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

Car Reg published online at work

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    ED E wrote: »
    What are you basing that on?

    See this post:-

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109286177&postcount=14


  • Options
    #33
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,723 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    evolving_doors wrote: »
    I think it's only fair that he should be given the opportunity to challenge the allegations.

    Agreed.

    But I still believe that its likely that the crossing has CCTV cover, and that the employer has viewed the footage and knows full well what happened.


  • Options
    #34
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,975 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Agreed.

    But I still believe that its likely that the crossing has CCTV cover, and that the employer has viewed the footage and knows full well what happened.
    Is that relevant though under GDPR?
    Surely given that its personally identifiable data, the OPs rights apply and it should not be made public within the organisation, no matter the reason?


  • Options
    #35
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    I work in a similar environment, American i presume? They have these Lick arse empowerment schemes where they encourage staff to essentially snitch on colleagues for breaching health and safety.


  • Options
    #36
    ED E
    Registered Users Posts: 36,166 ✭✭✭✭ED E


    GM228 wrote: »
    See this post:-

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109286177&postcount=14


    Does that make every photo of a high street a DP breach?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Phileas Frog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 946 ✭✭✭Phileas Frog


    Vetch wrote: »
    Vehicle reg is personal data as it can lead to the identification of a driver/owner of a car. Opinion on this was included in guidelines published by EU Data Protection Commissioners. It is irrelevant who owns the car. It's the fact that a person is identifiable is the deciding factor.

    Have you a link to these guidelines? Before I go out and paint over my car registration plate.

    Who are the EU Data Protection Commissioners? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #38
    Vetch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 422 ✭✭Vetch


    Phileas Frog wrote: »
    Have you a link to these guidelines? Before I go out and paint over my car registration plate.

    Who are the EU Data Protection Commissioners? :rolleyes:


    Sure, here you go https://www.pdp.ie/docs/1030.pdf.
    Can I be there when you're explaining to the Gardai why you've painted over your reg plates?

    Article 29 Working Party now European Data Protection Board constitute body of EU Data Protection Commissioners


  • Options
    #39
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    ED E wrote: »
    Does that make every photo of a high street a DP breach?

    In theory potentially yes depending on how the image is used, that is why Google Street View or Garda Tweets for example have registrations blanked or blurred.

    Could make an interesting test case if ever pursued.


  • Options
    #40
    ForestFire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    Has anyone posted the rules of a zebra crossing yet? While some have made a lot of assumptions of what happen.

    From RSA:
    You do not have the right-of-way over other traffic until you actually step
    onto the crossing. Never step onto the crossing if this would cause a
    driver to brake or swerve suddenly.

    While there is also a responsibility on the driver to be prepared, to slow and stop (if safe), most people think they have a devine right of way and will just waltz out without looking or warning.

    We cannot begin to know what happened in the op situation, but without a chance to view and challange any evidence, their private data and accusations should not be made Public.

    HR OR H&S in a company are not law experts or nforcers either and do not always know all the rules fully themselves.


  • Options
    #41
    maestroamado
    Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    I assume you have access to what i will describe as an internal forum for whatever purpose, i am assuming you have access to said forum.
    If it were me i would politely re-post your own number plate with added note that neither you or your passenger have any recollection of this incident.
    I think this will make your point and if you reasonably confident you did not cause danger this will kill it.
    On the other hand it will open the door for the person who made the post to confirm, to do this they will have to come forward and say what happened.


    I drive abroad abit, for example in Spain the "person has the total right on crossing" and its not like here that we need to make out intention known to traffic. I t could be someone from this type of culture made complaint.
    The other day i was in local town and stopped at crossing before people went on and i could tell by their reaction they were surprised that i stopped.
    Basically we all know our own good/bad driving habits and if you think it is a possibility this may have happened let it go.
    On the other hand if you think it is very unlikely i think be worth while looking into.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    deravarra
    Registered Users Posts: 1,814 ✭✭✭deravarra


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Agreed.

    But I still believe that its likely that the crossing has CCTV cover, and that the employer has viewed the footage and knows full well what happened.

    Unfortunately, it hasnt. And this whole issue has pushed me into getting a dashcam.


  • Options
    #43
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Agreed.

    But I still believe that its likely that the crossing has CCTV cover, and that the employer has viewed the footage and knows full well what happened.

    I have no recollection of said event, nor does my carpooling colleague.

    If they had seen a CCTV then their point about recollection would be moot.
    So your belief about the employee knowing is currently redundant.

