Rogue cyclists set to face on-the-spot fines MOD WARNING in first post

Doctor Bob

ThisRegard wrote: »

Brother of Killian Scott no less, who played Tommy in Love/Hate, and grandson of a man who once stole a load of money from Gay Byrne.

Also, for what it's worth, the brother of the chap who wrote both Guaranteed!/The Guarantee and Bailed Out!

Qualitymark

Jesus, Ireland… you can't move but someone knows all your seed breed and generation and everything they ever did…

seamus

Idleater wrote: »

From last Saturday:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/garda-denies-private-scheme-to-get-drivers-to-donate-to-charity-1.2446338

Well that's exactly it. You get a couple of Gardai who realise that people are so stressed about being caught, that they can pocket the cash and send the cyclist on their way without any receipt or other documentation. If the cyclist later queries it, they'll have no evidence of anything - the Garda won't have logged the infraction, so it'll have basically not happened.

cython

CramCycle wrote: »

They could just avoid breaking the law, but maybe thats just me. Oddly my civic mindedness has nothing to do with the fear of paying a fine but I am painfully aware of my inability to pay if it ever did happen towards the end of the month.

To be clear, that would be my attitude as well, but I was just highlighting a perfectly realistic example of how on the spot demands for the value of the fine would be unworkable.

Qualitymark wrote: »

Nothing stopping you from canvassing in his constituency yourself…

But what would I canvas for? I don't have any particular allegiance to any party, so should I start up an "anyone but this guy" lobby? Not to mention that I wanted to raise it with canvassers calling to my door - canvassing will not allow me to do that, so why would you even suggest it unless you completely misunderstood the point I was making

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

There are many tales of foreign drivers being marched to ATMs by French police when caught speeding.

Here, for instance:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057011822

This has been going on for many years.

That's a different issue, because there's a problem with foreign drivers (people on holiday) leaving the jurisdiction and not paying the fine.

It's not relevant to Eoghan Murphy's scenario.

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

That's a different issue, because there's a problem with foreign drivers leaving the jurisdiction and not paying the fine.

It's not relevant to Eoghan Murphy's scenario.

I was relevant to the difficulty posited in Jawgap's post I was replying to

tomasrojo wrote: »

Anyway, I look forward to the Depiteeeee explaining how the Guards are going to walk people to ATMs, in rural locations.

"Walking perp to ATM" is a solved problem, regardless of the (dis)merits of its application.

tomasrojo

Originally Posted by tomasrojo View Post
Anyway, I look forward to the Depiteeeee explaining how the Guards are going to walk people to ATMs, in rural locations.

I didn't say that!!

Qualitymark

cython wrote: »

But what would I canvas for? I don't have any particular allegiance to any party, so should I start up an "anyone but this guy" lobby? Not to mention that I wanted to raise it with canvassers calling to my door - canvassing will not allow me to do that, so why would you even suggest it unless you completely misunderstood the point I was making

Nothing wrong with an "anyone but this guy" canvass; I can think of a few good subjects for it! As for raising it with canvassers, you think they listen? I was reefed by Gay Mitchell a few years ago for raising questions he didn't know the answers to.

tomasrojo

Qualitymark wrote: »

I was reefed by Gay Mitchell a few years ago for raising questions he didn't know the answers to.

"Why are you running for President?"

Lumen

Qualitymark wrote: »

Nothing wrong with an "anyone but this guy" canvass; I can think of a few good subjects for it! As for raising it with canvassers, you think they listen? I was reefed by Gay Mitchell a few years ago for raising questions he didn't know the answers to.

As far as I can understand, the point of canvassing is to (a) identity individuals who want to vote for you, and then (b) encourage them to vote.

Changing people's opinions is difficult and inefficient and will only be attempted if the canvassee is deemed to be on the cusp of committing. As soon as opposition is sniffed the conversation is over.

This is why the best approach to canvassing disruption is to claim to be a mobility-impaired supporter, tie up as much resources as possible being physically conveyed to the polling station, and then vote for the other idiot.

Qualitymark

tomasrojo wrote: »

"Why are you running for President?"

I was asking questions about his party's policies on the subject of the day; his answer was that he was an MEP, and had come out to canvass to do a favour for the candidate. God, he was cross!

Part of his anger seemed to be at self-employed people with big cars. I suspect he meant my 1996 Ford Mondeo.

That year, I'd made out a questionnaire to ask all cavassers who came to the door. Most of them hadn't a clue of their parties' policies on the big questions of the year.

check_six

I remember at the last election being accosted by canvassers as I was bringing my kids and their bikes in the gate. I told them I was too busy to talk to them right now. They then cornered the kids and told them to remind their mum and dad to vote for Candidate X.

I remember being a bit put out by this kind of carry on, but I don't think the kids were bothered. They were only ever going to vote for Mr. D. Vader of the Galactic Imperium Party!

eeeee

check_six wrote: »

I remember at the last election being accosted by canvassers as I was bringing my kids and their bikes in the gate. I told them I was too busy to talk to them right now. They then cornered the kids and told them to remind their mum and dad to vote for Candidate X.

