Pulled over on the N7

metricspaces

At the end of the day, peoples opinions on the OP's driving manner don't really matter, the question is:

Can you be legally charged with speeding if there is no evidence for you speeding other than the Gardas word i.e. would there be enough evidence to convict you in a court of law for speeding?

On the face of it, it would seem that the OP could challange this fine, as there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he was speeding other than the word of the Garda. Unless of course the word of the Garda (based on his speedometer) is sufficient evidence for a conviction.

TheNog

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

b) The guard cant prove he was speeding

No physical evidence is needed in court, only oral. In this case an approximate speed could be needed. Some judges will run with it, others wont.

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

c) So he has threatened prosecution of a more dangerous offence (which is wrong and shows conduct unbecoming of a guard; as if he could prosecute for a more serious offfence then it would be in the publics best interest to see this charge prosecuted for, rather than a lesser charge.)

The OP wasnt threatened with prosecution of dangerous driving by the guard at all. Here is an exract from the OP

ottostreet wrote: »

TC car flies up behind me and pulls me over. says i was speeding (which i was), but says nothing else really.

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

My opinion, the guard has used unproffesional behavouir to give the ticket which he believes rightly should be given. Our poster has used common sense driving (not undertaking, yes ok he was doing 120 in a 100, but come on catch a grip, its hardly as dangerous as cars in the wrong lanes doing lower speeds forcing other cars to do unnecessary overtaking manouvers) and for this he has been given a ticket by a guard.

Its all about pros and cons with this one. We all agree the OP drove his car with little common sense and some may say a little erratically. I would say its either a case of speeding (which OP freely admits to) or careless driving (speeding, 2 x lane changing etc).

So the question is: Would it better if the OP was done for speeding or careless driving? I think to give the OP a chance to learn from his mistakes and not to go completely overboard is to issue a fine for speeding.

smash

you switched lanes what... 7 times or something, while speeding, in the rain.... man cut your losses and keep your mouth closed. If I was you I wouldn't have even started this thread, you're looking for trouble!

TheNog

TheNog wrote: »

No physical evidence is needed in court, only oral. In this case an approximate speed could be needed. Some judges will run with it, others wont.

Was there not something brought in a while back though that said there had to be evidence to prove someone was speeding and were some cases thrown out as there was no photographic evidence?

I cant remember so I might be getting this all wrong.

TheNog

Marjorie Slow Hashish wrote: »

Was there not something brought in a while back though that said there had to be evidence to prove someone was speeding and were some cases thrown out as there was no photographic evidence?

I cant remember so I might be getting this all wrong.

That may have been from a Gatso but is not the case of a hand held laser speed detector. A few years ago there was a question raised where a person or solicitor said a receipt should be issued but that was knocked on the head.

stifz

Black and white..
You were speeding. Under oath a Garda will state he matched your speed. End of...

Take the points

metricspaces

stifz wrote: »

Black and white..
You were speeding. Under oath a Garda will state he matched your speed. End of...

Take the points

I don't think it's black and white. Speedometers aren't accurate. So at which point can a Garda say someone is passing him at the a speed above the speed limit?

When they pass the Garda at 1KPH faster?
When they pass the Garda at 2KPH faster?
etc.

-Chris-

OP says (and freely admits) he was 20kmph above the limit, and therefore presumably 20kmph faster than the Gardai. I don't see the grey area - OP was 20% over the limit.
Even allowing for speedo miscalibration, an indicated 120KMPH is still 108-110KMPH road speed (still over the limit).
Add to that the fact that the OP overtook a Traffic Corps car at 20% above the speed limit in the rain and I fail to understand where the debate is here!

What's you point exactly metricspaces? What outcome are you looking for by questioning the events/Garda accusation?