    Look we know the way these companies operate.
    Theres a health and safety meeting where everyone pours their heart out in a shaming session about what they witnessed of their fellow colleagues (walking with coffee mug, walking while talking on phone, not holding the hand rail on stairs, going up stairs on left hand side, going over 10.265kmph in the car park, not reversing into car space in car park etc.).
    It's like something you'd see in a cult with all the shaming and flagellation.

    Also compound with the fact that an employee is given credit for making a 'good catch'... Actually some places you're not allowed to not contribute in the session.

    So you get random accusations that are thrown out like the one in the OP. And it IS usually linked to your work reviews.


  • Options
    #44
    deravarra
    Registered Users Posts: 1,814 ✭✭✭deravarra


    evolving_doors wrote: »
    If they had seen a CCTV then their point about recollection would be moot.
    So your belief about the employee knowing is currently redundant.

    Look we know the way these companies operate.
    Theres a health and safety meeting where everyone pours their heart out in a shaming session about what they witnessed of their fellow colleagues (walking with coffee mug, walking while talking on phone, not holding the hand rail on stairs, going up stairs on left hand side, going over 10.265kmph in the car park, not reversing into car space in car park etc.).
    It's like something you'd see in a cult with all the shaming and flagellation.

    Also compound with the fact that an employee is given credit for making a 'good catch'... Actually some places you're not allowed to not contribute in the session.

    So you get random accusations that are thrown out like the one in the OP. And it IS usually linked to your work reviews.

    You know the system I have at work.


  • Options
    #45
    Cazale
    Registered Users Posts: 2,906 ✭✭✭Cazale


    deravarra wrote:
    You know the system I have at work.

    Is this a mirashare system? If so someone with supervisor/admin access can edit or delete it.


  • Options
    #46
    deravarra
    Registered Users Posts: 1,814 ✭✭✭deravarra


    Cazale wrote: »
    Is this a mirashare system? If so someone with supervisor/admin access can edit or delete it.

    Not sure. I was referring to the type of "infarctions" that can be reported


  • Options
    #47
    ittakestwo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,647 ✭✭✭ittakestwo


    ForestFire wrote: »
    Has anyone posted the rules of a zebra crossing yet? While some have made a lot of assumptions of what happen.

    From RSA:
    You do not have the right-of-way over other traffic until you actually step
    onto the crossing. Never step onto the crossing if this would cause a
    driver to brake or swerve suddenly.

    While there is also a responsibility on the driver to be prepared, to slow and stop (if safe), most people think they have a devine right of way and will just waltz out without looking or warning.

    We cannot begin to know what happened in the op situation, but without a chance to view and challange any evidence, their private data and accusations should not be made Public.


    HR OR H&S in a company are not law experts or nforcers either and do not always know all the rules fully themselves.

    If anyone walks onto a zebra crossing and is hit by a car, The driver will be found the guilty party. Every judge would blame the driver for not giving way.

    The rule quoted above does not even make much sense. A collision of a pedestrian and car can only happen while the pedestrian is on the zebra crossing so automatically has the right of way according to the rule.


  • Options
    #48
    ForestFire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    ittakestwo wrote: »
    If anyone walks onto a zebra crossing and is hit by a car, The driver will be found the guilty party. Every judge would blame the driver for not giving way.

    The rule quoted above does not even make much sense. A collision of a pedestrian and car can only happen while the pedestrian is on the zebra crossing so automatically has the right of way according to the rule.

    you maybe right about what a judge may or may not do, But there was no collision so its not relevant for the OP's case here.

    Here is the additional part from the Rules of the road book to clarify what is meant by "stepping on to the cross road".

    Always watch carefully for approaching traffic. Place one foot on the
    crossing to indicate that you wish to cross.     Wait until traffic has stopped before you start crossing.

    Its quite clear, Pedestrians do not have the right of way, They must wait for Traffic to stop, before crossing.


  • Options
    #49
    ittakestwo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,647 ✭✭✭ittakestwo


    ForestFire wrote: »
    you maybe right about what a judge may or may not do, But there was no collision so its not relevant for the OP's case here.

    Here is the additional part from the Rules of the road book to clarify what is meant by "stepping on to the cross road".

    Always watch carefully for approaching traffic. Place one foot on the
    crossing to indicate that you wish to cross.     Wait until traffic has stopped before you start crossing.

    Its quite clear, Pedestrians do not have the right of way, They must wait for Traffic to stop, before crossing.

    Of course pedestrians have ''right of way' at zebra/pedestrians crossing... .If doing a driving test and you don't slow down at a pedestrian crossing even if no pedestrians are there you will get a mark against you. drivers have to be alert too for pedestrians who may or may not cross it. both pedestrians and cars should be alert to each other at zebra crossings . But if an accident actually happens the car will be at fault

    If car hits pedestrian on zebra crossing= Big insurance pay out from drivers insurance.


