Journalism and cycling

RobbieMD · 17-01-2020 12:41PM

p15574 wrote: »

I suppose there could be two levels of it:
1) A standard request to the telecoms company with the number and a time frame that they are legally obliged to fulfil, where they state whether there were any calls or outgoing texts during that time. Not sure if it'd be possible to determine data stuff - maybe something like if there was outgoing WhatsApp traffic, or incoming YouTube traffic. This wouldn't risk the privacy of text or message contents etc
2) A full examination of the phone, as you've suggested above

But what if the person says they don’t have a phone? How can the Gardai prove that? There is no phones register like for cars etc. I can buy a SIM card and use any phone without registering anything. Or maybe a passenger says they were using the drivers phone? Or the phone was mounted and as such not being “held” by the driver? Or the phone was connected to the cars Bluetooth radio and the driver was chatting away legally. It’s unworkable in my opinion.

magicbastarder · 17-01-2020 12:41PM

p15574 wrote: »

I suppose there could be two levels of it:
1) A standard request to the telecoms company with the number and a time frame that they are legally obliged to fulfil, where they state whether there were any calls or outgoing texts during that time. Not sure if it'd be possible to determine data stuff - maybe something like if there was outgoing WhatsApp traffic, or incoming YouTube traffic. This wouldn't risk the privacy of text or message contents etc

not enforceable, as mentioned above i think. i can take and receive calls in my car without my hands leaving the steering wheel; the driver would have to be caught actually holding the phone anyway, so much of the above would be moot.

having never been a smoker myself, i've always marvelled at the notion of being allowed drive while holding a glowing ember in one hand. or in one's mouth, with smoke affecting your view.

AndrewJRenko · 17-01-2020 01:23PM

RobbieMD wrote: »

But what if the person says they don’t have a phone? How can the Gardai prove that? There is no phones register like for cars etc. I can buy a SIM card and use any phone without registering anything. Or maybe a passenger says they were using the drivers phone? Or the phone was mounted and as such not being “held” by the driver? Or the phone was connected to the cars Bluetooth radio and the driver was chatting away legally. It’s unworkable in my opinion.

In fairness, the Gardai are pretty good at getting past flimsy excuses like 'I don't have a phone'. For a start, they should look for the phone at the site of the crash, before the person has a chance to plan a cover story. They can look at the car registration reminder phone number. They can talk to family and friends.

For bluetooth, they can check to see if the phone was actually paired. They can see is a mount available in the car.

There's a lot they can do.

magicbastarder wrote: »

not enforceable, as mentioned above i think. i can take and receive calls in my car without my hands leaving the steering wheel; the driver would have to be caught actually holding the phone anyway, so much of the above would be moot.

Sure, but they check to see, for example, whether your phone is paired with your car for bluetooth.

RobbieMD · 17-01-2020 03:10PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

In fairness, the Gardai are pretty good at getting past flimsy excuses like 'I don't have a phone'. For a start, they should look for the phone at the site of the crash, before the person has a chance to plan a cover story. They can look at the car registration reminder phone number. They can talk to family and friends.

For bluetooth, they can check to see if the phone was actually paired. They can see is a mount available in the car.

There's a lot they can do.

Sure, but they check to see, for example, whether your phone is paired with your car for bluetooth.

To check was the phone paired via Bluetooth would most likely require a forensic examination of the phone and the car audio system. Something which would require the Garda Computer Crime Unit to examine. They’re currently on a 4 yr backlog and the bulk of their caseload is child pornography cases. I can’t imagine they would have the staffing levels to take on thousands of road traffic collision investigations per annum.

People have a right to silence when suspected of an offence. Family don’t have to cooperate with Gardaí. Would the Gardai have a power to seize a phone in a crash without suspecting it was used in connection with the crash? That may amount to an abuse of their power if they seized phones at every crash site. Would the phone owner be compelled to unlock the phone? What about the supply of Faraday bags to shield the phone from being remotely wiped. There are no obligations on people to disclose whether they have a phone or not. There is no register to record phone ownership. There are far too many stumbling blocks to make this realistically enforceable.

magicbastarder · 17-01-2020 03:45PM

As usual, the problem is the lack of enforcement of existing laws rather than the gardai having new laws or new mechanisms to deal with offences.

