Journalism and cycling

plodder

Seth Brundle wrote: »

.. from where, the man made his escape on the back of a waiting, electric bike.

The burnt out bike was a high spec BMC that was stolen to order from a shed in South Dublin two nights ago.

blackwhite

Lumen wrote: »

But even then, I reckon The Journal shows that it is possible to resist the mob. The quality of their journalism is about a million times better than the brain farts of the semi-literate mob that comment below the stories.

The Journal is one of the worst media outlets in the country. Anything that isn't a copy-and-paste job is either an opinion piece from a politician or lobby group, or else looks like it was thrown together by a transition year student.
There's 2/3 half-decent journos who contribute maybe once a day, but the rest of it is utter garbage.


*their sister outlet, the42.ie, is an example of what they should be aspiring to - the quality is worlds apart.

magicbastarder

to be fair, the journal do seem to be trying to get into investigative journalism. i'll hold judgement on them till we see how that pans out.

the only new news organisation i subscribe to is dublin inquirer, but that deals more with local issues (or local facets of national issues).

Fian

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/video/2019/may/09/do-cyclists-think-theyre-above-the-law-and-does-it-even-matter-video


Decent balanced journalism.

JMcL

magicbastarder wrote: »

also, we need to know how many cyclists it takes to pull an ATM out of a wall.

Well at 1hp corresponding to about 750 watts (source), and a JCB 3DX Ecoxcellence producing 76hp (source) 140 odd pros should do the job nicely.

So all this to say, be very suspicious of any proposed Grand Departs in the border counties!

meeeeh

magicbastarder wrote: »

also, we need to know how many cyclists it takes to pull an ATM out of a wall.

A very generous cyclist gifted us his or more likely someone else's bike after he stole our van. Not all crimes require a digger. It's a mode of transport not character assassination of all cyclists.

hesker

meeeeh wrote: »

A very generous cyclist gifted us his or more likely someone else's bike after he stole our van. Not all crimes require a digger. It's a mode of transport not character assassination of all cyclists.

It was intentionally headline grabbing playing on the usual cyclist bashing tendencies.

Would you expect to read “Motorist robs cash-in-transit van” if he was driving a car

Chips Lovell

hesker wrote: »

It was intentionally headline grabbing playing on the usual cyclist bashing tendencies.

Would you expect to read “Motorist robs cash-in-transit van” if he was driving a car

I don't think so. It's more the fact that it's an unusual choice of transport for robbing a cash-in-transit van, hence the reason it made it into the headline. If he were on rollerblades, it would be "Rollerblader robs cash-in-transit van".

Unless you think the media has rollerblading bashing tendencies as well....

hesker

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I don't think so. It's more the fact that it's an unusual choice of transport for robbing a cash-in-transit van, hence the reason it made it into the headline. If he were on rollerblades, it would be "Rollerblader robs cash-in-transit van".

Unless you think the media has rollerblading bashing tendencies as well....

Fair point.

Hurrache

The Time Ireland reporting this morning that some lad managed to get his e-scooter back when the gardai provided him documentation to go collect it from the pound without having to pay a fine. I presume any fines against him for insurance etc were also dropped.

Seems like the RSA, Gardai and Department of Transport in yet another conflict over road traffic laws, like the bike lanes all over again. You'd think the Gardai would be to clarify but instead they referred to paper to the RSA website. You'd think someone in the state, i.e. Shane Ross, would ask the attorney general for half an hour of his time to have a read over it and come to a conclusion.

... a 23-year-old IT worker, said his fee was waived after he presented gardaí with information from the Road Safety Authority. Mr Loftus’s e-scooter was confiscated in Dublin city but he argued that it was not a mechanically propelled vehicle (MPV).
....
....
According to information on the Road Safety Authority’s (RSA) website, the rule for determining whether an electric vehicle is an MPV depends on whether it “can go without you pedalling or scooting it”.

