths occurring at College Green, the bus gate is a traffic control measure only. Therefore, by your standards, the motorists aren't really doing anything wrong. Like the cyclists on Sean O'Casey bridge.

challengemaster

magicbastarder wrote: »

If I build a new house, should I have to pay the gardai to potentially police a property they did not have to police before?

To be fair, that's probably the only way you'd get one round if the place was robbed.

AlekSmart

Get Real wrote: »

Pretty much this. How the length of a tram, and the signal timings, deliberately mean a Luas has no option but to block a yellow box, is mind blowing.

All the planners, surveys, meetings and the NTA plough ahead anyway, and then "ah sure the guards can deal with it"

Even though it's impossible to deal with as there's physically nowhere to move traffic.

Imo, I see no problem with the NTA paying for their mistake, so an extra guard is free to attend my car thats been broken into, rather than being taken up standing at a yellow box. It might also mean the NTA and others consider these issues seriosuly in future developments.

It's worth noting that a Yellow Box Junction has no relevance to a LUAS LRT vehicle which operates under a different set of regulations.

CrankyHaus

Peregrine wrote: »

No disagreements there. But they have taken zero initiative to use their camera enforcement powers. And, since they're not using them, should they just be able to ignore most laws? Are you okay with that?

Not at all. I agree An Garda lags on using cost-efficient technology solutions. Part of its problem is that funding for equipment always comes a very distant second to salary and benefits. The mutiny a couple of years ago the second its members smelled money as the state finances improved illustrates the scale of this problem.

However Civil organisations like Local Authorities and the NTA should take the initiative and either install the cameras themselves or, if they lack the authority to do so, lobby the Government and RSA to get it done or to give them the authority. Simply asking An Garda to post a member there is unrealistic. Even an offer to cover the cost of a camera would be better

Phil.x

AlekSmart wrote: »

It's worth noting that a Yellow Box Junction has no relevance to a LUAS LRT vehicle which operates under a different set of regulations.

Well why do they blow the sh1t out of their horn when cars, buses, bikes are blocking them. Rules are rules you cannot pick and choose what ones you want to obey.

markpb

Phil.x wrote: »

Well why do they blow the sh1t out of their horn when cars, buses, bikes are blocking them. Rules are rules you cannot pick and choose what ones you want to obey.

Luas blocking in a yellow box - not a problem legally

Other vehicles blocking a yellow box / tramline - legal problem.

It doesn’t matter that the yellow box is irrelevant to the tram, other vehicles still aren’t allowed block it.

AndrewJRenko

Peregrine wrote: »

Who should be allowed to get extra everyday policing using a set up that's designed for policing concerts etc.? Can I pay for AGS to clear the footpaths near my house? There's nothing in law that I'm aware of that lets the NTA preferentially pay for additional policing of existing laws. If there's precedent for accepting a request to police a bus lane as an event like a concert then why can't I request the same for road traffic offences? Can I pay for a few extra patrols of my estate?

There's an equity issue here indeed, as to whether it is right for organisations to pay for Garda services.

There is also the bizarre issue that the NTA is another public body, so this public money slushing around between public bodies. If there IS a need for more policing, then the Government should be reallocating budget to the Gardai. If there is a need for less budget for the NTA, that should be a Government decision.

It really isn't up to these two bodies to play around with their own budgets.

SeanW wrote: »

It's clearly not just motorists and taxi drivers that need to have their behaviour checked by law enforcement in Dublin.

There are so many lawbreakers on Sean O'Casey bridge that you could easily fund the enforcement of the bus gate with fines from it. (Assuming that the cost of enforcement did not exceed the fines, but I doubt it would, at least not in the beginning).

Someone mentioned 83 lawbreaking motorists per hour at the bus gate. You can easily get that from cyclists in one or two minutes at certain times on various footways.

BTW as far as I know, there are no deaths occurring at College Green, the bus gate is a traffic control measure only. Therefore, by your standards, the motorists aren't really doing anything wrong. Like the cyclists on Sean O'Casey bridge.

SeanW wrote: »

It's clearly not just motorists and taxi drivers that need to have their behaviour checked by law enforcement in Dublin.

Fully agree.

