Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

An Garda Siochana tweets ....

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Lusk_Doyle wrote: »
    Harm less what?

    Not sure if serious?

    It makes no harm.
    Hurts no body.


  • Options
    #63
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    it's a bloody stupid question on so many levels.
    why didn't they ask (as multiple people have) whether a car running a red or a cyclist running a red are worse?

    Why would you distinguish between them?
    Isn't that equally driving a wedge and enabling the "least worst" result of the vote.

    In both cases running red lights is stupid and puts lives at risk. Case closed.


  • Options
    #64
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    begbysback wrote: »
    I guess that was the point of the tweet - to view from an alternative perspective, i don't get why cyclists jump down the throat of stuff like this just because it may initially appear to make them out as the villains
    Because it presents an A/B scenario, i.e. "One of these things is worse than the other". Which then logically follows that more focus should be given to one over the other in terms of policing.

    The Gardai and Road Safety Authority have a history of statements about cycling that are at odds with international best practice, and those who oppose cycling (yes, they exist) use these statements as fuel.

    While the intention of this tweet was supposed to be benign, it's actually a textbook loaded question; there is no right answer. If they had simply included a third option - "Neither; all road users should respect eachother", it would have been far less contentious.


  • Options
    #65
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,482 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Why would you distinguish between them?
    Isn't that equally driving a wedge and enabling the "least worst" result of the vote.

    In both cases running red lights is stupid and puts lives at risk. Case closed.

    The degree of risk is very different in each case though


  • Options
    #66
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Weepsie wrote: »
    The degree of risk is very different in each case though

    True, but to be fair...RED is RED and all road users should respect that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Weepsie wrote: »
    The degree of risk is very different in each case though

    How exactly?

    In both cases someone is risking being hit and killed.
    If a car breaks a red they risk running over a bike, if a bike breaks a red they risk being run over by a car.

    TBH this reeks of defending cyclists breaking reds.
    "Shure they arent hurting anyone"


  • Options
    #68
    rushfan
    Registered Users Posts: 970 ✭✭✭rushfan


    Lusk_Doyle wrote:
    Yes but if you have to resort to wishing for one then there is something very wrong.


    Honestly, is your EVERY experience with AGS positive? I should point out that I've no convictions of any sort, nor any pending, never had penalty points, I'm the type who stops the bike at red lights etc, I've had many many interactions with them via work etc, some are positive, some are not. There are people in all walks of life who are not interested in their job , mine included.


  • Options
    #69
    Granolite
    Registered Users Posts: 199 ✭✭Granolite


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not sure if serious?

    It makes no harm.
    Hurts no body.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not sure if serious?

    It makes no harm.
    Hurts no body.


    You are, respectfully, deluded in that case. It does hurt people in perpetuating a culture of effective `victim blaming' and encourages a bias in thinking in society at large that people cycling are inherently a cohort of rule breaker's equivocal to the danger posed by poor driving (I'll leave aside the air pollution issue) and stymies any real progress in tackling the real danger presented by dangerous driving on the roads.

    How else can you explain the sort of detestable court decision's in this country that have for years allowed drivers who kill and severely maim on our roads off the hook from appropriate sentencing for their crimes other than the delusion you and others who share your way of thinking in society bring to this discussion;

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-several-drivers-avoided-jail-after-being-convicted-of-causing-death-36460558.html

    5.6kWp - SW (220 degrees) - North Sligo



  • Options
    #70
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    True, but to be fair...RED is RED and all road users should respect that.

    True, but to be fair... ALL types of road users break red lights yet only one group of road users is being targeted by our national police force's social media division.


  • Options
    #71
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    True, but to be fair... ALL types of road users break red lights yet only one group of road users is being targeted by our national police force's social media division.

    Agreed...we need better enforcement for ALL road users..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    1bryan
    Registered Users Posts: 815 ✭✭✭1bryan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Is posts count a metre for you?

    if there are 100 of them and they are 1cm each then, yes


  • Options
    #73
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    begbysback wrote: »
    I guess that was the point of the tweet - to view from an alternative perspective, i don't get why cyclists jump down the throat of stuff like this just because it may initially appear to make them out as the villains
    It was divisive, and further propagates the false equivalence between motoring offences and cycling offences. That's why.


  • Options
    #74
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    True, but to be fair... ALL types of road users break red lights yet only one group of road users is being targeted by our national police force's social media division.

    Which is exactly the point for not trying to differentiate between them.

    They are both equally stupid, illegal & dangerous.


  • Options
    #75
    1bryan
    Registered Users Posts: 815 ✭✭✭1bryan


    begbysback wrote: »
    Have you ever been run over by a car parked in a cycle lane?

    I know 2 people who have been seriously injured by a car parked in a cycle lane. Albeit neither case is recent.


  • Options
    #76
    Exiled1
    Registered Users Posts: 337 ✭✭Exiled1


    Once upon a time height was the principal qualification to enter the Gardai.....but that qualification has been removed in recent years.


  • Options
    #77
    1bryan
    Registered Users Posts: 815 ✭✭✭1bryan


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Which is exactly the point for not trying to differentiate between them.

    They are both equally stupid, illegal & dangerous.

    equally dangerous? Really?


  • Options
    #78
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,598 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Why would you distinguish between them?
    Isn't that equally driving a wedge and enabling the "least worst" result of the vote.

    In both cases running red lights is stupid and puts lives at risk. Case closed.
    it was not a suggestion that they proceed with my comparison, more a 'if they're making stupid comparisons, why didn't they go with a more obvious one?'


  • Options
    #79
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    1bryan wrote: »
    equally dangerous? Really?

