Any garda checkpoints out today?

greydiamond

Full license finally arrived this morning in the post.:D Think i may hit up the old L plates and drive around with a photocopy of my old provisional, see if I can grind a few gears:cool:

togster

Obey the law like everyone else should.

brick tamland

I've spoken to 2 garda about this over the last few days. both have told me this wont really be inforced. they may use it against someone who is obviously a bit of git. but there wont be any checkpoints out looking for unaccompanied drivers.

Wishbone Ash

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

The fact that this loophole existed in the first place is laughable

This is frequently referred to as a 'loophole' especially in the media in the past few days. It was not a loophole. It was introduced deliberately but, as it was widely abused, it has now been closed off.

Tigger

no
nor will there be
everyone will be fine


but don't get caught speeding cos they'll throw the book at you

January

What if she fails? Would she drive away from the test centre unaccompanied also?

If she were to fail the test for not being a competent enough driver, why would she drive away from the test centre knowing that?

bigpinkelephant

Sam Vimes wrote: »

oh ffs. yes AH has a reputation for silly answers but not every single post on every single thread is taking the piss. all it would take is one single person to give a serious answer. it does occasionally happen. for example, there have been no piss taking posts on this thread

YOUR MA drives unaccompanied!!!!!!!!

bitemybanger

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

YOUR MA drives unaccompanied!!!!!!!!

Or does she;)

Dudess

There was an attempt at enforcing this in late 2002. It just fizzled out... probably because it's so ludicrous.

DjDangerousDave

This thread is about Garda Checkpoints and on that note:

I saw a checkpoint today in liffey vally and they were checking tax, insurance and licences. They had a car pulled over to the side and he (the cop) was holding a blue learners permit and the car had no L plates. I did not get to see what the outcome was though.

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

This is frequently referred to as a 'loophole' especially in the media in the past few days. It was not a loophole. It was introduced deliberately but, as it was widely abused, it has now been closed off.

I have to ask.. why were second provisional license holder permitted to drive unaccompanied in the first place?

DjDangerousDave

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to ask.. why were second provisional license holder permitted to drive unaccompanied in the first place?

Because they had already been driving for 2 year with a qualified driver. At least they were suposed to have been accompanied. It was though they had enough experence to go on their own. This is the kind of logic that got us into this stupid situation.

Then if they went another 2 years without sitting / passing a test they could apply for a third provisional licence on which they had to be accompanied again.

Then as we all know the loophole was simply apply for a test and not turn up and they will keep dishing out the provisional licences.

Tigger

Dudess wrote: »

There was an attempt at enforcing this in late 2002. It just fizzled out... probably because it's so ludicrous.

how is it ludicrious that people should have a lisence to drive a car?

Steve_o

Tigger wrote: »

how is it ludicrious that people should have a lisence to drive a car?

I think she meant that it was ludicrious trying to enforce it because there are so many L drivers. I was talking to a local gard where i'm from yesterday and he said they're not bothered enforcing it because "They've better things to be doing"...

Steve_o

Steve_o wrote: »

I was talking to a local gard where i'm from yesterday and he said they're not bothered enforcing it because "They've better things to be doing"...

It doesn't really matter in the big scheme of things, unaccompanied learners who don't do anything silly (or be involved in an accident) probably won't get caught, its a technicallity anyway.

Just when they do get caught while commiting another offence, they get a much bigger book thrown at them!

faceman

Anyone watch Questions and Answers the other night when they discussed the Learner driver issue?

Bowman put the questions out to the audience and some D4 young one in a strong D4 accent says:

D4 Man:"like who's going to drive me around now like?"

*face/palm*

But she dug her hole deeper when Bowman said "why not get a taxi?" and she replied

"Do i look like the type of a person who can afford to get taxis all the time?"

Tigger

Steve_o wrote: »

I think she meant that it was ludicrious trying to enforce it because there are so many L drivers. I was talking to a local gard where i'm from yesterday and he said they're not bothered enforcing it because "They've better things to be doing"...

nope but the traffic corp will they have nothing better to do
they were all over sligo with speed checks yesterday and i would not like to be the no l-plated provisional holder that is caught speeding

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesn't really matter in the big scheme of things, unaccompanied learners who don't do anything silly (or be involved in an accident) probably won't get caught, its a technicallity anyway.