SeanW wrote: »

There are so many lawbreakers on Sean O'Casey bridge that you could easily fund the enforcement of the bus gate with fines from it. (Assuming that the cost of enforcement did not exceed the fines, but I doubt it would, at least not in the beginning).

Generally agree, that's probably true.

But it doesn't seem to make much sense. Why would you focus resources on catching cyclists to produce more resources to catch drivers? It's just a bit convoluted.

If you have resources available, just put the resources on College Green, and use their fines arising to fund their own activities.

magicbastarder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There is also the bizarre issue that the NTA is another public body, so this public money slushing around between public bodies.

maybe they should have put it out to tender... les gendarmes policing traffic in dublin is an intriguing concept.

RobbieMD

And if you’re the FAI, then you don’t even pay the €360k owed.

Del2005

Peregrine wrote: »

I'd rather they enforced all laws. They don't seem to be doing anything. You can ask what Garda Traffic Corps are actually doing with their resources, why there aren't more resources and question the implications of a deal to pay for extra overtime like I am or you can give up and say "If they start enforcing our laws, I'd rather they enforced these ones over those".

And tens of thousands of people go through College Green every day on buses, Luas and on a bike that are affected by illegal usage. Everytime you say "a few people", it looks like either don't know College Green or you're playing it down on purpose. Neither looks good on you.

I agree that they should be enforcing all our laws, but if we have to chose between putting a Garda at College Green or outside a school I'll pick the school all the time.

The reason I say a few people is because there are 5m people being let down by the lack of enforcement of our laws so again I'd rather see the Gardai going after anti social behaviour or serious traffic offences than people blocking a junction. I would also hope that if we sort out the serious offences then the minor ones will go away or if not then allocate resources.

Seth Brundle

Putting a garda outside a school will have very limited effect. Maybe 100 people will be aware if their presence and will adjust their behaviour by not parking like an asshole. Their dodgy parking would have otherwise inconvenienced maybe 50-100 people, at most (if at all). Their selfish parking would have probably made it more dangerous for kids going to school, as does any parking outside a school. Depending on where the school is, there may have been nobody put out at all!
Putting that same garda in college green would have helped prevent the breaking of about one traffic violation per minute which would otherwise lead to delays for hundreds if not thousands of people.
So in terms of resource allocation, you'd go with the school option?

As for sorting out the serious offences and then the minor ones go away, has that strategy worked yet?
Have drivers stopped speeding?
Is using a mobile phone not a serious offence because its barely enforced, if at all ?
The reality is that most driving offences are allowed because politically there's no desire.to stop the bad behaviour. We've encouraged a cultured victim blaming and accepting poor standards of driving. We recently had some TDs calling for some drivers to be allowed to have a few drinks and drive home.
The gardai haven't the resources to police everything but at the same time, they will not relinquish the control by allowing some automation of policing and unfortunately our TDs don't have the balls to change that.

magicbastarder

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The reality is that most driving offences are allowed because politically there's no desire to stop the bad behaviour.

i think there was some recent (maybe about six months ago) comms from the gardai or department, referring to the low death rate on the roads, with a barely concealed 'job done' message.

ED E

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe they should have put it out to tender... les gendarmes policing traffic in dublin is an intriguing concept.

DSPS are almost worse than the Gardai, a hard one to beat.

Del2005

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Putting a garda outside a school will have very limited effect. Maybe 100 people will be aware if their presence and will adjust their behaviour by not parking like an asshole. Their dodgy parking would have otherwise inconvenienced maybe 50-100 people, at most (if at all). Their selfish parking would have probably made it more dangerous for kids going to school, as does any parking outside a school. Depending on where the school is, there may have been nobody put out at all!
Putting that same garda in college green would have helped prevent the breaking of about one traffic violation per minute which would otherwise lead to delays for hundreds if not thousands of people.
So in terms of resource allocation, you'd go with the school option?

As for sorting out the serious offences and then the minor ones go away, has that strategy worked yet?
Have drivers stopped speeding?
Is using a mobile phone not a serious offence because its barely enforced, if at all ?
The reality is that most driving offences are allowed because politically there's no desire.to stop the bad behaviour. We've encouraged a cultured victim blaming and accepting poor standards of driving. We recently had some TDs calling for some drivers to be allowed to have a few drinks and drive home.
The gardai haven't the resources to police everything but at the same time, they will not relinquish the control by allowing some automation of policing and unfortunately our TDs don't have the balls to change that.

