Journalism and cycling

endagibson

magicbastarder wrote: »

i read recently that the garda traffic corps is operating at just over half the headcount they had at the peak. couple this this a lack of any decent technology (whose fault that is is left for another debate) and it's not surprising that people flout the law.

sure they don't even use technology like registered post to send out speeding fines summonses.

If we know who they are and where they live, could regular Gardai not call out to their houses and drive their car to the nearest scrapyard?

Job done, no?

magicbastarder

actually, i think it was that the failure to pay fine notification was not sent out by registered post, rather than the summons.

in longford recently, something like 15 of 17 people showed up in court and swore blind they did not receive the letter and the judge had no option to take their word for it, while muttering about a stink of perjury in the courtroom.

Chuchote

They wouldn't have to confiscate the car permanently, just to impound it until the end of the ban. In fact, it would cut to the chase (as it were, umm) if any ban resulted in the car in question being impounded.

tomasrojo

I imagine impounding hundreds or thousands of cars for months or even years is pretty pricey. Not that it shouldn't be done; I'm just not sure the authorities are prepared to pay for it.

magicbastarder

i've been saying for years that earning three penalty points should result in the car being impounded for three days, and the fine dropped. much more effective and equal than the current solution.

one objection i have heard to this is 'what if the person driving the car wasn't the owner?' - well, tough, don't lend your car to someone you can't trust.

Weepsie

magicbastarder wrote: »

actually, i think it was that the failure to pay fine notification was not sent out by registered post, rather than the summons.

in longford recently, something like 15 of 17 people showed up in court and swore blind they did not receive the letter and the judge had no option to take their word for it, while muttering about a stink of perjury in the courtroom.

That doesn't wash with utilities companies so it shouldn't in a court. If they claim it, the judge should then be allowed to say you are now being informed of your offence, fine and penalty points and they should have 1 month to pay the original + an extra fee.

magicbastarder

i got it wrong; it wasn't longford:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/judge-says-courtroom-stinking-of-perjury-after-drivers-walk-away-1.2909249

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

i got it wrong; it wasn't longford:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/judge-says-courtroom-stinking-of-perjury-after-drivers-walk-away-1.2909249

Bad judges are not just from Longford, but you are right. He could easily have just got them all to raise their hands asking is that what happened to you. They all say yes and he just says, here is a months notice now. Job done.

magicbastarder

that's only if the law allows that. IANAL, etc. etc.

endagibson

It's not just the law I expect, but the payment method. The original fine mechanism won't work once the 40 days or whatever initially allowed has passed. There would need to be a way for the court to reactivate it.

CramCycle

endagibson wrote: »

It's not just the law I expect, but the payment method. The original fine mechanism won't work once the 40 days or whatever initially allowed has passed. There would need to be a way for the court to reactivate it.

Throw the original fine out, ask them to plead on the offence, and then fine them in court?

Weepsie

magicbastarder wrote: »

that's only if the law allows that. IANAL, etc. etc.

It mustnt allow it, otherwise I imagine it's what would happen and judges don't like their time being wasted.

If only there where people who could change the law.

magicbastarder

the stupid thing is that this doesn't even need a change in the law. all it needs is the notice to be sent out in registered post.

buffalo

magicbastarder wrote: »

i got it wrong; it wasn't longford:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/judge-says-courtroom-stinking-of-perjury-after-drivers-walk-away-1.2909249

And it's not a problem that's going away:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/judge-reluctantly-dismisses-majority-of-42-speeding-cases-1.2927721

Some 42 prosecutions before Killarney District Court for speeding offences detected by speed camera vans resulted in just eight convictions. ...others were dismissed because the drivers swore they never got the notices - which are sent by ordinary post - and only discovered they had been detected for speeding when the summonses arrived by registered post.

average_runner

Gardai chasing these things up is a waste of resources. There is bigger issues that the gardai need to focus on at the moment.