Just when they do get caught while commiting another offence, they get a much bigger book thrown at them!

i agree but i do believe that while the real cops might leave it the traffic boys will be using their "new" powers to the greatest extent


its not non enforceable we said that about seat belts then mobiles and then drunk drivers and they jhave all been changed in public perception
we said it about smoking in pubs to
next comes the drug-driving random testing which by the way is comming

now thats gonna be funny to watch
the lads that spin round on a little bit of what they fancuy and blow into alcohol testers all day

Dudess

It's ludicrous that it was allowed for so long in the first place and now the government expects it to just vanish.

Tigger

Dudess wrote: »

It's ludicrous that it was allowed for so long in the first place and now the government expects it to just vanish.

i understand now

yes i agree with that

Steve

Tigger wrote: »

next comes the drug-driving random testing which by the way is comming

Hows that going to work?

How do you test for drugs without analysing a blood / urine sample?

I can't see that being achievable as a roadside / random check...

SheroN

Tigger wrote: »

nope but the traffic corp will they have nothing better to do
they were all over sligo with speed checks yesterday and i would not like to be the no l-plated provisional holder that is caught speeding



i agree but i do believe that while the real cops might leave it the traffic boys will be using their "new" powers to the greatest extent


its not non enforceable we said that about seat belts then mobiles and then drunk drivers and they jhave all been changed in public perception
we said it about smoking in pubs to
next comes the drug-driving random testing which by the way is comming

now thats gonna be funny to watch
the lads that spin round on a little bit of what they fancuy and blow into alcohol testers all day

It's not an on the spot fine. They have to bring the person to court. Do you think the court systems can cope with thousands of extra cases coming through? Not a chance.

For every person the traffic cop catches with this law, he'll have to show up in court. He won't be fu(ked turning up and the case will get struck out.

I agree with the sentiment of the law, but I think the way they went about it is unworkable.

Tigger

SheroN wrote: »

It's not an on the spot fine. They have to bring the person to court. Do you think the court systems can cope with thousands of extra cases coming through? Not a chance.

For every person the traffic cop catches with this law, he'll have to show up in court. He won't be fu(ked turning up and the case will get struck out.

I agree with the sentiment of the law, but I think the way they went about it is unworkable.

trafic corp will
real garda won't
as i saiod before the traffic corp have nothing better to do

ojewriej

Tigger wrote: »

as i saiod before the traffic corp have nothing better to do

What do you base that opinion on?

Tigger

stevec wrote: »

Hows that going to work?

How do you test for drugs without analysing a blood / urine sample?

I can't see that being achievable as a roadside / random check...

i'm glad you asked

The new iScreen test makes employee drug testing simpler than ever. This instant on-the-spot test can be done right in an office setting, is designed so that a simple swab of the mouth is all you need and comes with a photocopy ready SAMSHA approved form for accurate record keeping.

"We are excited to add this new test" explains Todd Myers, owner of Personalized Lab Services, LLC. "There are so many great benefits to this test including testing multiple drugs at once, getting your results in just minutes, having no contact with the specimens and tests can include MRO services. It's drug testing efficiency you can count on because it's 99.9% accurate and FDA cleared.

"Besides the new saliva drug test we are also happy to announce a new saliva alcohol screen that detects if an employee has been drinking. These are great for employers who have company vehicles and tests are DOT approved."

basically i was asked a few years ago to pitch this idea/product to schools around the country the issue at the time was that randon was deemed to be a breech of rights

well as randomm has been allowed with sucess jin drunk driving cases the govt are no being lobbied to allow in fact demand random drug testing at the roadside

the large numbers that are found to have other intoxicants in their systems apart from alcohol when failing a blood or urine test in helping this data to be formed and i would expect it to go online by 2010

befor people start with the that'll not work because lines i'm a quallified analytical/forensic chemist who works in sales cos i like money

the most common misconception that people have is that because canabis smoking leaves a thc residue in yourn system for long periods of time then the test would not be indicatitative of recend consumption and intoxication in the same way as herion acid or coke would. i would llike to point out that te saliva based test has onlyb a few hours of window at high levels and so would be a accurate and repeatable test allowable in law for such testing