CramCycle · 17-01-2020 04:49PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

As usual, the problem is the lack of enforcement of existing laws rather than the gardai having new laws or new mechanisms to deal with offences.

Heading up the Goatstown road at Lunch today, Garda car in the right filter lane, light goes red as i approach and the car behind me just drives straight through, on red, and phone out. I look at the Garda in the passenger seat and instead of looking at the car, he looks at me with a look of absolute disgust, the nerve of me to wonder would he do something. People think Gardai will do nothing because, regrettably, there isn't enough, and you get the odd one like this muppet who honestly looked like he was ready to crack me with a baton for wondering why he didn't go after the car.

rubadub · 17-01-2020 04:54PM

CramCycle wrote: »

People think Gardai will do nothing because, regrettably, there isn't enough

The least they could do is give a blast of the siren and lights, if safe to do so. The offender might even pull over thinking they are going to be done, it would at least put the sh!ts up them.

AndrewJRenko · 17-01-2020 06:42PM

RobbieMD wrote: »

To check was the phone paired via Bluetooth would most likely require a forensic examination of the phone and the car audio system. Something which would require the Garda Computer Crime Unit to examine. They’re currently on a 4 yr backlog and the bulk of their caseload is child pornography cases. I can’t imagine they would have the staffing levels to take on thousands of road traffic collision investigations per annum.

People have a right to silence when suspected of an offence. Family don’t have to cooperate with Gardaí. Would the Gardai have a power to seize a phone in a crash without suspecting it was used in connection with the crash? That may amount to an abuse of their power if they seized phones at every crash site. Would the phone owner be compelled to unlock the phone? What about the supply of Faraday bags to shield the phone from being remotely wiped. There are no obligations on people to disclose whether they have a phone or not. There is no register to record phone ownership. There are far too many stumbling blocks to make this realistically enforceable.

They seem to have found a way round these issues in a bunch of UK cases, so it looks like it is feasible.

RobbieMD · 17-01-2020 09:17PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They seem to have found a way round these issues in a bunch of UK cases, so it looks like it is feasible.

Any links to any contested cases? A guilty plea to an offence is the defence accepting what the prosecution have alleged. I can’t think of any Irish cases where a motorist was convicted of a crash based solely on being on the phone. Perhaps the other factors where so overwhelming that it was purely in their interests to plead guilty?

AndrewJRenko · 17-01-2020 10:02PM

RobbieMD wrote: »

Any links to any contested cases? A guilty plea to an offence is the defence accepting what the prosecution have alleged. I can’t think of any Irish cases where a motorist was convicted of a crash based solely on being on the phone. Perhaps the other factors where so overwhelming that it was purely in their interests to plead guilty?

Just the cases linked above - I'd imagine the the phone evidence would be a big factor in the offender deciding not to contest the case.

work · 17-01-2020 11:02PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Calls for ‘dedicated’ cycle network in Limerick

I live in Dublin so am no expert on Limerick. Dublin is a disgrace but I worked a lot in Limerick last year and always thought holy funk there is no cycling infrastructure or cyclists.
It appeared very cycle unfriendly with no cycle laneses and heavy traffic in the city.
They really need to do much better for Limerick, it's seems to have a completely backward transport plan. Hopefully it will be an issue in the GE.

Pinch Flat · 18-01-2020 11:32AM

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/proper-cycling-infrastructure-easiest-way-to-reduce-public-transport-overcrowding-1.4142842?mode=amp

Apparently, bikes cause cogestion, need insurance, tax, registration plates and GPSs. Ah the Facebook comments on these articles are hilarious. Why have we never heard these before?

Duckjob · 19-01-2020 10:29AM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/proper-cycling-infrastructure-easiest-way-to-reduce-public-transport-overcrowding-1.4142842?mode=amp

Apparently, bikes cause cogestion, need insurance, tax, registration plates and GPSs. Ah the Facebook comments on these articles are hilarious. Why have we never heard these before?