Anan1

I don't think metricspaces is questioning the events/Garda accusation, rather the ability of the Gardai to turn that accusation into a conviction in court.

yogi16

Regardless of accuracy or inaccuracy or the presence of evidence or not, why would you bother chancing it? Are you trying to prove a point? Get 'one over on the Gardai'???? me thinks you're not so clever.......

stifz

AudiChris wrote: »

OP says (and freely admits) he was 20kmph above the limit, and therefore presumably 20kmph faster than the Gardai. I don't see the grey area - OP was 20% over the limit.

+1

Anan1

I don't know about anyone else but, like the OP, i'd be interested in learning more about the legal situation here.

-Chris-

TheNog's covered that though, and he'd know...

stifz

I agree Anan1. The trouble is the Gardai make it very difficult to answer back in court.. 4 points rather than the original 2. I think everyone looks for a loop hole or a clause when they get points.. me included. The least stressing and easiest way to consider it is.. What speed was i doing and what was on the sign. If your above it then take the fine and points and walk away and hope that you've learnt something from it.

Don't over take a Garda car 20km above the speed limit:rolleyes:

My gripe would be the place in which the position speed traps. 90% of the time its in easy catchment area's i.e above the limit by 10km etc and no history of an accidents.. They should be in accident black spots. Which leads me to think its stats they're making up.

Anan1

You're right of course, the best thing for the OP would probably be to just pay the fine. I'm still curious as to what would happen if the OP did fight it, though (although not curious enough to risk the 4 points myself!).

Stark

BigCon wrote: »

1. Driver acts like a Muppet (speeding, 20% over the limit, and changing multiple lanes in one maneuver, in plain view of the Guards, (I think, hard to read).

To play devil's advocate for the moment; they should really be pulling the people who cruise along in the middle lane at 70-80km/hr as they're the ones who are causing people to have to do 4 lane changes in one manoeuvre every time they encounter one. (car driving in lane 1 as required by law, encounters slower vehicle in lane2, must move into lane 2, then lane 3, then lane 2, then lane 1 in order to overtake legally). It significantly increases the chance of a crash on 3 lane roads imo. Especially on somewhere like the M50 when you add muppets swinging from the overtaking lane across 4 lanes in order to make their exit to the mix.

Agreed on everything else though, he was a fool to be blatantly speeding in front of the Gardaí. He could have held back at 100km/hr for a while until they were out of sight and then he'd have had no worry about being pulled over. Sounds like he got what he was asking for.

stealthyspeeder

In response to The Nogs reply to my message (apologies, i havent got the hang of using the quotes system yet!)

No physical evidence is needed in court, only oral. In this case an approximate speed could be needed. Some judges will run with it, others wont.

If the guards only evidence of the speeding infringment is his word that he saw the car overtake him while he stayed at the limit, and the defendant contests this, says he was at the limit and the guard was below the limit, case dismissed everytime. Approximate speed is not a viable prosecution in the black and white eyes of the law.


The OP wasnt threatened with prosecution of dangerous driving by the guard at all. Here is an exract from the OP

Here is the quote from the OP which threatens prosecution on the grounds of dangerous driving if he does not admit to speeding by paying the fine.

"heads back to the car and sits there for a while. comes back, says ill get a letter for speeding. pay it and take the two points. if i bring it to court, hell tell the judge i was swerving dangerously all over the road, lane changing like a madman with "flashfloods" all over the place"


Its all about pros and cons with this one. We all agree the OP drove his car with little common sense and some may say a little erratically. I would say its either a case of speeding (which OP freely admits to) or careless driving (speeding, 2 x lane changing etc).

If the lane changes are done individually and correctly with appropriate checks of mirrors and indication, there is nothing illegal happening, and no grounds for the prosecution of dangerous driving. Therefore speeding is the only offence (bear in mind this cannot be proved)

So the question is: Would it better if the OP was done for speeding or careless driving? I think to give the OP a chance to learn from his mistakes and not to go completely overboard is to issue a fine for speeding

I would disagree, if somebody was actually driving dangerously, say handbraking round roundabouts, undertaking and tailgaing (all of which I saw on Swords roundabout within 2 minutes last week fom one highly enthusiastic Golf GTI driver) then I think that it would be in the publics interest to prosecute them for dangerous driving as opposed to speeding! Or should we give him a chance to learn from his mistakes?

