Cyclists, The Law & What can be done to improve cyclist safety

lgk

RobbieMD wrote: »

.... that Garda wouldn’t have been in possession of a thread depth gauge.

All EU legal tyres have tread depth indicators, so no need for a gauge.

smacl

silverharp wrote: »

is there any anti collision (sensor) technology rules for new trucks? or is the tech even there yet?

AFAIK, most self driving trucks and most other autonomous vehicles are processing 360 video and LIDAR in real time and looking at all possible collisions on that basis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8R148hFxPw

RobbieMD

lgk wrote: »

All EU legal tyres have tread depth indicators, so no need for a gauge.

If you think a Garda rubbing his hand on a tyre would satisfy a court then you’d be mistaken.

I’ve seen it first hand on several occasions where the defence ask the Garda how she/he measured the thread. Rubbing the tyre has never been successfully accepted in my experience.

Defence have challenged Gardai who have bought and used their own thread depth gauges, and successfully challenged the calibration of the gauge.

ted1

smacl wrote: »

AFAIK, most self driving trucks and most other autonomous vehicles are processing 360 video and LIDAR in real time and looking at all possible collisions on that basis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8R148hFxPw

Tesla dont use LIDAR

smacl

ted1 wrote: »

Tesla dont use LIDAR

Yep, cost being the main reason stated coupled with so much AI already built around image recognition. I do a lot of work with mobile LIDAR myself and reckon Tesla have this badly wrong. The tech is expensive now as manufacturers recoup dev costs but everything I'm seeing is that the strongest solutions combine imaging and LIDAR.

ted1

smacl wrote: »

Yep, cost being the main reason stated coupled with so much AI already built around image recognition. I do a lot of work with mobile LIDAR myself and reckon Tesla have this badly wrong. The tech is expensive now as manufacturers recoup dev costs but everything I'm seeing is that the strongest solutions combine imaging and LIDAR.

I’m going to go with Elon in this one
https://www.therobotreport.com/researchers-back-teslas-non-lidar-approach-to-self-driving-cars/

beauf

RobbieMD wrote: »

If you think a Garda rubbing his hand on a tyre would satisfy a court then you’d be mistaken.

I’ve seen it first hand on several occasions where the defence ask the Garda how she/he measured the thread. Rubbing the tyre has never been successfully accepted in my experience.

Defence have challenged Gardai who have bought and used their own thread depth gauges, and successfully challenged the calibration of the gauge.

Sounds like something that would happen.

But isn't it visual indicator?

https://www.thejournal.ie/how-to-check-tyre-thread-depth-3039426-Oct2016/

smacl

ted1 wrote: »

I’m going to go with Elon in this one
https://www.therobotreport.com/researchers-back-teslas-non-lidar-approach-to-self-driving-cars/

Problem with imaging and photogrammetry is it either requires good ambient light or shining a light at whatever you're looking at. So Tesla's solution either needs 360 degree spotlights to work in the dark or has blind spots. My understanding is they're going for the latter which is as good as any human driver has now but doesn't make it any safer for cyclists caught on the inside of large vehicles. I reckon Tesla are more concerned about cost than safety on this one. LIDAR and imaging offers far more than either by themselves.

Weepsie

Everyday we experience crappy, buggy software in all types of scales. I don't quite now how autonomous cars will escape that, and with that, I don't see how they'll be as safe as people wish.

smacl

Weepsie wrote: »

Everyday we experience crappy, buggy software in all types of scales. I don't quite now how autonomous cars will escape that, and with that, I don't see how they'll be as safe as people wish.

Question is more whether on average they'll be safer than human drivers which seems likely. I doubt they'll be doing any close passes, dangerous overtakes or breaking lights.

Programmed to rigidly obey a red and orange light and know how to use the correct lane and signal on a roundabout would be good enough start for me. #1 google search when that happens will be how to disable that setting

ted1

Weepsie wrote: »

Everyday we experience crappy, buggy software in all types of scales. I don't quite now how autonomous cars will escape that, and with that, I don't see how they'll be as safe as people wish.

They won’t speed, they won’t be distracted by phones ,they won’t drink or drive when tired ... sounds good so far

CramCycle

Deleted User wrote: »

Programmed to rigidly obey a red and orange light and know how to use the correct lane and signal on a roundabout would be good enough start for me. #1 google search when that happens will be how to disable that setting

Every day the majority of people I meet at roundabouts signal incorrectly. Which I wouldn't mind if it was a sensical mistake but at least half of those make no sense at all, indicating right to go straight through is a favourite that seems to afflict 80% of observed motorists. I have also had people verbally and attempted physically assault me when I use the correct lane and indicate where I should. ****ing roundabouts are sh1t because despite their simplicity, people, in general, are simpler. I understand that people can make mistakes, undoubtedly I have made them too but some of the mistakes are so incredible from the very start of the manoeuvre, they require multiple lapses in judgement, not just one, often not even just two. I understand entirely why the motors forum has essentially banned discussion on roundabouts. People are inherently stupid, I have no doubt in some scenarios I fall into that category, the most dangerous people are those who are inherently stupid but refuse to accept, believe or even realise.

smacl

Pure dreaming, but an interesting bit of tech would to be have a cut down AI in the car provided by the insurance company that logs broken lights, dangerous maneuvers and speeding, etc... and then feeds the information back to the insurance company to set the premium and is available to the police in case of an accident. I reckon people have the ability to drive (and cycle) in accordance with the rules of the road but choose not to as they can get away with bad behaviour.

lgk

RobbieMD wrote: »

I’ve seen it first hand on several occasions where the defence ask the Garda how she/he measured the thread. Rubbing the tyre has never been successfully accepted in my experience.