  • Options
    #50
    Thirdfox
    Registered Users Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    Page 121 of the Rules of the road:
    https://www.garda.ie/en/Crime/Traffic-matters/Rules_of_the_road.pdf
    Vehicles do not have an automatic right of way on the road. The overriding rule is, in all circumstances, to proceed with caution.

    You must always yield to:
    pedestrians already crossing at a junction;
    pedestrians on a zebra crossing;
    pedestrians on a pelican crossing when the amber light is flashing; and
    pedestrians and traffic when you are moving off from a stationary position (for example from your position at a stop sign or a parking space).

    To avoid doubt and in the interest of road safety, a vehicle should always yield to pedestrians.

    Think that's pretty clear.


  • Options
    #51
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,163 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    The "Rules of the Road" are not the "Laws of the Road" nor do they purport to be.
    They are for guidance of road users and so are advisory. They are concerned with safety rather than defining rights. People follow the Rules of the Road, they are far less likely to have an accident. What is dangerous as people relying on technical definitions of right of way rather than on common sense.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    ForestFire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    Page 121 of the Rules of the road:
    https://www.garda.ie/en/Crime/Traffic-matters/Rules_of_the_road.pdf



    Think that's pretty clear.

    Its clear that the "Must" is applicable to where pedestrians are already on the crossing (Not pedestrians intending to cross).

    The last line is a catch all, "If in Doubt" recommendation/Advice and not a clear "Must" requirement

    Also you are quoting from the general guidelines section, where I have quoted from the exact section covering Zebra crossings.

    Is this section not clear also? Including the musts do's for pedestrians, that they do not have automatic right of way? (Priority yes)

    This thread is about an employee that has been accused and identified by his company with no evidence that he has done anything wrong, and even if there was some sort of evidence its unlikely the company know or care about the duty of both the Drive and the pedestrian.


  • Options
    #53
    ForestFire
    Registered Users Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    The "Rules of the Road" are not the "Laws of the Road" nor do they purport to be.
    They are for guidance of road users and so are advisory. They are concerned with safety rather than defining rights. People follow the Rules of the Road, they are far less likely to have an accident. What is dangerous as people relying on technical definitions of right of way rather than on common sense.

    Thanks for this info. Is there a place where the actually laws (Rater than rules) is available on this? It would be interesting to see how this differs or is similar to the rules.


  • Options
    #54
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,163 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    ForestFire wrote: »
    Thanks for this info. Is there a place where the actually laws (Rater than rules) is available on this? It would be interesting to see how this differs or is similar to the rules.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/


  • Options
    #55
    Thirdfox
    Registered Users Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    ForestFire wrote: »
    Thanks for this info. Is there a place where the actually laws (Rater than rules) is available on this? It would be interesting to see how this differs or is similar to the rules.

    Specifically this:
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1964/si/294/made/en/print (as amended but I'm not too bother to track it all down).

    Section 22 is one relevant section (which is reflected pretty much word for word in the rules of the road):
    22 When right of way to be yielded


    22.—(1) When starting from a stationary position a driver shall yield the right of way to other traffic and pedestrians.


    (2) A driver approaching a road junction shall yield the right of way to another vehicle which has commenced to turn or cross at the junction in accordance with these bye-laws, and to a pedestrian who has commenced to cross at the junction in accordance with these bye-laws.


    (3) A driver entering a public road from a place which is not a public road shall yield the right of way to all vehicles proceeding in either direction along the public road.


    (4) (a) A driver shall, before entering a major road by a road on which a Stop sign has been erected, halt the vehicle on the roadway at or near the Stop sign and yield the right of way to traffic on the major road.


    (b) A driver halting the vehicle in compliance with this bye-law shall, where a stop line has been provided at or near a Stop sign, halt the vehicle at the stop line and shall ensure that, when the vehicle is halted, its front wheels (or wheel) have (or has) not crossed the stop line.


    (5) A driver shall, before entering a major road by a road on which a Yield Right of Way sign has been erected, yield the right of way to traffic on the major road.


    (6) A driver approaching a road junction by a road which is not a major road shall, before entering a major road in respect of which there is not an authorised traffic sign indicating that the last mentioned road is a major road, yield the right of way to traffic on the major road.


    (7) A driver approaching a road junction to which paragraph (4), (5) or (6) of this bye-law does not apply shall yield the right of way to traffic approaching the junction from the right by another road.


    (8) A driver approaching a road junction and intending to turn right at the junction shall yield the right of way to a vehicle approaching on the same road from the opposite direction and intending to proceed straight through the junction.


    (9) A driver approaching a zebra crossing shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian on the crossing.

