Journalism and cycling

AndrewJRenko

CramCycle wrote: »

. A friend of my daughters failed their test (and rightly so) because they thought it was alright to answer their phone mid test because the car was not moving. Some people, I just despair.

Same driver then broke a red, right beside a Garda car who had his blue lights flashing to pull someone else in, lights went red and she actually started moving, went through the red and overtook the Garda car who was pulling in the other car. It is insanity that someone like that is let out of the house alone, let alone drive a car.

You couldn't make it up.

Stark

Was the second incident also during the test? :eek:

There's no way I would have had my phone switched on, let alone actually answer it when I was doing my driving test.

CramCycle

Stark wrote: »

Was the second incident also during the test? :eek:

There's no way I would have had my phone switched on, let alone actually answer it when I was doing my driving test.

Apologies, badly written, the driver who was on their phone earlier in the paragraph, they then broke a red while beside a cop car, with the Blues and Twos going. I just inserted the phone and test story in the middle for some reason.

Harrybelafonte

Is the normalisation of mobile phone use part of this (or is that obvious). Using the mobile used to be an extension to the land line, now it's all we have and what stems from that.

Know someone on the M50 last week. Check rear view mirror and could see car behind advancing quicker than their own 100km/h speed with head down looking at phone. Braced in time for the impact.

CramCycle

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Is the normalisation of mobile phone use part of this (or is that obvious). Using the mobile used to be an extension to the land line, now it's all we have and what stems from that.

Know someone on the M50 last week. Check rear view mirror and could see car behind advancing quicker than their own 100km/h speed with head down looking at phone. Braced in time for the impact.

Mainly, but then look at new car designs, huge displays the size of small televisions which all have apple or google operating systems to connect to your phone, play music, videos etc. how they are legal is beyond me but here they are and it just slowly normalises the idea that paying full attention is not necessary, it is insane.

Grassey

In car entertainment systems.... for when you are stuck on your couch on the M50... why go to the movies, we'll bring them to you as you struggle to find a parking space....

AndrewJRenko

CramCycle wrote: »

Mainly, but then look at new car designs, huge displays the size of small televisions which all have apple or google operating systems to connect to your phone, play music, videos etc. how they are legal is beyond me but here they are and it just slowly normalises the idea that paying full attention is not necessary, it is insane.

I'm frequently amazed by the number of drivers with their phones mounted on the windscreen in positions that clearly block visibility of what's happening on the road. Even when used for satnav or whatever, this has got to reduce visibility of pedestrians, cyclists and others.

Seth Brundle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm frequently amazed by the number of drivers with their phones mounted on the windscreen in positions that clearly block visibility of what's happening on the road. Even when used for satnav or whatever, this has got to reduce visibility of pedestrians, cyclists and others.

...if that practice is good enough for professional drivers such as taxi drivers (who can have two or three in use) then surely it's good enough for an ordinary Joe?

p15574

RobbieMD wrote: »

I imagine that would be a nightmare to try to legislate for. It would have to grant powers to the Gardai to demand pin codes or require the person to unlock it, and powers to search the vehicle and person. But then could they read your personal texts etc. If someone was using a phone they could deny ownership of it.

I suppose there could be two levels of it:
1) A standard request to the telecoms company with the number and a time frame that they are legally obliged to fulfil, where they state whether there were any calls or outgoing texts during that time. Not sure if it'd be possible to determine data stuff - maybe something like if there was outgoing WhatsApp traffic, or incoming YouTube traffic. This wouldn't risk the privacy of text or message contents etc
2) A full examination of the phone, as you've suggested above

Seth Brundle

Something interesting for the nerds like myself...
TfL Press Release - TfL using artificial intelligence to help fuel London’s cycling boom

Seth Brundle

Calls for ‘dedicated’ cycle network in Limerick

LIMERICK cyclists have expressed their concern at what they say is a lack of concrete detail in the Transport Strategy Advance Consultation Report.

Stakeholder groups in the Limerick area, including Limerick Cycling Campaign and the Limerick Cycle Bus, received the advance consultation report by the NTA and Jacobs/Systra shortly before Christmas.

This initial report outlines engagement with stakeholders in the early stages of the process.

Both Limerick Cycling Campaign and the Limerick Cycle Bus made submissions into this part of the Transport Strategy process.

Limerick Cycling Campaign Chair, Conor Buckley, has outlined the need for the Transport Strategy to make cycling an integral part of Limerick’s transport network by developing a connected, coherent and safe utility cycling network.

...

Seth Brundle

https://twitter.com/denverpost/status/1217922065245843467

AndrewJRenko

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...if that practice is good enough for professional drivers such as taxi drivers (who can have two or three in use) then surely it's good enough for an ordinary Joe?

