Journalism and cycling

Duckjob

Somewhat cycling related as it impacts on road safety in general

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/newsireland/new-government-plan-could-allow-exemptions-for-convicted-drink-drivers-while-banned/ar-BBUjQfk?ocid=spartandhp


As I've said on this or another thread - here in Ireland we simply don't do consequences, and nowhere do we do them less than when it comes to getting into a car and doing whatever the hell you want.

Did you ever read something and get that feeling where you wonder if it is you or the rest of the world going insane ?

I think road safety would be much better served by directing people banned from driving to getting on a bicycle so they can experience that feeling of vunerability on the road. Too many people feeling too safe and smug in their 5 star safety rated cars.

Weepsie

Proposed by the Vintner's Federation of Ireland who of course have no skin in this game. They should have been suitably laughed out of the room.

magicbastarder

i wholeheartedly endorse this idea. as long as said drivers can never exceed 40km/h on any road in any circumstances.
they'd be hated more by the motoring community for that than they would be for the original crime.

If this was to be introduced would an insurance company want to know you, or give you a reasonable quote???

Loved this part:

"Since the introduction of the (changes) last October along with the surge in garda checkpoints, people in rural Ireland feel under seige, to the extent they are scared to frequent pubs or drive the morning after a night out.

De Bhál

This was my favourite line

"The potential moves come as there is a slash back against draconian road traffic laws targeting drunk drivers"



I had to make sure it wasn't April 1st while reading the whole article. The fact the minister is from County Kerry is no surprise.

rubadub

Deleted User wrote: »

Loved this part:

Many people go on about morning driving as though it is some freak inclusion in the law, which was really not intended, like its some technicality which should be written out of law.

I would much rather come across somebody fresh out of the pub who is 3 times over the limit after 3 pints, than somebody in the morning who drank so much that they are just barely over the limit. There are more and more warnings these days against sleeping while drowsy.

These "just over the limit morning people" have likely got feck all sleep, and the sleep they did get would not be nearly as beneficial since sleeping while drunk is known to disrupt sleep. They are more than likely hungover to bits, and in the morning time there are far more likely to be kids crossing roads or on bikes etc.

If anything the limit in the morning should be even stricter on the presumption they are also drowsy and have a splitting headache.

Fian

Duffryman wrote: »

That's
This means that to allow those cases into the District Court, the law would have to be changed so that the maximum sentence for the offence would be just one year.

No, it means that you would have to have different sentence ranges depending on whether it was dealt with summarily (in the district court) or on indictment (before a jury in the circuit court.) which is absolutely common across the whole criminal code. More serious/eggregious examples of the offence can be dealt with before a jury, simpler ones before a judge in the district court.

Death by dangerous driving is somewhat unusual in that the offence can only be dealt with on indictment where death or serious bodily harm occurs.

Section 53 of the RTA.

1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place in a manner (including speed) which having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the condition of the vehicle, the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be in it) is or is likely to be dangerous to the public.

2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and —

( a ) in case the contravention causes death or serious bodily harm to another person, he or she is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine not exceeding € 20,000 or to both, and

( b ) in any other case, he or she is liable on summary conviction to a class A fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

Lumen

rubadub wrote: »

I would much rather come across somebody fresh out of the pub who is 3 times over the limit after 3 pints, than somebody in the morning who drank so much that they are just barely over the limit....If anything the limit in the morning should be even stricter on the presumption they are also drowsy and have a splitting headache.

I think I read somewhere years ago that falling alcohol levels are less dangerous than rising ones, because the brain has not had a chance to compensate.

My own experience is somewhat contradictory though. I rolled a car into a field at 130kph a couple of decades ago after falling asleep at the wheel at around 3am, having had two drinks early in the evening and then waited until after midnight when I considered that I was OK to drive. I was OK, from a strictly legal BAC perspective.

Moral of the story: no booty call is worth a brain haemorrhage, permanent scarring and a year of physical therapy.

magicbastarder

there was a piece on this on drivetime and i hooted at the talk of 'palpable fear' of being caught.

Duffryman

Fian wrote: »

No, it means that you would have to have different sentence ranges depending on whether it was dealt with summarily (in the district court) or on indictment (before a jury in the circuit court.) which is absolutely common across the whole criminal code. More serious/eggregious examples of the offence can be dealt with before a jury, simpler ones before a judge in the district court.

Death by dangerous driving is somewhat unusual in that the offence can only be dealt with on indictment where death or serious bodily harm occurs.

Section 53 of the RTA.

1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place in a manner (including speed) which having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the condition of the vehicle, the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be in it) is or is likely to be dangerous to the public.

2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and —

( a ) in case the contravention causes death or serious bodily harm to another person, he or she is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine not exceeding € 20,000 or to both, and

( b ) in any other case, he or she is liable on summary conviction to a class A fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

Sorry if it wasn't obvious that I was talking specifically about cases of dangerous driving causing death. And I don't think that examples of this offence could be split into 'more serious/egregious' ones for the Circuit Court, and 'simpler ones' for the District Court. A charge of causing death is obviously serious in all circumstances.



