Safety and the rules/regulations/law of open road racing.

ROK ON · 18-02-2015 07:33PM

A lot of the debate in the issue is: don't ask/don't tell, it's not my responsibility (insert comms/organisers/CI here). I do not believe that any of this is credible.

There is a tradition that cycling races occur on open roads and there is another tradition that many riders occupy the entire road in breach of the road traffic laws. Any organiser or governing body that knows of this and does nothing much about it would in all likelihood be held liable should an event materialised that was caused by riding across the road.

If my car was hit I know how I would be taking legal action against. If I was the law abiding racer that was put into the ditch because of riders illegally riding were forced back into the correct side then again I knownwho I would be suing.
Governing bodies exist in all sports to set the ground rules - if they knowingly turn a blind eye to illegal behaviour then they are an accomplice in my view.

The argument trotted out of be careful what you wish for is laced with intent but is a straw man. In many parts of the country locals will be aware of races and will accommodate those - that does not mean that a car should end up in a ditch to accommodate cyclists coming against him that will not move to their own side of the road. In the past few years I have gad to take evasive action while driving on a road used by a leading race. In the same race the following year my daughter was almost trampled as a rider decided that the best way thrusting was in the footpath (in this case a Marshall roared at the rider). This behaviour is unacceptable and should in my view lead to expulsion from a race.

GMCI · 18-02-2015 08:43PM

Ultimately the cyclists are responsible for their own actions on the public road, from positioning to turning at junctions, where the marshal is there to indicate direction with no authority to stop traffic.

To suggest that Comms, Organisers and CI are all liable is ludicrous. If an incident happens on the road, between rider and car or even car against car, it is deemed a Road Traffic Incident between the two parties involved. If the scenario is that a rider or vehicle collided with an oncoming vehicle because the they were on the wrong side of the road, the rider or vehicle on that side of the road is held liable. It is a Road Traffic Incident, Gardaí are called and the incident is dealt with at the side of the road and beyond between concerned parties. This is fact and has occurred on multiple occasions nationwide.

The culture of "Sue everyone" because of sporting incidents in the nature of a sport like this on open roads where risk to riders is greater is what will be the final straw for the sport so Im sure there will be a queue of thank you's thereafter when insurance premiums go up and in turn so do all of your licences. Attitudes like that are thrashing all sports these days. 21st Century problems.

@fatbloke - it is not about the identifying of the rider and passing the suspension. If a rider feels aggrieved by the fact that he was suspended, he will investigate the circumstances and realise that CI Tech Regulations give no permission for recording devices in the peloton and as such may attempt to have the case thrown out or even take the legal avenue against the Provincial Executive based on the fact that the evidence used to suspend should not have been active in the first place. Its one thing saying suspend them all, its another in making the Disciplinary cases stick. Much more difficult than you think .

GMCI · 18-02-2015 08:46PM

ROK ON wrote: »

Nothing to see here!
Stay silent.
Don't spit in the soup.
Omertà et al et al.

Oh Please.

Can you not see that yes there may be issues to be rectified within the sport and if there is any love for the sport at all, why the hell would you publicise it for the whole world to see and get involved in, without it being rectified internally first.

Lusk_Doyle · 18-02-2015 08:48PM

^So why can't the rules be changed to allow this then?

Edit: Not referring to the post immediately above, but the one above that.

morana · 18-02-2015 08:51PM

GMCI wrote: »

Not a regular visitor to keep on top of feedback from the post I made last night.

@Lusk_Doyle , I do regret some of my comments (choice of phrases)but am also glad to have gotten my personal view across as it has given some very credible viewpoints from others.
This is boards.ie, what was posted is not the official line from CI and at no stage did I ever indicate that. Official lines from CI comes through press releases to the media and not directly onto forums. I certainly don't see myself as a decision maker. That's what the board is for.

@morana, it is not as simple of scrutinising the footage for infringements and imposing suspensions. Like I already said, the imposition of suspensions are not the responsibility of the College of Commissaires but of Provincial Executives. Such actions are not normally favourable with Provincial Executives because of possible recourse if proceedings are not carried out correctly and things could turn legal very quickly as there are no procedures for the use of video footage in identifying infringements in road races from cameras that are against the sporting regulatons of the sport as a result of being a non essential piece of equipment attached to the bike , or in this case the helmet. From your board experience, you should know how i's have to be dotted and T's crossed in relation to any change.

