Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

expectationlost

ballyharpat wrote: »

this is another part of it....



This Bill addresses an anomaly in current law which allows some people guilty of driving while above the legal alcohol limit to receive penalty points rather than the usual disqualifcation. The Bill will remove the penalty points option in these cases and thereby ensure that all drivers intercepted while driving over the legal alcohol limit will receive a disqualifcation.In place of the current 3 penalty points provided in these cases, the Bill will introduce a 3-month disqualifcation period.Financial Implications - The Bill will not have any fnancial impact for the Exchequer.Section 1 - Amendment of Road Traffc Act 2010.This section amends section 29 of the Road Traffc Act 2010 so as to remove the current option which allows some people found to be driving over the alcohol limit to receive penalty points. In place of penalty points it creates a three-month disqualifcation period.The specifc amendments made to section 29 are –• Subsection (1) will be amended to change cross-references to subsection (8). Currently the cross-reference is to penalty points or disqualifcation under subsection (8), and this will be changed to refer only to disqualifcation.• Subsection (5) will be substituted to make a similar change, so that it will refer to disqualifcation only and not also to penalty points.• Subsection (6), which deals entirely with the existing penalty point option, is deleted.

that isn't another part, its the same thing explained in a longer way.

I have to change disappointing to disgusting.

its exceptionally cynical for Robert Troy to try use cycling safety to impede an anti-drink driving laws, and its disgusting that anybody would help him.

CramCycle

expectationlost wrote: »

I have to change disappointing to disgusting

exceptionally cynical for Robert Troy to try use cycling safety to impede an anti-drink driving laws, and its disgusting that anybody would help him.

You really need to explain this. It appears that he is removing a loophole that allows people to continue driving after being caught for drink driving, surely this is a positive?

magicbastarder

yeah, i'm confused too. the change in the law mentioned is to ensure disqualification rather than penalty points.

In place of the current 3 penalty points provided in these cases, the Bill will introduce a 3-month disqualification period

(the repeated misspelling of 'disqualification' is odd)

CramCycle

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Dangerous overtaking is already an offence. Department of Transport has already advised the minister that introducing a minimum passing distance would make it unenforceable.

We'd be going from a situation where you have a law that is enforceable (but rarely enforced) to one which is unenforceable (in which case it hardly matters if its enforced).

The minimum passing distance is not unenforceable but very difficult to and with certain Irish roads and the AGS trying to strike a fair (in their eyes) balance, it will become a non existent law. A better amendment would be to include it in notes at the end as an example (but not an exclusive one).

The only place it is really going to come into force is where there has been a tragic accident and they can simply pull this one out and say you were not far enough away. Considering they have not prosecuted one case I know of where there witnesses and corroborating forensic evidence that I know of, I doubt any of it will make a difference till we say a population wide mindset shift to people caring more about everyone making it home, rather than just them making it home and on time.

expectationlost

CramCycle wrote: »

You really need to explain this. It appears that he is removing a loophole that allows people to continue driving after being caught for drink driving, surely this is a positive?

robert troy isn't doing that, he against the bill, he is adding in cycling stuff to impede its progress.

AndrewJRenko

expectationlost wrote: »

robert troy isn't doing that, he against the bill, he is adding in cycling stuff to impede its progress.

How did you work that out? Is this a suspicion, or an opinion or a conclusion based on something?

CramCycle

expectationlost wrote: »

robert troy isn't doing that, he against the bill, he is adding in cycling stuff to impede its progress.

To be fair, I was surprised as he was the guy who was spouting mandatory hi vis for pedestrians and cyclists not to long ago but my impression was he was broadly in support of the bill. Or are you saying he is tacking on stuff he knows will have it fail or that he is delaying it with a myriad of tacked on amendments.

expectationlost

do none of you watch the news, or the read newspapers? or follow our national parliament? Ross drink-driving crackdown to be blocked by Fianna Fáil https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ross-drink-driving-crackdown-to-be-blocked-by-fianna-f%C3%A1il-1.2984149

amcalester

expectationlost wrote: »

do none of you watch the news, or the read newspapers? or follow our national parliament?

Stop talking riddles and explain why you think this is a bad thing.

expectationlost

CramCycle wrote: »

To be fair, I was surprised as he was the guy who was spouting mandatory hi vis for pedestrians and cyclists not to long ago but my impression was he was broadly in support of the bill. Or are you saying he is tacking on stuff he knows will have it fail or that he is delaying it with a myriad of tacked on amendments.

where did you get the impression that robert troy was broadly in support of the road traffc amendment bill 2017? anti drink drinving bill

the stuff troy is tacking on could pass with this minority government, it could be stupid stuff it could be "good" stuff. but mostly I suspect he tacking it on to impede the main purpose of the bill.

expectationlost

amcalester wrote: »

Stop talking riddles and explain why you think this is a bad thing.