I never cease to be gobsmacked by the lack of self awareness of people who think they're contributing something of value by posting how "cyclists" need to be taxed/insured/regged when the subject of the discussion is how to alleviate congestion/PT pressure.

Pinch Flat · 19-01-2020 11:05AM

Duckjob wrote: »

I never cease to be gobsmacked by the lack of self awareness of people who think they're contributing something of value by posting how "cyclists" need to be taxed/insured/regged when the subject of the discussion is how to alleviate congestion/PT pressure.

Yeah it's counter intuitive. The roads are choked with traffic, so let's tax those who are making a difference. Causing zero congestion and zero pollution and making room for those who insist on commuting in a 20% full vehicle.

magicbastarder · 19-01-2020 11:06AM

Duckjob wrote: »

I never cease to be gobsmacked by the lack of self awareness of people who think they're contributing something of value by posting how "cyclists" need to be taxed/insured/regged when the subject of the discussion is how to alleviate congestion/PT pressure.

because it's all they know. they've never thought past that.

donvito99 · 19-01-2020 11:47AM

It would be interesting to see a study of the proportion of regular cyclists who pay "road" tax and insurance on the car(s) they leave at home for the morning and evening commutes...

Although that won't make anyone commenting on Facebook less stupid

Seth Brundle · 19-01-2020 11:55AM

Car parks threaten to sue if Liffey Cycle Route proceeds...

https://twitter.com/Cyclistie/status/1218824581072539648?s=19

Pinch Flat · 19-01-2020 12:09PM

Its depressing and laughable at the same time how this vested interest has sabotaged all the plans to date for a safe cycling route along the liffey.

donvito99 wrote: »

It would be interesting to see a study of the proportion of regular cyclists who pay "road" tax and insurance on the car(s) they leave at home for the morning and evening commutes...

Although that won't make anyone commenting on Facebook less stupid

I believe it's 80% of cyclists who also drive. There was some UK data. Given out similar car culture I'd say it's around the same.

Duckjob · 19-01-2020 12:35PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Car parks threaten to sue if Liffey Cycle Route proceeds...

https://twitter.com/Cyclistie/status/1218824581072539648?s=19

On what basis would they sue ? I'm no legal eagle but wouldn't there need to be some sort of contract between DCC and the car park owners, the terms of which DCC would need to have breached ? Otherwise it strikes me as utter nonsense.

Then again, this is Ireland so you never really know what dodgy deals might have been done behind closed doors.

19-01-2020 12:39PM

Won't the bus connects/corridor thing be taking cars out of the city too? Or at least thats the intention, so will they sue for that that too or did they raise an objection to that?

Sounds like codswallop too me.

Harrybelafonte · 19-01-2020 12:45PM

Duckjob wrote: »

On what basis would they sue ? I'm no legal eagle but wouldn't there need to be some sort of contract between DCC and the car park owners, the terms of which DCC would need to have breached ? Otherwise it strikes me as utter nonsense.

Then again, this is Ireland so you never really know what dodgy deals might have been done behind closed doors.

As it stands, I have found that many of my own age in the subarbs no longer visit the city centre, blaming the increase in tourists, cost of parking and "rough types" and as was put to me recently, "it's so gentrified I may as well just go to a shopping centre out here". A cycle lane is the least of the parking people's worries

magicbastarder · 19-01-2020 12:47PM

can you imagine the precedent it'd set? not just car park owners - but filling stations, tyre depots, etc.

tomasrojo · 19-01-2020 01:28PM

Get rid of on-street parking to drive customers towards parking garages. Win-win.

The J Stands for Jay · 19-01-2020 01:50PM

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

, "it's so gentrified I may as well just go to a shopping centre out here".

That to me is as alien an attitude as thinking more cyclists make congestion worse. Do they just want to be able to drive to McDonalds, Tesco, Penny's and Nandos?

Pinch Flat · 19-01-2020 01:57PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

Get rid of on-street parking to drive customers towards parking garages. Win-win.

I find it hard to believe there's on street parking on the quays - should be totally removed and guve the space for cycling lane and more cars going to off street parking.