Does anyone know if there is a specific offence about putting things on the windscreen that block the driver's view?

JMcL

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Does anyone know if there is a specific offence about putting things on the windscreen that block the driver's view?

Not sure if there's anything specific here - I'd imagine it'd fall under some other catch-all, but there was a truck driver jailed in the UK before Christmas for having a shelf tray installed on his dash which led to the death of a cyclist (https://road.cc/content/news/269329-lorry-driver-whose-view-was-blocked-dashboard-tray-table-jailed-killing-cyclist)

RobbieMD

p15574 wrote: »

I suppose there could be two levels of it:
1) A standard request to the telecoms company with the number and a time frame that they are legally obliged to fulfil, where they state whether there were any calls or outgoing texts during that time. Not sure if it'd be possible to determine data stuff - maybe something like if there was outgoing WhatsApp traffic, or incoming YouTube traffic. This wouldn't risk the privacy of text or message contents etc
2) A full examination of the phone, as you've suggested above

But what if the person says they don’t have a phone? How can the Gardai prove that? There is no phones register like for cars etc. I can buy a SIM card and use any phone without registering anything. Or maybe a passenger says they were using the drivers phone? Or the phone was mounted and as such not being “held” by the driver? Or the phone was connected to the cars Bluetooth radio and the driver was chatting away legally. It’s unworkable in my opinion.

magicbastarder

p15574 wrote: »

I suppose there could be two levels of it:
1) A standard request to the telecoms company with the number and a time frame that they are legally obliged to fulfil, where they state whether there were any calls or outgoing texts during that time. Not sure if it'd be possible to determine data stuff - maybe something like if there was outgoing WhatsApp traffic, or incoming YouTube traffic. This wouldn't risk the privacy of text or message contents etc

not enforceable, as mentioned above i think. i can take and receive calls in my car without my hands leaving the steering wheel; the driver would have to be caught actually holding the phone anyway, so much of the above would be moot.

having never been a smoker myself, i've always marvelled at the notion of being allowed drive while holding a glowing ember in one hand. or in one's mouth, with smoke affecting your view.

AndrewJRenko

RobbieMD wrote: »

But what if the person says they don’t have a phone? How can the Gardai prove that? There is no phones register like for cars etc. I can buy a SIM card and use any phone without registering anything. Or maybe a passenger says they were using the drivers phone? Or the phone was mounted and as such not being “held” by the driver? Or the phone was connected to the cars Bluetooth radio and the driver was chatting away legally. It’s unworkable in my opinion.

In fairness, the Gardai are pretty good at getting past flimsy excuses like 'I don't have a phone'. For a start, they should look for the phone at the site of the crash, before the person has a chance to plan a cover story. They can look at the car registration reminder phone number. They can talk to family and friends.

For bluetooth, they can check to see if the phone was actually paired. They can see is a mount available in the car.

There's a lot they can do.

magicbastarder wrote: »

not enforceable, as mentioned above i think. i can take and receive calls in my car without my hands leaving the steering wheel; the driver would have to be caught actually holding the phone anyway, so much of the above would be moot.

Sure, but they check to see, for example, whether your phone is paired with your car for bluetooth.

RobbieMD

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

In fairness, the Gardai are pretty good at getting past flimsy excuses like 'I don't have a phone'. For a start, they should look for the phone at the site of the crash, before the person has a chance to plan a cover story. They can look at the car registration reminder phone number. They can talk to family and friends.

For bluetooth, they can check to see if the phone was actually paired. They can see is a mount available in the car.

There's a lot they can do.


Sure, but they check to see, for example, whether your phone is paired with your car for bluetooth.

To check was the phone paired via Bluetooth would most likely require a forensic examination of the phone and the car audio system. Something which would require the Garda Computer Crime Unit to examine. They’re currently on a 4 yr backlog and the bulk of their caseload is child pornography cases. I can’t imagine they would have the staffing levels to take on thousands of road traffic collision investigations per annum.

People have a right to silence when suspected of an offence. Family don’t have to cooperate with Gardaí. Would the Gardai have a power to seize a phone in a crash without suspecting it was used in connection with the crash? That may amount to an abuse of their power if they seized phones at every crash site. Would the phone owner be compelled to unlock the phone? What about the supply of Faraday bags to shield the phone from being remotely wiped. There are no obligations on people to disclose whether they have a phone or not. There is no register to record phone ownership. There are far too many stumbling blocks to make this realistically enforceable.

magicbastarder

As usual, the problem is the lack of enforcement of existing laws rather than the gardai having new laws or new mechanisms to deal with offences.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

As usual, the problem is the lack of enforcement of existing laws rather than the gardai having new laws or new mechanisms to deal with offences.