    And similarly for pedestrians in section 38 (which is what clawhammer is talking about - also reflected pretty much word for word in the rules of the road):
    38.—(1) On a roadway on which a zebra crossing has been provided a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 50 feet of the crossing except by the crossing.

    (2) When a vehicle is approaching a zebra crossing a pedestrian shall not step on to that crossing if his action is likely to cause the driver either to brake suddenly or to swerve.

    @Clawhammer - don't know how my post offended you (or if indeed you are offended) text makes inflections hard to read - but the rules of the road are a reflection of statute (see above). There's a reason why "must" is used - because the text reflects statutory provisions directly. The "should" is certainly advisory - though a judge may look into why one chose to ignore such advice.

    As a lawyer who's not at all familiar with road traffic law cases if I was representing a client hit by a car crossing a zebra crossing (where the pedestrian had not yet placed a foot on the crossing when the car came into view) then the argument I'd forward would be that any car driving at a reasonable speed for the road should be able to stop in good time and certainly my client thought his stepping out was not likely to cause sudden braking or swerving (and objectively so). It'd be up to the respondent to then show that the pedestrian stepped out in such a manner (car was 5m away and travelling at 50km legally and thus simply unable to stop in good time etc.) that caused the accident. Must be an objective test of what is "likely" to cause sudden braking or swerving - most people should be a good judge of that themselves.

    My contribution to the thread had nothing to do with OP's gdpr question - but was trying to clarify where cars must yield since it seemed like there was some confusion.


  • Options
    #56
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,712 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    I wouldn't bother reading anything into Claw Hammer's mood tbh.

    Why would you I mean in response to the question, "is there a legislative source for the Rules of the Road?" the guy posts a link to all the legislation ever enacted.


  • Options
    #57
    ittakestwo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,647 ✭✭✭ittakestwo


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    Specifically this:
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1964/si/294/made/en/print (as amended but I'm not too bother to track it all down).

    Section 22 is one relevant section (which is reflected pretty much word for word in the rules of the road):


    And similarly for pedestrians in section 38 (which is what clawhammer is talking about - also reflected pretty much word for word in the rules of the road):



    @Clawhammer - don't know how my post offended you (or if indeed you are offended) text makes inflections hard to read - but the rules of the road are a reflection of statute (see above). There's a reason why "must" is used - because the text reflects statutory provisions directly. The "should" is certainly advisory - though a judge may look into why one chose to ignore such advice.

    As a lawyer who's not at all familiar with road traffic law cases if I was representing a client hit by a car crossing a zebra crossing (where the pedestrian had not yet placed a foot on the crossing when the car came into view) then the argument I'd forward would be that any car driving at a reasonable speed for the road should be able to stop in good time and certainly my client thought his stepping out was not likely to cause sudden braking or swerving (and objectively so). It'd be up to the respondent to then show that the pedestrian stepped out in such a manner (car was 5m away and travelling at 50km legally and thus simply unable to stop in good time etc.) that caused the accident. Must be an objective test of what is "likely" to cause sudden braking or swerving - most people should be a good judge of that themselves.

    My contribution to the thread had nothing to do with OP's gdpr question - but was trying to clarify where cars must yield since it seemed like there was some confusion.

    The problem here is that if a collision occurs the pedestrian is on the zebra crossing where a driver has to give way according to section 22. (9). If a collision occurs the pedestrian will say the drive should have stopped while the driver will say the pedestrian walked out infront and they could not stop in time.

    Zebra crossing are at places where there is good sight lines on approach. A driver will always see that a pedestrian is approaching the zebra crossing and should take precaution. If doing a driving test and there is a person approaching the zebra crossing who is not yet on it and you don't stop to give them way you will fail your test.

    I see to get around this contention they have put the start of zebra crossing on the footpath to make it clear to drivers to give way to the pedestrian at zebra crossings.


  • Options
    #58
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    This talk of zebra crossings might be a waste of time if it's in a company carpark.


  • Options
    #59
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 28,229 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    evolving_doors wrote: »
    This talk of zebra crossings might be a waste of time if it's in a company carpark.

    Yes, there's a high chance that technically they're just paint on the road and have no legal bearing.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #60
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,496 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Safety is everyone's responsibility, so everyone needs to have access to information about known hazards. A car that has not respected a pedestrian crossing in the past is, on average, more likely to do so again in the future.

    Presumably you'd be in favour of public publishing of all Garda speed check results, so that everyone has access to information about known hazards?

    OP - does this public forum contain all kinds of allegations without any substantiation or due process investigation?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    ED E wrote: »
    What are you basing that on?

    The GDPR
    personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number,


Advertisement