Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Sharing space with cyclists

124»

Comments

  • #92
    SerialComplaint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,644 ✭✭✭SerialComplaint


    Andrew33 wrote: »
    The council have now marked the Greenhills road for cycle lanes which in places makes the remainder of the road dangerously narrow for motorists who will subconsciously hug the crown of the road to stay out of the cycle lane. Once again in this bloody country the majority (the motorist who are actually PAYING for this crap) have to bend over for the minority (the loony greens who want us all on bicycles).
    Do you check the P60's of cyclists as you overtake them? I'm confused as to how you know who pays what tax as you drive around. I'm even more confused as to how you know what tax is spent on what area. Please do clarify.
    Andrew33 wrote: »
    Not admissable in court as evidence.
    kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »
    As Andrew says, not admissable in court.

    Can you provide details of your source for this, please? I've certainly submitted photo (not video) evidence as part of complaints to Gardai about driving/drivers, and the Gardai were generally pleased (in one case, absolutely delighted) to get this evidence. In one case, my photo (snapped on my mobile phone) showing a BMW coming the wrong way down a 1-way street, with reg number clearly visible got a €500 fine plus four penalty points for the offending driver. It would be difficult to understand why many organisations have made huge investments in CCTV for security purposes if these are not generally admissable.
    kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »
    Also, I know that gardai keep a log of complainants and complaints from serial complainants are taken with the proverbial pinch of salt - but that would only be something to worry about if you were a serial complainer!;)

    I really hope they do keep details of complaints - they are supposed to be following up on them! But I think you are over-estimating their IT competence. When making initial complaints via the TrafficWatch phone line, I give my name and phone number (which could be my home phone, my work phone, my personal mobile, my work mobile, my old personal mobile). I don't give any unique identifying data (such as PPS number or date of birth). These complaints are going to different Gardai at different units (various local stations, some to traffic units). Are you seriously suggesting that somebody on their side is collating all this disparate information together to identify me as a serial complainer?

    As it happens, where I have made serial complaints about the same problem at the same location, I've made this a virtue not a problem. I've written to the relevant Garda Supt with evidence of repeated problems, and I've been quite pleased with level of follow-up. In one case, the Gardai arranged for Dublin City Council to fit additional 'no entry' road signs and carry out a traffic survey to review the impact.


  • #93
    Hooch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,957 ✭✭✭Hooch


    Andrew33 wrote: »
    Not admissable in court as evidence.

    Of course it can.....ever hear of CCTV being used in a court case?? Same thing. Any form of video evidence can be used. What cant be used is any speed measurement it shows......but the video footage itself can be.
    kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »
    Also, I know that gardai keep a log of complainants and complaints from serial complainants are taken with the proverbial pinch of salt - but that would only be something to worry about if you were a serial complainer!;)

    No we dont:confused::confused: They are entered on PULSE but not in a flashing red box saying "serial complainer"!!! Suprisingly enough good police work comes from input from the community.....


  • #94
    -Chris-
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    If people are making assertions, can they please support them in some way and not just state things as fact?


    I'm looking at you Fencer & Andrew33....


  • #95
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 28,596 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »
    As Andrew says, not admissable in court.

    Sure thing,. whatever you say....of course you view on this is not based on fact or reality
    :)
    Also, I know that gardai keep a log of complainants and complaints from serial complainants are taken with the proverbial pinch of salt

    Do they really, the evidence and experience from Gardai says otherwise
    but that would only be something to worry about if you were a serial complainer!;)

    Your suggesting that people reporting idiotic motorists and for that matter cyclists for doing something illegal are in someway doing something wrong as you label them a seriel complainer?

    Such people ensure that idiots will over time be more aware of the stupid actions they do in the knowledge that dispite a Gardai not being around they can still be fined etc. This is very much a good thing


  • #96
    DirkVoodoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,506 ✭✭✭✭DirkVoodoo


    Does no one remember Robocop?
    He's a cyborg, you idiot!



    He recorded every word you said.



    His memory's admissible as evidence!


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    glic71rods46t0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭glic71rods46t0


    -Chris- wrote: »
    If people are making assertions, can they please support them in some way and not just state things as fact?


    I'm looking at you Fencer & Andrew33....
    I didnt know that proof was required in online debates on Boards or on the motoring forum:eek: ... the issue with digital evidence in court is the possibility of editing etc so it cant be presumed that the evidence is authentic - therein lies the problem.