They don't go to the same school every day. It's also to reduce speeding in estates and to have a visible police presence on roads where we never see them. Put a Garda anywhere and they can stop traffic offences every minute.

A fatal RTC costs €3m, a series RTC costs several hundred thousand Euro. A tram delayed at college Green will affect 200 hundred people and cost maybe €50k, an incident on the M50 will cost more and effect more people.

Look at the USA. Over there no one will pass a school bus, could you imagine that here?, and everyone stops at stop signs because the police activity enforce them, but they have a serious DUI problem because of their law. We don't have a big a DUI problem but our other laws are ignored.

I'm not saying not to put a Garda at the bus gate I'm saying that sitting one there 24/7 when we have traffic offences on all our roads is stupid.

bk

It really is very simple, since they have no interest in enforcing them, take the powers off the Gardai and give them to the NTA.

I'm aware that the NTA already requested this, but the powers that be denied them. But it is the height of stupidity.

Automated enforcement cameras are a very simple and powerful tool for urban design, yet it is completely denied to our city planners.

Also I'd point out that lots of countries have a "city police" force, who are basically traffic wardens with extra powers to direct traffic, issue fines, etc.

I think we really suffer from having just one police force in this country, whose only interest seems to be keeping all the power and directing as much available funds into their own wages.

MOH

This thread is a perfect microcosm of the forum.
In 40 posts, the issue has been the fault of:
- Cyclists
- Motorists
- Taxi drivers
- the Gardai
- The NTA
- Dublin city council
- The FAI

I realise this post isn't particularly constructive either, but it just seems like lots of threads end up in an endless cycle of passing the blame bucket trying to blame one particular pigeon-holed group for whatever the issue is.

Charles Babbage

bk wrote: »

It really is very simple, since they have no interest in enforcing them, take the powers off the Gardai and give them to the NTA.

I'm aware that the NTA already requested this, but the powers that be denied them. But it is the height of stupidity.

Automated enforcement cameras are a very simple and powerful tool for urban design, yet it is completely denied to our city planners.

Also I'd point out that lots of countries have a "city police" force, who are basically traffic wardens with extra powers to direct traffic, issue fines, etc.

I think we really suffer from having just one police force in this country, whose only interest seems to be keeping all the power and directing as much available funds into their own wages.

Automated cameras would seem a less dramatic option than starting another police force, although the traffic warden concept is a useful one. Such cameras could do good work at other locations too and they really are a no brainer.

AndrewJRenko

MOH wrote: »

This thread is a perfect microcosm of the forum.
In 40 posts, the issue has been the fault of:
- Cyclists
- Motorists
- Taxi drivers
- the Gardai
- The NTA
- Dublin city council
- The FAI

I realise this post isn't particularly constructive either, but it just seems like lots of threads end up in an endless cycle of passing the blame bucket trying to blame one particular pigeon-holed group for whatever the issue is.

That's what happens when you have a bunch of amateurs (myself included) thinking that they know the solution.

LeinsterDub

MOH wrote: »

This thread is a perfect microcosm of the forum.
In 40 posts, the issue has been the fault of:
- Cyclists
- Motorists
- Taxi drivers
- the Gardai
- The NTA
- Dublin city council
- The FAI

I realise this post isn't particularly constructive either, but it just seems like lots of threads end up in an endless cycle of passing the blame bucket trying to blame one particular pigeon-holed group for whatever the issue is.

At the end of the day the buck for illegal activity on the roads stops with AGS

tampopo

magicbastarder wrote: »

i do recall that when the council changed the traffic flow along the quays, the response from the gardai was pretty much 'it's not our job to police this'. and i'm not parodying their response, unless my memory is playing tricks.

They did say that. They tweeted 'we don't do traffic enforcement'

afatbollix

Its all down to money. If they made it that the AGS got the money from the fines there would be cameras on every bus lane and red light in the country but at the moment it goes to the government and that's why we have a private company with speed camera vans.