I did so in my first post, its

exceptionally cynical for Robert Troy to try use cycling safety to impede an anti-drink driving law

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105625589&postcount=2 its ballyharpat who is trying too confuse yous

CramCycle

expectationlost wrote: »

where did you get the impression that robert troy was broadly in support of the road traffc amendment bill 2017? anti drink drinving bill

the stuff troy is tacking on could pass with this minority government, it could be stupid stuff it could be "good" stuff. but mostly I suspect he tacking it on to impede the main purpose of the bill.

I won't lie, BHPs posts did throw me. I thought this was new legislation for an MPL and the drink driving bit was being tagged on as an aside, rather than have it go with Ross's legislation.
But if Fianna Fail are against this, it won't pass. You could actually be right though as many FF TDs and their leader couldn't be seen to hold up a drink driving law improvement.

Really stupid sh1t though as passing such a bill won't lose you votes in any constituency, IMO.

expectationlost

CramCycle wrote: »

I won't lie, BHPs posts did throw me. I thought this was new legislation for an MPL and the drink driving bit was being tagged on as an aside, rather than have it go with Ross's legislation.
But if Fianna Fail are against this, it won't pass. You could actually be right though as many FF TDs and their leader couldn't be seen to hold up a drink driving law improvement.

Really stupid sh1t though as passing such a bill won't lose you votes in any constituency, IMO.

Sinn Fein and others could get the orignal bill passed if Fine Gael TDs dont revolt

there is a private member's minimun passing distance bill https://beta.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2017/22/

ballyharpat

I posted up something that is on a facbook page for the promotion of more rights for cycling, I mentioned nothing about drink driving, I may be naive in that I did not read the bill, but I would be hoping that the staying alive at 1.5 campaign would have our (cyclists) interests at heart. If it does anything else, I was not aware of it, and definitely did not intent to confuse anyone.

If someone has something they want to say, say it, but not with riddles, this is not a game, there are lives at risk every day because of this.
With cameras, they can enforce it, it's easy to see if a driver does not give enough space, and I don't need 1.5 mer, but even half a metre would be a lot more than I get at times and under the new law, it would be easy to prove they were within 1.5 if they cut very close. The law is not working at the moment- Dangerous overtaking - can be open to interpretation-it may not be seen as dangerous by the driver etc.


All I want is awareness raised, but do not say That I come on here with the intention of 'confusing' anyone.

CramCycle

expectationlost wrote: »

I did so in my first post, its https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105625589&postcount=2 its ballyharpat who is trying too confuse yous

MOD VOICE: In no way did Billyharpat try and confuse anyone, this is abundantly clear. If you had been clearer from the start instead of just making comments without clarification, then this would not have been necessary. Some people do not read every paper (I myself don't read any of the rags that pass for broadsheets anymore in this country).

I don't disagree with any of your points in regards the bill but in future, make your points, rather than statements with nothing behind them.

Any questions via PM

expectationlost

ballyharpat wrote: »

I posted up something that is on a facbook page for the promotion of more rights for cycling, I mentioned nothing about drink driving, I may be naive in that I did not read the bill, but I would be hoping that the staying alive at 1.5 campaign would have our (cyclists) interests at heart. If it does anything else, I was not aware of it

i said elsewhere that robert troy is a politician willing to use people, this is a prime example of it.

Lusk_Doyle

Two pages in. Have we made a difference yet?

Jawgap

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Dangerous overtaking is already an offence. Department of Transport has already advised the minister that introducing a minimum passing distance would make it unenforceable.

We'd be going from a situation where you have a law that is enforceable (but rarely enforced) to one which is unenforceable (in which case it hardly matters if its enforced).

Completely unenforceable.

The first time Guard pings someone for it and they take it to the district court they're going to be asked how they knew the driver was within 1.5m. People forget, or have no experience, of just how process-focused Irish law is.

Better to vigorously enforce the existing provision which also allows for other aspects of dangerous passing to be tackled.

magicbastarder

IANAL, but i would wonder if a judgement call under the previous law - whether or not an overtaking manouevre was dangerous - would be easier for a gard to justify in court than one made on a very specific parameter.
i'd also be of the opinion that it's not more laws we need for the gardai to enforce, but more gardai to enforce the laws we have.

plus, i'd have fewer conversations with colleagues and family to deal with asking me to justify the new law.

AndrewJRenko

Jawgap wrote: »

Completely unenforceable.

The first time Guard pings someone for it and they take it to the district court they're going to be asked how they knew the driver was within 1.5m. People forget, or have no experience, of just how process-focused Irish law is.