I remember being a bit put out by this kind of carry on, but I don't think the kids were bothered. They were only ever going to vote for Mr. D. Vader of the Galactic Imperium Party!

Jesus I find that hideously awful. How insidious and evil. I am tempted to ask which party but I know they'd all do it. *grumble grumble grumble*

Re: being taken to the ATM, they can take me there but 90% of the time there's nothing in there, however exciting a garda escort would be.

check_six

gadetra wrote: »

Jesus I find that hideously awful. How insidious and evil. I am tempted to ask which party but I know they'd all do it. *grumble grumble grumble*

I can't quite remember who they were canvassing for, but it was definitely someone I was sympathetic towards, so it was annoying.

gadetra wrote: »

Re: being taken to the ATM, they can take me there but 90% of the time there's nothing in there, however exciting a garda escort would be.

I wonder if you would be allowed to go ape on the cycle to the ATM? Isn't there some weird quirk in the system whereby career offenders get let out on bail and can just pile on the crimes knowing they'll all be rolled into the one neat demi-punishment for the thing they were originally in court for? Maybe you could do a wheelie down the footpath with your reflectors on back to front?

Leroy42

And what happens if the perp can't pay. The Garda has no right to look at the screen while you are at the ATM so even if you do have funds they have no ability to know.

So they stop you. Ask for immediate payment. You refuse. They march you, and your bike to the nearest (working!) atm only to find that you don't have any funds. What happens then?

I assume the perp gets an increased fine as otherwise there is simply no incentive to pay the money over at the time.

roverrules

tomasrojo wrote: »

That's a different issue, because there's a problem with foreign drivers (people on holiday) leaving the jurisdiction and not paying the fine.

It's not relevant to Eoghan Murphy's scenario.

Not so different from cyclists not carrying ID, and just how many posts suggested they don't or won't carry ID? I seem to recall a few from various threads.

roverrules

Leroy42 wrote: »

And what happens if the perp can't pay. The Garda has no right to look at the screen while you are at the ATM so even if you do have funds they have no ability to know.

So they stop you. Ask for immediate payment. You refuse. They march you, and your bike to the nearest (working!) atm only to find that you don't have any funds. What happens then?

I assume the perp gets an increased fine as otherwise there is simply no incentive to pay the money over at the time.

Forfeiture of the cycle would seem to be the answer, I assume they sieze the vehicle in France if you can't/won't pay.

eeeee

roverrules wrote: »

Forfeiture of the cycle would seem to be the answer, I assume they sieze the vehicle in France if you can't/won't pay.

Or they could do as is currently the law and treat cyclists receiving FPN's the same as other vehicle drivers/riders who receive FPN's. In the words of the minister for transport from the same article:

“​I do not intend to introduce new powers to allow Gardaí to collect cycling fines on the spot. Under our Constitution, all citizens are entitled to their day in court when accused of committing a crime. A cyclist intercepted while committing a fixed charge offence, has the option of paying the fixed charge amount within the prescribed timeframes or having their case heard in a court of law. If a fixed charge notice is not paid within 56 days, a summons to appear in court will issue.”

kazamo

Has there been much evidence of the FPN's being enforced ?
Haven't seen any in my area and behaviour is much the same as last year, maybe one or two more using lights for night time cycling but that's about it

tomasrojo

roverrules wrote: »

Not so different from cyclists not carrying ID, and just how many posts suggested they don't or won't carry ID? I seem to recall a few from various threads.

No, it's quite different. The French got fed up issuing fines to speeding tourists, who promptly left the jurisdiction, didn't pay and couldn't be forced to pay, despite the French police knowing who they were and where they lived. The British, Irish and Danish, for example, opted out of a police cooperation scheme that would have allowed the French police to collect fines from people after leaving France.

In the case of ID, the police in the UK, who have a very similar FCN system, have no problem determining who cyclists are, despite there being no obligation for the cyclists to carry ID. They haven't had to resort to dragging cyclists to ATMs, and completely rejected the notion when Tony Blair raised it in regard to drunk troublemakers.

As Jep asked, where is the evidence that there's a problem with non-payment anyway? This is probably Eoghan Murphy wishing to add the icing of humiliation to the cake of the fine.

kazamo

gadetra wrote: »

Or they could do as is currently the law and treat cyclists receiving FPN's the same as other vehicle drivers/riders who receive FPN's. In the words of the minister for transport from the same article:

“​I do not intend to introduce new powers to allow Gardaí to collect cycling fines on the spot. Under our Constitution, all citizens are entitled to their day in court when accused of committing a crime. A cyclist intercepted while committing a fixed charge offence, has the option of paying the fixed charge amount within the prescribed timeframes or having their case heard in a court of law. If a fixed charge notice is not paid within 56 days, a summons to appear in court will issue.”