Tigger

here is the govts postition as it moves towards it



28. Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Transport the amount of funding currently allocated to the Medical Bureau of Road Safety for driver drug testing; his response to the MBRS request two years ago for additional funding in order to expand the drugs analysis programme; his views on the introduction of a roadside drug testing initiative; the international driver drug testing programmes his Department are currently reviewing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9615/08]


Dail Debates. Written Answers. Road Traffic Offences: Dail Debates 05 Feb 2008
146. Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Transport the number of motorists tested and charged with driving under the influence of drugs in each year since 2002; the level of funding and resources he is recommending for the expansion of the drug testing programme of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety; the international experience in the area of drug testing he has or is currently reviewing; if he has plans to start a nationwide initiative to tackle driving under the influence of drugs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3384/08]


Dail Debates. Written Answers. Road Safety: Dail Debates 06 Dec 2007
46. Deputy Kathleen Lynch asked the Minister for Transport the level of funding and resources his Department are requesting in order to expand the drug testing programme of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety; when he will publish a range of comprehensive measures on the drug-testing of drivers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32776/07]

Tigger

ojewriej wrote: »

What do you base that opinion on?

they are the "traffic corp"

they do traffic and traffic managment traffic crimes traffic incidents
basically things to do with traffic

the clue is in the name

SheroN

Tigger wrote: »

they are the "traffic corp"

they do traffic and traffic managment traffic crimes traffic incidents
basically things to do with traffic

the clue is in the name

They are still guards. They have bigger fish to fry than turning up in court every second day to give evidence against someone for driving with L plates.

Tigger

SheroN wrote: »

They are still guards. They have bigger fish to fry than turning up in court every second day to give evidence against someone for driving with L plates.

you think that they should make it an on the spot fine
or that they should make an example of a few people

i have pointed out that they are gonna do speed checks catch some young lads speeding with no L-plates on provisionals and they are gonna roast them over the coals

they have already gone on record as saying as such

"our members will continue to use a logical and compassionate approach to traffic law enforcement"

which m,eans joe duffy people will be fine
people that have low profile tyres not so much

Steve

Tigger wrote: »

i'm glad you asked

So am I, thanks for the info.:)

I just hope they don't make an arse of the legislation as usual though.

BTW, didn't Mythbusters prove that you'd fail a drug test after eating a bagel with poppy seeds :pac:

ojewriej

Tigger wrote: »

they are the "traffic corp"

they do traffic and traffic managment traffic crimes traffic incidents
basically things to do with traffic

the clue is in the name

So nothing then. Thought so.

DjDangerousDave

Tigger wrote: »

i'm glad you asked




basically i was asked a few years ago to pitch this idea/product to schools around the country the issue at the time was that randon was deemed to be a breech of rights

well as randomm has been allowed with sucess jin drunk driving cases the govt are no being lobbied to allow in fact demand random drug testing at the roadside

the large numbers that are found to have other intoxicants in their systems apart from alcohol when failing a blood or urine test in helping this data to be formed and i would expect it to go online by 2010

befor people start with the that'll not work because lines i'm a quallified analytical/forensic chemist who works in sales cos i like money

the most common misconception that people have is that because canabis smoking leaves a thc residue in yourn system for long periods of time then the test would not be indicatitative of recend consumption and intoxication in the same way as herion acid or coke would. i would llike to point out that te saliva based test has onlyb a few hours of window at high levels and so would be a accurate and repeatable test allowable in law for such testing

I believe they use this system in Austraila already. I heard they have cards that they can compare to the size fo the persone pupils and if they think they are dialated they can proceed with the swab test.

Tigger

stevec wrote: »

So am I, thanks for the info.:)

I just hope they don't make an arse of the legislation as usual though.

BTW, didn't Mythbusters prove that you'd fail a drug test after eating a bagel with poppy seeds :pac:

yes


However just because a test for Opiates can be fooled by poppy seeds, it does not mean it is impossible to further isolate illicit drugs such as heroin from being specifically detected in more specific tests. Diacetylmorphine -- aka heroin -- metabolizes rapidly after entering a person's system. Due to this rate of break down, heroin is rarely, if ever, picked up with standard drug testing and one must rely on identification of its metabolites. An assay is now available that can identify a metabolite unique to heroin called 6-0-monoacetylmorphine (aka 6-MAM). So if you test positive for 6-MAM, then the poppy seed defense goes out the window as this substance is unique to heroin alone.

