What power do off-duty guards have?

high horse · 15-09-2010 2:15pm

Anan1 wrote: »

That's a bit paranoid, TBH. There are a million reasons why anyone (Garda or not) may want to stop another car, some of which might save your life. Keep the doors locked, an escape route open, and only crack open the window by all means, but it's really not half as dangerous as the TV lets on.;)

I didn't think I was being paranoid, in fact I didn't even think of any dangerous situations that could arise from it. If I've just overtaken a car then I must have somewhere I need to be so pulling over to discuss the grievances of some other motorist who doesn't like being overtaken ranks last on my list of priorities.

If another motorist needs my help i really doubt they will wait until I've just overtaken them to signal for assistance

Matt Simis · 15-09-2010 2:16pm

Anan1 wrote: »

The vast majority of people are decent, if someone flashes me i'll assume (while taking sensible precautions) that they're genuinely trying to help and not some come-to-life character out of a horror movie.

I think you are the one media obsessed! Im not only picturing the criminal types, but also Johnny do-good telling me what I did wrong or some crap. Thats never happened to me, but Ive been in a car where it did.

As I said, I do stop and check my car etc if someone was flashing me, but I wouldnt immediately stop on a backroad (most of my road driving) away from everyone to have a chat with some stranger in the night. If I did do that and was robbed etc everyone on here would immediately flip flop to the "OMG you fool, why would you stop for some oddball on an empty road" point of view.

On the topic of Garda powers (they can smell crime), I assume the road driver is not meant to automagically know the guy behind them flashing is an off duty cop and therefore are not obliged to stop anyhow. Correct?

NOGMaxpower · 15-09-2010 2:22pm

1st up, i would never have stopped for someone dressed as a garda in a people carrier. he could've been someone posing as a garda and she could've been abducted, raped and killed having stopped. who knows what psycho he could've been.

So in short having stopped was a mongo idea in the 1st place. He had no right to stop you the way he did i would've kept driving.

Anan1 · 15-09-2010 2:40pm

Matt Simis wrote: »

I think you are the one media obsessed! Im not only picturing the criminal types, but also Johnny do-good telling me what I did wrong or some crap. Thats never happened to me, but Ive been in a car where it did.

Reminds me of a friend's advice once when I wouldn't answer a call where the number was withheld. 'Answer it. If you don't like what you're hearing you can always hang up.'

Matt Simis wrote: »

As I said, I do stop and check my car etc if someone was flashing me, but I wouldnt immediately stop on a backroad (most of my road driving) away from everyone to have a chat with some stranger in the night.

Every case is different, i'd weigh up the potential risks myself and i'd always have an escape route open. In a case where i'd just overtaken someone i'd have the antennae up for either Gardaí or an irate citizen.

Matt Simis wrote: »

If I did do that and was robbed etc everyone on here would immediately flip flop to the "OMG you fool, why would you stop for some oddball on an empty road" point of view.

I'd imagine you could rely on that.

Matt Simis wrote: »

On the topic of Garda powers (they can smell crime), I assume the road driver is not meant to automagically know the guy behind them flashing is an off duty cop and therefore are not obliged to stop anyhow. Correct?

Correct.

Matt Simis · 15-09-2010 2:50pm

Anan1 wrote: »

Correct.

That itself, it would be annoying to think you could be done for ignoring a Garda if you didnt know they were one.

Anan1 · 15-09-2010 3:27pm

Matt Simis wrote: »

That itself, it would be annoying to think you could be done for ignoring a Garda if you didnt know they were one.

You'd think a Garda would be sensitive to that, too. I was pulled once by a detective in his private car, rather than chasing me he waited until I was stationary in traffic, pulled alongside, bipped the horn and showed me his badge. Of course it all depends on the situation.

Interceptor · 15-09-2010 4:02pm

I'm not reading all five pages - did anyone suggest that the cop might have taken a fancy to the OP's friend and thought he'd get her number and then realised she was a swamp donkey so he made up some excuse and left quickly?

'cptr

Rob67 · 15-09-2010 9:08pm

dahamster wrote: »

So it didn't go to a real court then

Military Law and Military courts at that time (I'm retired) still followed civil law procedures, evidence and statements could be contested just like in civilian courts, when at Courts Martial.

Most driving offences were summarily dealt with at Unit level unless the accused opted for a trial by Court Martial (an option given to all defendants). Evidence and statements would be examined to the same exacting standards allowed for in normal hearings.

If anything, an M.P. would be exposed to even higher standards of scrutiny whilst presenting evidence, with far more serious consequences if found to be committing an act of perjury or tampering.