All cyclists at this weekends events and beyond will be scrutinised at the start by the Commissaires for such equipment and other non essential items, that numbers are visible and that both numbers are worn correctly and not defaced.

As Wav1 says below and I said already, it is all well and good demanding more cameras and change and stricter enforcement by Commissaires. But be careful what you wish for that will ensure all of the consequences Wav1 states above.
The control and Disqualification is very difficult and dangerous for Commissaires following behind in a car to undertake.
For the use of Moto Commissaires, here is a breakdown of how many there are in each province:
Leinster - 2
Munster - 0
Ulster - 3
Connacht - 1

So the bodies simply are not there to control it.

Rolling road closures have always been a compromise with the Councils/Gardaí in order to avoid a full road closure but organisers of events have often not put in place the suitable civilian escort cover to ensure a satisfactory Rolling Road Closure for the number of minutes to allow a peloton to pass. The rolling road closure is preferable due to cost issues and also minimising the effect of delays/diversions to the local public.

I have multiple ideas and recommendations to ensure the standard of events is raised enough to match the demand from entrants. These ideas involve a significant increase in the organisation of events by organisers with more resources and also a number of concessions on the part of cyclists. It would be a total change in how events are managed and the racing ability of those taking part in the events. The result, safer racing but most likely at a cost increase in entrance fees.

I think it is as simple as " look here you were disobeying the rotr in our race therefore you are getting a warning". I still can't find where the provinces fit into this and believe me I am sure I have read every policy from CI as well as the tech regs. maybe I am missing it.

anyway it doesn't matter. I don't really care.

GMCI · 18-02-2015 08:59PM

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

^So why can't the rules be changed to allow this then?

Edit: Not referring to the post immediately above, but the one above that.

They can do, but it doesn't just happen at the stroke of a pen. Motions at AGMs or through proposals to the Board, consultation periods etc and they may still wait and put it forward at an AGM. Its all back to the Administrative procedures for rule changes. They simply take time and again need to be spearheaded by a particular club. I would reckon CI are still unaware to an extent of the seriousness of the problem.

Morana, I know traditionally that any discipline cases are referred to the Provincial Executive to set up a hearing. I know the Discipline section of the Regs changed in recent years. AFAIK it still goes to the Province as there were a couple of suspensions by various provinces in 2014.

ROK ON · 18-02-2015 09:02PM

GMCI wrote: »

Oh Please.

Can you not see that yes there may be issues to be rectified within the sport and if there is any love for the sport at all, why the hell would you publicise it for the whole world to see and get involved in, without it being rectified internally first.

I haven't publicised anything. I was responding to this insane suggestion that it is no ones business outside the sport. This is clearly a blind spot for the sport. If there is an issue no one seems interested in doing anything about it. The riders here who have raised the issue have in my view been responded to in a pejorative fashion. All of this is problematic.

If this is going to solved in the sport then those who promote/marshal/ referee and govern the sport have responsibility in addition to riders having responsibility.
Nothing that I have seen suggest that there is any will in the sport to address illegality. I the that the NCD issue has been handled poorly an pd thankfully it seems to be isolated as an incident. But that is not to say it will stay isolated.

In marshalling a race a few years back I was very politely approached by a gentleman enquiring as to where he could complain. He had two issues - (1) the circuit was used too much he wanted it used a lot less but was supportive races maybe once a month, (2) he observed too much illegal road behaviour and wanted it stopped.
The guy raced motor bikes as a hobby and claimed not to be a killjoy. He stated he had not objection to occasional races.
The real issue for him was he wanted fewer races on a particular circuit, but his stick to beat the sport was illegality witnessed every week for several years.
That made a big impression in me because this was the first time I was faced with a cogent and polite objector as opposed to the occasional crank roaring at passing cyclists or trying to squeeze thru when a marshal has advised of an oncoming race.
If the sport doesn't sort this then the risk is that it is taken out of our control. The present approach doesn't suggest that the sport is serious about the issue.

wav1 · 18-02-2015 09:28PM

Organisers always seem to get the blame regardless.Had a poster on here about 12 months ago having a go about a race we ran when 20 riders crashed on a straight stretch of road on their own side and somehow the organisation were responsible.