Tigger

DjDangerousDave wrote: »

I believe they use this system in Austraila already. I heard they have cards that they can compare to the size fo the persone pupils and if they think they are dialated they can proceed with the swab test.

yes

Theresalwaysone

By all accounts, Gardai I have asked, Driving instructors, and some RSA people, the gardai will use some discretion if you have a test coming up as long as you have the letter in the car with you.

Obviously dont be doing something else illegal,speeding, dangerous overtaking etc as then when they do pull you over, well, you have no real excuse then.

Tigger

ojewriej wrote: »

So nothing then. Thought so.

i base it on a lot of things

none of which i care to substanstiate here as its would be pointless and i'm hungry

i believe that the traffic corp will be used to enforce this crackdown

you don't thats your issue

The Minister understands that the Gardaí will approach each case, using discretion and common sense as opposed to automatic prosecution.

The Minister believes that sensible Garda enforcement of that type will mean that for an initial period of a few months Garda efforts in the main will be aimed at cautioning and advising unaccompanied drivers of the new legal requirements.

Steve

Tigger wrote: »

So if you test positive for 6-MAM, then the poppy seed defense goes out the window as this substance is unique to heroin alone.

Wow, you certainly know your stuff.

Given that presently only 1 in 4 (I think) drunk drink driving charges secures a conviction, mainly due to procedural errors, I can see this getting off to a slow start.
A bit like when penalty points were brought in - everyone drove like saints for a month or two but it was business as usual after that.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing BTW, personally I don't condone any illegal drug taking, driving or not.

On the topic of checkpoints, I fully agree with you that the GTC will enforce the provisional license law. They don't have to catch them all, just enough to make public examples of and keep the rest scared.

Tigger

I bet there are a huge number of drug-drivers out there. and as you have just said with the provisional drivers the GTC need only make an example of a few to get the ball rolling.

Japanese quality system aims for 100% so gets 98% you try and suceed and you get close; do nothing and not so much.

techdiver

Tigger wrote: »

I bet there are a huge number of drug-drivers out there. and as you have just said with the provisional drivers the GTC need only make an example of a few to get the ball rolling.

Japanese quality system aims for 100% so gets 98% you try and suceed and you get close; do nothing and not so much.

I don't see the provisional driving laws being heavily enforced. Not in the short term anyway.

In all fairness with resources the way they are they should be just focusing on the real road problems, i.e. Drink, Speed and Dangerous driving, I would also like to see a review of some of the speed limits around the country. It's crazy that on some winding country roads you are permitted to do 100kmh, but on the N11 in Stillorgan you are only permits to do 60kmh. Just 2 examples of many crazy limits on both ends of the spectrum.

If a boy racer sees that the law permits him to do 100kmh on a road that clearly shouldn't be driven at that speed, he is still going to do it.

Whether he is holding a pink or green license will not change that.

kayos

It will be enforced, €1000 per offence times lots of provisional drivers. There we go the government have made up some of the tax shortfall.......

dfx-

Tigger wrote: »

An assay is now available that can identify a metabolite unique to heroin called 6-0-monoacetylmorphine (aka 6-MAM). So if you test positive for 6-MAM, then the poppy seed defense goes out the window as this substance is unique to heroin alone.

6-MAM doesn't last very long though either.

On topic, I couldn't give a ****e about Provisional Licences clampdowns. I'd feel safer being driven by a new Provisional Licence holder with Peter Sutcliffe in the back at 150kph towards a wall than I do walking the street.

Tigger

dfx- wrote: »

6-MAM doesn't last very long though either.

On topic, I couldn't give a ****e about Provisional Licences clampdowns. I'd feel safer being driven by a new Provisional Licence holder with Peter Sutcliffe in the back at 150kph towards a wall than I do walking the street.

Thats the point.

The tests need to be for whether a person is under the influence of drugs, not whether they take drugs.

ojewriej

Tigger wrote: »

i base it on a lot of things

none of which i care to substanstiate here as its would be pointless and i'm hungry

i believe that the traffic corp will be used to enforce this crackdown

you don't thats your issue

Whether there will be a clampdown or not, is one issue.