FYI: The Defence Forces now conduct hearings to exactly the same as those in civilian trials via DJAG's (Director, Judge Advocate Generals) office.

Happy? Probably not...:rolleyes:;)

Johnny Utah · 16-09-2010 12:12am

- The power to enter any nightclub free of charge....
- The power to consume free food from the local chipper....
- The power to jump the queue at the taxi-rank....
- The power to....

Johnny Utah · 16-09-2010 12:14am

Rob67 wrote: »

Military Law and Military courts at that time (I'm retired) still followed civil law procedures, evidence and statements could be contested just like in civilian courts, when at Courts Martial.

Most driving offences were summarily dealt with at Unit level unless the accused opted for a trial by Court Martial (an option given to all defendants). Evidence and statements would be examined to the same exacting standards allowed for in normal hearings.

If anything, an M.P. would be exposed to even higher standards of scrutiny whilst presenting evidence, with far more serious consequences if found to be committing an act of perjury or tampering.

FYI: The Defence Forces now conduct hearings to exactly the same as those in civilian trials via DJAG's (Director, Judge Advocate Generals) office.

Happy? Probably not...:rolleyes:;)

In civil law, the burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
In criminal law, the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt. :cool:

D_murph · 16-09-2010 1:02am

high horse wrote: »

There is absolutely no way I would pull over for a non-garda car! Unless I get the flashing blue lights, I'll keep on going thanks! :rolleyes:

X2^.

high horse wrote: »

I didn't think I was being paranoid, in fact I didn't even think of any dangerous situations that could arise from it. If I've just overtaken a car then I must have somewhere I need to be so pulling over to discuss the grievances of some other motorist who doesn't like being overtaken ranks last on my list of priorities.

If another motorist needs my help i really doubt they will wait until I've just overtaken them to signal for assistance

And this is why^.

Nothing to do with car jackers or rapists or anything.

For all I know, the person I overtook (had I been in this situation) is pi$$ed off at me for passing them. Some people are like that :rolleyes:.

I would seriously doubt they are flashing me to pull over to tell me I have a flat tyre etc. Much more likely that they might feel like giving me a piece of their mind or something so in that case so they can flash their headlights away all they want but I will be vanishing further away into the distance and they can f**k off. No way I could have known they were a guard either so its not the same as knowingly fleeing from a marked squad car/undercover one.

I cannot see the 106KMH in an 80 stand in court. The guard should have just stuck with a dangerous driving charge or something IMO but putting it down to a precise figure like that from another moving vehicle would have to sound fishy to any judge with a brain out there.

I reckon its quite possible that he was just giving her a scare and she might not hear any more about this TBH.

Keep us posted OP :cool:.

af_thefragile · 16-09-2010 1:07am

Was once stopped up somewhere near Balbriggan by an unmarked Garda car. Didn't know Gards drove Nissan Almeras too...

Was driving on the country road with the lights on in my car cuz my friend was eating and wanted the lights. The Guard came over and asked why I was driving with the lights on, I explained him about my friend trying to eat. Didn't look like he appreciated that answer much. Then he asked for my license and asked why I didn't have L plates on (was a learner back then). I told him they fell off and showed him the L plates. He didn't like that either. Told me its illegal to drive without the L plates, fine of 60eur for each missing L plate. Told me to put them back up before driving. And he left...

So all in all he went easy on me...

Dublin_Gunner · 16-09-2010 1:28am

af_thefragile wrote: »

Was once stopped up somewhere near Balbriggan by an unmarked Garda car. Didn't know Gards drove Nissan Almeras too...

Was driving on the country road with the lights on in my car cuz my friend was eating and wanted the lights. The Guard came over and asked why I was driving with the lights on, I explained him about my friend trying to eat. Didn't look like he appreciated that answer much. Then he asked for my license and asked why I didn't have L plates on (was a learner back then). I told him they fell off and showed him the L plates. He didn't like that either. Told me its illegal to drive without the L plates, fine of 60eur for each missing L plate. Told me to put them back up before driving. And he left...

So all in all he went easy on me...

Ah come on, have you not left your house in about 15 years?? They drive all manner of vehicles these days, from Almera's to punto's and all sorts.

af_thefragile · 16-09-2010 1:39am

The only unmarked Garda cars I've seen are Mondeos...
And that one Almera...

D_murph · 16-09-2010 1:52am

af_thefragile wrote: »

The only unmarked Garda cars I've seen are Mondeos...
And that one Almera...