Mr Loftus said he took the RSA’s information leaflet together with the specifications for his M365 scooter to Pearse Street garda station. He said that after his explanation gardaí provided him with the paperwork to collect his scooter without paying a fine.
....
....
A garda spokesman referred The Times to the RSA website when asked about the legal status on e-scooters.

The Department of Transport contradicted the RSA’s advice yesterday. It said that it was “irrevelant” whether a vehicle required a push start and that e-scooters were considered MPVs according to Irish law. It said that as it was not possible to tax or insure e-scooters or electric skateboards “they are not considered suitable for use in a public place”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/e-scooter-owner-wins-fine-row-but-officials-insist-they-are-illegal-v0nbkb96f

amcalester

I'd have a bit of sympathy for the Gardaí here, it's not their job to interpret the law so if there's any ambiguity they have to give the benefit of the doubt.

Seth Brundle

In fairness, I'd take the word of the gardai over the RSA any time.
Stuff printed on the RSA website isn't necesasarily law but merely advice or an interpretation of it.

magicbastarder

yep, i suspect he bamboozled the garda who just decided 'i have better things to be doing than this'.

rubadub

Hurrache wrote: »

Seems like the RSA, Gardai and Department of Transport in yet another conflict over road traffic laws, like the bike lanes all over again.

I don't think they really are, nothing I read from any of those 3 made me think they were legal. All I see is chancers trying to twist their words, and some Gardai have fallen for it.

The scooter in question “can go without you pedalling or scooting it” and so is an MPV. This nonsense about needing a push start making it exempt makes no sense at all, the spoofers/chancers all hang on this word "alone". When questioned why do we not see motorbikes & cars modified to require a push start (and so make them exempt from all requirments and save a fortune) you never get a reply.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/VS_Information_Notes/Two_Three_Wheeled_Vehicles/FAQs%20on%20E%20Bikes%20and%20Pedelecs%20and%20battery%20Scooters.pdf

What is the law on e-bikes / pedelecs / battery powered scooters? Regardless of the type of bike, the rule is as follows: If it can be powered by mechanical or electrical power alone (i.e. it can go without you pedalling or scooting it) then it is considered to be a mechanically propelled vehicle (MPV). Under Road Traffic Law, if an MPV is used in a
public place it is subject to all of the regulatory controls that apply to other vehicles. Therefore, it must be roadworthy, registered, taxed and insured. The driver of the vehicle must hold the appropriate driving licence and is
obliged to wear a crash helmet.

There was a video of a guy who pulled out a form and did not have his scooter seized, he just sounded very confident and to the gardai it sounded like he had been stopped before and let go. Reminded me of that Derren Browne program where he would go into a bookies and manage to get them to pay out on a lost bet!

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

yep, i suspect he bamboozled the garda who just decided 'i have better things to be doing than this'.

In a nutshell, and the Garda was right.

Hurrache

rubadub wrote: »

I don't think they really are, nothing I read from any of those 3 made me think they were legal. All I see is chancers trying to twist their words, and some Gardai have fallen for it.

But the actions of the garda in the story would make you think they're legal.

This is the problem isn't it, obviously one garda went against the judgement of another after a semantical argument, was happy to provide documentation to say so, and the guy got his scooter back with the belief, rightly or wrongly, that he can continue on using it from now on. He'll probably carry the letter or whatever the garda provided to pull out of his pocket each time he's stopped, as well as sharing it around.

One garda in the story says they're legal, one says they're not, the Garda spokesman wouldn't give a definitive answer and referred the reporter to the web, and the RSA says no. And the RSA have shown to be less than concrete on any interpretations they make.

It's an almighty mess.

blackwhite

Hurrache wrote: »

One garda in the story says they're legal, one says they're not, the Garda spokesman wouldn't give a definitive answer and referred the reporter to the web, and the RSA says no.

Surely this is the root of the problem.