Implying, or rather stating that Traffic Corps is not a real police, is another.

And since we are quoting:

As one senior member of the garda traffic corps explained: "There have been no specific instructions to come down in any way heavy on anybody. If they haven't got a qualified driver with them they won't be fined on the spot, but they are liable to be prosecuted and brought to court.

But, he said, "it's down to the individual garda's discretion and it will generally be people who have been misbehaving who will end up in court. If people are driving at the correct speed, then they are not going to be drawing attention to themselves."

And he confirmed no checkpoints will be set up to target unaccompanied learner drivers.

"Technically you are committing an offence by doing it, but we haven't received a directive to go out and hammer everybody. There won't be specific checkpoints set up to target these people. It's all up to the individual guard. He could just simply tell the person to get a qualified driver to come down and escort them home."

Source

The Artist

i was talking to a mate of mines story this.
This fella is L driver and he always takes his father(full Licence holder) to the pub every weekend.
The father drinks till pissed and the son doesnt drink.
When the times up in the pub,the son drives his father who is legless home.
What would happen if the son gets stopped by the guards?
The father has full licence(pissed) and son only has provisional licence.
????

kerry4sam

Alan Ford wrote: »

i was talking to a mate of mines story this.
This fella is L driver and he always takes his father(full Licence holder) to the pub every weekend.
The father drinks till pissed and the son doesnt drink.
When the times up in the pub,the son drives his father who is legless home.
What would happen if the son gets stopped by the guards?
The father has full licence(pissed) and son only has provisional licence.
????

That is actually quite frequent and is an interesting situation ... I mean the whole point of having the full-licence holder in the car is to be able to take over driving should the need arise for whatever reason ...

tony71187

with d new law brought in, a drunken full licence holder accompaning a provisional is not sufficent and he could be prosecuted,but it would take a faily harsh guard to summons him i reckon

Wishbone Ash

Alan Ford wrote: »

i was talking to a mate of mines story this.
This fella is L driver and he always takes his father(full Licence holder) to the pub every weekend.
The father drinks till pissed and the son doesnt drink.
When the times up in the pub,the son drives his father who is legless home.
What would happen if the son gets stopped by the guards?
The father has full licence(pissed) and son only has provisional licence.
????

The son will be deemed to be driving unaccompanied.

kerry4sam wrote: »

the whole point of having the full-licence holder in the car is to be able to take over driving should the need arise for whatever reason ...

That is not correct. There is no requirement that the accompanied driver be insured to drive the vehicle in question.

T.G Catter

I am completely disillusioned with the whole driving test system and to be honest completely broke from it too with lessons, fuel and application fees.

I have failed a total of 3 times now in Wexford Town/Enniscorthy.

I was only driving a few months first time to be fair and was expected. Second time was by a POLISH TESTER in Enniscorthy, who failed me by 1 mark, marked so very very unfairly, plus he made me wait an extra 10 minutes in the test centre while he spoke to his mates in Poland.

3rd time was very hot Saturday in Wexford, my passenger window is broken and won't open and he was very very slow to give me signal and had no idea of Wexford town in general as he was a Dub. So most likely pissed off he couldn't get back to the kids in the holiday home to hit Curracloe beach.

All I can do now is apply again. I need my car. I am a good driver I have never had an accident in all my 4 years driving. I am not danger on the road, compared to the moron boy racers I meet daily driving on my side of the road or speeding.
I drive on the on dangerous country roads and then get judged on driving on narrow streets in towns on one occasion.

I didn't see any checkpoints today, but did see two drivers with "L" plates driving unaccompanied (both of African appearance).

Make of that what you like! To me it appears that those that have left the plates up, do not watch the news or read the papers.

DenMan

Pretty quiet around the Sligo area, a couple of squad cars rolled by flexing their muscles and two guys on bikes, pretty much the ordinary considering the situation, whats it like elsewhere?

xzanti

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't see any checkpoints today, but did see two drivers with "L" plates driving unaccompanied (both of African appearance).

Make of that what you like! To me it appears that those that have left the plates up, do not watch the news or read the papers.

Yeah there's a family of African origin across the road from me and they have been happily coming and going, sporting their L plates for the past 2 days, unaccompanied... Guess they don't watch the news either..