Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

terrydel · 02-01-2019 05:50PM

It really is depressing how hated cyclists are amongst the general public. And hate is the right word, because that is what it is.
Yes, there are plenty of asshole cyclists but it is in no way commensurate with the level of hate that is out there. Reading the comments on the Irish Times story now is utterly depressing, even if that paper is now basically another clickbait rag, and has undoubtedly decided to start the new year off with an inflammatory cycling story to try get some readers to keep it from going down the plughole a little longer.
It says a lot about the human race, and in this case the Irish general public in particular, and none of it good, that they can hate someone based purely on their choice of past time or method of travel.
2 days in and my hope for humanity in its descent into uncaring ignorance and stupidity has evaporated even more already this year. Sad times.

Chips Lovell · 02-01-2019 05:55PM

I don't think the comments section of any newspaper, even the Irish Times, is very representative of the general public. They seem to be mainly populated by the kind of people who ring Joe Duffy.

magicbastarder · 02-01-2019 06:22PM

i see the story about ross opining on hi vis and helmets in the irish times's facebook feed has garnered 177 comments in one hour, which is colossal for an IT story.
however, as BdC mentions, i suspect the number of commenters who actually are IT subscribers or customers is low.

Lumen · 02-01-2019 07:14PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If the passing vehicle hits the cyclist's outstretched hand, the driver didn't leave 1.5m passing.

Which is great if you cycle along with your arm outstretched as car pass at 80kph. And don't mind breaking your hand.

TheRiverman · 02-01-2019 08:00PM

The point is there is rules of the road breaking everday,some of it appalling by a big percentage or not only cyclists,but motorists and pedestrians also.
Maybe while on his crusade,Minister Ross might visit and drive,walk and cycle on some of the awful rural roads where 1.5 metres is almost have the width of the road.

magicbastarder · 02-01-2019 09:06PM

if 1.5m is half the width of the road, you're not talking about an 'overtaking' manouevre. you're talking about one vehicle having to pull in to let the other past.

AndrewJRenko · 02-01-2019 09:20PM

Lumen wrote: »

Which is great if you cycle along with your arm outstretched as car pass at 80kph. And don't mind breaking your hand.

I would often see close passes coming through a 'lifesaver' over-the-shoulder head turn. If they're coming too close, I will often push out my hand to signal to them to move the hell away from me. In those circumstances, it's not unusual for the body or window of the vehicle or more often the wing mirror to hit my hand. I've never any injury arising.

TheRiverman wrote: »

The point is there is rules of the road breaking everday,some of it appalling by a big percentage or not only cyclists,but motorists and pedestrians also.
Maybe while on his crusade,Minister Ross might visit and drive,walk and cycle on some of the awful rural roads where 1.5 metres is almost have the width of the road.

If there's no room to overtake safely, then there's no room to overtake - just wait until you have a safe place to pass. It's called traffic, and cyclists manage to deal with such conditions all the time in traffic.

terrydel wrote: »

It really is depressing how hated cyclists are amongst the general public. And hate is the right word, because that is what it is.
Yes, there are plenty of asshole cyclists but it is in no way commensurate with the level of hate that is out there. Reading the comments on the Irish Times story now is utterly depressing, even if that paper is now basically another clickbait rag, and has undoubtedly decided to start the new year off with an inflammatory cycling story to try get some readers to keep it from going down the plughole a little longer.
It says a lot about the human race, and in this case the Irish general public in particular, and none of it good, that they can hate someone based purely on their choice of past time or method of travel.
2 days in and my hope for humanity in its descent into uncaring ignorance and stupidity has evaporated even more already this year. Sad times.

It would be really helpful to understand more what is behind this hatred. Certainly, the media have significant responsibility to bear for this, with Hook, Kenny, Yeates and the rest of the Newstalk gammon top of the queue. But other even more reputable outlets just love to pit two sides against each other to rile up the audience. We've seen this nonsense on Prime Time and other outlets.

I think part of it is the 'create a diversion' approach too. For many drivers, they reckon that if they focus attention of legislators and Gardai on cyclists, then they will be able to continue to get away with the crap that they get away with all the time.

tomasrojo · 02-01-2019 09:42PM

Newstalk is a very peculiar class of a station these days, isn't it?

magicbastarder · 02-01-2019 09:43PM

did i read correctly that they've signed up peter casey to appear as a talking head?

magicbastarder · 02-01-2019 09:45PM

i did read correctly: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/casey-delighted-to-get-radio-role-with-newstalk-37583665.html

Corca Baiscinn · 02-01-2019 11:36PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

people keep referring to this law having been passed in other countries. one question i've been asking and have yet to hear a decent answer on is the context in which it is actually enforced in other countries. does it require a police officer to cycle on a 'bait' bike with a calibrated piece of equipment to measure passing distance, or is video evidence legally permissible in court as evidence of a pass within the legal minimum?

