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

Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread

Options
1…161718192022»

Comments

  • Options
    #632
    RobbieMD
    Registered Users Posts: 449 ✭✭RobbieMD


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    You regularly hear appeals from Gardai on the news for dashcam footage. How is that handled if used in a prosecution? Just sounds a bit like they pick and choose when they are happy to take it or not.

    To me it sounds like a case of them needing updated guidelines and technology in this area, the later is true of so many aspects of their day to to day job.

    Dashcam footage can be used in court. Just it’s not as easy as people assume it may be. And just because they appeal for it, doesn’t mean they will be using it in court. It may be used to prove or disprove information already at hand.

    Yeah agree with your comment on the technology aspect. A lot of the IT systems used are very outdated. Highlighted by pretty much every oversight body as being critical to moving AGS into the 21st century.


  • Options
    #633
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,018 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Fian wrote: »
    To admit it in evidence you need to "prove" it - call the person who made the video to say where & when they made it, otherwise it could be 20 year old footage from another country and nobody would know.


    Could be difficult to produce 20 year old footage from another country with 171D registrations.

    ED E wrote: »
    Your word is enough. All it takes is an accusation.

    Joe Bloggs says 01D1234 was driving dangerously on Pearse Street at 12:30PM on Tuesday.
    Garda takes statement
    Garda approaches 01D1234 and repeats accusation, offers FCPN option if they want to accept culpability. If not it proceeds towards court.


    This is the theory all right. Video helps to eliminate the he said/she said stuff.


    Though Gardai still generally seem reluctant to act on it. I had video showing a driver using the phone five times over the course of 10 minutes or so. I was able to identify the brand of phone. I gave a formal statement (under formal caution, as I had crossed the white line momentarily) and the response from the investigating Garda was;


    Garda: Well, it could have been any kind of device he had in his hands?
    Me: So Garda, what kind of device do you think it was?
    Garda: I don't have to answer to you.


    Hurrache wrote: »
    Well this escalated quickly once Cllr Keith Redmond got involved needlessly and made an absolute tit of himself. I'm sure some here are in the same constituency (Howth/Malahide) as the eejit?

    https://twitter.com/roakleyIRL/status/1080770398675976192?s=19
    Surprisingly, when Redmond was brought onto Prime Time to discuss cycling last year in the usual "Let's find an extreme viewpoint to stir things up", he was actually fairly rational and even vaguely reasonable.


  • Options
    #634
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,230 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Didn't realise that was him on Prime Time. He's still needling cyclists on twitter since getting involved in the initial spat anyway.


  • Options
    #635
    SixSixSix
    Registered Users Posts: 50 ✭✭SixSixSix


    Fian wrote: »
    To admit it in evidence you need to "prove" it - call the person who made the video to say where & when they made it, otherwise it could be 20 year old footage from another country and nobody would know.

    How about if the evidence came from the perpetrator who just also happened to be the maker and supplier?

    2hxng4l.jpg


  • Options
    #636
    Statler
    Registered Users Posts: 890 ✭✭✭Statler


    CCTV used in court cases is very rarely (if ever these days) the 'original'. Most CCTV systems nowadays are digital, so in order to preserve the original the Gardai would need to remove the hard drive from the unit, rendering it (the unit) useless. They download the footage, aka make a copy, there's a record kept of who downloaded it and the chain of custody of the copy from then on, but it's not the original. Once the copy is taken the original, which is still on the CCTV system hard drive, should be overwritten within 30 days as per Data Protection guidelines. The Gardai don't ask that this is prevented, because they have a true copy of the footage. Surely the same applies to all video footage?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #637
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,018 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    When giving video to Gardai with statements, some of the Gardai asked me to detail something like; I downloaded the video from my camera to my laptop when I got home. I copied the video from my laptop to a DVD which I gave to the Garda today.


  • Options
    #638
    RobbieMD
    Registered Users Posts: 449 ✭✭RobbieMD


    Statler wrote: »
    CCTV used in court cases is very rarely (if ever these days) the 'original'. Most CCTV systems nowadays are digital, so in order to preserve the original the Gardai would need to remove the hard drive from the unit, rendering it (the unit) useless. They download the footage, aka make a copy, there's a record kept of who downloaded it and the chain of custody of the copy from then on, but it's not the original. Once the copy is taken the original, which is still on the CCTV system hard drive, should be overwritten within 30 days as per Data Protection guidelines. The Gardai don't ask that this is prevented, because they have a true copy of the footage. Surely the same applies to all video footage?

    So what happens if a Garda investigating a crime obtains a search warrant. They execute the search warrant and seize a hard drive featuring Cctv evidence of an indictable offence. Are you suggesting they should or are obliged to overwrite the hard drive within 30 days?

    If I was a defence barrister, I’m confident that I’d successfully argue against that CCTV being allowed used in court.

    AGS and other authorities have exemptions for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences.

    As Andrew says in his post, they’ll usually include some information in taking your statement that it’s not been edited etc. Recent guidelines have gone further than this and now there is a substantial amount of information to go into a properly taken statement on CCTV.


  • Options
    #639
    Statler
    Registered Users Posts: 890 ✭✭✭Statler


    RobbieMD wrote: »
    So what happens if a Garda investigating a crime obtains a search warrant. They execute the search warrant and seize a hard drive featuring Cctv evidence of an indictable offence. Are you suggesting they should or are obliged to overwrite the hard drive within 30 days?

