Journalism and cycling

Internet Friend

Budget related: Funding (unspecified figure) is being allocated to planning and completing greenways, nothing more really said about it but we'll find out more at some stage.

Felexicon

Internet Friend wrote: »

Budget related: Funding (unspecified figure) is being allocated to planning and completing greenways, nothing more really said about it but we'll find out more at some stage.

€10m for Greenways I thought.

Internet Friend

Felexicon wrote: »

€10m for Greenways I thought.

Ah, must have missed that.

Macy0161

Snickers Man wrote:

What IS "the whole point of them"? To catch a few people and fine them or to improve general road user behaviour and thereby improve safety?

I think the point is, if they were more of them, more randomly placed, there'd be more overall compliance. Rather than the compliance being just in the short runs that people know they are frequently. Even the whole restriction of private cameras to black spots is a sop to the social acceptance of speeding.

RobbieMD

Rechuchote wrote: »

Not the same.

a) Automated cameras would be a lot cheaper, and would catch a lot more people and therefore cut the speeding rates far more because the word would spread.
b) Before looking for more gardaí we'd need a change in garda culture.
c) The gardaí that we actually need are to investigate things like people creeping around farmyards with lurchers and then creeping off with expensive farm machinery.
d) (not in answer to MB's post) It's not on the M50 that we need automated speed cameras - at least the first to be installed - so much as on urban and suburban junctions.
e) We badly need traffic policing - illegal parking, mobile phone use in cars, speeding to be separated from Garda work and done by a new and separate group who can issue tickets, like the old meter maids; we also need to automate a lot of it - for instance having front and back cameras on buses to automatically issue fines to people illegally driving in bus lanes.
f) We need a cultural change so that all of the above is seen as safety, and as important for individuals and society, rather than a shocking and mean interference in the rights of private citizens to post a funny picture on Instagram while swerving back and forth through traffic and red lights at speed.

How would the bus camera differentiate between someone blatantly being in the bus lane, and someone entering the lane to turn left at a junction? Or would someone have to review 1000s hrs of bus footage to issue whatever the fine is... Seems mad to me.

randomname2005

Snickers Man wrote: »

No but they're not synonymous or symbiotic either and the latter is more important.

If I may presume that the benefits of the symbiotic relationship would be the reduction in the number of fines and points on one side and the increase in driving standards on the other, then it won't happen because there will always be people who value five minutes of their time over the safety of others.

cdaly_

RobbieMD wrote: »

How would the bus camera differentiate between someone blatantly being in the bus lane, and someone entering the lane to turn left at a junction? Or would someone have to review 1000s hrs of bus footage to issue whatever the fine is... Seems mad to me.

Presumably if they're within the dashed line area at the junction they're ok, otherwise they get points and fine. It wouldn't be hard to either have dashed line recognition or gps-based location recognition.

CramCycle

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm not in favour of no speed limit on motorways and a lot of German motorways have it anyway but I don't think higher 130 kph speed limit would be an issue. But can I ask how do autobahns operate? I drove there before and haven't noticed any major difference.

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.

magicbastarder wrote: »

autobahns are not necessarily safer.
i know a comparison is probably a little foolish, but they carry 30% of traffic in germany and account for 11% of fatalities.
in the UK, they carry 20% of traffic but account for 6% of fatalities.

plus, not all autobahns are limit-free.

They are not, which alot of people don't realise, the speed limit often changes on them depending on other things going on.

cdaly_ wrote: »

Presumably if they're within the dashed line area at the junction they're ok, otherwise they get points and fine. It wouldn't be hard to either have dashed line recognition or gps-based location recognition.

Put a decent margin of error in there and your sorted

Lumen

magicbastarder wrote: »

autobahns are not necessarily safer.
i know a comparison is probably a little foolish, but they carry 30% of traffic in germany and account for 11% of fatalities.
in the UK, they carry 20% of traffic but account for 6% of fatalities.

plus, not all autobahns are limit-free.

From what I read, almost no autobahns are limit free. I think I've seen 4% quoted. And many of those are dual carriageways.

RobbieMD

cdaly_ wrote: »

Presumably if they're within the dashed line area at the junction they're ok, otherwise they get points and fine. It wouldn't be hard to either have dashed line recognition or gps-based location recognition.

And how much would these cameras cost? An absolute fortune. Cost prohibitive I'd say. Dublin bus and other bus services would have to be onboard with this. And then who pays to run it? How would the data be stored? If the prosecution is in the name of AGS, then how do they account for the custody of the evidence? Ie the hard drive or whatever. In theory it's a fine idea, but in practice, to prosecute it criminally would be a nightmare

cdaly_

RobbieMD wrote: »

And how much would these cameras cost? An absolute fortune. Cost prohibitive I'd say.

Cameras already on board, just a data stream problem.

Dublin bus and other bus services would have to be onboard with this.

BusConnects...

And then who pays to run it?

See my first point + your taxes.

How would the data be stored?

Who knows.

If the prosecution is in the name of AGS, then how do they account for the custody of the evidence?

Some clever method I don't doubt, just like they do with privately operated speed camera vans.

Ie the hard drive or whatever. In theory it's a fine idea, but in practice, to prosecute it criminally would be a nightmare

Just like with privately operated speed camera vans.

magicbastarder

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?

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.