  • #98
    -Chris-
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »
    I didnt know that proof was required in online debates on Boards or on the motoring forum:eek:

    Of course there's no truth prerequisite in posting anything on the internet, but this is a community where we try to help each other through knowledge, experience and opinion, and it's not fair to present opinion as knowledge.

    What if someone new came on boards, read what a poster had posted as truth, acted on that "truth", and got themselves into legal difficulties? Obviously the reader has an obligation to verify the advice they've been given, but there must be a certain amount of responsibility and restraint exercised by the poster to make sure what they say is relatively accurate.

    At the very least, preface your comment with AFAIK or "some guy down the pub told me that...".

    But this is an off-topic ramble, and I'm sure you get my point, so let's get back to the subject at hand.


  • #99
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,053 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Video can help indirectly with your own memory details like number plates, number of people in car, descriptions, exact time. Might even show which buildings have CCTV outside.


  • #100
    glic71rods46t0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭glic71rods46t0


    BostonB wrote: »
    Video can help indirectly with your own memory details like number plates, number of people in car, descriptions, exact time. Might even show which buildings have CCTV outside.
    Yes, I agree and its a good thing to have - I'm not arguing against it at all to be honest. I was just saying it cant be relied upon in a court of law.
    Any ways, as Chris said, better get back on topic ....
    Would it be unreasonable to suggest that the increased popularity of cycling has caused some motorists (like me) to get peeved off with cyclists because non law abiding cyclists have become too common on the road while at the same time cyclists has not reached a critical mass required whereby legislative change becomes a necessity.
    I think we're stuck in a twilight zone at present but I believe that when critical mass happens the law will tighten up on cyclists and require them to submit to similar regulations applied to motorists


  • #101
    SerialComplaint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,644 ✭✭✭SerialComplaint


    kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »
    the issue with digital evidence in court is the possibility of editing etc so it cant be presumed that the evidence is authentic - therein lies the problem.
    You could say the same about any paper document. Give me half an hour with a photocopier, some 3M magic tape and a scissors and I'll get your signature onto any contract you like.

    You can't assume any evidence - paper, digital or other - is authentic. That's why we have courts - to weigh up the evidence given and come to a conclusion.
    kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »
    Yes, I agree and its a good thing to have - I'm not arguing against it at all to be honest. I was just saying it cant be relied upon in a court of law.
    In fairness, you said a bit more than that. You said it was 'not admissable'.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    glic71rods46t0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭glic71rods46t0


    SerialComplaint wrote: »
    You could say the same about any paper document. Give me half an hour with a photocopier, some 3M magic tape and a scissors and I'll get your signature onto any contract you like.

    You can't assume any evidence - paper, digital or other - is authentic. That's why we have courts - to weigh up the evidence given and come to a conclusion.


    In fairness, you said a bit more than that. You said it was 'not admissable'.
    I dont make the rules so while I agree I'ms ure you can do lots of things with paper and then its authenticity can be debated by bringing in experts, the same cannot be said of digital media.
    I stand over my previous statement on the issue. I dont intend to debate this issue wih you on this thread any further - its going off topic


  • #103
    -Chris-
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »
    I dont make the rules so while I agree I'ms ure you can do lots of things with paper and then its authenticity can be debated by bringing in experts, the same cannot be said of digital media.
    I stand over my previous statement on the issue. I dont intend to debate this issue wih you on this thread any further - its going off topic


    Thanks, and can everyone else drop this one too? It's way off topic for a motors cycling thread.

    We have a serving member of AGS who says that video is admissable as evidence, and that should be enough for us to be able to continue the discussion.

    Please move on


  • #104
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,120 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    bazza1 wrote: »
    PLEASE USE THE CYCLE LANES PROVIDED (at great cost!)

    I'm afraid the answer is all too often "No thanks", here's why.

    And yes, the cost of these highly flawed designs are a joke.

    kv4dw0oujg9n3z wrote: »
    I think that the danger of yielding to a cyclist at the type of junction you describe is the likelihood of being rear-ended by another vehicle by exhibiting road behaviour not expected by fellow motorists

    What are you talking about? The Rules of the Road say you must yield at such junctions:
    Right of way

    Traffic [cyclists are traffic] travelling straight ahead in either direction along a major road has right of way at all times.

    ...

    If you are approaching a T junction, the traffic [cyclists are traffic] already on the road you are joining has right of way. This means any traffic on the road ending at the junction must wait for the other traffic to pass before turning left or right.

    ...

    If you are approaching a junction with a major road, you must yield to other traffic [again, cyclists are traffic]. This means giving right of way or letting them pass before you enter the road you are joining.

    Vehicles do not have an automatic right of way on the road. The overriding rule is, in all circumstances, proceed with caution.

    ...

    Motorists should watch for cyclists emerging from the end of a cycle track and mopeds and motorcycles emerging from junctions who might be difficult to see because of their small size.

    It is important to understand that the right of way is not an absolute right of way. You must proceed with caution, having regard for other road users.


  • #105
    YourName
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 728 ✭✭✭YourName


    monument wrote: »
    I'm afraid the answer is all too often "No thanks", here's why.

    I really think you need to stop quoting those pictures, they actually show nothing wrong. You have been provided with cycle lanes, which you have shown us with your "photo evidence" more than once. Use them, they are there for you, and as a previous poster said, at great cost.

    The only thing I can see wrong in one of those photos is that one of the cycle lanes had been overgrown by grass. I am sure that would happen on the roads if we didn't use them everyday, so maybe if you used them then they would look a little better for you ! ! !


  • #106
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,120 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    YourName wrote: »
    I really think you need to stop quoting those pictures, they actually show nothing wrong. You have been provided with cycle lanes, which you have shown us with your "photo evidence" more than once. Use them, they are there for you, and as a previous poster said, at great cost.

    The only thing I can see wrong in one of those photos is that one of the cycle lanes had been overgrown by grass. I am sure that would happen on the roads if we didn't use them everyday, so maybe if you used them then they would look a little better for you ! ! !

    It's strange independent reviews and even a Government policy document seem to disagree. The National Cycle Policy -- now Government policy -- says:
    "...it is clear that the cycling infrastructure that has been constructed to date is often of a poor standard and is poorly maintained..."

    There's a long list of what's wrong in the 600+ photos. Much of the designs are even below the standards in the old DTO cycle manual, nearly all are below best international practice.

    Many are just lines painted on footpaths. Or lines pained within traffic lanes, examples: here, here, and here. Others with polls, bins etc on cycle lanes, examples: here, here, here, here, and here.

    Car parking spaces or loading bays placed too close to the cycle lanes, examples: here, here, here, here and here. Car parking spaces in cycle lanes, example: here. Cars parked on cycle lanes, legally and illegally, examples of both: here, here, here, here, here and here.

    And poor maintenance is not just grass, but all the dirt and loose chippings often end up in cycle lanes. Also muck, and leaves. And broken up surfaces, such as this and this, cause more of a hazard to cyclists than motorists.

    And even if you get over all of that, the cycle lane may just end with nowhere to go. Examples: Here, here, and here. And I could list more problems too, technically or otherwise and how these and the above impact on safety etc.

    Thankfully most of the worst ones, like a lot of the ones which go up on footpaths, have non-legal sign on them, so cyclists do not have to use them.


  • #107
    DirkVoodoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,506 ✭✭✭✭DirkVoodoo


    I don't know how you can comment on cycle lanes without ever using them. It really boggles the mind. We would be better off without them, widening the roads and having on-road painted lines. Cheaper, less maintenance, better for everyone.

    I drove for 6 or 7 years before cycling and had the same opinion, cyclists should be using those lanes over there. It's interesting to see the number of posts popping up on the cycling forum with the CTW from people realising this same fact: they are dangerous, they are poorly maintained and they are a waste of money.

    Seriously, how can you comment on something you have never used? Seeing as a lot of cyclists also drive, I think they have the most informed opinions as to the value of cycle lanes.


  • #108
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,277 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    I'm probably a bit late to the party on this one, but on the issue of cycling lanes, I'd like to echo what several others have said about their poor design and maintenance.

    As Monument pointed out, even the government has now acknowledged their deficiencies. It's worth noting that on the back of this acknowledgemnt, it announced that it was going to revoke the Statutory Instrument that requires cyclists to use cycle tracks where they are provided.


  • #109
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,770 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    As a general principle I really don't find it that hard to drive with consideration for the safety of cyclists, cycle lanes or no.


  • #110
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Anan1 wrote: »
    As a general principle I really don't find it that hard to drive with consideration for the safety of cyclists, cycle lanes or no.

    +1

    It's just a combination of good manners and common sense, although I think my driving around cyclsits has probably improved since I became a regular one myself.


Advertisement