Journalism and Cycling 2: the difficult second album

yeah they often fly around the phoenix park on them, and on horses too for some reason. it's crazy that in this day and age we allow children to gallop horses around the city centre, but that's a whole other matter.

You might need to re-read my post: I have expressed no opinion on the numbers of uninsured scramblers. I have no feel for what % might be insured or road legal and I'd guess a high percentage are not because they're typically used on dirt bike tracks etc. I'm also reasonably sure I don't have any cognitive dissonance regarding them or their usage: I also have recently had an antisocial neighbour who allowed his young kids to use their scrambler on the green. Which was appalling tbh but only the tip of the iceberg unfortunately. Again, the issue there was the people rather than the type of motorcycle, there were a LOT of other things that family were doing.

This barely raised a heckle in the "concerned" media when it was flagged over a year ago. One popped up on my screen yesterday and was a complete distraction as I was trying to figure out the next exit/ keep an eye on traffic in front etc. But it's motoring, and tech, so nothing to see here.

04/02, reps from cycling organisations are due to appear before the Oireachtas Transport Committee to discuss road safety. Amongst topics: Cycling Ireland will say that nothing is preventing full implementation of the urban 30km limit right now, “except political will”.

I wonder did they bother engaging with 'older' people before coming out with this nonsense? Will we see Michael D. in a hi-viz popping out to shops and restaurants now? Or any of the dinosaurs in the Dail? Such b*****it but it steadily creeping in as the accepted logical next step in "road safety". In reality its borne of 1) laziness, 2) indulging 'othering' and 3) a desire by a small militant section of society to stick it to 'the liberal wokes' wherever possible. And anyone who doesn't drive a car (because lets be honest, none of these cheerleaders will be making any recommendations that motorists stick one on before they get out of the car) is seen in their minds as being the enemy to be taken down a peg or two.

Can you expand on or explain the basis for your logic? Where do you get the comment about the point of speed vans, for example. You state it as though its a fact.

What do you think the driver doing 120 in a 100 zone does after, having slowed to 100 upon getting an alert, he passes the speed van? In my experience, after the drivers in the 'fast lane' jump on the brakes so that I end up undertaking them below the speed limit in the 'slow lane', they cause a back of traffic behind as everyone races up to also jump on the brakes, and then after the van has been passed they all simply accelerate back up to 'must get ahead' speed, undertaking anyone who doesn't do the same quickly enough.

Are you arguing against the science of the different effects of collisions at different speeds? Or what point are you trying to actually make with the questions and assumptions in the last paragraph of your post?

FAQ page on the mobile safety cameras to expand on the basis of my logic

https://www.garda.ie/en/roads-policing/safety-cameras/garda-mobile-safety-cameras-faq-s.pdf

Page 3

Is this a revenue-generating exercise? No. The key objective of the project is to reduce the number of speed relatedcollisions and therefore save lives. GoSafe will be paid on the basis ofenforcement hours and survey hours conducted. The hourly rates to be paid arenot linked in any way to the number of detections made.

Page 4

How many detections do you anticipate GoSafe to make? We’re hoping for none. The objective is to reduce speed and save lives.

How do you measure the success of this project? The success will be measured based on a reduction in speed across the road network, as well as based on a reduction in the number of fatal, serious andminor injury collisions on our roads. Based on the experience with other projects, for example the introduction ofpenalty points and mandatory alcohol testing, we anticipate that there will be an immediate reduction in speed across the road network followed by a long-termreduction which will lead to saving lives.

So by alerting drivers to the locations of speed vans you are doing their work for them of ensuring the traffic passing them is below the speed limit.

Alternatively, you could get rid of the van, replace it with a very visible hut or shed. The hut would be installed at every location where you see the speed check sign. The only thing is that you do not know when the hut is occupied or unoccupied. So no increase in staffing or working hours.

The point of a speed van is not to catch a speeding driver, it's to slow down traffic in the vicinity of the speed van….

That's why they're very visible - they're not hiding behind trees waiting to jump out. Flashing your lights as a warning is AFAIK illegal - at least for AGS stops, GoSafe vans might be different - as they can alert somebody that doesn't want to run into the Guards for whatever reason that the should do a u-ie. Radar detectors are illegal (do they still work?), yet chucking up a big distracting warning on Google maps is fine?

Most of the regional roads were turned into 60 zones last year, how did road deaths for last year compare to 2024? Not sure a 30km/h speed limit will make a difference in most urban areas, most of the time you're probably lucky to be doing 10km/h

None of this works without enforcement with teeth - and that requires a systemic change which with the bunch of knuckle-draggers propping up our current government is looking unlikely. An enforced 30km/h limit will make a difference. I live in the center of a medium sized town with a long straight road on the way in where few pay any attention to the current 50km/h limit. Even the narrow street on which I live seems to act as a drag strip for them and the stop sign at the junction is merely a piece of decoration as they never give way never mind stop.

Alternatively you could increase the number of huts and staff them 24/7 and instead of just measuring speed they could measure the time it takes for a vehicle to travel between any two of the huts so if they were speeding at any point in between the huts they would get fined

Well if that's the case (which I don't believe it is… I think you've misconstrued the words quoted) then don't bother with the expense of cameras and the associated tech, outsourcing of processing, employing people to process everything etc, just paint loads of vans and park them up around the country.

TL;DR, I don't agree with your analysis or interpretation. Speed vans, IMO, are there to a) provide an accurate picture of the prevalence of speeding in particular locations (which is skewed now if tech tells people to slow down for a couple of hundred meters) and b) to provide a punishment for those that do speed. In another post today you ask if the reduction in speed has resulted in reduced accidents - why would it if driver behaviour hasn't changed because speeding drivers only slow down for the short section where they've been informed they may be caught? You can't have it both ways.

"The point of a speed van is not to catch a speeding driver, it's to slow down traffic in the vicinity of the speed van" is one of the craziest notions I've read on here. If the point is only to slow drivers down for that 500m, then very little is achieved. It's the threat that a speed van could be around any corner that keeps people driving under the limit at all times. If they never caught anyone then what's the point