Journalism and cycling

RobbieMD

cdaly_ wrote: »

Cameras already on board, just a data stream problem.
BusConnects...
See my first point + your taxes.
Who knows.
Some clever method I don't doubt, just like they do with privately operated speed camera vans.
Just like with privately operated speed camera vans.

Running it is way more than just the cost of the cameras, there are serious issues to deal with regarding compliance with data protection laws. And I would have serious doubts about the quality of the cameras on the buses. Fine inside, but how about the quality on a dark rainy night? Good quality ANPR cameras are quite expensive.

Th GoSafe operators are required to give evidence if one of their prosecutions, in the name of AGS, is contested. Who would give evidence in the case of the bus camera?

Again the data storage is a big issue. I know most buses are already equipped with CCTV however, I imagine there would be issues around data storage for use in prosecutions by AGS. Who would be responsible for the issuing of the FCPNs?

Possibly stupid question but what are BusConnects?

I'm not against ththe idea of using technology to assist in offence detection, however if it's a criminal prosecution, the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, just slapping a camera on a bus and posting tickets out sounds fine but in reality wouldn't get past the first fought case in court.

RobbieMD

magicbastarder wrote: »

is the data not already stored? it's mainly a jurisdictional issue i suspect.
if the traffic corps can act on footage sent in from joe soap in pursuing a complaint, how would scaling up such a system work?

The difference is that if it's necessary for a hearing in court, whatever member took your complaint would witness summons you to give evidence. This would cover the various elements in the definition for whatever offence is being prosecuted. So say for holding a mobile phone, the member would put you in the witness box, and then ask you where it happened. This is to cover the public place part of the offence. You would give evidence of the car registration etc. How you knew it was a phone, phone colour, what ear it was held up to, description of the driver etc. You would also give evidence about the CCTV. There is some specific questions about the downloading of the footage that is also asked, and you must retain the original recording. The member would also cover chain of evidence regarding the recording. Of course that only comes into play if the defendant pleads not guilty.

meeeeh

CramCycle wrote: »

I suppose the point is that our lanes are only rated to safely drive at 120kmph. There is a specific minimum width that a lane must be to accomodate the almost unnoticed drifting that increases with a vehicle, directly related to its speed. Parts of the M50 are not 100kmph for the fun of it, they are like that because it has been assessed that the lanes are not suitable for higher speed limits. We won't ever see those limits increase IMO, no matter how people feel about how safe it is.

Yeah but M50 is glorified bypass and most of it completely inappropriate for 120kph. I'm not sure why speed signs in Ireland are not adjusted to the road. For example it wouldn't be unusual to see a 90kph road that is signposted 60kph before the junction and once you pass the junction you know that road reverts back to 90kph (no sign, you have to rely on your knowledge of the rules). Autobahns you mentioned do exactly that. There is no speed limit except when it is signposted as whatever speed is deemed safe. Similarly if anyone drove in Italy there are plenty of parts which are signposted as lower than 130kph. In normal weather parts of Europe would assume that the signposted speed limit is the one you are supposed to adhere to. Someone doing 40 on 90 road would be considered danger on the road and could be stopped for traffic infringement. You will be also fined if you are caught doing 130 on a road that has temporarily speed limit of
80 because of weather. Anyway it's a myth that there is no speed limit on autobahns, there are plenty.

magicbastarder

meeeeh wrote: »

Yeah but M50 is glorified bypass and most of it completely inappropriate for 120kph.

i think the m50 is only 120 south of leopardstown?

Hurrache

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think the m50 is only 120 south of leopardstown?

Yeah, then ends again before Bray.

Hurrache

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think the m50 is only 120 south of leopardstown?

Yeah, just after the Sandyford exit southbound then ends again before Bray.

meeeeh

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think the m50 is only 120 south of leopardstown?

That's my point and it shouldn't be 120 kph.

Hurrache

meeeeh wrote: »

That's my point and it shouldn't be 120 kph.

That section is perfectly fine for such a limit.

meeeeh

Hurrache wrote: »

That section is perfectly fine for such a limit.

I meant it shouldn't be 120 all the way. M50 is actually an example where speed limits are set with a bit of sense not just sticking 80 kph on a road without actually making sure it's appropriate for 80 kph.

cdaly_

RobbieMD wrote: »

Possibly stupid question but what are BusConnects?

BusConnects is the new traffic plan for Dublin which requires bus lanes to be kept clear for buses. Presumably this means Dublin Bus (and other operators) would be on board with the idea of carrying cameras...

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: As has been pointed out to me (and I am guilty of it too), this thread has gone way off topic, lets get it back on topic going forward.

mr spuckler

oh no.

