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

Journalism and Cycling 2: the difficult second album

Options
1…9899101103104…255

Comments

  • Options
    #3002
    carfinder
    Registered Users Posts: 262 ✭✭carfinder


    Weepsie wrote: »
    That's for creating an obstruction which is specifically legislated against.

    There is not a specific law saying that you have to do so for faster moving traffic.

    The onus in most of the act is on the overtaking traffic to ensure it is safe.


    1 extreme example which is very much an outlier does not mean much.

    It demonstates the principle regardless of your attempt to dilute the point and demean it to "not mean much" :rolleyes:. It is directly contrary to your assertion of
    Weepsie wrote: »
    In fact, I would say pulling into the left to let traffic pass, is then creating an obstruction and more likely to cause some for of legal trouble.


  • Options
    #3003
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,533 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    That's the only one I've heard of. I don't think it's a very common occurrence. It does't appear to be a specific offence anyway, and it was a fairly extreme case, as he was holding up about 100 vehicles, and then didn't bother paying the FPN the garda issued.

    I'm pretty sure it's not a specific offence, but instead gets captured under the more general "Driving without reasonable consideration"
    RTA(2) 2011 wrote:
    “Driving without reasonable consideration.

    51A.— (1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place without reasonable consideration for other persons using the place.

    (2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence.

    It's a great little piece of legislation that really should be used much more by the Gardaí to capture all sorts of dickish behaviour on the roads; close passes, splashing pedestrians; following too closely; etc. All could be easily swept up under this and IMO would likely make for easier prosecutions if the FCPN wasn't accepted.
    Don't know why they don't make more widepread use of it.


  • Options
    #3004
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,745 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    carfinder wrote: »
    Yes, you seem to be at pains to water down my point but regardless of the context and nuances you are trying to portray, it neatly demonstrates the obligation of slow moving vehicles to pull in - and counters Weepsie's incorrect assertion, which was the point I was making!

    There's an obligation not to restrict 100 vehicles to travelling at 20km/h, and to pay FCNs on time is all you can conclude form this one, extreme case.


  • Options
    #3005
    carfinder
    Registered Users Posts: 262 ✭✭carfinder


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Yeah, the judge found him guilty on the grounds of driving without reasonable consideration. It only came before her because he didn't pay the fixed-charge penalty notice, and it was a pretty extreme example anyway.

    Not extreme at all, especially at this time of year with all the tractors on the road - its an outlier because of the prosecution which is rare because, in my opinion, the roads and roaduser behaviour is poorly policed!


  • Options
    #3006
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 19,918 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    carfinder wrote: »
    It demonstates the principle regardless of your attempt to dilute the point and demean it to "not mean much" :rolleyes:. It is directly contrary to your assertion of

    Not at all, you asserted that there was a specific law. There isn't. You seem to think the rules of the road are law. They are not.

    To that end, there's a whole thread on legislation which some of this should probably move to


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3007
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,745 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    carfinder wrote: »
    Not extreme at all, especially at this time of year with all the tractors on the road - its an outlier because of the prosecution which is rare because, in my opinion, the roads and roaduser behaviour is poorly policed!

    You frequently come across 100 vehicles behind a tractor, do you?


  • Options
    #3008
    carfinder
    Registered Users Posts: 262 ✭✭carfinder


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    There's an obligation not to restrict 100 vehicles to travelling at 20km/h, and to pay FCNs on time is all you can conclude form this one, extreme case.

    Thats fairly disingenuous. The point is whether slow moving vehicles have an obligation to pull in to allow traffic to pass. The answer is YES. You have a fairly poor argument to say "all you can conclude" - that is patently untrue


  • Options
    #3009
    carfinder
    Registered Users Posts: 262 ✭✭carfinder


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    You frequently come across 100 vehicles behind a tractor, do you?

    I frequently come across long tailbacks behind agricultural vehicles at this time of year. Its so common that the RSA has a media campaign about it - but don't let that get in the way of your cheap disingenuous debating style:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #3010
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,745 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    I've already asked you not to call me disingenuous.

