Journalism and cycling

CramCycle wrote: »

Sun is behind you, light is actually at a slight angle, so it would have been to her left and slightly behind the driver. Even common sense of where the incident occured and the time would have shown that, but nonetheless, well done on getting it to court.

from the first hearing in September I knew it would be struck out pending her completion of this restorative justice thing so the outcome is no surprise. the fact that they introduced this nonsense to excuse her careless driving is really annoying.

mr spuckler wrote: »

Flashbacks to the only time I was knocked off my back. Same scenario, different location (Petrol station at end of Rathgar Road). Came down on my face and still have scars.

"a cycling audit" before you get on your bike. WTF.
Why make a big deal about it?
Just get on the f***ing bike and ride it

at1withmyself wrote: »

It's the same for cars, I don't see the issue?

It just makes a big deal out of cycling. It makes it look difficult and out of the ordinary and not normal.

at1withmyself wrote: »

Each to their own I guess but I didn't take that from it. Having worked in a bike shop for 5 years you wouldn't believe the death traps some people cycle on...

I wonder how many die because of these death traps.

I’d be far more concerned about the death traps with 4 wheels that are on the road.

at1withmyself wrote: »

Not sure of the total number but a neighbor passed away from a bicycle malfunction so that's at least one.

I give up though, I thought it was good and if people are going to find fault with doing a safety check for 30 seconds then so be it....

Ah. The old if it saves one life. Let’s ban everything to save one life.

People who look after their bikes will continues to do so. On the flip side, people who don’t are very unlikely to start because some RSA person said to do it.

at1withmyself wrote: »

Who said anything about banning? Talk about taking something positive out of context.

People are supposed to check their motor vehicle before driving it. How many do?

I reckon that a higher percentage of people look after their bikes than people that check their cars.

It was a pointless comment by the RSA that will change nothing.

Muahahaha wrote: »

mr.spruckler- fair play for seeing this to court. I was witness to a similar incident 18 months back where a taxi knocked off a cyclist at that narrow stretch of the south quays just after Parliament St. The cyclist wasn't reporting it (she was in shock tbh) so I did. It ended up with the taxi driver getting a talking to but in fairness to him before that happened he reported himself for causing the accident so at least he was aware he messed up by trying to over take a cyclist on a very narrow part of the quays.

Anyway was wondering if the court accepted your video as evidence in the case? Did the defence try to question the authenticity of the video or make any attempt for it not to be submitted as evidence? It would be interesting to know how the courts treated video evidence because AGS seem to be very dismissive of people with it when reporting dangerous driving.

that question was asked here before and the simple answer is it was never shown to the court as she pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. the Garda accepted it without issue and his superintendent decided to prosecute based on the video. I also provided both the above clip and the full unedited original from the camera and a written statement describing the incident, which correlated with the video.
so I don't think there'd have been an issue but who knows?

mr spuckler wrote: »

so I don't think there'd have been an issue but who knows?

I think its the 'who knows' bit seems to be part of the problem. In your case the Gardai were willing to prosecute on the basis of video evidence. In others they seem to say there is nothing they can do when presented with same. There doesn't seem to be any legal guidelines on the use of dashcams, helmet cams and their use in court for prosecutions as yet. There was a time years back when CCTV wasn't allowed to be used in courts but thats all changed now. Dash & helmet cams seem to be in that legal space right now that CCTV once was.

It's oft said that the Gardai can't be on every street corner. But when you think about the thousands of people using dash & helmet cams they have the potential to be a very powerful policing tool. They can literally increase the ability of AGS to detect road traffic offences several thousand fold. Its a no brainer to use them imo.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Ah. The old if it saves one life. Let’s ban everything to save one life.

People who look after their bikes will continues to do so. On the flip side, people who don’t are very unlikely to start because some RSA person said to do it.

Look I dont do it all the time but not doing it one day led to my unfastened pannier strap catching in my spokes and the wheel seizing up so that I had to abandon my trip, lock up bike and walk home. (It was a Sun so no LBS open) The quick bike check is a standard part of Bikeability (UK) and Cycle Right (Irl) training. Can't remember it all but things like squeeze brakes, check chain. Also, Barbara Connolly is not an RSA employee afaik unless she joined recently. She used to work for Cycling Ireland who have responsibility for Cycle Right.

Your point re people who look after their bikes will continue to do so is pointless as it goes without saying that regular riders will have enough wit to try to avoid chain coming off, gears seizing up,brakes failing and their trip being messed up but this family were not experienced riders so a reminder was fair enough.

Agree there's more than enough to criticise the RSA for re their attitude to cycling but we should pick our battles