Is tailgating illegal?

TheFixer

Hi,

Just wondering is tailgating illegal? Can you actually get points and / or a fine through doing it?

And if it is illegal is it ever actually enforced?

Note: This is not something I do and I actually hate having people tailgate me.

Quazzie

It is illegal and was introduce as a 'points' offence in the last ammendments, and it is being enforce, heavily!

Anan1

I seem to remember someone on here a few months back whining about having been prosecuted for tailgating in traffic.

Gregor Samsa

"Failure to leave appropriate distance between you and the vehicle in front"

2 points, €80 fine

http://www.penaltypoints.ie/the_full_list_of_offences.php


Edit: According to the RSA's own statistics, no one has yet recieved points for this offence as of 30 April 2008

http://www.penaltypoints.ie/points_issued.php - see latest PDF

I find that hard to believe - am I reading those stats right?

TheFixer

So who's deciding what this appropriate distance is? Is it up to the guard that sees you at it?

unkel

phutyle wrote: »

am I reading those stats right?

You are reading it right. The "Failure to leave appropriate distance between you and the vehicle in front" penalty offence is not in the list on your second link. This can only mean there are no points given yet as per 30/04/2008

seamus

TheFixer wrote: »

So who's deciding what this appropriate distance is? Is it up to the guard that sees you at it?

I couldn't find anything specific, but "A driver shall not drive at a speed exceeding that which will enable him to halt the vehicle within the distance he can see to be clear.", seems to cover the requirement. That is, if you're five feet from the car in front, then you shouldn't be travelling at more than about 5mph.

Which means that the opposite is also true - if you're travelling over 5mph, you should be at a distance of more than five feet.

I would imagine enforcement is largely arbitrary.

De Hipster

That sounds like it would be interesting viewing if challenged in court...

a) Garda decides to prosecute for tailgating based on a visual assessment - fair enough but rather difficult to enforce fairly from garda to garda

b) No evidence to present in court unless gardaí start carrying video cameras for enforcement purposes - I could see the bottom of the tyres of the vehicle in front...No you couldn't, and so on.

easyontheeye

wouldn't it be considered as dangerous driving and thus illegal!? but of course it would to be proven that you were tailgating to the extent that it was dangerous, but sure every illegal act has to be proven...

seamus

De Hipster wrote: »

I could see the bottom of the tyres of the vehicle in front...No you couldn't, and so on.

:eek: How would that be a defence?

I can recall years ago before I even started driving, a mate saying that his instructor had told him that provided he could see the bottom of the tyres of the car in front, he was travelling at a safe distance. :eek: Of course, I didn't know any better at the time.

Seeing the bottom of this tyres is correct when you're stopped in traffic. But when you're moving, I'd hope you have a lot more room than that

Tzetze

There was an ad campaign on RTE some years back. 'Only a fool breaks the two second rule'. Pick a point beside the road that the car in front has passed and say the mantra... 'only a fool breaks the two second rule' (or however you'd like to time two seconds). If you pass the arbitrary point on or after two seconds, then you're a safe distance behind the vehicle in front.

-Chris-

The fact is that your stopping distance varies depending on road conditions - by it's nature it has to be a judgement call for the Garda. Same for if it's foggy etc.

As for how it's proven, it's currently possible to prosecute someone for disturbing the peace - how much disturbing until the peace is disturbed? There's no need for a decibel meter on the person in question, or for a word-by-word description of what they were saying. If the Garda judges that the peace was disturbed then it's up to the defendant to prove otherwise.

I'm sure the same must apply to "appropriate distance".

TheFixer

Pretty much what I thought so. It seems like a bull**** sort of law since it would be very hard to prove. I couldn't see anyone been prosecuted for this.

De Hipster

seamus wrote: »

:eek: How would that be a defense?

In slow moving traffic ...of course! :P

-Chris-

TheFixer wrote: »

Pretty much what I thought so. It seems like a bull**** sort of law since it would be very hard to prove. I couldn't see anyone been prosecuted for this.

I would think the exact opposite - I think the law is necessary and I think it'll be used to prosecute bullies and aggressive drivers. And I think those prosecutions will stick, especially if the driver already has points for other driving offences.

