Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

Rechuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

that'd be idiotic. bring in a law which (it's now a matter of public record) the AG thinks is problematic, and have it shot down in court? you can be guaranteed the first person able to afford the legal representation to challenge this will make hay with the fact the AG was unsure of it.
also, at what cost to the taxpayer, or the political will to actually get this done, on the assumption the law could be shot down?

As a taxpayer, I'd like my taxes to keep people safe.

TheChizler

I don't get this, convictions happen on the basis of Garda unmeasured opinion all the time, speeding, dangerous driving, drunk and disorderly etc.

magicbastarder

dangerous driving, or drunk and disorderly don't require specific measurements, AFAIK.
if you're basing a conviction on an actual measurement - a passing distance of 1m or 1.5m - this implies you can or should actually measure it.

our drink driving laws actually require level of intoxication to be measured. you can't get done for drink driving because the garda 'reckons' you were drunk, your alcohol level is measured, because the law states a specific threshold. if you're going to base an MPDL on a specific passing distance, it's a bit of a shortcoming in the enforcement of that law if you can't *prove* that distance was breached.

TheChizler

How about the case of speeding then? P u rely anecdotal but over the years on boards I've come to the understanding that a Garda doesn't necessarily have to measure speed and their opinion can be counted as evidence, or is this incorrect?

It is possible to measure with video anyway, to the same level as two-picture speed cameras. You pick a point of reference and calculate from there.

DanDublin1982

The law exists in other countries right? Why would it be more difficult to implement here. The opinion that it would be difficult to implement is nothing more than an opinion. I don't claim to know better than those giving that opinion but I say let the actual courts deal with this, not just some peoples opinions. The advice shouldn't be out in the public domain anyway!!

magicbastarder

DanDublin1982 wrote: »

I don't claim to know better than those giving that opinion but I say let the actual courts deal with this, not just some peoples opinions.

well, one of the opinions in play is the AGs, and he has cited possible constitutional issues. i don't know what they are, but our constitution is different from other countries, which could lead to those differences.
also, i've seen videos of operations in other countries where police do actually have equipment to measure passing distance; perhaps there is an inertia/procedural/legal issue with that here. but i don't know whether in those countries, the law is only enforceable by police with that specific equipment - would be genuinely interested to learn if this is the case.

i.e. if we're able to point out that the law is enforceable in other countries, it'd be good to know if it's only enforceable in specific contexts. in those countries, is it a case that it's only enforced in proactive operations by police?

Beasty

Can't say I'm particularly surprised. I pointed out in an earlier thread that on some Irish roads it's not physically possible to provide that much clearance when overtaking. Often, where it is possible, solid white lines turn make into an illegal action. Whether there are any legal challenges though is another matter.

DanDublin1982

Change the AG and you possibly get a changed opinion. It's not facts being stated. I would hope his opinion will be countered by some of the stuff you're talking about too. And if there are constitutional issues then we have the mechanisms to change those too, no matter how ridiculous that might sound.

The idea that something MIGHT not be constitutional is not reason enough to not legislate. That is something the courts should decide.

Especially so in a case like this where the potential benefits of the introduction of this law are pretty clear and clearly outweigh the idea that some ball bag with more money than sense would challenge it on those grounds.

magicbastarder

DanDublin1982 wrote: »

And if there are constitutional issues then we have the mechanisms to change those too, no matter how ridiculous that might sound.

eh, that sounds bonkers ridiculous if i'm right in thinking what you're thinking.

something possibly not being constitutional is a MASSIVE factor in whether we should legislate or not. absolutely massive. it's not a case of firing **** at a wall and if it's constitutional, it sticks. there's also the various issues of the very credibility of the process, the reasoning, the political willpower.
apart from the fact that the president has a duty to not sign the bill if there's a question about constitutionality, and refer it to the council of state (itself not a perfect process)

personally, and outside the whole issue of me wanting asshole drivers prosecuted, i find the notion of declaring a specific benchmark for violation of a law, without the requirement to prove the benchmark was breached, disturbing to say the least. the state cannot/should not say 'we will find you guilty of a specific offence without having to prove you have actually reached the definition for that offence'.

DanDublin1982

magicbastarder wrote: »

. the state cannot/should not say 'we will find you guilty of a specific offence without having to prove you have actually reached the definition for that offence'.

Yea. Obviously. If that's the problem then they should remove the bit that says that and still introduce the bill.

Irish Raven

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Success will depend on Gardai attitudes, which at present aren't great. I reported a driver to Gardai a few months with video footage showing the driving handling/using the phone at four different occasions over the course of a few minutes in traffic. I saw closely enough to identify the style of phone - a Blackberry style phone with a physical keyboard, unusual enough these days. Gardai declined to prosecute, as it could have been 'any device' he had in his hands, apparently. I asked the Gardai what other kinds of devices he had in mind, and he told me that he didn't have to answer to me.

Rechuchote wrote:

Did you report this to GSOC?

A garda cannot prosecute for holding a mobile phone if he did not witness, as this is a FCPN which must be intercepted at the time. A none intercept FCPN would be a parking offence etc... Could be prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving if his manner of driving is impaired, and witness or video evidence of this.

Why would you report it to GSOC? To try get a Garda in trouble...typical...

AndrewJRenko

Irish Raven wrote: »

A garda cannot prosecute for holding a mobile phone if he did not witness, as this is a FCPN which must be intercepted at the time. A none intercept FCPN would be a parking offence etc... Could be prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving if his manner of driving is impaired, and witness or video evidence of this.

Why would you report it to GSOC? To try get a Garda in trouble...typical...