Not quite the same comparing a cyclist and a motorist.
All motor vehicles have a licence plate and the owner can be traced.
No requirement for a cyclist to carry ID either.

eeeee

kazamo wrote: »

Has there been much evidence of the FPN's being enforced ?
Haven't seen any in my area and behaviour is much the same as last year, maybe one or two more using lights for night time cycling but that's about it

Exactly the same here. Have yet to see a traffic garda on my bike out of a car full stop since the fines came in. Have seen the odd cycling guard when walking about town. I'll probably see one tomorrow now!

tomasrojo

kazamo wrote: »

Has there been much evidence of the FPN's being enforced ?
Haven't seen any in my area and behaviour is much the same as last year, maybe one or two more using lights for night time cycling but that's about it

I think there's been an increase in helmet-wearing and hiviz-wearing at rush hour.

Not that that's a requirement, but since the RSA and Gardaí decided that their budget for awareness of the new regime was best used in hoodwinking people, it was an intended outcome.

tomasrojo

roverrules wrote: »

Forfeiture of the cycle would seem to be the answer, I assume they sieze the vehicle in France if you can't/won't pay.

This is what I understand they do in the UK when cyclists won't produce satisfactory evidence of identity. So no need to extend the method to cash shakedowns.

eeeee

kazamo wrote: »

Not quite the same comparing a cyclist and a motorist.
All motor vehicles have a licence plate and the owner can be traced.
No requirement for a cyclist to carry ID either.

They can take your bike if they don't believe you're giving your real details to them.

Marching someone off to an ATM would require new legislation and would unfairly penalize broke people with nothing in their accounts.

I still completely fail to see why cyclists should have to pay FPN's differently than motorists. It's the same legislation.

kazamo

gadetra wrote: »

They can take your bike if they don't believe you're giving your real details to them.

Marching someone off to an ATM would require new legislation and would unfairly penalize broke people with nothing in their accounts.

I still completely fail to see why cyclists should have to pay FPN's differently than motorists. It's the same legislation.

I believe the idea of marching anyone to an atm to pay a fine is a complete red herring and a publicity stunt by a politican.

However as bikes don't require licence plates a simple change requiring cyclists to carry ID would alleviate the bike confiscations which I think is also a long shot.

Macy0161

Again, is there evidence of false details being given?

Given false details is a much more significant offence than any cycling offence.

I dont see how this is a greater issue now than it was before fpn's. There's actually less incentive to give false details on a fpn than under the old regime of a summons, day in court, potentially larger fine, possible legal fees etc..

eeeee

kazamo wrote: »

I believe the idea of marching anyone to an atm to pay a fine is a complete red herring and a publicity stunt by a politican.

However as bikes don't require licence plates a simple change requiring cyclists to carry ID would alleviate the bike confiscations which I think is also a long shot.

Agreed. It will, as long as people in government have the trace of some semblance of a memory of common sense/brain, remain a publicity stunt.

Oh gawd ID and licensing :rolleyes: I would be vehemently opposed to carrying ID at the instruction of the state in any shape or form. I don't mind the personal decision to carry it, but I am completely against compulsory ID carrying. License plates will not work for bikes. They won't fit on mine for a start. They're not the most aero of things either :pac:

The legislation as it stands in this regard is tried and tested on other vehicles, the only problem I see for it in regards to cycling is enforcement (the lack there of). As mentioned above, it's a bigger problem to give false details than the right ones.

HivemindXX

Lumen wrote: »

Changing people's opinions is difficult and inefficient and will only be attempted if the canvassee is deemed to be on the cusp of committing. As soon as opposition is sniffed the conversation is over.

The point of giving your opinion to canvassers is the thin chance that you might change the politicians ideas, or at least what he puts out in public.

"Sorry, I read your guys windmill tilting about pursuing cyclists for non-offences to the full extent of the law (which means he plans to do nothing right?) and I have to say it made me think he is either a drooling cretin or he's a cynical prick who thinks there is votes in pandering to drooling cretins. Let him know he's getting a blank box from me, maybe next time I'll vote for him if he manages not to make a public gob****e of himself in the run up."

If enough people did that it might change the rhetoric, if nothing else.

roverrules

gadetra wrote: »

Oh gawd ID and licensing :rolleyes: I would be vehemently opposed to carrying ID at the instruction of the state in any shape or form. I don't mind the personal decision to carry it, but I am completely against compulsory ID carrying.

As I said there is a significant portion of people who are against carrying ID ( for whatever reason ). I don't see the problem with if you can't prove your ID or residential status, then pay there and then or lose the bike, car or whatever, I personally, wouldn't trust the word of anyone as to who they said they were or their address without corroborating evidence.

I always carry my credit cards, even when cycling, you never know when you might need to flash the credit card to buy something, and a credit card in my name is usually enough to verify my ID.