    Equally illegal.

    Yes a cyclist who ignores a red light at a pedestrian crossing, when the light is Red and there's nobody crossing, is not really risking life and limb, but its still illegal and certainly adds to the "Them and us" row.

    In the same way a car that does the same thing is also probably not going to harm anyone, but both are illegal.


  • Options
    #80
    terrydel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,881 ✭✭✭terrydel


    Exiled1 wrote: »
    Once upon a time height was the principal qualification to enter the Gardai.....but that qualification has been removed in recent years.

    Its now willingness to turn a blind eye to corruption.


  • Options
    #81
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    1bryan wrote: »
    equally dangerous? Really?

    Yes, in both cases someone has an increased risk of dying.
    In most cases that wont be the driver of the car, but in both cases *someones* life is being put at risk, whether that be the cyclist or a pedestrian or perhaps the driver who has to swerve to avoid the cyclist.

    Do you only consider things dangerous from one point of view?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Yes, in both cases someone has an increased risk of dying.
    In most cases that wont be the driver of the car, but in both cases *someones* life is being put at risk, whether that be the cyclist or a pedestrian or perhaps the driver who has to swerve to avoid the cyclist.

    Do you only consider things dangerous from one point of view?

    They are not equally dangerous because they don't carry an equally increased risk of injury or death.

    Case in point; I've been hit by a cyclist and I walked away unscathed. Something tells me the outcome would have been different if it was a car.


  • Options
    #83
    Eamonnator
    Registered Users Posts: 6,561 ✭✭✭Eamonnator


    Exiled1 wrote: »
    Once upon a time height was the principal qualification to enter the Gardai.....but that qualification has been removed in recent years.

    Many years ago, when I was thinking of joining AGS, I mentioned it to a friend.
    He looked at me and said "Well you're tall enough, but are you thick enough?"


  • Options
    #84
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    They are not equally dangerous because they don't carry an equally increased risk of injury or death.

    Case in point; I've been hit by a cyclist and I walked away unscathed. Something tells me the outcome would have been different if it was a car.

    What about the RLJ cyclist who is hit by a car or causes a car crash due to avoidance?

    You are only assigning "danger" to the person choosing to break the lights, there are other people on the road and the dangerousness includes all of their outcomes, not just the numpty breaking the lights.


  • Options
    #85
    1bryan
    Registered Users Posts: 815 ✭✭✭1bryan


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Yes, in both cases someone has an increased risk of dying.
    In most cases that wont be the driver of the car, but in both cases *someones* life is being put at risk, whether that be the cyclist or a pedestrian or perhaps the driver who has to swerve to avoid the cyclist.

    Do you only consider things dangerous from one point of view?

    you said 'equally' dangerous. Please explain how they are 'equally' dangerous. Obviously both cases are dangerous, but please explain how you can equate the danger levels of a car breaking a red pedestrian light with pedestrians crossing, with a cyclist doing likewise.


  • Options
    #86
    Lusk_Doyle
    Registered Users Posts: 4,338 ✭✭✭Lusk_Doyle


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Not sure if serious?

    It makes no harm.
    Hurts no body.

    Oh, harmless. Now, I sea.


  • Options
    #87
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    GreeBo wrote: »
    What about the RLJ cyclist who is hit by a car or causes a car crash due to avoidance?

    You are only assigning "danger" to the person choosing to break the lights, there are other people on the road and the dangerousness includes all of their outcomes, not just the numpty breaking the lights.

    That's not who I'm assigning danger to; I'm very much talking about other road users. That's why I used a personal example of where I was another road user.

    So to be crystal clear; a cyclist breaking a red light and a motorist breaking a red light aren't equally dangerous because they don't carry an equally increased risk of injury or death to others. In the general scheme of things, someone hit by a car breaking a red light is going to fare worse than someone hit by a bike breaking a red light.


  • Options
    #88
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    1bryan wrote: »
    you said 'equally' dangerous. Please explain how they are 'equally' dangerous. Obviously both cases are dangerous, but please explain how you can equate the danger levels of a car breaking a red pedestrian light with pedestrians crossing, with a cyclist doing likewise.

    I literally just did in the post above yours.

    Again, you are only assigning danger to the party breaking the lights, thats fine in a closed system. On roads with other humans you have to take the overall outcome into consideration.


  • Options
    #89
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    That's not who I'm assigning danger to; I'm very much talking about other road users. That's why I used a personal example of where I was another road user.

    So to be crystal clear; a cyclist breaking a red light and a motorist breaking a red light aren't equally dangerous because they don't carry an equally increased risk of injury or death to others. In the general scheme of things, someone hit by a car breaking a red light is going to fare worse than someone hit by a bike breaking a red light.

    So you see a difference between a crash involving a cyclist and a car depending on which one of them broke the light?

    Liability has nothing to do with the outcome or the risk involved.

    Why are you solely focusing on the cyclist hitting a pedestrian, what about the collisions the cyclist is exposing themselves to?


  • Options
    #90
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    It was divisive, and further propagates the false equivalence between motoring offences and cycling offences. That's why.
    Posted just before the thread decended into an argument about offence equivalence... This is why the tweet was stupid.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    1bryan
    Registered Users Posts: 815 ✭✭✭1bryan


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I literally just did in the post above yours.

    Again, you are only assigning danger to the party breaking the lights, thats fine in a closed system. On roads with other humans you have to take the overall outcome into consideration.

    it was the 'other humans' that I was specifically thinking of. In the current example, pedestrians. Now please explain how a situation where a car can drive into a bunch of pedestrians following a RLJ can be considered equally as dangerous as a cyclist doing likewise.


Advertisement