Maybe allow a third party do it.

magicbastarder

why would that be cheaper?
surely the third party would run into the same issues if they didn't use registered post too?

endagibson

magicbastarder wrote: »

why would that be cheaper?
surely the third party would run into the same issues if they didn't use registered post too?

Are these notices not already being sent by a third party? In which case, they just need to start using registered post.

Chuchote

Wouldn't the simplest thing be to have a card licence that had to be displayed in the front windscreen, and when this was scanned by any toll camera, banned drivers would be flagged up automatically?

magicbastarder

one problem would be making them visible from a camera that operates at a toll, as these can deal with car reg plates travelling at speed, but driving licences would be too small to read.
plus, it's probably questionable co-opting non-police resources like that, let alone what to do with the info.

ThisRegard

Chuchote wrote: »

Wouldn't the simplest thing be to have a card licence that had to be displayed in the front windscreen, and when this was scanned by any toll camera, banned drivers would be flagged up automatically?

I think you're too trusting of such people to believe that they'll leave their own licence up if they were to drive under such a scheme.

Chuchote

ThisRegard wrote: »

I think you're too trusting of such people to believe that they'll leave their own licence up if they were to drive under such a scheme.

Crooks gotta crook, but surely a stonking penalty for driving with a false licence, or allowing your licence to be so used…

magicbastarder

CramCycle wrote: »

Bad judges are not just from Longford, but you are right. He could easily have just got them all to raise their hands asking is that what happened to you. They all say yes and he just says, here is a months notice now. Job done.

well, the same judge seems to have had enough:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/nothing-as-appalling-as-a-liar-driver-committed-perjury-judge-1.2928295

tomasrojo

Trump makes it look easy, but brazen lying is quite a skill (or a gift of temperament), and Mr. Sutton hasn't acquired it yet.

Mr Sutton said he did not receive a notice for tax either.

Judge Durcan intervened to remind him he was under oath, and that not telling the truth would be committing perjury. He said: “Do you want to reconsider the replies you have already given.”

Mr Sutton said: “I was mistaken about the tax. I remember paying the tax.”

Chuchote

Broadsheet.ie (dunno if that counts as 'journalism') on the council meeting discussing how cyclists are outnumbering drivers on Ellis Quay:

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2017/01/11/cyclists-outnumber-motorists-1269-to-1131/#comments

Cllr Christy Burke (independent) said the overall plan was a “great proposal”, but only after he outlined how he is opposed to many practical elements of the plan. He said he was against the removal of car parking spaces along the quays, and he was against both the reallocation a traffic lane and removal of trees at Bachelors Walk.

(snip)

Cllr Burke also asked how many car parking spaces would be lost and how would the council be “compensating the motorists” and the “city’s coffers”.

While lightly banging his hand off the table, Cllr Burke said: “A lot of money is going into cycle routes… but cyclists must learn to obey and respect the rules of the road… they must wear their high-vis, they must have front and rear lights…” and stop at red lights.

Hilaire!

buffalo

Chuchote wrote: »

Broadsheet.ie (dunno if that counts as 'journalism') on the council meeting discussing how cyclists are outnumbering drivers on Ellis Quay:

Hilaire!

You can go straight to the source: http://irishcycle.com/2017/01/11/cars-off-quays-proposal-for-liffey-cycle-route-not-arrived-at-lightly/

magicbastarder

christy burke is a stone cold madman.

Rokta

What is the fetish with High Viz clothing in this country?

The are useless and will never be as good as a decent set of lights. Every night I see cyclists with no lights but wearing this useless neon jackets/vests? I used to own one of this jackets myself and even in bright day light random white vans, buses and cars tried to kill me at least once a week in a roundabout.

endagibson

Rokta wrote: »

What is the fetish with High Viz clothing in this country?

It's the defacto uniform for going outside in Ireland these days. No matter the age, location or activity.

ThisRegard

In fairness they have their use, they're just not the invincibility cloak that repels cars that some believe.

Chuchote

I'm expecting the national flag to be changed for fluorescent green, reflective white and fluorescent orange any day now.