    The previous example was someone going at 60km/h. The idea that a case involving a tractor driver going at 20km/h is applicable is a stretch, I thik.


  • Options
    #3011
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,745 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    carfinder wrote: »
    I frequently come across long tailbacks behind agricultural vehicles at this time of year. Its so common that the RSA has a media campaign about it - but don't let that get in the way of your cheap disingenuous debating style:rolleyes:

    Ok, that's three times. There's a rule about playing the ball, not the person.

    How long is long. 100 vehicles?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3012
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,500 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    What article are we discussing here again?


  • Options
    #3013
    carfinder
    Registered Users Posts: 262 ✭✭carfinder


    Weepsie wrote: »
    Not at all, you asserted that there was a specific law. There isn't. You seem to think the rules of the road are law. They are not.

    To that end, there's a whole thread on legislation which some of this should probably move to

    I did not assert that there was a specific law - pretty poor stuff there Weepsie - the thread has moved on and established that there is an obligation for slow moving vehicles to pull in - you have don't nothing to counter that except try to split hairs:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #3014
    carfinder
    Registered Users Posts: 262 ✭✭carfinder


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Ok, that's three times. There's a rule about playing the ball, not the person.

    How long is long. 100 vehicles?

    Naturally they vary and I don't count the vehicles. Maybe ask the RSA why they are spending money on a media campaign highlighting the issue if you don't believe the issue exists?


  • Options
    #3015
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,745 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    carfinder wrote: »
    I did not assert that there was a specific law - pretty poor stuff there Weepsie - the thread has moved on and established that there is an obligation for slow moving vehicles to pull in - you have don't nothing to counter that except try to split hairs:rolleyes:

    Define slow-moving though. Apart from 20km/h. We know about that one.


  • Options
    #3016
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,745 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    carfinder wrote: »
    Naturally they vary and I don't count the vehicles. Maybe ask the RSA why they are spending money on a media campaign highlighting the issue if you don't believe the issue exists?

    Hmm, I think I already said that when I drove a van for a living I did come across tractors keeping traffic to a relatively low speed. What I was saying was if the Mayo driver case wasn't fairly extreme, then perhaps you have come across 100 vehicle queues behind tractors, because I certainly never did.


  • Options
    #3017
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    Mod Note

    A reminder to read the charter. In particular:

    "There are lots of places on the internet where you can have a rant about cyclists. This isn't one of them. This is a place for people with an interest in cycling to discuss cycling. If you treat it as a venue for holding all cyclists to account for perceived or actual misbehaviour by some, you can expect to find your access swiftly removed. In short, we are not your punching bag. If you really do want do want an answer to your gripe, do a search. The usual topics, such as cycle lanes, cycling two abreast etc. have been discussed, ad nauseam, many, many times before."

    Previous mod warning seems to have been ignored. @carfinder. Don't post in this thread again. Thanks


  • Options
    #3018
    Duckjob
    Registered Users Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Duckjob


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Define slow-moving though. Apart from 20km/h. We know about that one.


    You can't. That's the thing, because it's extremely subjective.

    I believe the spirit of the rules mentioning obstruction is that where you have vehicles that are only capable of a speed much lower than the regular traffic speed of a road and where overtaking options are limited, the drivers of those vehicles need to be aware of not causing serious disruption to the regular flow of traffic.

    This would encompass the likes of slow tractor drivers. It absolutely would not include somebody driving at 65kph in an 80kph zone, because the message is clear from the RSA and the gardai that speed limits are not targets, and that people should drive within the safe limits of both their surroundings, and also within the comfort of their own abilities.

    There's a real sense of "macho" that has emerged in our road culture now - you can see it from many users postings over on the motoring forum, that the *least* speed you should be travelling at is the speed limit, and if you're not doing that you should "get off the road".

    The idea that someone travelling at 70kph on an 80kph limit road is "obstructing" is macho nonsense and should be be called out as such.

    Also, when discussing slow moving traffic pulling over to let other traffic pass, the other point missed by the macho crowd is that it's not for the ones sitting behind to decide when is a safe opportunity for the slow vehicle to pull in, that's at the discretion of the person driving the slow vehicle and for the guards if its causing a genuine traffic issue.