College Green plans refused by An Bord Pleanála amid bus and traffic concerns
Pedestrian and cycle plaza would have ‘significantly negative impacts’

CramCycle

Jebus H Chrimbo,

The council’s plans clashed with the National Transport Authority’s BusConnects proposed redesign of Dublin Bus network. The redesign proposes two-way bus services on Parliament Street. However, under the plaza plans this was to remain a one-way street because of air pollution risks.

How do too essentially government bodies clash at this level, how was there no communication?!?

Seth Brundle

CramCycle wrote: »

How do too essentially government bodies clash at this level, how was there no communication?!?

"Old habits die hard"

mr spuckler

aaaaggggghhhh, just NO again.

“He told me he saw the cyclist ahead of him. He told me he saw the cyclist turn his head but the cyclist did not alter his position on the road,” Garda Vance said.

Ms Harrington, who was in the front seat, heard a bang and her husband realised the car had collided with the bicycle as they passed.

Mr Carney was not wearing a helmet or high visibility clothing, the court heard.

The jury of three women and three men returned a verdict of accidental death and made a recommendation that all cyclists wear helmets.

Forensic Collision Investigator Garda John Culleton said both the car and the bicycle were travelling in the same direction at a similar speed along Butterfield Park when the collision occurred.

“Both parties were travelling alongside and either could have encroached on the other. One moved towards the other and contact was made.

“I cannot say who made the contact between these vehicles. There was contact between both parties but I can’t say who made the manoeuvre that resulted in contact,” Garda Culleton said.

the whole report makes me really angry. he said he saw the cyclist ahead of him and yet the lack of hi-viz is referenced for some reason. he said the cyclist didn't move off his line and yet they can't say who collided with who. what does it take to create any accountability for killing cyclists?

Hurrache

Read that today, you'd have to wonder how much more highvis could help at 8am at the end of June.

On a lighter note, this is genius.

https://twitter.com/lennartnout/status/1052537577855700997

Felexicon

Why did I look in the comments section on The Journal.

I must secretly hate myself.

randomname2005

Hurrache wrote: »

Read that today, you'd have to wonder how much more highvis could help at 8am at the end of June.

On a lighter note, this is genius.

https://twitter.com/lennartnout/status/1052537577855700997

Great idea, but could you imagine the uproar in this country if they did that.

buffalo

mr spuckler wrote: »

the whole report makes me really angry. he said he saw the cyclist ahead of him and yet the lack of hi-viz is referenced for some reason. he said the cyclist didn't move off his line and yet they can't say who collided with who. what does it take to create any accountability for killing cyclists?

They are some bizarre statements. "He told me he saw the cyclist ahead of him. He told me he saw the cyclist turn his head but the cyclist did not alter his position on the road"... surely that can only be interpreted as, "he knew I was coming, but didn't get out of my way" ?

I'd like to see a full transcript of the inquest, they seem to be complete jokes sometimes.

CramCycle

That poor guy, the driver admits the bloody crime, how in hell's name does this not result in a conviction, loss of license and car seizure. It is disgusting.

Fian

This makes my blood boil. If I see a car ahead of me, rear end it or go to overtake it and collide with it nobody would be in any doubt as to who was at fault. Much less if i explicitly stated that the car in front didn't alter its position on the road.

magicbastarder

CramCycle wrote: »

That poor guy, the driver admits the bloody crime, how in hell's name does this not result in a conviction, loss of license and car seizure. It is disgusting.

i am guessing that it boils down to an inability to prove whether the cyclist swerved into the car, or the car swerved into the cyclist (according to the gardai).
even though, as pointed out, the driver statement was that the cyclist did not alter his position.

and a certain amount of 'poor man, hasn't he suffered enough' for the driver.

can an inquest recommend a prosecution? or is that purely a matter for the DPP; and if so, can the DPP proceed even if the inquest rules accidental death?

Seth Brundle

buffalo wrote: »

They are some bizarre statements. "He told me he saw the cyclist ahead of him. He told me he saw the cyclist turn his head but the cyclist did not alter his position on the road"... surely that can only be interpreted as, "he knew I was coming, but didn't get out of my way" ?

I'd like to see a full transcript of the inquest, they seem to be complete jokes sometimes.

I was wondering that too.
The cyclist didn't move position on the road (so travelling in a straight line)
The driver saw the cyclist.
The car overtook the cyclist.
The car and cyclist somehow met.
Given the above facts, there is no doubt that the driver is completely at fault and the coroner's court failed to assign blame for whatever reason.
If the car went to overtake and the cyclist didn't move line, then the car was too close, despite seeing the cyclist. It was a dangerous overtaking manouvre: full stop.
Then the court proceeds to pont towards the cyclists clothing despite the driver confirming that they saw the cyclist.
It may be possible that the cyclist would be alive had he been wearing a helmet but this doesn't remove the blame (IMO) from the driver - the driver should not have attempted the overtaking manouvre given the facts and outcome.

