Journalism and cycling

AndrewJRenko

Speaking at the Oireachtas Transport Committee, Fianna Fáil TD Robert Troy who mysteriously didn't get summons delivered for three seperate offences suggested that it should be mandatory for pedestrians to wear high visibility jackets for their own safety.

Mr Ross said that he cannot think of any objection to the idea although he said enforcement could be an issue but it is something that should be considered.

rubadub wrote: »

had to check it wasn't waterford whispers or something. Bizarre -I wonder how long he had to think of any objections.

Has such a thing ever even been suggested in another country. I presume it is not in place anywhere as you would have heard about it and seen photos, imagine seeing the likes of grafton street with throngs of people all in high viz.

FYP

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/03/13/summons-not-right/

Fian

A more positive example, and form the indo no less.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/and-finally/how-opening-your-car-door-like-the-dutch-could-save-someones-life-35435578.html

CramCycle

Chuchote wrote: »

Minister Ross has awoken from his slumber

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0208/851002-drink-driving/

He wants drink drivers to lose their licences (Hooray) (don't hold your breath on that one)

and pedestrians to have to wear hi-viz, and also

I can't see why not, the fact that it is not already is a shock to me. 5 year ban, if they appeal but are found to be misleading, double to 10years. The obvious downside is that you will just end up with yet more uninsured drivers, so it may not be as great as it sounds.

AndrewJRenko

CramCycle wrote: »

I can't see why not, the fact that it is not already is a shock to me. 5 year ban, if they appeal but are found to be misleading, double to 10years. The obvious downside is that you will just end up with yet more uninsured drivers, so it may not be as great as it sounds.

I'd be more worried about the large number of already banned drivers who are still driving round the place, than about banning more drivers who will just ignore it.

As usual, enforcement of existing law would be more effective than making new laws, but that might require politicians to give decent resources to these matters.

Chuchote

Laws like those Ross proposes have just one effect: in civilised countries with decent police, they are ignored, because no garda (other than a fanatic) wants to knock someone off the road for a relatively small amount of alcohol.

(I myself am such a fanatic, and would happily go along with Ross's law to keep drunk people off the road, but it is so much outside the norm that it simply won't be enforced.)

CramCycle

Deedsie wrote: »

Which would save more lives:

The suggested law banning people from driving for a relatively small amount of alcohol for a year

Or

A new law banning people caught using mobile/smart phones while driving, texting etc for a year

I know which law I think would have a bigger impact. I in no way ever ever ever advocate drink driving. But it's not the only problem and I think driving after 1 pint it is probably more dangerous to drive soberly while using a mobile/smart phone.

I 100% agree in that if there was one of the two I could guarantee to get rid of it would be the latter. Fender benders, increasing congestion, to major accidents are all seen from mobile usage in cars. This said, drinking any amount of alcohol before driving should be banned (everyone has a different opinion on what is safe, as they say, opinions are like arseholes, everybodys got one). If someone can't manage to say no to a pint, they already have other issues to be addressed. I say this as someone from Longford where up until very recently, drink driving was rampant. I see it in Dublin as well, although not as much, where the feeling seems to be, any garda checkpoints are most likely to be Tax/Insurance, so there is minimal risk in one or two. I have family and friends who drink drive, ah shure it is only one small glass of wine (it is a large one by pub measures), shure didn't I have dinner (yeah but you forgot about the 2nd glass of wine you had with it), shure I only had one and it was an hour ago (but you have no idea how poor your metabolism is). I like my beers, I certainly do not hide it, but I have close family who don't understand when I won't have "just" one when I am driving.

How successive governments have gotten away with not ploughing money into garda numbers and enforcement is beyond me. Unfortunately until Garda numbers and feet on the ground are up (and they seem to have jumped visually in the last few months), all the laws in the world will make no difference.

RayCun

Deedsie wrote: »

Which would save more lives:

The suggested law banning people from driving for a relatively small amount of alcohol for a year

Or

A new law banning people caught using mobile/smart phones while driving, texting etc for a year

why not both?

magicbastarder

there's a tenuous irony in that the minister for transport and tourism is the one staying put on paddy's day.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/shane-ross-to-stay-in-ireland-on-st-patrick-s-day-1.2970032

Macy0161

I'm really not a fan of 3 jobs Ross, but at least he's resisted the temptation to lower the level's further. The stats appear to show that over 60% are more than twice the limit, and 70% are under 44. That doesn't really tie in with the "isolated rural farmer having a couple of pints" we tend to have as the example. At least this is a change to those actually caught, rather than another measure that is pointless a) while so many are so far over the existing limit, and b) has no effect without greater enforcement..

Macy0161

Deedsie wrote: »

I think I would ban any alcohol myself but my reasoning would be that it just increases the chance that people will have a second pint before driving home. Just organise a taxi/lift and enjoy your night.

I'd really like any further reduction to be evidence based (in terms of stats on injuries/ deaths, not that any alcohol has some effect), and when compliance is right up. I genuinely see no point in further reduction (as there was no point in the last reduction) when compliance at the existing level is shown to be so low, and without a major ramp up of enforcement.

