The Extent of the Duty of Care of the Gardai

Eru

Trojan911 wrote:

Oh I do support the Gardaí but there are limits to what I expect. Is an intruder alarm call that urgent? do Gardaí really need to travel at high speed to respond to one? I say no to certain response calls. How many intruder alarms are set off in error compared to actual genuine ones?

Well unlike yourself we dont have the ability to see the future so we cannot decide in advance if its a false alarm or if someone is 10 seconds away from being stabbed or shot. I call that worthy of a fast response.

Trojan911 wrote:

A person did die as a result of an emergency vehicle speeding. Thus the creation of this thread.

Have you deliberately misread? Will you stand by your comments when a person dies because we DIDNT speed to the call and get there too late? well?

Trojan911 wrote:

It will make all emergency drivers accounable for their actions and make them think of the consequences should a collision occur.

Yes and that means we will no longer speed or respond with any form of speed. Is this what you want? Will you stand by your comments when we will no longer risk jail time to save lives? You take advantage of emergency services and our dedication to duty.

Trojan911

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Well unlike yourself we dont have the ability to see the future so we cannot decide in advance if its a false alarm or if someone is 10 seconds away from being stabbed or shot. I call that worthy of a fast response.


Have you deliberately misread? Will you stand by your comments when a person dies because we DIDNT speed to the call and get there too late? well?


Yes and that means we will no longer speed or respond with any form of speed. Is this what you want? Will you stand by your comments when we will no longer risk jail time to save lives? You take advantage of emergency services and our dedication to duty.

KW1978,

This is where your lack of experience lets you down.... Get a few years service under your belt then I'll take notice of you.

TJ911...

Eru

Trojan911 wrote:

KW1978,

This is where your lack of experience lets you down.... Get a few years service under your belt then I'll take notice of you.

TJ911...

get any experience at all and then you will know what the hell your talking about.

face it, Im right.

Trojan911

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

get any experience at all and then you will know what the hell your talking about.

face it, Im right.

You should really take the blinkers off and look around yourself.....

TJ911...

Eru

Trojan911 wrote:

You should really take the blinkers off and look around yourself.....

TJ911...

Trojan, you have no knowledge and this is the best yiou can do? Pathetic.

Answer yes or no:

will you still state emergency services should not speed when a person dies as a result of the delayed response?

hullaballoo

Karlitosway and Trojan, can you keep it civil please? This heckling doesn't sit well with me.

Turner

Ahh everybody is finding it entertaining, i cant seem to stay away from this thread.

Eru

hullaballoo wrote:

Karlitosway and Trojan, can you keep it civil please? This heckling doesn't sit well with me.

Im trying to have a civilised debate here but Trojan is the one getting personal and dodging fair questions.

maidhc

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

will you still state emergency services should not speed when a person dies as a result of the delayed response?

Hardly to the extent of doing 70mph in a 30mph zone, as was alledged in the above story.

If you were to exceed the motorway limit by the same ratio you would need to be doing about 180mph. I'm not saying gardaí should abide the limits to the last letter, but probably shouldnt show totaly disregard either: Becuase it casues people to die.

Karlito, you seriously need to cool down though!

Turner

You would be lucky to get a formula 1 car around that corner at 70mph!

For a car with a rear bald tyre and with bumps on the road 35-40mph would lose control on that corner.

Its was alleged and the DPP did not have evidence to support a charge of Dangerous driving.

Trojan911

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Trojan, you have no knowledge and this is the best yiou can do? Pathetic.

Answer yes or no:

will you still state emergency services should not speed when a person dies as a result of the delayed response?

Read my previous posts, take your time & digest them, the answer is there and when you get some experience under your belt you just may understand that it's not all about racing around in cars with blues & twos going. You make alot of incorrect assumptions. (I have no further to discuss on this matter).

TJ911...

alfie

This incident is not the norm it rarely ever happens so i dont see the need for emergency services to change the way they drive. Dont get me wrong it is terrible what happened but dont hundreds of people die a year from civilians speeding

mountainyman

Given that the driver had passed the Advanced Driving Test negligence must arise from
1 the condition of the car
2 the nature of the test
3 recklessness on the part of the guard concerned

If driving at 35 mph then only 1 could arise (I suspect).
If driving at 70 mph than all could be causes of action.

However while I have no particular love for the Gardai I would trust the assessment of a guard regarding her own speed before a crowd of civillin witnesses.