De Hipster

AudiChris wrote: »

I would think the exact opposite - I think the law is necessary and I think it'll be used to prosecute bullies and aggressive drivers. And I think those prosecutions will stick, especially if the driver already has points for other driving offences.

How does being previously guilty of a crime automatically infer that there is increased likelyhood of guilt in relation to a new crime?!

If I illegally park I'm more likely to have driven after consuming alcohol, or because I was late putting on my seatbelt, I obviously regularly tailgate? The law cannot be applied in a 'you were guilty before, therefor you must be again' style.

Mellor

De Hipster wrote: »

How does being previously guilty of a crime automatically infer that there is increased likelyhood of guilt in relation to a new crime?!

If I illegally park I'm more likely to have driven after consuming alcohol, or because I was late putting on my seatbelt, I obviously regularly tailgate? The law cannot be applied in a 'you were guilty before, therefor you must be again' style.

Your really on a roll in this thread, first the cock up regarding seeing the wheels in front now this.


He didn't say they are more likely to be guilty if they did it before.
He said the charges are more likely to stick.

Eg
Somebody is stopped for a traffic offense. Its a little bit subjective. The driver appears to have made an error and was not on purpose (we all make mistakes)
Clean slate, don't let it happen again.
or
Driver has 6 points and 3 were for similar things - charged, its flys through court, bye bye license


It could also apply to court first offense verses 4th. Far less likely to be let off the hook.

cyclopath2001

De Hipster wrote: »

How does being previously guilty of a crime automatically infer that there is increased likelyhood of guilt in relation to a new crime?!.

My understanding is that if a matter goes before a jury, past offenses of no direct relevance to the matter in question are not mentioned. Only if somebody is then found guilty, then the past offences are taken into consideration by the judge in deciding an appropriate penalty.

In motoring terms, though, people who break the law, tend to have a bad attitude about all road traffic laws.

On the road, I'm always fascinated to see how often the aggressive tail-gating, brakes & heavy-on-the accelerator types usually also have just one working brake light. Maybe the anger transmits down the brake pedal and blows the stop bulb...

So, when I see that single brake light, I know what to expect and always stay well clear.

Esel

Tzetze wrote: »

Pick a point beside the road that the car in front has passed and say the mantra... 'only a fool breaks the two second rule' (or however you'd like to time two seconds). If you pass the arbitrary point on or after two seconds, then you're a safe distance behind the vehicle in front.

And in the wet, it's four seconds, so you say 'only a fool breaks the four second rule'... :eek:

towel401

De Hipster wrote: »

How does being previously guilty of a crime automatically infer that there is increased likelyhood of guilt in relation to a new crime?!

If I illegally park I'm more likely to have driven after consuming alcohol, or because I was late putting on my seatbelt, I obviously regularly tailgate? The law cannot be applied in a 'you were guilty before, therefor you must be again' style.

nevermind him, that post was probably a troll. that disclaimer he has says it all. I wouldn't take those lads too seriously at all

its like someone walked into this forum with a big hoover and hoovered out all the common sense. and this is what we're left with

peasant

towel401 wrote: »

nevermind him, that post was probably a troll. that disclaimer he has says it all. I wouldn't take those lads too seriously at all

its like someone walked into this forum with a big hoover and hoovered out all the common sense. and this is what we're left with

AudiChris is not a troll, but a valuable contributor to this forum.

Just because we have the other thread going at the moment, doesn't mean you can go out and slate everybody whose opinion you don't like as a troll and worthless contributor.
If you disagree...attack the post and not the poster.

Infraction for breach of peace

TheNog

AudiChris wrote: »

I think those prosecutions will stick, especially if the driver already has points for other driving offences.

A prosecution does not rely on previous convictions but the evidence given by the Garda or the witness to the Judge. If the driver is convicted then the previous convictions are read out.

De Hipster wrote: »

How does being previously guilty of a crime automatically infer that there is increased likelyhood of guilt in relation to a new crime?!

+ 1 you are right it does not. There must be sufficient evidence an offense has taken place.

Mellor wrote: »

He didn't say they are more likely to be guilty if they did it before.
He said the charges are more likely to stick.