I wondered the same around last Feb when all the kerfuffle was going on re whether a MPDL was enforceable, asked a contact in California & he said police dont bother, same reply from a contact in Belgium. Read a blog then by Phil Skelton re police in Texas I think it was who use electronic sensors.

As mentioned some UK police forces enforcing safe overtaking v successfully but not a specific mpd as not in their legislation either. Not just video evidence though tho that too, it's police on bikes observing driver behaviour around cyclists and radioing up ahead to a colleague who stops them for "a chat on the mat" or prosecution depending on severity of offence. West midland's Police twitter a/c & in particular PC Mark Hodson's replies to drivers are an absolute breath of fresh air when you start to despair re our helmet/hi-vis/share-the-road lot here

Think the main aim of @Safe Cycling Éire's campaign was to change the culture over time so that drivers would become aware of the space needed for an overtake and while the near miss thread here is nowhere near redundant I have noticed lots of good safe passing in my neck of the woods especially over the summer

CramCycle · 03-01-2019 12:00AM

And that's what they missed or misunderstood. It's not a law for catching or prosecuting on a Monday morning commute. The truth is that was never or should never have been the purpose of this law. That's why Garda numbers need to be increased and discretion kept.
When I pass or am passed by a car on a laneway, who has waited patiently behind me (or I have waited behind) and overtook when we both accept it's safe, even if it's closer than 1.5m, it's not an issue as a Garda has the discretion to realise. It's when friends of mine, and loved ones of friends, and friends of friends or even just random strangers are killed and the driver gets away scot free because the DPP isn't confident that an overtaking lorry at a pinch point is enough of a justification for prosecution. Hopefully this will eventually teach some people that those 12seconds are not worth a person's life.

Personally though, we are a few days in to 2019 and all I can think is it's not worth the effort.

RobbieMD · 03-01-2019 01:25AM

Macy0161 wrote: »

I would say the AG was pushing an open door. Our legal system is based upon the UK one, but they seem to be able to action based upon camera evidence. We're told cameras are "unreliable" without evidence, or what needs to change to make them reliable instead?

I don't see what's debateble about most of the close pass footage we see on the likes of sticky bottle. They're generally not marginal between 1.3m and 1.5m.

It’s not that cameras are unreliable. It’s that “proving” Cctv to allow it be admitted in evidence in a prosecution by AGS is far more complex than people think it is. Other police forces may accept email submission and be able to prosecute off that. In Ireland that’s not the case. The original must be retained by AGS. Original as in the micro SD in your dash cam or whatever device. I wonder if you make a complaint by email, and it’s a false complaint, what recourse do the UK police have? In Ireland you won’t be prosecuted for making a false complaint unless you’ve made a signed witness statement with statutory declaration. I imagine it harkens to Blackstones Ratio to let 10 guilty walk than convict one innocent person, is the grounds to that.

Often AGS will appeal for dash cam footage. This is generally for very serious incidents only. This may not be for court use and may be for confirming or dismissing information already at hand.

I’m not saying footage can’t be used, I’m just saying it’s not as easy as it ought to be, or people assume it to be.

Macy0161 · 03-01-2019 10:43AM

CramCycle wrote:

And that's what they missed or misunderstood. It's not a law for catching or prosecuting on a Monday morning commute. The truth is that was never or should never have been the purpose of this law. That's why Garda numbers need to be increased and discretion kept

This. It was about setting minimum expectations. And even talk of it worked for a while. Having it in the rules of the road and advertising campaigns is worth even less in court than apparently unenforceable mpdl.

At least with a mpdl, there was little room for a motorist who hits a cyclist during an overtake to get off, like they do under dangerous driving or whatever other bs that opponents claim can be used instead.

RobbieMD wrote: »

I’m not saying footage can’t be used, I’m just saying it’s not as easy as it ought to be, or people assume it to be.

And what moves are being made to address this flaw in our system? None, because they're not interested/ it'd create too much work.

It's actually worse than just the mdpl, it's basically advertised that video footage isn't worth a damn, so so what if more and more motorists, bikers, cyclists are using camera's. It should be an opportunity to enhance enforcement, not a road block to safety measures.

Let's be frank, our politicians and road safety authority are so interested in Cyclist safety that the laws around bicycle lights are in yards and feet, with the light specifications in inches. The vast majority of (far superior to the time) lights don't technically comply with the law. But helmets and hi viz...