A Garda has no role in deciding what it legal or not, that is the job of the legislature and the judiciary. The role of the Gardaí is to enforce the laws as they are set down.
The RSA don't get to decide what's legal or otherwise either - they have to work based on what's defined in the legislation (albeit they have input into shaping the legislation).
At the moment, there's seemingly a lack of clarity in the legislation covering these, and so we have unqualified people trying to interpret what the actual situation is.
Minister Ross and his Dept need to act one way or another to provide clarity on the legality, or otherwise, of these modes of transport ASAP. There's no justification for leaving "grey areas" around what is, or is not, legal on the roads.

meeeeh

I don't think they will go away so Department of Transport should legislate asap. My guess is they are waiting for UK to decide what they want to do because if they copied German or some other legislation they'd have to translate it.

Seth Brundle

blackwhite wrote: »

The RSA don't get to decide what's legal or otherwise either - they have to work based on what's defined in the legislation (albeit they have input into shaping the legislation).

The RSA frequently get it wrong when it comes to cycling (and probably for other road users) so I'd have zero confidence that they would get it right on these yokes.

blackwhite wrote: »

At the moment, there's seemingly a lack of clarity in the legislation covering these, and so we have unqualified people trying to interpret what the actual situation is.

I don't think there is.
The 1961 Act states:

“mechanically propelled vehicle” means, subject to subsection (2) of this section, a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including—
(a) a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, whether or not the attachment is being used,
(b) a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical or partly electrical and partly mechanical,
but not including a tramcar or other vehicle running on permanent rails;

(2) Where a vehicle, which, apart from this subsection, would be a mechanically propelled vehicle, stands so substantially disabled (either through accident, breakdown or the removal of the engine or other such vital part) as to be no longer capable of being propelled mechanically, it shall be regarded for the purposes of this Act as not being a mechanically propelled vehicle.

blackwhite

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The RSA frequently get it wrong when it comes to cycling (and probably for other road users) so I'd have zero confidence that they would get it right on these yokes.


I don't think there is.
The 1961 Act states:

In practice, it's being treated as a grey area by the Gardaí, and the RSA are only further muddying the water.

DTTAS should be issuing guidance as to exactly what the legislation defines, and the practical implication of same.



BTW - does that definition not capture e-bikes as well then?

Seth Brundle

blackwhite wrote: »

BTW - does that definition not capture e-bikes as well then?

I think an ebike isn't propelled by mechanical power (the power assists rather than powers the vehicle)

blackwhite

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I think an ebike isn't propelled by mechanical power (the power assists rather than powers the vehicle)

It's hard to see in the legislation TBH - especially when the definition of a pedal bicycle includes the phrase "solely by the physical exertions":

“pedal bicycle” means a bicycle which is intended or adapted for propulsion solely by the physical exertions of a person or persons seated thereon;

rubadub

blackwhite wrote: »

BTW - does that definition not capture e-bikes as well then?

I believe the only road legal ebikes require continual pedalling (and speed and power limits). The lads with strapped on petrol tanks etc nearly all can go on their own. I saw a lad on a off the shelf "non converted" folding bike yesterday though who was going uphill without pedalling.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/e-scooter-business-says-sales-down-over-50-due-to-confusion-over-legality-1.3875124

E-scooter business says sales down ‘over 50%’ due to confusion over legality
Department of Transport says e-scooters not allowed on public roads, fines may be issued

...When asked about the legality of e-scooters that require a degree of physical propulsion before a motor can start, a spokesman for the Department of Transport compared e-scooters to a certain category of e-bicycles.

The spokesman said some e-bikes “require continuous effort on the part of the cyclist [and] are considered to be pedal cycles” because “the engine is not the means of propulsion, but an aid to the user”.

Other e-bicycles “that can be exclusively propelled by the motor are classified in EU law as low-performance mopeds” and are subject to Road Traffic legislation, with the user obliged to have tax, insurance and an appropriate driving licence where the vehicle is to be used in a public place.

He said e-scooters, similar to pedal-assisted cycles, “do not require continuous effort on the part of the user, and are therefore considered to be mechanically propelled vehicles”.