GMCI · 18-02-2015 09:33PM

ROK ON wrote: »

I haven't publicised anything. I was responding to this insane suggestion that it is no ones business outside the sport. This is clearly a blind spot for the sport. If there is an issue no one seems interested in doing anything about it. The riders here who have raised the issue have in my view been responded to in a pejorative fashion. All of this is problematic.

If this is going to solved in the sport then those who promote/marshal/ referee and govern the sport have responsibility in addition to riders having responsibility.
Nothing that I have seen suggest that there is any will in the sport to address illegality. I the that the NCD issue has been handled poorly an pd thankfully it seems to be isolated as an incident. But that is not to say it will stay isolated.

In marshalling a race a few years back I was very politely approached by a gentleman enquiring as to where he could complain. He had two issues - (1) the circuit was used too much he wanted it used a lot less but was supportive races maybe once a month, (2) he observed too much illegal road behaviour and wanted it stopped.
The guy raced motor bikes as a hobby and claimed not to be a killjoy. He stated he had not objection to occasional races.
The real issue for him was he wanted fewer races on a particular circuit, but his stick to beat the sport was illegality witnessed every week for several years.
That made a big impression in me because this was the first time I was faced with a cogent and polite objector as opposed to the occasional crank roaring at passing cyclists or trying to squeeze thru when a marshal has advised of an oncoming race.
If the sport doesn't sort this then the risk is that it is taken out of our control. The present approach doesn't suggest that the sport is serious about the issue.

Apologies, I wasn't insinuating you directly publicising it. Just poor typing on my part.

I do believe CI are very much aware of all the issues as a result of NCD and I do agree that I don't think anyone is inclined to take a lead on it.

While it is easy for the riders on boards to want change with all the aforementioned suggestions, there are procedures as to how to go about looking for this. It is not as simple as change this and that and hope for the best.
For such a massive change, ALL stakeholders would need to be consulted to determine the best route forward. Stakeholders such as riders, organisers (a massive stakeholder) local authorities and gardai and then find a mutual path to take. Biggest problem there is satisfying all stakeholders as much as possible for the best outcome for all.

PeadarCo · 18-02-2015 09:36PM

GMCI wrote: »

Oh Please.

Can you not see that yes there may be issues to be rectified within the sport and if there is any love for the sport at all, why the hell would you publicise it for the whole world to see and get involved in, without it being rectified internally first.

Because its a debate that needs to be had for the future of the sport and the debate impacts more than just cycling Ireland members.

The issue with dangerous racer behaviour such as being over the white line going around a bend is that it puts random members of the public at risk. Grand racing is dangerous, so is riding a bike, everyone who signs on accepts that risk, random bystanders/road users don't.

Its those members of the public we rely on to run races on open roads. Certain circuits particularly around the greater Dublin area are used regularly in club leagues, open races, vet races. All it takes is a few people objecting to shut those races as the situation in North County Dublin demonstrates. Even last year the interclub league had issues running races towards the end of the season due to locals simply getting sick of different clubs using there area for races. And that's with cycling do nothing wrong.

All it takes is one big accident to go viral in the news and suddenly Cycling Ireland has to deal with it.

I think the points you've raised are valid. Extra safety means more expenses/smaller fields(less race fees) which isn't exactly easy for race organisers who by all accounts break-even on races only if they are very lucky.

But for people to make an informed decision people need to given even a rough idea of the time(extra volunteers) and pure money for extra safety equipment and training for marshals and commissars.

jinkypolly · 18-02-2015 09:50PM

Right so, the solution to the big problem being discussed of riders cycling on the wrong side of the road is to ignore the wrong doers and make sure no one has a camera and that all their race numbers are on correctly. Ok.