Fian · 03-01-2019 11:07AM

There are benefits to laws which are not enforceable - when publicised they can impact behaviour because people become aware that failing to give 1.5m is criminal even if there is little real prospect of enforcement. The general public at large would probably underestimate the difficulties in enforcement anyway. Conversely I am worried that the abandoning of the law will be taken as an endorsement of close passing as being perfectly fine/legal.

The enforcement difficulties are not insurmountable. You could have an offence of passing a cyclist without (partially or wholly) crossing the lane dividing line. That would be perfectly enforceable based on eye-witness evidence. Unless a lane is >5m wide (and I have never seen one) it is not possible to give 1.5m without at least partially crossing into another lane. This would be appropriate in >95% of all circumstances. Where you have a solid white line it could give rise to some difficulties though, unless there was an exception to the rule against crossing the solid white line to pass cyclists (when safe to do so.)

Very disappointed with this decision.

terrydel · 03-01-2019 11:15AM

tomasrojo wrote: »

Newstalk is a very peculiar class of a station these days, isn't it?

Its a right wing cesspool of conservative, nasty thinking.
I'd go as far as saying anyone listening and agreeing with their editorial viewpoint is a first class t**t, simple as that.
A horrible media outlet that exists to serve the agenda of its majority owner.

Lumen · 03-01-2019 11:40AM

terrydel wrote: »

Its a right wing cesspool of conservative, nasty thinking.
I'd go as far as saying anyone listening and agreeing with their editorial viewpoint is a first class t**t, simple as that.
A horrible media outlet that exists to serve the agenda of its majority owner.

I'm intrigued to know whether my regular Newstalk consumption qualifies me as a first class t**t, as I've never achieved more than mediocrity in anything.

How can I find out what their editorial viewpoint is? I thought radio stations just chased ears for ads.

magicbastarder · 03-01-2019 11:49AM

maybe he meant tart? could be a compliment or a slur.

Macy0161 · 03-01-2019 12:05PM

I generally like Off The Ball. Except when they cover cycling. Must be nearly time for them to roll out Tyler. Again. Although they'll probably wait until Dan or Sam are doing well in a world tour race to justify their non-coverage...

CramCycle · 03-01-2019 12:07PM

Lumen wrote: »

I'm intrigued to know whether my regular Newstalk consumption qualifies me as a first class t**t, as I've never achieved more than mediocrity in anything.

How can I find out what their editorial viewpoint is? I thought radio stations just chased ears for ads.

I presume it depends on what you listen too on it. Off the Ball is a sports show, other than their fascination with promoting gambling, they seem grand. The Science shows and NPR/TED talks and interviews are quite intriguing.

This said, I moved the dial awhile ago as the Paul "pretends to be a hard hitting journalist" Williams was a bit much in the morning.

Sadly I have moved into middle age in style and the rare time i listen too radio it is Radio 1, although that station has its faults as well (how does Joe Duffy still have a job).

Lumen · 03-01-2019 12:16PM

CramCycle wrote: »

I moved the dial awhile ago as the Paul "pretends to be a hard hitting journalist" Williams was a bit much in the morning.

He's gone now. As has Hook.

Ciara Kelly and Pat Kenny are OK. They both have a tendency to veer off into uninformed bull but at least they come across as rational human beings.

Anything but Tubs.

terrydel · 03-01-2019 12:25PM

Lumen wrote: »

I'm intrigued to know whether my regular Newstalk consumption qualifies me as a first class t**t, as I've never achieved more than mediocrity in anything.

Only if you are agreeing with it, and even then its purely in my opinion. I doubt that holds much sway with you, it shouldnt anyway.

How can I find out what their editorial viewpoint is?

Listen to it, its hardly difficult to work out.

terrydel · 03-01-2019 12:29PM

Lumen wrote: »

He's gone now. As has Hook.

Ciara Kelly and Pat Kenny are OK. They both have a tendency to veer off into uninformed bull but at least they come across as rational human beings.

Anything but Tubs.

Pat Kenny is ok?! The man has a complete and utter hatred of anyone who stood up to the water charges and doesnt even try to conceal it. I dont want to get off topic so will only say that his generalisations and demonisation of those of us who protested is nothing more than dog whistle racism at best.
And thats just one of his snobbish agendas. The man is a disgrace.

RobbieMD · 03-01-2019 01:13PM

Macy0161 wrote: »

And what moves are being made to address this flaw in our system? None, because they're not interested/ it'd create too much work.

Is it flawed though? Remember the case a few years back of the Corrib rape tape. That tape had been edited when examined. Perhaps those involved may have been convicted if the tape was not examined and just accepted...

The state has to prove beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. I think that needs to remain.

Macy0161 · 03-01-2019 01:26PM

RobbieMD wrote: »

Is it flawed though? Remember the case a few years back of the Corrib rape tape. That tape had been edited when examined. Perhaps those involved may have been convicted if the tape was not examined and just accepted...