    No, that's not what I'm saying at all, if anyone has a valid reason to keep footage for more than 30 days then they can, my reasoning is that if the original footage is actually required then Gardai would insist that the original is preserved every time they get a copy of CCTV footage. That doesn't happen.
    RobbieMD wrote: »
    If I was a defence barrister, I’m confident that I’d successfully argue against that CCTV being allowed used in court.

    I may be misunderstanding, if you're saying you could get a true copy of CCTV footage thrown out just becasue it's a copy, then no, you definitely couldn't.
    RobbieMD wrote: »
    and other authorities have exemptions for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences.

    As Andrew says in his post, they’ll usually include some information in taking your statement that it’s not been edited etc. Recent guidelines have gone further than this and now there is a substantial amount of information to go into a properly taken statement on CCTV.

    So, they can take copies of cctv footage once they get a statement from the Data Controller/ CCTV operator? That's pretty much what I'm saying, the original isn't needed...

    Anyway, we're wandering way off topic, long story short if a Garda tells you they need the original video footage then they're fobbing you off. (Note, I'm saying original, not unedited.)


  • Options
    #640
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,018 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Looks like Gardai are happy to use a poor quality copy, taken by filming the display on another device when it suits them.

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/video-gardai-seek-petrol-station-arsonist-895945.html#.XDJwu_cLvsg.twitter

    Oh, I forgot - bloody cyclists...


  • Options
    #641
    Statler
    Registered Users Posts: 890 ✭✭✭Statler


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Looks like Gardai are happy to use a poor quality copy, taken by filming the display on another device when it suits them.

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/video-gardai-seek-petrol-station-arsonist-895945.html#.XDJwu_cLvsg.twitter

    Oh, I forgot - bloody cyclists...

    At least he was wearing high vis :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #642
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,903 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Statler wrote: »
    At least he was wearing high vis :)

    Wouldn't have seen him in the white painters overalls if he wasn't


  • Options
    #643
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,559 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    random aside, but i was recently talking to a retired british policeman who worked on an IRA bombing investigation, combing through CCTV tapes. the first and only thing they did with the original was take a copy, and put the original in an evidence locker.
    then they took a copy of the copy, and watched the copy of the copy - because if they watched the copy and it fouled up, they'd have to go back to the original. 6,000 tapes became 18,000.


  • Options
    #644
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,018 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Wouldn't have seen him in the white painters overalls if he wasn't

    I bet he was watching Where Eagles Dare over the Christmas break


  • Options
    #645
    ED E
    Registered Users Posts: 36,167 ✭✭✭✭ED E


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Though Gardai still generally seem reluctant to act on it.

    Its a lotto. I've had good Gardai in at least four stations. One who seemed reluctant turned out to be right terrier and really went for a fleet manager of a company who were using phones for dispatching but were doing so handheld.

    Know plenty who have had your experience too.


  • Options
    #646
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,018 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    ED E wrote: »
    Its a lotto. I've had good Gardai in at least four stations. One who seemed reluctant turned out to be right terrier and really went for a fleet manager of a company who were using phones for dispatching but were doing so handheld.

    Know plenty who have had your experience too.
    Funnily enough, the best outcome I had was with a Garda who was more than reluctant initially, but was telling me that I was liable for prosecution for swearing. In fact, I wasn't swearing, so once we got over that, he became a bit of a terrier, and made sure the driver was fined and penalty-pointed for phone use.


  • Options
    #647
    Dowee
    Registered Users Posts: 310 ✭✭Dowee


    Today on Radio Nova I heard an RSA ad about the minimum passing distance and it advised giving 1m in areas of 60kmph or under. Have the RSA officially changed their stance on this?

    I've heard the same ad previously and it was 1m in 50kmph or under zones.

    Anyone else hear this?


  • Options
    #648
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,559 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    was it a 'please give cyclists this much distance' or 'you must give cyclists this much distance' message?


  • Options
    #649
    Dowee
    Registered Users Posts: 310 ✭✭Dowee


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    was it a 'please give cyclists this much distance' or 'you must give cyclists this much distance' message?

    The former


  • Options
    #650
    Grassey
    Registered Users Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Grassey


    Should get the RSA to hand out these instead of the little button lights :P:P

    [URL=https:///]118054e7d5425602ef522b759f3e2252-full.png[/URL]



  • Options
    #651
    zell12
    Registered Users Posts: 25,208 ✭✭✭✭zell12


    Is MPD law? Or is it being enforced? I've seen all those 50cm and 150cm RSA ads

    Was dealing with a garda sgt earlier, who insisted it is not passed into law yet, and all garda can do is act on 'driving with undue care' or 'careless driving'. Sgt went on and on about proving the distance between the vehicle and cyclist.

    Was not knowledgeable enough on issue to challenge the assertion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #652
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,559 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    The Garda was correct. The law was not changed to specify a specific distance.



  • Options
    #653
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,018 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119328812#Comment_119328812

    Print out this page and send it to him.

    https://www.garda.ie/en/about-us/our-departments/office-of-corporate-communications/press-releases/2019/november/new-cycling-legislation-announced-on-the-12-11-19.html

    There is no specific distance in the law, but there is a specific offence of dangerous overtaking of a cyclist.

    It's one of the two only good things Shane Ross did in his term as Minister for Transport.



Advertisement