The South quays at Guinness also seems to be some sort of impromptu truck park. Surely these could be diverted somewhere else and this converted go a cycle track

Duckjob · 19-01-2020 02:26PM

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

As it stands, I have found that many of my own age in the subarbs no longer visit the city centre, blaming the increase in tourists, cost of parking and "rough types" and as was put to me recently, "it's so gentrified I may as well just go to a shopping centre out here". A cycle lane is the least of the parking people's worries

I only go into Dublin city centre these days when I have to. It just doesn't appeal to me like it used to. Too claustrophobic, too prioritised for motorised traffic, too smelly and too noisy.

I see other cities in Europe where they understand the appeal of having attractive open space for people to move around, where people want to come and spend time there because of the attractive spaces. And then I look back at Dublin where the same tired old voices continually stifle any sort of meaningful change and we are being left far behind.

I also am put off by the scummy element in Dublin, but I view that as an unfortunate natural byproduct of not having a place that entices enough people to spend time there.

Irish cities could be amazing, but they're not because our planners and politicians are failing so badly at moving them in the right direction.

Macy0161 · 20-01-2020 11:16AM

Duckjob wrote: »

It just doesn't appeal to me like it used to. Too claustrophobic, too prioritised for motorised traffic

I definitely find this when I'm in with the children especially. Trying to cross O'Connell Bridge, O'Connell Street etc.

blackwhite · 20-01-2020 12:44PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I believe it's 80% of cyclists who also drive. There was some UK data. Given out similar car culture I'd say it's around the same.

If anything I'd warrant that it's a higher percentage in Ireland.

London is a city where in many areas (and high-population areas at that) it's more convenient to live without a car - public transport is very good, and finding a permanent parking spot near a home can be prohibitively expensive.

I'd image there's an unusually high number of non-drivers in London as a result of that, and that would depress the overall national average percentage of cyclists who also drive in the UK.

Seth Brundle · 20-01-2020 03:06PM

How a Belgian port city inspired Birmingham's car-free ambitions

...
The Birmingham transport plan, launched last week, was influenced by Ghent’s zone-centred traffic circulation plan of 2017. This medieval Belgian city – a quarter of the size of Birmingham – demonstrated that it was possible to switch attitudes overnight. Streets were blocked to motorists one Sunday evening and – to the disappointment of the waiting media –there was no wailing, no gnashing of teeth, no gridlock.

Motorists have since found that, while their journeys are longer in distance, they take less time because there are fewer fellow travellers on the roads. Motor vehicles used to make up 55% of trips in Ghent – that number has now fallen to 27%.

Retailers and restaurants that had warned of Armageddon discovered that takings did not plummet.

“Actually the economic situation has improved,” says the Green politician who led what had been controversial changes. Filip Watteeuw, deputy mayor of Ghent, points out there “has been a 17% increase in restaurant and bar startups, and the number of empty shops has been arrested”.

A year after the imposition of the traffic circulation plan – in news that may encourage similarly minded politicians around the world, Watteeuw was re-elected with an increased majority.

Another advantage of the intervention is that it is remarkably cheap to implement; Ghent’s plan cost just €4m (£3.4m) to implement. By comparison it costs an estimated £20m-£30m to build just one mile of motorway.
...

“We had people complaining that a drive of 300 metres became a car journey of two kilometres,” remembers Watteeuw. “We had to explain that we don’t want people to use a car for 300 metres: they should walk.”
...

Harrybelafonte · 20-01-2020 04:56PM

McGaggs wrote: »

That to me is as alien an attitude as thinking more cyclists make congestion worse. Do they just want to be able to drive to McDonalds, Tesco, Penny's and Nandos?

No. Their point is, I think, that the city centre has become quite dull. Most of the places we would have visited when younger are gone and it's filled with "high street" stores, which also exist in Blanch, etc.

Most of these places are closer to them than the city centre and quicker to get there, and parking would be free if they did have to drive, so town no longer has anything to offer them. I'm in my forties now, so their kids would have a lot to do with this too.

Journalism and cycling

Comments