07Lapierre · 18-02-2015 10:03PM

GMCI wrote: »

To suggest that Comms, Organisers and CI are all liable is ludicrous. If an incident happens on the road, between rider and car or even car against car, it is deemed a Road Traffic Incident between the two parties involved. If the scenario is that a rider or vehicle collided with an oncoming vehicle because the they were on the wrong side of the road, the rider or vehicle on that side of the road is held liable. It is a Road Traffic Incident, Gardaí are called and the incident is dealt with at the side of the road and beyond between concerned parties. This is fact and has occurred on multiple occasions nationwide.

From my discussions with the Gardai, in the event of a rider crahing head on into a car...if the rider was on the wrong side of the road at the time, then the Gardai will look to prosecute not only the rider, but also the organisers of the "race". If the organisers do not have the appropriate approval to run the event, then there could be charges brought against the race organisers.

Maybe the Garda in question is wrong, but who are we to argue with a member of The Gardai?

wav1 · 18-02-2015 10:15PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

From my discussions with the Gardai, in the event of a rider crahing head on into a car...if the rider was on the wrong side of the road at the time, then the Gardai will look to prosecute not only the rider, but also the organisers of the "race". If the organisers do not have the appropriate approval to run the event, then there could be charges brought against the race organisers.

Maybe the Garda in question is wrong, but who are we to argue with a member of The Gardai?

If the event is on the road and happening you can be sure that it has he appropriate approval.Application process,approval,and risk assessment documents all form part of the final approval process now.
To be honest a lot of organisers do have the backing of [maybe limited] the garda and vehicle if lucky[race last Sunday had Garda cover].I appreciate that everybody is concerned for safety and legalalities etc and the worst case scenario as im sure we all our,but in all honesty with all the feedback who would put their hand up and be an organiser or commissaire right now.Be far easier to just 'go along' and enjoy the day put on by somebody else.Only 3 new trainee comms in Leinster this year AFAIK.

desertcircus · 18-02-2015 10:21PM

First off: the impression I've gotten from the discussion so far is that: 1 - at open road races without road closures, film has emerged of riders breaking the rules of the road and engaging in dangerous behaviour, 2 - the response of some involved in road racing who are posting on this thread has been to argue that publicising this is a terrible, awful thing to do and that if you're not able to take on a degree of risky riding, then racing isn't for you. The below is based on those impressions, so if I'm wrong on a substantive point then apologies. With that in mind...

From the perspective of a regular cyclist, although not a competitor: if someone posts video evidence of people breaking the rules of the road in the course of a race, it's beyond appalling to see a response that basically boils down to "go hard or go home, and for Christ's sake don't put evidence up on Youtube." The only sensible response is to ensure that rulebreaking ceases, not to post ominous threats about DQing people who have GoPros strapped to their bikes or helmets. If a race cannot operate without riders violating the rules of the road and endangering other road users, then it shouldn't go ahead. Full stop. Macho bullsh1t about how people should go do sportives if they can't cope with dangerous cycling is disgusting, and it runs the risk of placing blame and pressure on people filming races instead of on organisers and riders.

As for the "don't publicise this stuff by putting it up on Youtube": that's not an argument you're going to win. Footage is going to emerge, either from a GoPro, from a dashcam or from a spectator's phone, and fuming about how it shouldn't have been filmed is pointless and self-defeating nonsense. One thing that I can guarantee, though: if a non-competitor at a CI race was seriously injured or killed as a result of this behaviour, and a politician looking to make a name for themselves found some of the posts on this thread, road racing would be dead as a sport in Ireland in weeks. The ONLY legitimate response in a publicly visible forum once something like this comes out is to very clearly and visibly do everything in your power as fast as possible to wipe out the infringements in question - and never to do anything that looks like shooting the messenger.

Lusk_Doyle · 18-02-2015 10:21PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

From my discussions with the Gardai, in the event of a rider crahing head on into a car...if the rider was on the wrong side of the road at the time, then the Gardai will look to prosecute not only the rider, but also the organisers of the "race". If the organisers do not have the appropriate approval to run the event, then there could be charges brought against the race organisers.

Maybe the Garda in question is wrong, but who are we to argue with a member of The Gardai?

Just because he is a Garda doesn't mean that he is correct in his interpretation. Of course, he may indeed be correct but that should not stop you or anyone else asking for proof of x, y or z.