Some have pointed to this law below, to say these are the only legal pedelecs, this might be true, however the law is about the cycle to work scheme and saying what bikes are covered.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2008/act/25/section/7/enacted/en/html

‘ pedelec ’ means a bicycle or tricycle which is equipped with an auxiliary electric motor having a maximum continuous rated power of 0.25 kilowatts, of which output is progressively reduced and finally cut off as the vehicle reaches a speed of 25 kilometres per hour, or sooner if the cyclist stops pedalling;

magicbastarder

blackwhite wrote: »

It's hard to see in the legislation TBH - especially when the definition of a pedal bicycle includes the phrase "solely by the physical exertions":

i think the legislation allowing e-bikes post-dates and supersedes that legislation, but i'm not sure how that's applied.

general rule of thumb - if the vehicle can be propelled with the use of a throttle, it's an MPV. the faff around whether it needs a push start or not is a red herring.

blackwhite

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think the legislation allowing e-bikes post-dates and supersedes that legislation, but i'm not sure how that's applied.

general rule of thumb - if the vehicle can be propelled with the use of a throttle, it's an MPV. the faff around whether it needs a push start or not is a red herring.

IMO I'm in full agreement that the e-scooters currently fall under the classification of a mechanically-propelled vehicle.

Where I see there being a problem is that it's only in the past 3/4 months that attention has been focused on it, and it would appear that nobody in the DTTAS has issued any guidance to AGS on what are the relevant sections of legislation applicable.
Because of this, members of AGS (who aren't expected to be legal experts) aren't adequately informed to know that they're on solid ground to act

magicbastarder

blackwhite wrote: »

members of AGS (who aren't expected to be legal experts) aren't adequately informed to know that they're on solid ground to act

is it up to DTTAS to tell the gardai this? the gardai have their own legal division, so would any questions go to their own people or to the department (or to the department of justice too, perhaps?)

we've had issues before where DTTAS change their minds on what their own legislation means.

blackwhite

magicbastarder wrote: »

is it up to DTTAS to tell the gardai this? the gardai have their own legal division, so would any questions go to their own people or to the department (or to the department of justice too, perhaps?)

we've had issues before where DTTAS change their minds on what their own legislation means.

I'm not sure TBH - but the structure of our legal system is the the legislature legislates, including setting definitions, and the Gardaí enforce.

If there's a perceived lack of clarity, or understanding, of the legislation, then to my mind it should be for the legislature (or in this case DTTAS or else DOJ - as the administrative arms empowered by the legislature) to clarify the definitions.

DTTAS changing their mind is, unfortunately, their own prerogative - even when it makes things a pain in the hoop for the Gardaí and general public.

check_six

So what is the best solution for these electric scooter/skateboard thingys? There's no point banning them, so they better come up with some laws to cover them, and fast. I wonder what the regulations are like in other countries. I believe there are a lot of hire e-scooters in other European cities. It couldn't be too difficult to check what they are doing, could it? We surely wouldn't try to reinvent the wheel? Would we?

Could a speed and power limit cover the basic regulations requirements? Licensing and insurance seem a bit OTT for such lightweight bits of kit.

One thing that seems odd about the e-scooters is that even though I've seen ones with good front lights, I haven't noticed any decent rear lights on one, which seems like a strange design omission.

rubadub

check_six wrote: »

One thing that seems odd about the e-scooters is that even though I've seen ones with good front lights, I haven't noticed any decent rear lights on one, which seems like a strange design omission.

The front is going to be waist height, so a light is grand, at the back the light is going to be far too low down. I have seen lads with lights on their helmet, or with them clipped onto jackets or bags.

check_six

rubadub wrote: »

The front is going to be waist height, so a light is grand, at the back the light is going to be far too low down. I have seen lads with lights on their helmet, or with them clipped onto jackets or bags.

The light would be low, but you'd think that it wouldn't be too difficult to have *something* to make the scooter "legal" with respect to illumination. Extra lights on the rider are always a good idea.