If the cyclist reaches out to signal to the car to move away and their hand gets hit by the car, that's a pretty good indication that they were within 1.5m, unless Stretch Armstrong was behind the wheel.

Jawgap

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If the cyclist reaches out to signal to the car to move away and their hand gets hit by the car, that's a pretty good indication that they were within 1.5m, unless Stretch Armstrong was behind the wheel.

What lunacy!

So, if I'm being overtaken by a car, I should reach out and see if I can touch it

What if said car is going 70 or 80km/hr or what if the vehicle overtaking me is a HGV or a bus?

Which again shows the ridiculousness of the proposal......an ol' dear in a Yaris overtaking me at 1.5m while doing 40km/hr is a totally different proposition to a loaded HGV with no spray deflectors scooting by 1.5m away at over 100 km/hr.

onmebike

I have mailed my TDs and so far two of them have responded to say that they and their parties will be supporting the bill. That's Fianna Fail and PBP. I'm a bit confused by the arguing above, but to me it's a good thing.

AndrewJRenko

Jawgap wrote: »

What lunacy!

So, if I'm being overtaken by a car, I should reach out and see if I can touch it

What if said car is going 70 or 80km/hr or what if the vehicle overtaking me is a HGV or a bus?

Which again shows the ridiculousness of the proposal......an ol' dear in a Yaris overtaking me at 1.5m while doing 40km/hr is a totally different proposition to a loaded HGV with no spray deflectors scooting by 1.5m away at over 100 km/hr.

You do what you're comfortable with doing. In many cases in normal traffic, I find that I know that close pass is coming, either from over-the-shoulder lifesaver checks or from hearing the approach or just gut instinct. In those case, if I can do so safely, I will often stick out one hand to signal to the driver to move away from me. And it often works, causing them to pull out further away from me.

When it doesn't work, it sometimes means that the wing-mirror or the side window or panel hits my hand. This hopefully gives a good signal to the driver that there is a problem. And indeed, sometimes I would see the brake lights shortly after the overtake, as the driver is probably going "WTF?". It is fairly indisputable proof that they didn't leave 1.5m passing space.

If that's not your thing, you could try getting yourself a nearmissometer or whatever devices I've seen at least two US police forces using to measure the distance. Either way, it is far from impossible or impractical to measure.

kirving

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It is fairly indisputable proof that they didn't leave 1.5m passing space.

I'm all for enforcing the 1.5m, but why endanger yourself (further) to prove a point?

What if your sleeve was to get stuck, or the mirror had a loose screw sticking out that ripped open your hand?

AndrewJRenko

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I'm all for enforcing the 1.5m, but why endanger yourself (further) to prove a point?

What if your sleeve was to get stuck, or the mirror had a loose screw sticking out that ripped open your hand?

Being a sitting duck is endangering yourself. Take control of your destiny and minimise close passes by signalling clearly to the driver.

magicbastarder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If that's not your thing, you could try getting yourself a nearmissometer

i read that as narcissometer, which i assume is something which records how often you look in the mirror.

AndrewJRenko

magicbastarder wrote: »

i read that as narcissometer, which i assume is something which records how often you look in the mirror.

I never take my narcissometer out on the bike. It would be such a shame to drop it.

expectationlost

onmebike wrote: »

I have mailed my TDs and so far two of them have responded to say that they and their parties will be supporting the bill. That's Fianna Fail and PBP. I'm a bit confused by the arguing above, but to me it's a good thing.

did they say there were supporting the bill and/or supporting the amendment?

Corca Baiscinn

onmebike wrote: »

I have mailed my TDs and so far two of them have responded to say that they and their parties will be supporting the bill. That's Fianna Fail and PBP. I'm a bit confused by the arguing above, but to me it's a good thing.

Good for you! i bike Dublin have set up a tracking sheet for this with names of every TD and Senator. If you haven't already done so could you let them know which TD's have promised support. Will be doing the same myself

Some posters have raised queries re enforcement, Similar legislation is in place in I think it's 42 countries/States and is enforced there so why not here, even alowing for our specific legal processes? But in any event Phil Skelton has made the point on numerous occasions that he'd be happy if nobody was prosecuted because the legislastion led to a mindset shift.

Many motorists already overtake safely and the Staying Alive Campaign itslelf supported by various LA's and Companies plus the RSA ads have probably already helped created awaeness, but as the Near-Miss thread here, shows there's a way to go yet.

It's important to get TD's form ALL parties on board. Taxi drivers will be lobbying against a MPDL - food for thought!

Subcomandante Marcos

If you want to make sure you hit all TD's and Senator's you write a generic email without their name in it and send it to all of them at once. It's surprising how many of them will reply and engage in a conversation if you're cordial and polite.

For senators you can send them to "senators@oir.ie", I can't think of the corresponding mail for TD's but it's something equally as simple.