  • Options
    #3019
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,503 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    this is a bit out of left field. usually you'd expect exercise to reduce the risk of things like this

    Scientists link intense exercise with Motor Neurone Disease risk in some people
    With vigorous exercise, activity levels changed for many of the genes linked to the condition, while individuals with a mutation that accounts for 10% of MND developed the disease earlier if they took part in regular, high-intensity exercise.
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jun/11/scientists-link-intense-exercise-with-mnd-risk-in-some-people-motor-neurone-disease


  • Options
    #3020
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,500 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    this is a bit out of left field. usually you'd expect exercise to reduce the risk of things like this

    Scientists link intense exercise with Motor Neurone Disease risk in some people

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jun/11/scientists-link-intense-exercise-with-mnd-risk-in-some-people-motor-neurone-disease

    Not referring to this specifically but I've often wondered how actually 'healthy' high level sport is = for example, are tour de france cyclists or olympic marathon runners on average healthier, or not, in later life.

    A lot of high level rugby, gaa, soccer players find their ligaments are banjaxed when their career is over. The problem is these limbs are supposed to keep going for another 60 years at that point.


  • Options
    #3021
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,503 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    well, what stuck out for me, possibly a red herring, was that the only two sports mentioned specifically were soccer and rugby; both sports dealing with issues of repeated concussion/brain trauma. but the quote i pulled out seemed to suggest it was exercise, not head trauma, to blame.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3022
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,512 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    There's an obligation not to restrict 100 vehicles to travelling at 20km/h, and to pay FCNs on time is all you can conclude form this one, extreme case.
    If this were true, every D4 tractor that the driver is too lazy to drive into the school grounds with, and instead stop in the line of traffic to let kids out should be done for that specific breach of obstructing 100 vehicles. Donnybrook Garda station could cover the Covid bill it's so rampant.

    In all seriousness though, blackandwhite is correct, the gardai flagrantly under utilise the FCN system which clearly can be then used by a judge to impart a harsher punishment if they do not accept they were being a d1ck.


  • Options
    #3023
    Grassey
    Registered Users Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Grassey


    Would Crocodiles along our greenways be a good idea?

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/farming/arid-40311212.html


  • Options
    #3024
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,885 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-hit-and-run-cyclist-car-sheriff-street-upper-5466010-Jun2021/

    Hit and run, same area where they killed Thiago Cortes. Sickening.


  • Options
    #3025
    Rechuchote
    Registered Users Posts: 1,171 ✭✭✭Rechuchote


    That's surely a heavily-used route for cyclists; why isn't there a protected (really protected, not by magic wands) dualway cycle lane there?


  • Options
    #3026
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,885 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    There's parking on both sides I think


  • Options
    #3027
    Rechuchote
    Registered Users Posts: 1,171 ✭✭✭Rechuchote


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    There's parking on both sides I think

    Yeah, that's what I mean. Take out one side of parking and replace it with a protected dualway cycle lane.


  • Options
    #3028
    Eamonnator
    Registered Users Posts: 6,561 ✭✭✭Eamonnator


    I've often wondered, what percentage of roadway, between the canals, is given over to car parking.


  • Options
    #3029
    DoraDelite
    Registered Users Posts: 308 ✭✭DoraDelite


    Eamonnator wrote: »
    I've often wondered, what percentage of roadway, between the canals, is given over to car parking.

    An awful lot of footpath is also given over to car parking between the canals and a blind eye turned to it.


  • Options
    #3030
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,512 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    My local FB page was going mental recently as the Gardai went and clamped a load of people who parked up on a grass verge near the local beach, where there is a car park. It was great that the majority pointed out that,
    1. The car park was open despite the claims,
    2. the Gardai were right as it was stupid and dangerous parking that would spread and block emergency services
    3. The acceptance that just cause you used to get away with it, doesn't mean you should be let continue to get away with something.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3031
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    There's parking on both sides I think

    It's been 90% empty since March 2020. If you stay on the road, you get beeped at by drivers but if you cycle on the empty parking spaces, you have to weave in and out when the odd car is parked on it.


Advertisement