You are actually correct on this but this does not happen in court, it happens when the Garda has prepared a file in relation to driving and included in the file is previous convictions. Along with witness statements it could determine if the Superintendent recommends a prosecution or not.

Mellor wrote: »

Eg
Somebody is stopped for a traffic offense. Its a little bit subjective. The driver appears to have made an error and was not on purpose (we all make mistakes)
Clean slate, don't let it happen again.
or
Driver has 6 points and 3 were for similar things - charged, its flys through court, bye bye license


It could also apply to court first offense verses 4th. Far less likely to be let off the hook.

+1 spot on. Each offense on the Statute Book has a maximum fine/penalty. First time offenders maybe fined but that fine woud normally be a lot lower than the maximum, say 50%. Anyone on their 4th conviction can expect the maximum penalty.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

My understanding is that if a matter goes before a jury, past offenses of no direct relevance to the matter in question are not mentioned. Only if somebody is then found guilty, then the past offences are taken into consideration by the judge in deciding an appropriate penalty.

Correct except there is no jury at a District Court, only the Judge. THis is where the majority of traffic cases are heard, the minority (cases such as dangerous driving causing death) are usually heard in the Circuit Court. The penalties in this court are higher than the District Court.

Steve

As was said, each case must be impartially judged based on the facts presented and nothing more. The penalty if found guilty can take into account the persons history and someone with previous convictions for the same offence will be dealt with more severely within the limitations of the law. e.g. for an offence that carries a fine of €1500 or 3 months, first offence is only likely to attract a small fine whereas consistent re-offending may get a jail term.

wil

unkel wrote: »

You are reading it right. The "Failure to leave appropriate distance between you and the vehicle in front" penalty offence is not in the list on your second link. This can only mean there are no points given yet as per 30/04/2008

Not at all surprised.:(
This is a very common offence, yet I have never heard of anyone prosecuted for it.
"Speeding" is extraordinarily disproportionately represented in the stats, yet is the cause of a relatively low percentage of accidents.
As a policeman once told me, it requires the least amount of paperwork:eek:

I suspect that many of the other lesser represented prosecutions were a direct result of prosecution after an accident rather than from direct enforcement.
The amount of crazy stuff I have seen gardai blatantly ignore is incredible.
Yet I still see them pulling cyclists for relatively minor infractions.
Look at some of the others, parking a vehicle in a dangerous position, driving in cycle lane, both extremely common yet rarely enforced.

.

-Chris-

TheNog wrote: »

A prosecution does not rely on previous convictions but the evidence given by the Garda or the witness to the Judge. If the driver is convicted then the previous convictions are read out.

I would obviously defer to you in areas of the law, TheNog. I'm thinking of situations where someone commits a crime and the judge says that, in light of no previous convictions and bearing in mind that the person is of sound character and a participating member of society (or some such sentiment), the punishment is reduced/postponed/waived.

I'm not aware if those considerations come into play before or after the offender is "punished".

Is it that those things are taken into account at Superintendent stage, before it even gets to a judge? I'm a firm believer in Garda discretion and I do generally trust their judgement.
I wouldn't like to hear that someone made a single mistake with regards to braking distance and got penalty points, rather that someone who habitually intimidates, or otherwise continuously infringes on others' safety on the road, is pursued by the law until they stop what they're doing...

TheNog

wil wrote: »

Not at all surprised.:(
This is a very common offence, yet I have never heard of anyone prosecuted for it.[/QUOTE

But if you think about it, it would be difficult to catch a person tailgating another if the Gardai are driving in a marked car. Highly visible so everyone ensures they drive properly. For best results to catch a driver tailgating would
probably have the marked car hidden from view and assess the distance each car from the car in front as they pass.
An unmarked car would have better results but then again most people can easily recognise an unmarked.

wil wrote: »

"Speeding" is extraordinarily disproportionately represented in the stats, yet is the cause of a relatively low percentage of accidents.
As a policeman once told me, it requires the least amount of paperwork:eek:[/QUOTE

Speeding is the disproportionately high I will admit and I will go on to say that the majority of people caught are with the Gatso vans and the guards that catch people just a few kms over the limit. In my opinion this sort of tactic is wrong, very wrong. It tends to alienate us from the people. I say 'Quality over Quantity'.
As far as speeding has less paperwork, that is true but so is no seat belt, mobile phone etc. Any offence that can dealt with a fixed penalty fine.