I've had previous cases of phone abuse dealt with by FCPN based on video evidence. What makes you think that the Garda needs to witness it personally?

Kfagan10

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've had previous cases of phone abuse dealt with by FCPN based on video evidence. What makes you think that the Garda needs to witness it personally?

The hold up between announcement and implementation was the fact Guards had to procure equipment to actually measure passing distance.

They've decided it's too costly for them to actually enforce laws. So this law looks like it's dead in the water sadly.

Irish Raven

AndrewJRenko wrote:

I've had previous cases of phone abuse dealt with by FCPN based on video evidence. What makes you think that the Garda needs to witness it personally?

Because it is an FCPN which needs to be intercepted. ie caught in the act. There are two types of FCPN. intercept and non intercept. both hold necessary proofs needed for an FCPN to be issued.

What is phone abuse?

AndrewJRenko

Irish Raven wrote: »

Because it is an FCPN which needs to be intercepted. ie caught in the act. There are two types of FCPN. intercept and non intercept. both hold necessary proofs needed for an FCPN to be issued.

What is phone abuse?

Phone abuse is using the phone while driving. What's your source for this intercept requirement please ?

Irish Raven

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Phone abuse is using the phone while driving. What's your source for this intercept requirement please ?

Holding a mobile phone while driving is an offence. Phone abuse is not an offence. My source is FCPN requirements. RTA

AndrewJRenko

Irish Raven wrote: »

Holding a mobile phone while driving is an offence. Phone abuse is not an offence. My source is FCPN requirements. RTA

Are these requirements set out in law?

Irish Raven

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Are these requirements set out in law?

set out in accordance with requirements to issue an FCPN.

The offence is set out in law.

magicbastarder

Irish Raven wrote: »

set out in accordance with requirements to issue an FCPN.

The offence is set out in law.

it'd be easiest if you just linked to the law.

magicbastarder

interestingly, if you go to appendix 2 of this document, the report of an offence by a member of the public seems to straddle *both* the intercept and non-intercept columns.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj00sqG68PcAhWIKsAKHVedBJ8QFjAGegQIBhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gardaombudsman.ie%2Fpublications%2Fexamination-reports%2F%3Fdownload%3Dfile%26file%3D650&usg=AOvVaw2rn6jqBFbw6xTz9pHcl5xY

page 38.

ConnyMcDavid

There is no hope of safety with the idiocy of this tweet. Responding to the gardaI issuing a ticket to an illegally tinted car windscreen...

https://twitter.com/AlecPaul11/status/1023382943002185728?s=19

2011

Fair play to those that organised this (photo taken recently in Rathmines):

magicbastarder

ConnyMcDavid wrote: »

There is no hope of safety with the idiocy of this tweet. Responding to the gardaI issuing a ticket to an illegally tinted car windscreen...

https://twitter.com/AlecPaul11/status/1023382943002185728?s=19

it's possible he meant they can't see the *driver*.

Steoller

magicbastarder wrote: »

interestingly, if you go to appendix 2 of this document, the report of an offence by a member of the public seems to straddle *both* the intercept and non-intercept columns.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj00sqG68PcAhWIKsAKHVedBJ8QFjAGegQIBhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gardaombudsman.ie%2Fpublications%2Fexamination-reports%2F%3Fdownload%3Dfile%26file%3D650&usg=AOvVaw2rn6jqBFbw6xTz9pHcl5xY

page 38.

Reading that, it looks like you'd need to take your complaint to trafficwatch in order for it to be considered an "intercept". Perhaps this is why we see better results in going to trafficwatch with a complaint rather than direct to the local station?

magicbastarder

this seems to confirm my suspicion that the issue was the enforceability of a specific distance:

http://irishcycle.com/2018/07/31/constitutional-issues-hit-rosss-promise-on-cycling-passing-distance/

Annie get your Run

magicbastarder wrote: »

this seems to confirm my suspicion that the issue was the enforceability of a specific distance:

http://irishcycle.com/2018/07/31/constitutional-issues-hit-rosss-promise-on-cycling-passing-distance/

Reading that, it sounds like the alternative they're looking at might actually be better? Obviously we need to wait and see what will be covered under the term 'dangerous overtaking' but might it also include things like overtaking on a solid white line, blind bend and into oncoming traffic? I know those things are already in the ROTR but possibly(?) no harm to put them all into the dangerous overtaking package.



Ultimately the message we need drivers to get is that you don't have to immediately overtake a bike when you see one, you should slow down, assess the situation and only overtake when it's safe to do so.

Macy0161

Annie get your Run wrote: »

Reading that, it sounds like the alternative they're looking at might actually be better? Obviously we need to wait and see what will be covered under the term 'dangerous overtaking' but might it also include things like overtaking on a solid white line, blind bend and into oncoming traffic? I know those things are already in the ROTR but possibly(?) no harm to put them all into the dangerous overtaking package.

Yes, hopefully they could be. I actually find it's more regular to be passed with plenty of space, but there's no way the vehicle can see far enough ahead to safely complete the overtake. The natural reaction to a something coming the other way will be to pull back on top of me/ the group...

TheChizler

Macy0161 wrote: »

The natural reaction to a something coming the other way will be to pull back on top of me/ the group...

Or brake, hopefully?

Small piece in our local paper today in the courts news (Drogheda Independent page 19) Driver fined €75 in court for "driving without reasonable consideration"

They cut in front of a cyclist mid way through a round about causing them to wobble it says. Doesn't mention how it was detected/reported or if the cyclist had camera. Still though would give me hope if I ever have to report something at the local station.

Macy0161

TheChizler wrote: »

Or brake, hopefully?

You'd hope, but...