Muahahaha

Supreme Court Judge Peter Charlston (in his Tribunal report) took at broadside at the lack of Garda visibility on the streets and included cycle lanes as part of it

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/judge-criticises-extraordinarily-rare-presence-of-gardaí-on-the-streets-1.3660270

The failure of gardaí to police cycle lanes is indicative of their lack of visibility on the streets, Disclosures tribunal chair Mr Justice Peter Charleton has said.

The judge concluded that Ireland has a “real problem due to the invisibility of our police force”.

In a personal aside in the tribunal report, Mr Justice Charleton said he had only seen a garda once in the hundreds of journeys he had made between the Four Courts and Dublin Castle during the course of his investigations into a smear campaign against Sergeant Maurice McCabe.

He said it was “extraordinary” how much time gardaí spend isolated in Garda stations and in patrol cars.

“It is extraordinarily rare that gardaí are seen in uniform on the streets,” the judge observed in his tribunal report, “in contrast to other major cities, such as Rome and London and Athens, where police are visible at intersections, at junctions and in public plazas.”

The judge also observed that gardaí routinely fail to keep cycle lanes free for vulnerable road users even if the transgressions occur near Garda stations.

“Cars block cycle lanes, intrude on them and endanger cyclists. That happens repeatedly within a minute’s walk of Garda stations. So, where are the gardaí?”

Mr Justice Charleton said some people may see the failure of gardaí to police cycle lanes as a “small example” but “the consequences of serious injury, for even one person, is a tragedy”.

He concluded: “If it is said that the gardaí are too busy to be out on foot or on bicycles, the tribunal begs to doubt that. Everyone serving in the police should give a portion of the day to foot and bicycle patrols.”

Being visible was one of seven obligations that gardaí should have, he suggested. He recommended that gardaí shouldn’t moan, but a garda should “ask himself or herself what he or she has done on any particular day for the taxpayer”.

He is not wrong.

Fian

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I was wondering that too.
The cyclist didn't move position on the road (so travelling in a straight line)
The driver saw the cyclist.
The car overtook the cyclist.
The car and cyclist somehow met.
Given the above facts, there is no doubt that the driver is completely at fault and the coroner's court failed to assign blame for whatever reason.
If the car went to overtake and the cyclist didn't move line, then the car was too close, despite seeing the cyclist. It was a dangerous overtaking manouvre: full stop.
Then the court proceeds to pont towards the cyclists clothing despite the driver confirming that they saw the cyclist.
It may be possible that the cyclist would be alive had he been wearing a helmet but this doesn't remove the blame (IMO) from the driver - the driver should not have attempted the overtaking manouvre given the facts and outcome.

Well the verdict is correct. It was an accident, I don't for an instant imagine it was a deliberate act. Regardless of where fault lay.

Seth Brundle

Fian wrote: »

Well the verdict is correct. It was an accident, I don't for an instant imagine it was a deliberate act. Regardless of where fault lay.

No that's not good enough.
From the article we don't see that the driver has been banned so what punishment, if any, has there been for a dangerous manouvre that resulted in a death?
The driver came up behind the cyclist. He may not have intended to hit him; but he did hit him, causing death. The driver did not overtake safely.
If it was a child on their bike, would the man have given more space and if not why not?
It wasn't an accident. It was a completely avoidable incident.

ED E

Seth Brundle wrote: »

No that's not good enough.
From the article we don't see that the driver has been banned so what punishment, if any, has there been for a dangerous manouvre that resulted in a death?
The driver came up behind the cyclist. He may not have intended to hit him; but he did hit him, causing death. The driver did not overtake safely.
If it was a child on their bike, would the man have given more space and if not why not?
It wasn't an accident. It was a completely avoidable incident.

No punishment, wasn't prosecuted.


Again I find the need to trot this out:

magicbastarder

Fian wrote: »

Well the verdict is correct. It was an accident, I don't for an instant imagine it was a deliberate act. Regardless of where fault lay.

well, if by 'accident', you mean 'not wilfully intentional', you are correct.

however, there are many offences which don't need wilful intent to prosecute.

rubadub

The jury of three women and three men returned a verdict of accidental death and made a recommendation that all cyclists wear helmets.

no recommendations for motorists so?

Any other recommendations? chastity belts?

Well reading that sure ruined my day. Never ceases to amaze me some of the bolloxology seen in our courts.