The fact that someone has died makes us believe that the ban garda concerned must be in the wrong, not so. A 74 year old woman could have died from anything.

Regarding the issue of the Tyre depth PSV license holders' tyres are not presented for inspection every day.
If the tyre depth conformed to the legal standard then it conformed to the legal standard.

I am sure that Garda forensics could estimate speed based on tyre tracks left on the roadand so on.

With regard to the broader issue I believe that the Garda Siochana as a whole should be held accountable for the misdeeds of its members.

PS Cause of action 2 HOW GOOD CAN THE TEST BE IF A WOMAN CAN PASS IT
This case will never come to court
74 year old woman waiting for a bus = NO QUANTUM.

MM

mountainyman

Chief--- wrote:

Ahh everybody is finding it entertaining, i cant seem to stay away from this thread.

It is annoying and there isn't a pair of them in it.

MM

EducatedGuess

Garda cars are not PSV's, drivers are not required to sit a PSV test, hackneys, taxi's and hearses are all required to have a PSV licence holder driving. Garda cars don't. Although some comments have been personal and too be fair some views and questions. It is not a matter of us and them, for us or against us. Emergency vehicles are required to speed to respond as quickly as possible to any given situation. Lives have been lost by both slow garda and DFB responses, no question. The legal tyre depth is for cars not used as emergency vehicles, civilian vehicles are not driven as 'hard' as emergency vehicles and it should be presumed that emergency vehicles come under a different test.

The argument that people are putting forward that "well if we were to prosecute every garda for dangerous driving" in circumstances such as these, the Gardai just wont respond as quick. The question is to what extent should the Gardai be responsible then, Gardai are not above the law even within their duty of care. Untrained drivers and over used cars must be swaying the balance? "The fact that someone has died makes us believe that the ban garda concerned must be in the wrong, not so. A 74 year old woman could have died from anything." Could have but didn't. Sure if we were all to go around with that attitude, I could go out shoot a 62 year old man and say well, he could have died from anything. A life is a life, are you saying that the accident did not contribute to her death? As to the evidence of tyre tracks, tyre marks are seldom left at a scence during rainy conditions due to aqua plaining [not sure of spelling]. The car skids on a layer of water and it is only after a certain distance marks will be left. So they are unreliable.

See the basis of the question is, I can sue an individual member of the Gardai [civil action] for not carrying out his/her duties in respect of any case relating to me. So why can I not hold the organisation responsible?

mountainyman

EducatedGuess wrote:

"The fact that someone has died makes us believe that the ban garda concerned must be in the wrong, not so. A 74 year old woman could have died from anything."

Could have but didn't. Sure if we were all to go around with that attitude, I could go out shoot a 62 year old man and say well, he could have died from anything. A life is a life, are you saying that the accident did not contribute to her death?

I am not suggesting that the accident played no role in her death.
I am aware of the eggshell skull rule, however could a car travelling at 30 mph kill a 74 year old woman?

EducatedGuess wrote:

Garda cars are not PSV's, drivers are not required to sit a PSV test ... The legal tyre depth is for cars not used as emergency vehicles, civilian vehicles are not driven as 'hard' as emergency vehicles and it should be presumed that emergency vehicles come under a different test.

Is the Advanced driving test not more difficult that the PSV test. I suspect the PSV comparison is something of a red herring.
The Garda Siochana would limit its exposure by considering the matter of the tyre depth.

EducatedGuess wrote:

The argument that people are putting forward that "well if we were to prosecute every garda for dangerous driving" in circumstances such as these, the Gardai just wont respond as quick... Gardai are not above the law even within their duty of care.

Clearly a balance must be struck between response speed and the safety of other road users. The matter must be formally considered and guidelines and procedures put in place, perhaps as part of the advanced driving test. It is not acceptable to leave the matter to individual Gardai and then hang them when something goes wrong. If such guidelines exist individual gardai should adhere to them.

EducatedGuess wrote:

As to the evidence of tyre tracks, tyre marks are seldom left at a scence during rainy conditions due to aqua plaining [not sure of spelling]. The car skids on a layer of water and it is only after a certain distance marks will be left. So they are unreliable.

I was unaware of that.

EducatedGuess wrote:

See the basis of the question is, I can sue an individual member of the Gardai [civil action] for not carrying out his/her duties in respect of any case relating to me. So why can I not hold the organisation responsible?

Why do you believe that you can't?