In the UK the speed cameras & red light (Saftey) cameras go to the local police force and the councils have cameras for bus lanes, yellow box, no right turns etc and they get to keep the money. They do have a problem with too many cameras tho...


Since they can't work out who should police this why cant the private company with vans buy a few static cameras and put them up aorund the place?

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

If I build a new house, should I have to pay the gardai to potentially police a property they did not have to police before?

If you want a dedicated Garda protecting just your house, yes.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

At the end of the day the buck for illegal activity on the roads stops with AGS[/quote

Gardai include this area and it's included in the overall policing plan for traffic engorgement. It does not get it's own dedicated Garda because as said, there's simple not enough Gardai to go around. That's the issue at play here. Not that Gardai wouldn't do it, that the nta wanted more dedication to it than the Gardai were willing to give as doing so took the Garda away from other jobs.

People don't seem to realise how low Garda numbers are. Compare them across the eu, very low and with less civilian staff as well.

LeinsterDub

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Gardai include this area and it's included in the overall policing plan for traffic engorgement. It does not get it's own dedicated Garda because as said, there's simple not enough Gardai to go around. That's the issue at play here. Not that Gardai wouldn't do it, that the nta wanted more dedication to it than the Gardai were willing to give as doing so took the Garda away from other jobs.

People don't seem to realise how low Garda numbers are. Compare them across the eu, very low and with less civilian staff as well.

This doesn't hold water because AGS could have easily operated an ANPR camera here and refused to

magicbastarder

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

If you want a dedicated Garda protecting just your house, yes.

People don't seem to realise how low Garda numbers are. Compare them across the eu, very low and with less civilian staff as well.

there is no dedicated 'mb house protection unit' in the gardai, but there is a dedicated RPU, so i don't agree with that analogy.

and yes, i think they dropped from 1300 at the peak to about 750 now. but they have explicitly stated that roads policing should not be prioritised (i'll see if i can find the link). so don't expect anything to change soon, even if overall garda numbers start to recover.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

there is no dedicated 'mb house protection unit' in the gardai, but there is a dedicated RPU, so i don't agree with that analogy.

and yes, i think they dropped from 1300 at the peak to about 750 now. but they have explicitly stated that roads policing should not be prioritised (i'll see if i can find the link). so don't expect anything to change soon, even if overall garda numbers start to recover.

Actually there is a dedicated burglary unit in each area and again, if you want one protecting just your house, you would be told to jog on. So yes, it's accurate. They wanted a Garda just for this one area. That was the issue.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

This doesn't hold water because AGS could have easily operated an ANPR camera here and refused to

Ags don't use anpr cameras in that manner at all. They are expensive to buy and expensive to maintain with less than half the rpu vehicles having one to begin with. They are only inside cars, not static unless they have installed then in speed Vans recently. Why would Gardai invest in such a system for one isolated area? The budget is paper thin as it is.

To bring it back to the house scenario which someone else raised, is it the Gardai that pay for your house alarm?

bk

bk wrote: »

It really is very simple, since they have no interest in enforcing them, take the powers off the Gardai and give them to the NTA.

I'm aware that the NTA already requested this, but the powers that be denied them. But it is the height of stupidity.

Automated enforcement cameras are a very simple and powerful tool for urban design, yet it is completely denied to our city planners.

Also I'd point out that lots of countries have a "city police" force, who are basically traffic wardens with extra powers to direct traffic, issue fines, etc.

I think we really suffer from having just one police force in this country, whose only interest seems to be keeping all the power and directing as much available funds into their own wages.

Those same police forces are not well respected in general and are paid for by the local council's.

What you are suggesting is that we introduce a 'fingal police' and so on and pay them from the county council budget. They would then only enforce the co co bye laws and would need to call Gardai to deal with actual crimes.

That's pretty much what we have in the airports and ports now.

magicbastarder

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

To bring it back to the house scenario which someone else raised, is it the Gardai that pay for your house alarm?

i didn't realise that house alarms detect and capture housebreakers. i must look further into the technology.

the resistance to static ANPR cameras at problem junctions is strange. surely it's a better use of resources than scheduling gardai to stand at the junction doing the same?