Heading up the Goatstown road at Lunch today, Garda car in the right filter lane, light goes red as i approach and the car behind me just drives straight through, on red, and phone out. I look at the Garda in the passenger seat and instead of looking at the car, he looks at me with a look of absolute disgust, the nerve of me to wonder would he do something. People think Gardai will do nothing because, regrettably, there isn't enough, and you get the odd one like this muppet who honestly looked like he was ready to crack me with a baton for wondering why he didn't go after the car.

rubadub

CramCycle wrote: »

People think Gardai will do nothing because, regrettably, there isn't enough

The least they could do is give a blast of the siren and lights, if safe to do so. The offender might even pull over thinking they are going to be done, it would at least put the sh!ts up them.

AndrewJRenko

RobbieMD wrote: »

To check was the phone paired via Bluetooth would most likely require a forensic examination of the phone and the car audio system. Something which would require the Garda Computer Crime Unit to examine. They’re currently on a 4 yr backlog and the bulk of their caseload is child pornography cases. I can’t imagine they would have the staffing levels to take on thousands of road traffic collision investigations per annum.

People have a right to silence when suspected of an offence. Family don’t have to cooperate with Gardaí. Would the Gardai have a power to seize a phone in a crash without suspecting it was used in connection with the crash? That may amount to an abuse of their power if they seized phones at every crash site. Would the phone owner be compelled to unlock the phone? What about the supply of Faraday bags to shield the phone from being remotely wiped. There are no obligations on people to disclose whether they have a phone or not. There is no register to record phone ownership. There are far too many stumbling blocks to make this realistically enforceable.

They seem to have found a way round these issues in a bunch of UK cases, so it looks like it is feasible.

RobbieMD

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They seem to have found a way round these issues in a bunch of UK cases, so it looks like it is feasible.

Any links to any contested cases? A guilty plea to an offence is the defence accepting what the prosecution have alleged. I can’t think of any Irish cases where a motorist was convicted of a crash based solely on being on the phone. Perhaps the other factors where so overwhelming that it was purely in their interests to plead guilty?

AndrewJRenko

RobbieMD wrote: »

Any links to any contested cases? A guilty plea to an offence is the defence accepting what the prosecution have alleged. I can’t think of any Irish cases where a motorist was convicted of a crash based solely on being on the phone. Perhaps the other factors where so overwhelming that it was purely in their interests to plead guilty?

Just the cases linked above - I'd imagine the the phone evidence would be a big factor in the offender deciding not to contest the case.

work

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Calls for ‘dedicated’ cycle network in Limerick

I live in Dublin so am no expert on Limerick. Dublin is a disgrace but I worked a lot in Limerick last year and always thought holy funk there is no cycling infrastructure or cyclists.
It appeared very cycle unfriendly with no cycle laneses and heavy traffic in the city.
They really need to do much better for Limerick, it's seems to have a completely backward transport plan. Hopefully it will be an issue in the GE.

Pinch Flat

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/proper-cycling-infrastructure-easiest-way-to-reduce-public-transport-overcrowding-1.4142842?mode=amp

Apparently, bikes cause cogestion, need insurance, tax, registration plates and GPSs. Ah the Facebook comments on these articles are hilarious. Why have we never heard these before?

Duckjob

Pinch Flat wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/proper-cycling-infrastructure-easiest-way-to-reduce-public-transport-overcrowding-1.4142842?mode=amp

Apparently, bikes cause cogestion, need insurance, tax, registration plates and GPSs. Ah the Facebook comments on these articles are hilarious. Why have we never heard these before?

I never cease to be gobsmacked by the lack of self awareness of people who think they're contributing something of value by posting how "cyclists" need to be taxed/insured/regged when the subject of the discussion is how to alleviate congestion/PT pressure.

Pinch Flat

Duckjob wrote: »

I never cease to be gobsmacked by the lack of self awareness of people who think they're contributing something of value by posting how "cyclists" need to be taxed/insured/regged when the subject of the discussion is how to alleviate congestion/PT pressure.

Yeah it's counter intuitive. The roads are choked with traffic, so let's tax those who are making a difference. Causing zero congestion and zero pollution and making room for those who insist on commuting in a 20% full vehicle.

magicbastarder

Duckjob wrote: »

I never cease to be gobsmacked by the lack of self awareness of people who think they're contributing something of value by posting how "cyclists" need to be taxed/insured/regged when the subject of the discussion is how to alleviate congestion/PT pressure.

because it's all they know. they've never thought past that.

donvito99

It would be interesting to see a study of the proportion of regular cyclists who pay "road" tax and insurance on the car(s) they leave at home for the morning and evening commutes...

Although that won't make anyone commenting on Facebook less stupid