MM

maidhc

mountainyman wrote:

Given that the driver had passed the Advanced Driving Test negligence must arise from
1 the condition of the car
2 the nature of the test
3 recklessness on the part of the guard concerned

If driving at 35 mph then only 1 could arise (I suspect).

This does not really hold true, speed on its own is proof of very little (and it isnt a defence for a charge of dangerous driving). I think for instance a garda car would be negligent by going past a school at 3pm doing 30mph if children were running in all directions.

mountainyman wrote:

A 74 year old woman could have died from anything.

If you go down this road too far then the inevitable conclusions is that since everyone is going to die, we might as well legalise murder.

mountainyman wrote:

Clearly a balance must be struck between response speed and the safety of other road users. The matter must be formally considered and guidelines and procedures put in place, perhaps as part of the advanced driving test. It is not acceptable to leave the matter to individual Gardai and then hang them when something goes wrong. If such guidelines exist individual gardai should adhere to them.

I agree.

EducatedGuess

Completley agree with mountyman on his points above, a proper system needs to be put in place. But all consider this, the transcript of the Coroners Court is interesting. The engineer pointed out that the tyre on the left rear of the car was 1.6mm, Ford [the maker of the car] recommend 3mm tyre depth. He also said that cost to the Gardai if they were to adhere to Ford's recommendations would be approx €10 million for about 2,200 cars. The jury in the Coroners Court are restricted in the view that if the Coroner directs them to a verdict they must hold the same, he may only give one or two options. However, the jury can make recommendations and these are enforceable. The jury in this case did state that patrol car tyre depth needs to be reviewed.

Now I know that the Garda budget is tight enough and that patrol cars are of substandard, radio communication is poor and not one Garda has a stab vest. But then who is responsible? Does the duty of care fall in the hands of the Gardai, or the State? Lets also remember a Garda died in a patrol car that was not equipped with airbags. So not only are they putting civilians at risk, they are putting Garda lives at risk eveyday. Now some may argue that Gardai understand that in the line of duty, thier lives are at risk. But is it not reasonable to assume that the Gardai put every measure in place to protect members of the force i.e. stab vests etc.

Trojan911

EducatedGuess wrote:

Now I know that the Garda budget is tight enough and that patrol cars are of substandard, radio communication is poor and not one Garda has a stab vest. But then who is responsible? Does the duty of care fall in the hands of the Gardai, or the State? Lets also remember a Garda died in a patrol car that was not equipped with airbags. So not only are they putting civilians at risk, they are putting Garda lives at risk eveyday. Now some may argue that Gardai understand that in the line of duty, thier lives are at risk. But is it not reasonable to assume that the Gardai put every measure in place to protect members of the force i.e. stab vests etc.

I agree, and the question I would next ask is, why are their vehicles, communications and personal safety allowed to be compromised when this is an outright safety issue all round for public and Gardaí.

What steps have been taken to resolve these issues?

A Garda knows that when he / she steps out on patrol there is a remote chance they may not return home alive that evening, that comes with the package. The government should, in my opinion, ensure that safety is not compromised but maximised and not an issue that falls within a budget. One should not excuse finance for safety.

For instance, is there a minimum strength requirement for any team that starts a shift? What if that strength falls below the minimum requirement. There is now a safety issue for both Gardaí & the public right there. How often has this happened?

TJ911...

Scumbag69

Trojan911 wrote:

it's not all about racing around in cars with blues & twos going. You make alot of incorrect assumptions. (I have no further to discuss on this matter).

R U a guard or an enlgish copper? 'Blues and twos' is English slang.

deputydugs

Chief--- wrote:

Even when responding with blue lights + sirens Gardai must not endanger other road users. For example drivin on the wrong side of the road. If a crash was caused by this a charge of dangerous driving could be initiated.

However, as the person behind the wheel when a call does com over the radio, lets say a call where a gang is kicking an unconscious man in the head on the ground.

You will try everything to get to the call as quick as you can, often endangering yourself in the process, many garda cars do not have traction control and do not respond well to being driven hard.

LOL just the other day, I got a speeder, The public where for once taking their time, Then I got one doing 120 and hit the lights and went after him, But da f-uck I could not push the car past 130 cause the steering wheel would have feel off in my hand. It was like I was in a rocket while it was taking off, I swear ta god the car nearly fell apart. It was a 03 ford focus wit 169,000 on the clock:eek: And on another saftey side, where the f-uck was my observer, asleep after calling in sick, well in fairness she did have a lot to drink the night before.