They have Opel Vectras in Cork as well. I have seen them with the gear on the dash that resembles a taxi meter but isn't

and a few aerials on the roof.

Anan1 · 16-09-2010 9:40am

Interceptor wrote: »

I'm not reading all five pages - did anyone suggest that the cop might have taken a fancy to the OP's friend and thought he'd get her number and then realised she was a swamp donkey so he made up some excuse and left quickly?

'cptr

If you can't take the time to read a thread then don't bother to post in it.

Matt Simis · 16-09-2010 10:52am

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Ah come on, have you not left your house in about 15 years?? They drive all manner of vehicles these days, from Almera's to punto's and all sorts.

Yeah, anything these days. Saw a very rough looking and old (very old) model Camry today with the hidden flashing blues at an accident (or something, hard to tell). They say there is a 530d patrolling the M3 too.

KingIsabella · 16-09-2010 11:39am

It definitly wasn't an unmarked car. It was a C-reg "granny mobile" in the words of the two in the car, thats why they did stop when he first started flashing them.

Overature · 16-09-2010 11:44am

if he didn't have a speed camera then he cant charge you for speeding

subway · 16-09-2010 11:51am

Rob67 wrote: »

The co-driver would use the speedo and select two points on the road and time the distance travelled, the driver has to maintain a constant distance behind subject vehicle.
I was Military Police and used this method for a few year before we got decent speed detectors and yes, I got convictions...

do you select these points weeks in advance and meaure them or is there an industry standard distance between trees / roadsigns / walls etc?
maintain constant distance behind him? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax
surely if you are maintaining a constant distance behind him the easiest calculation is to look at your own speedo! and even then its not reliable as evidence.

in this example, the car overtook the garda car, meeting none of your criteria.

c'mon this is a windup

pippip · 16-09-2010 11:52am

Overature wrote: »

if he didn't have a speed camera then he cant charge you for speeding

so if you drive by a garda car at 100mph and they don't catch you on camera you think you'll get away with it?

I would suggest that the charge in the op's case would be dangerous or reckless driving. (as no speed camera was used)

subway · 16-09-2010 11:55am

pippip wrote: »

so if you drive by a garda car at 100mph and they don't catch you on camera you think you'll get away with it?

I would suggest that the charge in the op's case would be dangerous or reckless driving. (as no speed camera was used)

if the Op is to be believed, the caution was for speeding.
and if a charge of dangerous driving for safely overtaking a slower moving is brought, surely there is no evidence to support it?
(car driving 70kmh, safe to overtake, etc, as reported)

pippip · 16-09-2010 11:58am

Yeh but if the copper was doing 70kph, you would need a long long stretch of road to get by without doing above 80kph.

No offense to the OP but any details in a story like this needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

limklad · 16-09-2010 5:00pm

Rob67 wrote: »

The garda would carry out a time and speed over a set distance calculation which would give an approximate speed that the driver was doing. It is permissible as evidence in court (if required)

This is bull.

All cars speed odometers can be legally out of spec by 10%. My car over reads by 7-8% according to the GPS, my neighbour car under reads by 5%. The Guard car speed odometer need to be tested if he using that as part of his bull speed reading. If the Guard believes he doing 70kph according to his odometer, he could actually be doing between 63kph and 77kph. Same goes for the Op friend who could have be travelling between 72kph and 88kph.

Also the deflation of the wheel or changing of the Wheel Rims/tyres can affect the actual speed reading of the car in comparison to the odometer reading.
So the guard could be actually travelling at 63kph and the Other driver could actually be travelling 88kph. So you do not need a very long road to over take easily.

To Approximate any distance by eye is a judgement call which can easily be out by 40% with most people are unless unless they are mechanically minded with experience. If I was the barrister/Solicitor defending the driver, I would requested independent and verifiable proof that the guard has accurate eye-balling speed reading skills down to the Kph which can be measured with a gold standard calibrated measurement device. Without the use of a verifiable calibrated radar/laser gun while stationary to quote 106kph is just hot air.

batman1 · 16-09-2010 9:15pm

limklad wrote: »

This is bull.

My car over reads by 7-8% according to the GPS, my neighbour car under reads by 5%.

Although you seem to have a thorough knowledge of car speedo's, you know feck all about GPS if you are relying on it to tell the accuracy of your car. GPS has errors which will mean it would not be accurate enough to determine that information accurately. Stick to your speedo.