Lusk_Doyle · 18-02-2015 10:24PM

desertcircus wrote: »

First off: the impression I've gotten from the discussion so far is that: 1 - at open road races without road closures, film has emerged of riders breaking the rules of the road and engaging in dangerous behaviour, 2 - the response of some involved in road racing who are posting on this thread has been to argue that publicising this is a terrible, awful thing to do and that if you're not able to take on a degree of risky riding, then racing isn't for you. The below is based on those impressions, so if I'm wrong on a substantive point then apologies. With that in mind...

From the perspective of a regular cyclist, although not a competitor: if someone posts video evidence of people breaking the rules of the road in the course of a race, it's beyond appalling to see a response that basically boils down to "go hard or go home, and for Christ's sake don't put evidence up on Youtube." The only sensible response is to ensure that rulebreaking ceases, not to post ominous threats about DQing people who have GoPros strapped to their bikes or helmets. If a race cannot operate without riders violating the rules of the road and endangering other road users, then it shouldn't go ahead. Full stop. Macho bullsh1t about how people should go do sportives if they can't cope with dangerous cycling is disgusting, and it runs the risk of placing blame and pressure on people filming races instead of on organisers and riders.

As for the "don't publicise this stuff by putting it up on Youtube": that's not an argument you're going to win. Footage is going to emerge, either from a GoPro, from a dashcam or from a spectator's phone, and fuming about how it shouldn't have been filmed is pointless and self-defeating nonsense. One thing that I can guarantee, though: if a non-competitor at a CI race was seriously injured or killed as a result of this behaviour, and a politician looking to make a name for themselves found some of the posts on this thread, road racing would be dead as a sport in Ireland in weeks. The ONLY legitimate response in a publicly visible forum once something like this comes out is to very clearly and visibly do everything in your power as fast as possible to wipe out the infringements in question - and never to do anything that looks like shooting the messenger.

Thank you! I knew I wasn't alone in my view on what has been posted.

07Lapierre · 18-02-2015 10:24PM

wav1 wrote: »

If the event is on the road and happening you can be sure that it has he appropriate approval.Application process,approval,and risk assessment documents all form part of the final approval process now.
To be honest a lot of organisers do have the backing of [maybe limited] the garda and vehicle if lucky[race last Sunday had Garda cover].I appreciate that everybody is concerned for safety and legalalities etc and the worst case scenario as im sure we all our,but in all honesty with all the feedback who would put their hand up and be an organiser or commissaire right now.Be far easier to just 'go along' and enjoy the day put on by somebody else.Only 3 new trainee comms in Leinster this year AFAIK.

Open races yes, but how many clubs run club races "unofficially"? ( that is they turn up, race and go home)

Beasty · 18-02-2015 10:26PM

I don't think the organisers of any event could consider themselves immune from prosecution in the event of an incident arising. Their best defence is likely to be that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent the incident. That would, for example, include complying with all the rules laid down by CI (including having adequate event management plans in place - bear in mind these are only likely to be scrutinised in the event of an incident - how many clubs appoint a safety officer for each event for example, as required under the CI event code?).

One of the concerns I have had when witnessing some of the behaviour within races is that road traffic legislation is breached on a regular basis - unless the Gardai have in some way given approval (and one of the conditions specified by CI is that race proposals must be submitted to the Gardai and local authority well in advance of the event although I am not sure all clubs do this) to the event then I think race organisers and clubs do leave themselves exposed to potential claims as well as prosecution if anything does go wrong

07Lapierre · 18-02-2015 10:27PM

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Just because he is a Garda doesn't mean that he is correct in his interpretation. Of course, he may indeed be correct but that should not stop you or anyone else asking for proof of x, y or z.

The proof quoted was the road traffic act...I'm no solicitor, so im not in a position to argue.

Lusk_Doyle · 18-02-2015 10:31PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

The proof quoted was the road traffic act...I'm no solicitor, so im not in a position to argue.

"Ok, do you have a copy of said document to hand or available to reference so I can satisfy myself of your assertion?"