wil wrote: »

I suspect that many of the other lesser represented prosecutions were a direct result of prosecution after an accident rather than from direct enforcement.
The amount of crazy stuff I have seen gardai blatantly ignore is incredible.
Yet I still see them pulling cyclists for relatively minor infractions.
Look at some of the others, parking a vehicle in a dangerous position, driving in cycle lane, both extremely common yet rarely enforced.[/QUOTE

You must admit that two Gardai in a car will not catch absolutely everything that happens on the road, the same as a referee in soccer/GAA match. Bare in mind that only one guard has the use of the mirrors and he/she is also driving and trying to look at everything around them. However I disagree with your opinion here. The majority of my prosecutions come from routine stop and checks and checkpoints.

AudiChris wrote: »

I would obviously defer to you in areas of the law, TheNog. I'm thinking of situations where someone commits a crime and the judge says that, in light of no previous convictions and bearing in mind that the person is of sound character and a participating member of society (or some such sentiment), the punishment is reduced/postponed/waived.

I'm not aware if those considerations come into play before or after the offender is "punished".

When all evidence has been heard by the Judge and the Judge is of th opinion a motorist is guilty he/she then asks the guard if there is any previous. If there isn't the penalty will be on the lower end of the scale, if there is previous the penalty will be higher and the more convictions the higher goes the penalty but only as far as the law will allow.

-Chris-

Thanks TheNog. I think I was editing my post as you were posting yours, but you've answered/corrected my question.

Cheers.

unkel

TheNog wrote: »

I will admit and I will go on to say that the majority of people caught are with the Gatso vans and the guards that catch people just a few kms over the limit. In my opinion this sort of tactic is wrong, very wrong. It tends to alienate us from the people. I say 'Quality over Quantity'.

Refreshing to hear that straight from the horse's mouth. While we're at it, you might want to give us a little insight in who decides where and when to place a gatso van like this one. I'd imagine honest rank and file guards like yourself have nothing to do with it

TheNog

unkel wrote: »

you might want to give us a little insight in who decides where and when to place a gatso van like this one. I'd imagine honest rank and file guards like yourself have nothing to do with it

Afaik the location is determined by a Traffic sergeant or higher rank to ensure there is no case of over policing one particular area or to target suspected or known areas where the speed limit is regularly flouted. The exact location as in the photo from the other thread would be up to the Garda driving the van.

I do not know exactly the technology used in the Gatso but I have my reservations about the positioning of this van to properly capture speeders. You see the hand held laser device we use requires a vehicle (no over emphasis on the H ) to be travelling towards or away from our position more or less in a straight line. For example a car coming around a sweeping bend will not provide a sufficient lock so we get an error on the laser gun. It has been shown on youtube that some speed detection devices will give an incorrect detected speed of a car if the laser is pointed at the side of car going by or moving in any other direction than straight towards the device. The device we use also requires us to be perfectly still when pointing at a vehicle or again we get an error. We must have a steady hand, even breathing heavily will put it off.

Steve

TheNog wrote: »

I do not know exactly the technology used in the Gatso but I have my reservations about the positioning of this van to properly capture speeders. You see the hand held laser device we use requires a vehicle (no over emphasis on the H ) to be travelling towards or away from our position more or less in a straight line. For example a car coming around a sweeping bend will not provide a sufficient lock so we get an error on the laser gun. It has been shown on youtube that some speed detection devices will give an incorrect detected speed of a car if the laser is pointed at the side of car going by or moving in any other direction than straight towards the device. The device we use also requires us to be perfectly still when pointing at a vehicle or again we get an error. We must have a steady hand, even breathing heavily will put it off.

Are the ones in the video the same ones that you use. IIRC it was an LTI 20-20.
I wondered about that when I read the 'van behind the bus shelter' thread.

Esel

TheNog wrote: »

The device we use also requires us to be perfectly still when pointing at a vehicle or again we get an error. We must have a steady hand, even breathing heavily will put it off.

So, if we tuck in behind a busty blond we should be safe? :cool: