Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

magicbastarder · 28-07-2018 11:10PM

DanDublin1982 wrote: »

And if there are constitutional issues then we have the mechanisms to change those too, no matter how ridiculous that might sound.

eh, that sounds bonkers ridiculous if i'm right in thinking what you're thinking.

something possibly not being constitutional is a MASSIVE factor in whether we should legislate or not. absolutely massive. it's not a case of firing **** at a wall and if it's constitutional, it sticks. there's also the various issues of the very credibility of the process, the reasoning, the political willpower.
apart from the fact that the president has a duty to not sign the bill if there's a question about constitutionality, and refer it to the council of state (itself not a perfect process)

personally, and outside the whole issue of me wanting asshole drivers prosecuted, i find the notion of declaring a specific benchmark for violation of a law, without the requirement to prove the benchmark was breached, disturbing to say the least. the state cannot/should not say 'we will find you guilty of a specific offence without having to prove you have actually reached the definition for that offence'.

DanDublin1982 · 28-07-2018 11:23PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

. the state cannot/should not say 'we will find you guilty of a specific offence without having to prove you have actually reached the definition for that offence'.

Yea. Obviously. If that's the problem then they should remove the bit that says that and still introduce the bill.

Irish Raven · 28-07-2018 11:32PM

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Success will depend on Gardai attitudes, which at present aren't great. I reported a driver to Gardai a few months with video footage showing the driving handling/using the phone at four different occasions over the course of a few minutes in traffic. I saw closely enough to identify the style of phone - a Blackberry style phone with a physical keyboard, unusual enough these days. Gardai declined to prosecute, as it could have been 'any device' he had in his hands, apparently. I asked the Gardai what other kinds of devices he had in mind, and he told me that he didn't have to answer to me.

Rechuchote wrote:

Did you report this to GSOC?

A garda cannot prosecute for holding a mobile phone if he did not witness, as this is a FCPN which must be intercepted at the time. A none intercept FCPN would be a parking offence etc... Could be prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving if his manner of driving is impaired, and witness or video evidence of this.

Why would you report it to GSOC? To try get a Garda in trouble...typical...

AndrewJRenko · 29-07-2018 12:25AM

Irish Raven wrote: »

A garda cannot prosecute for holding a mobile phone if he did not witness, as this is a FCPN which must be intercepted at the time. A none intercept FCPN would be a parking offence etc... Could be prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving if his manner of driving is impaired, and witness or video evidence of this.

Why would you report it to GSOC? To try get a Garda in trouble...typical...

I've had previous cases of phone abuse dealt with by FCPN based on video evidence. What makes you think that the Garda needs to witness it personally?

Kfagan10 · 29-07-2018 12:33AM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've had previous cases of phone abuse dealt with by FCPN based on video evidence. What makes you think that the Garda needs to witness it personally?

The hold up between announcement and implementation was the fact Guards had to procure equipment to actually measure passing distance.

They've decided it's too costly for them to actually enforce laws. So this law looks like it's dead in the water sadly.

Irish Raven · 29-07-2018 08:06AM

AndrewJRenko wrote:

I've had previous cases of phone abuse dealt with by FCPN based on video evidence. What makes you think that the Garda needs to witness it personally?

Because it is an FCPN which needs to be intercepted. ie caught in the act. There are two types of FCPN. intercept and non intercept. both hold necessary proofs needed for an FCPN to be issued.

What is phone abuse?

AndrewJRenko · 29-07-2018 08:12AM

Irish Raven wrote: »

Because it is an FCPN which needs to be intercepted. ie caught in the act. There are two types of FCPN. intercept and non intercept. both hold necessary proofs needed for an FCPN to be issued.

What is phone abuse?

Phone abuse is using the phone while driving. What's your source for this intercept requirement please ?

Irish Raven · 29-07-2018 08:18AM

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Phone abuse is using the phone while driving. What's your source for this intercept requirement please ?

Holding a mobile phone while driving is an offence. Phone abuse is not an offence. My source is FCPN requirements. RTA

AndrewJRenko · 29-07-2018 08:24AM

Irish Raven wrote: »

Holding a mobile phone while driving is an offence. Phone abuse is not an offence. My source is FCPN requirements. RTA

Are these requirements set out in law?

Irish Raven · 29-07-2018 08:28AM

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Are these requirements set out in law?

set out in accordance with requirements to issue an FCPN.

The offence is set out in law.

magicbastarder · 29-07-2018 08:55AM

Irish Raven wrote: »

set out in accordance with requirements to issue an FCPN.

The offence is set out in law.

it'd be easiest if you just linked to the law.

magicbastarder · 29-07-2018 09:15AM

interestingly, if you go to appendix 2 of this document, the report of an offence by a member of the public seems to straddle *both* the intercept and non-intercept columns.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj00sqG68PcAhWIKsAKHVedBJ8QFjAGegQIBhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gardaombudsman.ie%2Fpublications%2Fexamination-reports%2F%3Fdownload%3Dfile%26file%3D650&usg=AOvVaw2rn6jqBFbw6xTz9pHcl5xY

page 38.

ConnyMcDavid · 30-07-2018 07:40AM

There is no hope of safety with the idiocy of this tweet. Responding to the gardaI issuing a ticket to an illegally tinted car windscreen...

https://twitter.com/AlecPaul11/status/1023382943002185728?s=19

30-07-2018 09:16AM

Fair play to those that organised this (photo taken recently in Rathmines):

magicbastarder · 30-07-2018 10:23AM

ConnyMcDavid wrote: »

There is no hope of safety with the idiocy of this tweet. Responding to the gardaI issuing a ticket to an illegally tinted car windscreen...

https://twitter.com/AlecPaul11/status/1023382943002185728?s=19

it's possible he meant they can't see the *driver*.

Steoller · 30-07-2018 11:38AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

interestingly, if you go to appendix 2 of this document, the report of an offence by a member of the public seems to straddle *both* the intercept and non-intercept columns.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj00sqG68PcAhWIKsAKHVedBJ8QFjAGegQIBhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gardaombudsman.ie%2Fpublications%2Fexamination-reports%2F%3Fdownload%3Dfile%26file%3D650&usg=AOvVaw2rn6jqBFbw6xTz9pHcl5xY

page 38.

Reading that, it looks like you'd need to take your complaint to trafficwatch in order for it to be considered an "intercept". Perhaps this is why we see better results in going to trafficwatch with a complaint rather than direct to the local station?

magicbastarder · 31-07-2018 08:12AM

this seems to confirm my suspicion that the issue was the enforceability of a specific distance:

http://irishcycle.com/2018/07/31/constitutional-issues-hit-rosss-promise-on-cycling-passing-distance/

Annie get your Run · 31-07-2018 09:38AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

this seems to confirm my suspicion that the issue was the enforceability of a specific distance:

http://irishcycle.com/2018/07/31/constitutional-issues-hit-rosss-promise-on-cycling-passing-distance/

Reading that, it sounds like the alternative they're looking at might actually be better? Obviously we need to wait and see what will be covered under the term 'dangerous overtaking' but might it also include things like overtaking on a solid white line, blind bend and into oncoming traffic? I know those things are already in the ROTR but possibly(?) no harm to put them all into the dangerous overtaking package.

Ultimately the message we need drivers to get is that you don't have to immediately overtake a bike when you see one, you should slow down, assess the situation and only overtake when it's safe to do so.

Macy0161 · 31-07-2018 09:41AM

Annie get your Run wrote: »

Reading that, it sounds like the alternative they're looking at might actually be better? Obviously we need to wait and see what will be covered under the term 'dangerous overtaking' but might it also include things like overtaking on a solid white line, blind bend and into oncoming traffic? I know those things are already in the ROTR but possibly(?) no harm to put them all into the dangerous overtaking package.

Yes, hopefully they could be. I actually find it's more regular to be passed with plenty of space, but there's no way the vehicle can see far enough ahead to safely complete the overtake. The natural reaction to a something coming the other way will be to pull back on top of me/ the group...

TheChizler · 31-07-2018 09:46AM

Macy0161 wrote: »

The natural reaction to a something coming the other way will be to pull back on top of me/ the group...

Or brake, hopefully?

31-07-2018 10:26AM

Small piece in our local paper today in the courts news (Drogheda Independent page 19) Driver fined €75 in court for "driving without reasonable consideration"

They cut in front of a cyclist mid way through a round about causing them to wobble it says. Doesn't mention how it was detected/reported or if the cyclist had camera. Still though would give me hope if I ever have to report something at the local station.

Macy0161 · 31-07-2018 11:55AM

TheChizler wrote: »

Or brake, hopefully?

You'd hope, but...