Nothing wrong with that is there? It's not arguing, it's merely requesting proof. That's your right.

wav1 · 18-02-2015 10:38PM

Beasty wrote: »

I don't think the organisers of any event could consider themselves immune from prosecution in the event of an incident arising. Their best defence is likely to be that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent the incident. That would, for example, include complying with all the rules laid down by CI (including having adequate event management plans in place - bear in mind these are only likely to be scrutinised in the event of an incident - how many clubs appoint a safety officer for each event for example, as required under the CI event code?).

One of the concerns I have had when witnessing some of the behaviour within races is that road traffic legislation is breached on a regular basis - unless the Gardai have in some way given approval (and one of the conditions specified by CI is that race proposals must be submitted to the Gardai and local authority well in advance of the event although I am not sure all clubs do this) to the event then I think race organisers and clubs do leave themselves exposed to potential claims as well as prosecution if anything does go wrong

Cant answer this one for definite but I feel that if promoters have all the boxes ticked,then,they personally or their club are immune[well at least I hope so].Any incident would fall back on C I in this instance [as did the infamous ras crash near Carrick on Shannon in 2010] One of the teams in that incident basically tried to sue everybody,but with no success.

07Lapierre · 18-02-2015 10:40PM

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

"Ok, do you have a copy of said document to hand or available to reference so I can satisfy myself of your assertion?"

Nothing wrong with that is there? It's not arguing, it's merely requesting proof. That's your right.

By arguing I mean "discuss" the definition of a "race" as described in the road traffic act...(I argued/discussed that the act covers racing on foot (persons), vehicles (motorised vehicles) or animals ( horses etc.).. The Gardai disagreed they argued that bicycles are "vehicles".
Also, section 3a was also an issue..the council can prohibit the running a "race"
"
Road races.

74.—(1) In this section “road race” means a prescribed class of race, time trial or speed trial on a public road involving persons, vehicles or animals.

(2) A person who intends to hold, organise or promote a road race shall give at least one month's notice (or such other period of notice as may be prescribed by the Minister) in writing to the road authority and to the Superintendent of the Garda Síochána within whose district the road race is to be held.

(3) (a) A road authority may by notice in writing served on a person who intends to hold, organise or promote a road race or, where the name of that person cannot be ascertained by reasonable inquiry, by notice published in one or more newspapers circulating in the area in which the road race is to be held—

(i) prohibit the holding of the road race,

(ii) prohibit the holding of the road race unless specified conditions, restrictions or requirements are complied with,

(iii) impose specified conditions, restrictions or requirements in relation to the holding of the road race which must be complied with.

(b) The conditions under paragraph (a) may include the giving of security or the provision of an indemnity.

(4) Any person who contravenes subsection (2) or a notice under subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence.

(5) A road authority may recover from a person who holds, organises or promotes a road race, as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction, any costs reasonably incurred by it—

(a) to facilitate the holding of the road race,

(b) to repair damage to or remove defacement from the public road arising from the holding of the road race.

(6) The Minister may make regulations for the purposes of this section and such regulations may in particular make provision for—

(a) requirements in relation to the making and consideration of objections,

(b) requirements in relation to the giving of security or the provision of an indemnity."

Beasty · 18-02-2015 10:53PM

wav1 wrote: »

Cant answer this one for definite but I feel that if promoters have all the boxes ticked,then,they personally or their club are immune[well at least I hope so].Any incident would fall back on C I in this instance [as did the infamous ras crash near Carrick on Shannon in 2010] One of the teams in that incident basically tried to sue everybody,but with no success.

I think in the above scenario they have taken all reasonable steps which certainly minimises the risk of prosecution (nothing can eliminate such a risk though - the organiser would then have to use the "taking all reasonable steps" argument as part of their defence - it may then be over to a jury to decide whether they agree or not)

The fall-back on CI is, I think, more relevant to the insurance position. Basically they have the policy that we all rely on for protection against claims from 3rd parties, either as racer, organiser, commissaire, marshal etc.

Beasty · 18-02-2015 10:56PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

The Gardai disagreed they argued that bicycles are "vehicles".