Either way, as you point out yourself with 53.2.a of the RTA, cases of dangerous driving causing death have to be dealt with by indictment. Surely this means that even if there was an appetite to bring some such cases to the District Court instead, the law would have to be changed to allow it?


Still the case too that the maximum jail term the District Court can hand down for any one offence is just one year, so this too would have to change to avoid the situation I outlined above.

Large bottle small glass

https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/paul-kimmage-remembers-his-brother-dear-raphael-there-is-no-one-in-this-world-that-i-admire-as-much-as-you-37872152.html

magicbastarder

i didn't see it, but apparently there was a bit of a howler in 'now you see me' earlier:

https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1102661463716646917

Corca Baiscinn

magicbastarder wrote: »

i didn't see it, but apparently there was a bit of a howler in 'now you see me' earlier:

https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1102661463716646917

Was it Michael Gove who said a propos of Brexit that GB had had had enough of experts? Following on an RSA "Expert" blooper in each of the 3 episodes beginning to think the "Cycling Community":rolleyes: would tend to agree!

RunRoryRun

magicbastarder wrote: »

i didn't see it, but apparently there was a bit of a howler in 'now you see me' earlier:

https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1102661463716646917

I watched it - absolutely awful!!

tomasrojo

RSA seem to have read some bits in the statute book about "mechanically propelled cycles" and erroenously thought that meant bicycles.

magicbastarder

the twitter thread is fantastic, whoever is running the RSA twitter feed tonight has been getting the law wrong and quoting motorbike legislation at cyclists.

ED E

Stop digging RSA, stop digging...

work

I have watched the RTE series and it is depressingly amateur BUT at least gets people talking about cycling. Where are these speed limits on bikes published? Jesus if I was asking the questions I'd make sure I had the right answers.
Had to laugh at the comparison of the presenter getting a pat on the back for wearing a helmet and hi vis jacket.....It must mean if a car hits you they did something wrong otherwise it's your fault! Compared to the Netherlands.....not a helmet or Hi Vis in sight! Wonder what the difference is??

Fighting Tao

Trebling and quadrupling down now. It’s embarr for a body in their position. They should know the legislation inside out.

plodder

RunRoryRun wrote: »

I watched it - absolutely awful!!

I heard the question about speed limits and the kids said speed limits don't apply to bikes, and the parents said they did. But, he said the parents were right. Doesn't say much for the quality of the production.

Eamonnator

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/paul-kimmage-remembers-his-brother-dear-raphael-there-is-no-one-in-this-world-that-i-admire-as-much-as-you-37872152.html

I cried at the end.

Duckjob

De Bhál wrote: »

This was my favourite line

"The potential moves come as there is a slash back against draconian road traffic laws targeting drunk drivers"



I had to make sure it wasn't April 1st while reading the whole article. The fact the minister is from County Kerry is no surprise.

Yeah I love that writing style of masquerading as an impartial news report but including weasel words like "draconian road traffic laws" designed to subconsiously make you nod your head and agree with the POV being pushed. It's real DailyFail stuff.

cdaly_

Fian wrote: »

No, it means that you would have to have different sentence ranges depending on whether it was dealt with summarily (in the district court) or on indictment (before a jury in the circuit court.) which is absolutely common across the whole criminal code. More serious/eggregious examples of the offence can be dealt with before a jury, simpler ones before a judge in the district court.

Death by dangerous driving is somewhat unusual in that the offence can only be dealt with on indictment where death or serious bodily harm occurs.

Because of the likelihood of a jury being compromised, a serious driving charge could be heard by three judges as per the terrorist/serious crime method. That avoids a full re-write of the criminal code.

Duffryman

cdaly_ wrote: »

Because of the likelihood of a jury being compromised, a serious driving charge could be heard by three judges as per the terrorist/serious crime method. That avoids a full re-write of the criminal code.

Put motoring offences into the Special Criminal Court? That would certainly be a new and novel approach....

mr spuckler

Eamonnator wrote: »

I cried at the end.

that hit me tbh, a really beautifully written piece.

cdaly_

Duffryman wrote: »

Put motoring offences into the Special Criminal Court? That would certainly be a new and novel approach....

Sure why not. You cannot get justice for somebody killed by a driver at present...

magicbastarder

the RSA have published a clarification on the NYSM 'quiz':

https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/1102993012001591303

Seth Brundle

So followjng advice from the public, the "experts" have rectified two of their three stupid and confusing mistakes in the first programme in memory that focused on vulnerable road users.
No hint of an apology for the poor defensive reaction to the corrections last night.

tomasrojo

"We would like to clarify that bicycles are not motorbikes. We apologise for any confusion caused. Mostly to ourselves."

magicbastarder

given that they seem to have managed to insert their logo into the first line of the apology, i suspect it was hastily thrown together.