Mycroft H · 16-09-2010 9:30pm

batman1 wrote: »

Although you seem to have a thorough knowledge of car speedo's, you know feck all about GPS if you are relying on it to tell the accuracy of your car. GPS has errors which will mean it would not be accurate enough to determine that information accurately. Stick to your speedo.

On a long straight road with a good signal, most gps units are accurate to within .1 to .4 meters per second. And thats very accurate.

Speedometers are pretty good at giving a estimate of the current speed, nothing else. There is too many variables, such as tyre wear, tyre pressure, the speedo cable ect ect ect....

slimjimmc · 16-09-2010 10:07pm

limklad wrote: »

This is bull.

All cars speed odometers can be legally out of spec by 10%. My car over reads by 7-8% according to the GPS, my neighbour car under reads by 5%. The Guard car speed odometer need to be tested if he using that as part of his bull speed reading. If the Guard believes he doing 70kph according to his odometer, he could actually be doing between 63kph and 77kph. Same goes for the Op friend who could have be travelling between 72kph and 88kph.

Also the deflation of the wheel or changing of the Wheel Rims/tyres can affect the actual speed reading of the car in comparison to the odometer reading.
So the guard could be actually travelling at 63kph and the Other driver could actually be travelling 88kph. So you do not need a very long road to over take easily.

To Approximate any distance by eye is a judgement call which can easily be out by 40% with most people are unless unless they are mechanically minded with experience. If I was the barrister/Solicitor defending the driver, I would requested independent and verifiable proof that the guard has accurate eye-balling speed reading skills down to the Kph which can be measured with a gold standard calibrated measurement device. Without the use of a verifiable calibrated radar/laser gun while stationary to quote 106kph is just hot air.

Just in case anyone gets the wrong idea, EU speedometers are set to over-read (by up to +10% +4kph), never under-read. Therefore an indicated speed of 70kph would be a true speed of 59-70kph, it would never* read 71-77kph. If both drivers kept their speedo needles spot on 70pkh and 80kph respectively the overtaking car would not exceed 80kph* but the relative difference between both cars could be more than 10kph if both speedos over-read differently. That could give the perception the overtaking car was going much faster than it was.

* assuming the rolling radius hasn't been increased from the original specs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedometer

European Union member states must also grant type approval to vehicles meeting similar EU standards. The ones covering speedometers [4] [5][6] are similar to the UNECE regulation in that they specify that:

* The indicated speed must never be less than the actual speed, i.e. it should not be possible to inadvertently speed because of an incorrect speedometer reading.
* The indicated speed must not be more than 110 percent of the true speed plus 4 km/h at specified test speeds. For example, at 80 km/h, the indicated speed must be no more than 92 km/h.

CiniO · 17-09-2010 12:43am

pippip wrote: »

Yeh but if the copper was doing 70kph, you would need a long long stretch of road to get by without doing above 80kph.

No offense to the OP but any details in a story like this needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Let's involve a bit o maths.
Let's assume car you are overtaking is 5m long, you change lane to right 15m before the car, and change back the same 15m after passing the car. Your car is 5m also.
All you need is 40m.
At speed difference of 10km/h (80km/h - 70km/h) you are travelling at 2.78m/s so you need just a bit less then 14.5s to overtake.
At 80km/h 14.5s is a distance of 320m.

That's long, but not as you said "long long stretch of road".
On a nice straight stretch with low traffic, it's absolutely possible to do.

pippip · 17-09-2010 10:44am

CiniO wrote: »

Let's involve a bit o maths.
Let's assume car you are overtaking is 5m long, you change lane to right 15m before the car, and change back the same 15m after passing the car. Your car is 5m also.
All you need is 40m.
At speed difference of 10km/h (80km/h - 70km/h) you are travelling at 2.78m/s so you need just a bit less then 14.5s to overtake.
At 80km/h 14.5s is a distance of 320m.

That's long, but not as you said "long long stretch of road".
On a nice straight stretch with low traffic, it's absolutely possible to do.

Jesus! If you are going to be that pedantic why don't you take into account the full rules of the road i.e. the 2 second rule on distance to the car in front.

At 70kph this is 19.4 metres per second. so you should be 40m behind the car and another 40m ahead before you pull in or your cutting them off.

So i'll let you work out the o maths again.
As I mentioned the ops story is going through a few people so I feel details may not be the most accurate.

KamiKazi · 17-09-2010 11:44am

pippip wrote: »

Jesus! If you are going to be that pedantic why don't you take into account the full rules of the road

The "Rules of the road" is not a legal document nor can you be prosecuted for not adhering to them.

What power do off-duty guards have?

Comments