I think it is generally accepted that bicycles are "vehicles" for the purposes of the Irish road traffic legislation

Lusk_Doyle · 18-02-2015 10:58PM

Beasty wrote: »

I think in the above scenario they have taken all reasonable steps which certainly minimises the risk of prosecution (nothing can eliminate such a risk though - the organiser would then have to use the "taking all reasonable steps" argument as part of their defence - it may then be over to a jury to decide whether they agree or not).

Only in a criminal matter though, no? A civil insurance matter would be before an arbitrator or judge.

07Lapierre · 18-02-2015 10:59PM

Beasty wrote: »

I think it is generally accepted that bicycles are "vehicles" for the purposes of the Irish road traffic legislation

Agree...What can I say...in the heat of the moment during my discussion with the Gardai, i was "plucking at straws!"

Beasty · 18-02-2015 11:06PM

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Only in a criminal matter though, no? A civil insurance matter would be before an arbitrator or judge.

I was referring to criminal prosecutions. A lot of acts involving dangerous driving do result in criminal prosecutions. If it's down to a financial claim in most circumstances it's going to be the CI insurers defending it

Lusk_Doyle · 18-02-2015 11:16PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

By arguing I mean "discuss" the definition of a "race" as described in the road traffic act...(I argued/discussed that the act covers racing on foot (persons), vehicles (motorised vehicles) or animals ( horses etc.).. The Gardai disagreed they argued that bicycles are "vehicles".
Also, section 3a was also an issue..the council can prohibit the running a "race"
"
Road races.

74.—(1) In this section “road race” means a prescribed class of race, time trial or speed trial on a public road involving persons, vehicles or animals.

(2) A person who intends to hold, organise or promote a road race shall give at least one month's notice (or such other period of notice as may be prescribed by the Minister) in writing to the road authority and to the Superintendent of the Garda Síochána within whose district the road race is to be held.

(3) (a) A road authority may by notice in writing served on a person who intends to hold, organise or promote a road race or, where the name of that person cannot be ascertained by reasonable inquiry, by notice published in one or more newspapers circulating in the area in which the road race is to be held—

(i) prohibit the holding of the road race,

(ii) prohibit the holding of the road race unless specified conditions, restrictions or requirements are complied with,

(iii) impose specified conditions, restrictions or requirements in relation to the holding of the road race which must be complied with.

(b) The conditions under paragraph (a) may include the giving of security or the provision of an indemnity.

(4) Any person who contravenes subsection (2) or a notice under subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence.

(5) A road authority may recover from a person who holds, organises or promotes a road race, as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction, any costs reasonably incurred by it—

(a) to facilitate the holding of the road race,

(b) to repair damage to or remove defacement from the public road arising from the holding of the road race.

(6) The Minister may make regulations for the purposes of this section and such regulations may in particular make provision for—

(a) requirements in relation to the making and consideration of objections,

(b) requirements in relation to the giving of security or the provision of an indemnity."

It's not up to the Garda to make the judgement on this however. That is what the court system is for. A Garda presents evidence in support of a suspected breach of ...

I had suggested previously that a legal opinion was obtained by the club in respect of the situation. I wonder was that ever done. I'm sure there must be case law and precedent out there.

Raam · 18-02-2015 11:17PM

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

It's not up to the Garda to make the judgement on this however. That is what the court system is for. A Garda presents evidence in support of a suspected breach of ...

I had suggested previously that a legal opinion was obtained by the club in respect of the situation. I wonder was that ever done. I'm sure there must be case law and precedent out there.

He will make judgement on whether or not he wants to prosecute you. Do you want to be the race organiser to test this?

07Lapierre · 18-02-2015 11:22PM

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

It's not up to the Garda to make the judgement on this however. That is what the court system is for. A Garda presents evidence in support of a suspected breach of ...

I had suggested previously that a legal opinion was obtained by the club in respect of the situation. I wonder was that ever done. I'm sure there must be case law and precedent out there.

Your right..the courts are responsible for making judgement...as long as the Gardai are suggesting that Im the one they will be presenting evidence against, I'm not prepared to organise a race in Fingal. Especially since we can't get past section 3a of the road traffic Act. ( Fingal won't allow road racing unless it's on a fully closed road)

Safety and the rules/regulations/law of open road racing.

Comments