Who needs to rub a tyre to read an indicator???

I'd be interested in seeing where this has been challenged in your experience, can you provide a link to the courts record? And what's the flaw in the application of EU legislation mandating these indicators as a measure of wear?

There's nearly 550 people every month getting penalty points for tyre defects, many on the basis of the wear indicator who'd love to know that information.

ted1

lgk wrote: »

Who needs to rub a tyre to read an indicator???

Only outside indicators are visible. You need to get into the wheel arch to check the full tyre

lgk

ted1 wrote: »

Only outside indicators are visible. You need to get into the wheel arch to check the full tyre

The poster mentioned a truck where they could clearly see the treads. I doubt any Garda is going to go to the bother of checking treads on a car with tighter wheel arches unless the driver has done something to really annoy them.

magicbastarder

yep, this was a grab truck which sat high, and the full width of the tyre was clearly visible.

cdaly_

smacl wrote: »

Pure dreaming, but an interesting bit of tech would to be have a cut down AI in the car provided by the insurance company that logs broken lights, dangerous maneuvers and speeding, etc... and then feeds the information back to the insurance company to set the premium and is available to the police in case of an accident. I reckon people have the ability to drive (and cycle) in accordance with the rules of the road but choose not to as they can get away with bad behaviour.

I know of one insurer who were offering a discount to young drivers if they would run the insurer's assessment app on their phones. Dunno how easily defeated it would be though.

07Lapierre

cdaly_ wrote: »

I know of one insurer who were offering a discount to young drivers if they would run the insurer's assessment app on their phones. Dunno how easily defeated it would be though.

Give your insurance co. the number of your old smartphone and leave the phone at home?

magicbastarder

there was another option i heard being discussed years ago which never happened - a tracker on the car.
the idea was so as not to penalise young people unduly who needed a car to drive to work, the insurance would be charged per km. so say 3c per km between 6am and 8pm, and 30c per km at night.

lgk

07Lapierre wrote: »

Give your insurance co. the number of your old smartphone and leave the phone at home?

You don't get the discounts if you don't use the app, some also have minimum use criteria.

RobbieMD

lgk wrote: »

Who needs to rub a tyre to read an indicator???

I'd be interested in seeing where this has been challenged in your experience, can you provide a link to the courts record? And what's the flaw in the application of EU legislation mandating these indicators as a measure of wear?

There's nearly 550 people every month getting penalty points for tyre defects, many on the basis of the wear indicator who'd love to know that information.

It’s all district court stuff so unless a reporter writes a paragraph about it then there’s no real record. Precedent can’t be set in a district court either so it’s a null point. Yes people are prosecuted for tyre defects, but I would bet my life on it that they are pleading guilty to a litany of other more serious offences and the defective tyre is TIC so essentially no penalty for it. Tyre defects are not necessarily bald tyres either.

A statutory instrument in 2003 changed the offence from being “excessively worn” to requiring a technical limit of 1.6mm. This measurement must be measured and cannot simply be based on a Garda’s visual estimate. It’s similar to guessing speeding while a garda car follows a speeding car. Yes there might be an indication but there is no definite measurement to present to a court. The onus is on proving beyond a reasonable doubt. No absolute measurement before a court would certainly create a doubt. Or a car with excessively tinted front windows. The windows could be practically black but without a light transmission reading from a tintman device no Garda would prosecute a driver for it

On the thread indicators I think they’re a great idea personally and I’d love to see the Gardai adequately resourced to prosecute all those other offences

beauf

Something is very wrong if we can't do basic stuff.

https://www.tyresafe.org/media-centre/latest-news/165-defective-tyre-prosecutions-hits-seven-year-high/
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2011/10/11/defective-tyre-court-convictions-at-four-year-high/40826/

Sir Galahad

Back to the OP. The Garda car was ASU. Nice guys but they don't think their job is "crime ordinary".

RobbieMD

Sir Galahad wrote: »

Back to the OP. The Garda car was ASU. Nice guys but they don't think their job is "crime ordinary".

Actually looks like a roads policing Tucson. Definetly their job in that instance.

Eamonnator

Sir Galahad wrote: »

Back to the OP. The Garda car was ASU. Nice guys but they don't think their job is "crime ordinary".

No, it was a Road Policing Car.
Traffic offences are definitely not in the job description of the ASU

AndrewJRenko

Weepsie wrote: »

Everyday we experience crappy, buggy software in all types of scales. I don't quite now how autonomous cars will escape that, and with that, I don't see how they'll be as safe as people wish.

Every day we experience mission critical software that works 100% without error - it flies our planes, it makes us breath in intensive care, it manages our traffic lights and more.

Formal methods ensures that this kind of software works.

smacl wrote: »

Question is more whether on average they'll be safer than human drivers which seems likely. I doubt they'll be doing any close passes, dangerous overtakes or breaking lights.

It really wouldn't be hard to beat the average Irish driver on driving quality.

AndrewJRenko

beauf wrote: »

Road death, statistics are flawed because we don't capture them properly, and the ones for cycles don't distinguish between someone falling off their bike in a park and being knocked off on a road.

What do you mean by 'don't capture them properly'? I don't think we've had any cyclists killed falling off their bike in a park for some time now. There are a very small number of cyclist deaths that are clearly the responsibility of the cyclist - like the guy who came off his bike on a steep descent in Wicklow, and the guy who cycled onto the M1 while drunk. But these are a tiny factor in our overall road deaths.

beauf

I meant to say accidents stats. Cycling, deaths are so low as to be useless for stats.