Corca Baiscinn · 31-07-2018 02:59PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Small piece in our local paper today in the courts news (Drogheda Independent page 19) Driver fined €75 in court for "driving without reasonable consideration"

They cut in front of a cyclist mid way through a round about causing them to wobble it says. Doesn't mention how it was detected/reported or if the cyclist had camera. Still though would give me hope if I ever have to report something at the local station.

An rud is annamh is iontach surely; prosecuting garda shold be promoted and somebody in Drogheda buy that judge a pint!

Rechuchote · 04-08-2018 09:34AM

Macy0161 wrote: »

Shane Ross was hi fiving the riders off at the Orwell Randonee, but he didn't respond to "when is the law coming into place" from one of the lads... Garda dragging their heels on the equipment needed to enforce - must be waiting on an action cam from Ali...

The minimum passing distance law (enforced successfully in 42 jurisdictions) has been axed due to being "unenforceable". The gardaí don't want to enforce it.

andy69 · 04-08-2018 08:05PM

Rechuchote wrote: »

The minimum passing distance law (enforced successfully in 42 jurisdictions) has been axed due to being "unenforceable". The gardaí don't want to enforce it.

Yeah think I saw that on my Twitter feed or something - so that's it...dead in the water?
Wonder is there something wrong with our laws/legal system that WE can't manage to implement it, but as ye said 42 other jurisdictions somehow magically have the intelligence/systems/willpower or whatever to be able to - or their laws are more 'simple' and not open that crap that our barristers seem so great at wiggling out of charges etc

magicbastarder · 04-08-2018 09:32PM

i would be very interested to hear how it's implemented in other jurisdictions - i've seen stories of police in other countries proactively going out with what i assume is laser measuring equipment attached to bikes and stopping motorists who pass too close. would be very interested to know if this is the only way they can enforce a specific distance law, whether the law can be applied without this equipment.

Rechuchote · 05-08-2018 11:26AM

A few people get caught, other people read about it, behaviour is modified.

Most drivers don't carve up cyclists, it's probably a few - if police target those few, they're less likely to influence others to think it's ok.

Remember the brief happy months after the mobile phone in cars ban, when guards were actually implementing the law? Phones disappeared from cars. Then the guards stopped, and the phones reappeared.

Corca Baiscinn · 05-08-2018 09:43PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i would be very interested to hear how it's implemented in other jurisdictions - i've seen stories of police in other countries proactively going out with what i assume is laser measuring equipment attached to bikes and stopping motorists who pass too close. would be very interested to know if this is the only way they can enforce a specific distance law, whether the law can be applied without this equipment.

As far as I rem from @Safe cycling Éire's blog about enforcement it's done by laser sensor in some US states but in other places by accepting camera footage or by observation, eg if a policeman knows the wdth of the road, width of a car and observes that the overtaker didn't cross the central median then by definition he/she didn't allow 1.5 m. Maybe too some places have a less hostile attitude to people cycling so it's not such a issue. Our garda dont seem very keen on acceptig camera footage.

@Andy69 Looks like this attempt is "dead in the water" as you say but hopefully a version like that used by WMP will replace it. DTTAS seem to be talking about replacing a mpd law with one re dangerous overtaking of a cyclist so it wouldn't have to specify an exact distance. Whatever re our laws being too "simple" our legal system seems to have as many holes as a sieve, remember the guy who got off a d/d charge because the summons wasn't issued in Irish and all the people whose post with summonses for road traffic offences never arrive?. What annoys me is that if SR had accepted Robert Troy's MPDL amendment to Road Traffic Bill in Feb (itself based on Ciaran Cannon's earlier Private Members Bill) the probless might have come to light earlier as the Bill went through the various Dail readings. Instead he took a "I'll do it my way" line and here we are

magicbastarder · 05-08-2018 10:59PM

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

Our garda dont seem very keen on acceptig camera footage.

i've seen comments along the lines of 'gardai not wanting to respond to reports based on camera footage', but i think whatever that was reporting on, it was that gardai could not pursue an offence under the proposed law based on camera footage, as it is not a direct measurement of the berth a car gives.

some comments i've seen seemed to interpret it as 'gardai generally are disinterested in pursuing complaints caught on camera'.

AndrewJRenko · 06-08-2018 10:06AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

some comments i've seen seemed to interpret it as 'gardai generally are disinterested in pursuing complaints caught on camera'.

There is a general disinterest from Gardai in pursuing complaints caught on camera in my experience. Compare this to the UK forces who have set up a special online portal to allow people to submit footage directly to them.

Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

Comments