In the current circumstances, a zero level would be about the laziest, least effective thing a Minister could do. Nearly as feckin stupid as compulsory hi viz for pedestrians!

CramCycle

Macy0161 wrote: »

I'd really like any further reduction to be evidence based (in terms of stats on injuries/ deaths, not that any alcohol has some effect), and when compliance is right up. I genuinely see no point in further reduction (as there was no point in the last reduction) when compliance at the existing level is shown to be so low, and without a major ramp up of enforcement.

In the current circumstances, a zero level would be about the laziest, least effective thing a Minister could do. Nearly as feckin stupid as compulsory hi viz for pedestrians!

I would be doing it on the basis that with the limit so low, if your stupid enough to have one drink, your stupid enough to have two and so on. Having a limit in and of itself, gives a target to beat for some idiots. If you have had a drink, you have had a drink, simple as that. I still hear people bleat on about, one will be fine. None is fine. I say this as someone who loves their beer, why not just have none, why have a limit at all.

I suppose their is no real need to change the limits at the minute, just make the punishment and enforcement levels harsher.

tomasrojo

You have to have a limit that is a little above zero. I mean, you can declare it's zero, but you have to assume some people who haven't drunk at all have some metabolically derived alcohol in their bloodstream.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

You have to have a limit that is a little above zero. I mean, you can declare it's zero, but you have to assume some people who haven't drunk at all have some metabolically derived alcohol in their bloodstream.

I know Ketones would set off the old breathalyser, not sure if it still uses the same principals anymore.

Chuchote

In my inexpert opinion, what would work to combat drunk driving/drink driving is not HUGE STONKING SMASHING FINES AND HUMILIATION AND BEING PUT OFF THE ROAD YOU BASTARD but small, stinging little fines and single penalty points.

For a start, as I said, most gardaí are likely to have an attack of decency (however misplaced) when they catch someone with a few drinks on, and just warn the person not to do it again, if the penalty is very severe.

Also, I think those small and inevitable fines have been shown to have a strong effect on behaviour.

However, it makes me rage and weep when I see people who have killed or injured someone through their drunken and arrogant driving - especially after repeated offences - getting an 18-month sentence with 17 months suspended and pay a few quid into the poorbox/to their crippled victim. I don't care how sorry they are (or their solicitors say they are), if they've maimed or killed someone through irresponsibility, they should do time. In fact, it might even help people in some cases; I remember hearing of a self-employed trucker who wiped out a family after months of long, long hours and faked tachographs; he was scarred forever mentally and a broken man. At least if he had got a prison sentence he might have had some sense that he had paid some reparations.

Further: interesting Twitter account to follow - Irish Road Victims ‏@IRVAroadsafety

Ketones and breathalysers was the subject of a Doc Martin programme last week, the point being that ketones set off an old, out-of-date breathalyser and the breathalyser should be replaced.

Macy0161

Chuchote wrote:

For a start, as I said, most gardaí are likely to have an attack of decency (however misplaced) when they catch someone with a few drinks on, and just warn the person not to do it again, if the penalty is very severe.

I really don't think that is or would be the case. I'm aware of people that have just failed the on the road breathlyser and been brought into the station and passed the intoxilizer or whatever it is. Borderline fail still seems to be a fail.

What I'd like to see is more preventative policing. Go into the pubs and offer people a go of the breathlyser and show they're really not "grand to drive" and show how far over the limit they are.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

I know Ketones would set off the old breathalyser, not sure if it still uses the same principals anymore.

Actually, I didn't know that. But even if you do the blood test, you can still detect alcohol in a teetotaller, as a metabolic byproduct. Not very much, but it does mean you have to make an allowance for very low BACs.

Chuchote

Good piece on driver responsibility

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/rosamund-urwin-our-new-cycling-czar-needs-to-get-drivers-to-behave-a3462801.html

Last year, a Mr Dozy drove into the back of my bike at a junction. I was stationary. He had the clearest possible view of me yet inexplicably moved off, ramming me.

At first I assumed he was drunk but I’ve now come to a different conclusion: he was probably on his mobile phone. You’re in charge of 1,300 kg of steel, probably the most powerful weapon that you use routinely. It isn’t the time to be checking the football scores or whether your flatmate bought some milk.

Pinch Flat

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/savage-biker-headbutted-hero-cyclist-in-front-of-his-daughter-35441720.html

Sounds like a lovely piece of work. People like this should be made take a compulsory anger management course or maybe be prescribed something to calm them down.

AndrewJRenko

Pinch Flat wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/savage-biker-headbutted-hero-cyclist-in-front-of-his-daughter-35441720.html

Sounds like a lovely piece of work. People like this should be made take a compulsory anger management course or maybe be prescribed something to calm them down.

"O'Doherty was later freed on bail after appealing the prison term to the Circuit Court"

Not much calming going on there.