The state has to prove beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. I think that needs to remain.

Don't remember the case, but they were able to prove it was edited, so the system worked. However, I'd say it's a bit of false equivalence of crime and consequences, comparing rape to a close pass.

For Road Traffic Offences video footage is supporting evidence, and would (rightly) still need a statement to go with it if it was going to full prosecution in my view. However, in most cases I would think a "talking to"/ education visit and logging on pulse* would be more appropriate than prosecution.

You can phone traffic watch, with no evidence and a verbal report, and apparently the gardai will act. But it's a constitutional issue if you could effectively do the same with an email and a video clip? I remain to be convinced it's not just a technophobe leadership in the RSA and Gardai tbh.

*for first "offence" anyway, hence the logging on pulse.

RobbieMD · 03-01-2019 08:52PM

Macy0161 wrote: »

Don't remember the case, but they were able to prove it was edited, so the system worked. However, I'd say it's a bit of false equivalence of crime and consequences, comparing rape to a close pass.

For Road Traffic Offences video footage is supporting evidence, and would (rightly) still need a statement to go with it if it was going to full prosecution in my view. However, in most cases I would think a "talking to"/ education visit and logging on pulse* would be more appropriate than prosecution.

You can phone traffic watch, with no evidence and a verbal report, and apparently the gardai will act. But it's a constitutional issue if you could effectively do the same with an email and a video clip? I remain to be convinced it's not just a technophobe leadership in the RSA and Gardai tbh.

*for first "offence" anyway, hence the logging on pulse.

The same burden of proof applies to any offence investigated by Gardai, from a close pass to a rape offence. The state’s case must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

You are correct, footage on its own would not be sufficient if a prosecution came to a hearing or trial. There is a long list of standard proofs that need to be met to enter footage as admissible in court.

I can tell you that not all Gardai will act on a traffic watch complaint without an accompanying witness statement. You can’t just submit an email as a statement as the Garda must inform a witness of the statutory declaration before they give their statement. This is to ensure the witness understands they can be prosecuted for making a false report. Essentially the statement becomes an exhibit if they lie.

Some Gardai will try to expedite a traffic watch complaint and speak to the owner/driver without a statement. This is fine when the owner/driver accepts responsibility, however if they contest any allegation, then the Garda has to take a witness statement.

I don’t think you can blame the RSA or AGS on it. It’s our justice system at work, where you’re presumed innocent until guilt is proven. I think it’s the only way to have it. The system could be improved though.

magicbastarder · 03-01-2019 09:00PM

RobbieMD wrote: »

You are correct, footage on its own would not be sufficient if a prosecution came to a hearing or trial. There is a long list of standard proofs that need to be met to enter footage as admissible in court.

i remember someone saying here that often the threat (to a driver accused of an offence) that the complainant is willing to testify in court that the offence occurred, can be enough to make a driver accept the accusation and spare the day in court.

maybe it's the case that if the complainant (say a cyclist) had accompanying video evidence of the alleged offence, it'd kick another leg out from under the stool of the driver's defence, even if on its own it wouldn't be enough to secure a conviction?

ford2600 · 03-01-2019 09:19PM

terrydel wrote: »

Pat Kenny is ok?! The man has a complete and utter hatred of anyone who stood up to the water charges and doesnt even try to conceal it. I dont want to get off topic so will only say that his generalisations and demonisation of those of us who protested is nothing more than dog whistle racism at best.
And thats just one of his snobbish agendas. The man is a disgrace.

https://youtu.be/gu6d0ns-JJU

https://youtu.be/OiIsIE8iT28

You might enjoy these two gentlemen....

Hurrache · 03-01-2019 10:56PM

Well this escalated quickly once Cllr Keith Redmond got involved needlessly and made an absolute tit of himself. I'm sure some here are in the same constituency (Howth/Malahide) as the eejit?

https://twitter.com/roakleyIRL/status/1080770398675976192?s=19

ED E · 03-01-2019 11:09PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i remember someone saying here that often the threat (to a driver accused of an offence) that the complainant is willing to testify in court that the offence occurred, can be enough to make a driver accept the accusation and spare the day in court.

maybe it's the case that if the complainant (say a cyclist) had accompanying video evidence of the alleged offence, it'd kick another leg out from under the stool of the driver's defence, even if on its own it wouldn't be enough to secure a conviction?

Your word is enough. All it takes is an accusation.

Joe Bloggs says 01D1234 was driving dangerously on Pearse Street at 12:30PM on Tuesday.
Garda takes statement
Garda approaches 01D1234 and repeats accusation, offers FCPN option if they want to accept culpability. If not it proceeds towards court.

Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

Comments