HivemindXX

Chuchote wrote: »

Good piece on driver responsibility

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/rosamund-urwin-our-new-cycling-czar-needs-to-get-drivers-to-behave-a3462801.html

Based on what I see in traffic every day and posts I read (including on Boards) by drivers who think they are hard done by, it seems that a lot of people don't consider "stopped at the lights" to be the same as "driving" and so they think it IS a good time to check up on Facebook.

The problem being that they generally don't engage their brain before they start moving, usually after someone behind them has started beeping their horn. They haven't been paying attention for the last two minutes and they assume that everything is exactly the same as it was when the stopped. No pedestrians have started to cross the road, no cyclists have moved in front of them, they haven't seen any cars speeding from the right who clearly feel that their light has "just gone red" and therefore doesn't really require them to stop.

Here's another recent one about phone use while driving, no bicycles involved though:
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kerry-garda-was-watching-drivers-for-phone-use-442540.html

A bus driver got off his charge by claiming that he was holding a bluetooth headset up to his head while driving, not a phone. Seems like a bizarre claim to me, and it also seems like you should just replace the cell phone charge with a distracted driving charge (both hands on the wheel is still a thing right?). However the judge seemed to think he had no choice but to believe this story and let him off. The defence solicitor seemed to suggest that this guard might have been "fixated" with people using mobile phones while driving as if that was a reason to disbelieve him.

Chuchote

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

"O'Doherty was later freed on bail after appealing the prison term to the Circuit Court"

Not much calming going on there.

Why? Why? Why?

He should have served the full term, had to pay for the dental work plus compensation for fear and trama, plus handing over his motorbike and helmet to the person he attacked (imho).

Roadhawk

HivemindXX wrote: »

...A bus driver got off his charge by claiming that he was holding a bluetooth headset up to his head while driving, not a phone. Seems like a bizarre claim to me, and it also seems like you should just replace the cell phone charge with a distracted driving charge (both hands on the wheel is still a thing right?)...

I could be wrong on this but as far as i know they have a law like that in the UK. A law that makes it illegal for a driver to use any communication device with your hands including a sat nav. Would be nice to see something like that here in Ireland.

CramCycle

Judge O’Connor said if an ordinary citizen was watching the case he would be inclined to believe the defendant.

“I think he probably was using the earpiece — I have no choice but to dismiss it,” said the judge.

No judge, just no, in fact few if any "ordinary citizens" would have believed him.

Chuchote

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/cycling-on-footpaths-1.2975510

From Ciaran Hoare in Cork (and there's another from Gerald Duffy, also in Cork):

Could I wish the cyclist who almost knocked me down on the pedestrianised Paul Street in Cork on Monday last a safe and happy 2017?
His hi-vis jacket did not prepare me for his zipping down what is, effectively, a footpath.
His informing me that I was an “asshole” for being in his way made my day more pleasant and increased my approval of the ever-increasing practice of cycling on footpaths.

buffalo

Chuchote wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/cycling-on-footpaths-1.2975510

his zipping down what is, effectively, a footpath.

I wonder if that means there was actually a cycle track on the footpath?

Chuchote

buffalo wrote: »

I wonder if that means there was actually a cycle track on the footpath?

As he effected it, there was.

I hate people cycling fast on footpaths and being aggressive with it. But I have friends with handicapped adult offspring who cycle on the footpath with them because they have no road sense. If there were proper cycleways they wouldn't do this.

CramCycle

buffalo wrote: »

I wonder if that means there was actually a cycle track on the footpath?

Paul St turns into a street like Grafton St. in that it has barriers upto stop traffic which I think (maybe) come down for deliveries. It would be hard to see it as anything other than a pedestrian zone, although I don't know if there are signs, to say this. There is certainly no cycle track.

rubadub

I expect there is more to that story that he is not revealing. Why did the cyclist call him an asshole?

I have seen lads purposely jump out in front of cyclists who were cycling in prohibited areas in a pretty safe & controlled manner, the "cycle policeman" putting themselves at risk, the cyclist at risk and others around them at risk, assholes indeed.

I have never seen anyone try an deliberately and dangerously obstruct a pedestrian illegally crossing a road to "teach them a lesson"

You will see garda allowing cyclists go down grafton street if its in a safe manner. To walk with the bike is often more hazardous due to the risk of people knocking into pedals or handlebars.

tomasrojo

In City Cycling, Richard Ballantine opined that cycling on the footpath was ok when the road was hostile so long as you did so slowly and dismounted and pushed the bike as soon as you came across a pedestrian. I have one part of my route where there are excellent sight lines, wide footpaths and usually no pedestrians, and where using the road takes me on a detour of a kilometre and exposes me (and the kids) to heavy commuter traffic. So I do exactly what RB recommended. Nobody seems to mind.

Cycling straight at pedestrians at speed, even if they're on the road, never mind the footpath, is the height of dickishness.

Chuchote

rubadub wrote: »

I expect there is more to that story that he is not revealing. Why did the cyclist call him an asshole?

To be fair, it may have been because the cyclist was looking in the mirror. I'm generally on the side of cyclists, but there are some real boors and I-me's out there when it comes to shouldering their way along a pavement with a getoutamywaypeasant attitude.