At the end of the day, he was speeding, he got done for speeding but not in a proffesional manner.

Omcd

Possibly the TC car was VASCAR equipped ?

I remember reading something in the ROTR (maybe UK version) a long time ago that changing across two lanes at one time was deemed to be dangerous driving. But, as stealthyspeeder says, as two seperate manouvers, it' ok. My reading of OPs post suggests to me that at least on one occasion he went across two lanes in one go.

daveharnett

Berty wrote: »

Always drive like an Angel around TC. Its their job, they have no other job.

Exactly. To be honest OP, take it as 2 points for "failure to demonstrate common sense".

DomShelley

Haha your were caught, your were speeding, YOU got penalty points for it knowing thats what happen when you speed, And then you do it onfront of a patrol car. Not the brightest thing to do.

I have 6 penalty points at the age of 23, i consider them to be harshly given but you got to just take them and learn from it on your first time and not make the mistake like i did and learned only after i had 6.

2 is an easy lesson, 6 is criminal !!!!

ottostreet

Right, this has a few replies since I posted it. I've read them all, and just to clear a few things up:

1. I was speeding. I fully admit to that. I'm not ashamed to admit it. People who are familiar with the road will know that it's quite a decent road, and in reference to another posters reply, its the same stretch of road where three weeks ago, I followed a squad car doing the same speed no problems from Naas to Rathcoole. Yes, I know, different circumstances, and I'm not going to get into the whole "But this is the real world, on a road that good, everyone speeds". The reality is, stupid speed limit or not, the limit is there and I broke it.

2. My car. My car is a standard 318, with alloys and a rear spoiler. Not exactly the chavviest motor on the road, despite one posters insinuation.

3. Same poster: "Driving around looking for checkpoints". I have a lot of respect for the guards. I think they do a great job, and I have always enjoyed going through a checkpoint when I know my car and myself are fully legal. When out for a drive with a friend in Dublin city, we will keep driving around for a while, hoping to meet a checkpoint, just to break the mundanity of the routine. How exactly this constitutes delinquent behaviour, since you have insinuated it, I'd like to know please.

4. My lane "swerving". Some posters seem to think I've been swooping across all three lanes in one manoeuvre without checking. Not the case. One lane change at a time. All indicated properly, no swerving, all gentle steering and no hard acceleration or braking. All done just to ensure I didnt undertake anyone in front of the TC.

@ TheNog. Thanks for your reply. I was looking forward to it, since I've read a good few of your posts regarding your policies on driving standards and behaviour, and I think you've got it nailed. I'll certainly take your advice on board.

That's basically it. It's not the speeding that's got my back up, it was the way the guard basically went "own up to this, or I'll tell the judge about all your swerving like a madman" Maybe I'm picking it up wrong, but thats certainly the way it came across. I know some posters are going to go "oh you were speeding that was really DANGEROUS!!" but in reality, I know when I'm doing something dangerous or risky, and the only risk I took last night was going past the traffic corps car when he was so obviously baiting the drivers behind him. I got past him, and stayed ahead for a good four miles before he pulled me over, without me increasing my speed after the initial burst. THAT'S why i'm annoyed.

DannyBuoy

ottostreet wrote: »

...When out for a drive with a friend in Dublin city, we will keep driving around for a while, hoping to meet a checkpoint, just to break the mundanity of the routine...

Berty

Correct me if I am reading this wrong folks and "the Nog" but are we saying that If I am cruising in the left hand most lane at 80kph and the speed limit if 100kph and I come up on the left of a car in the middle lane doing 90kph.

If I move to the third lane and pass the car in the middle lane and then cross back over to the first lane then thats wrong.

So(If I read that right), overtaking is only correct if you overtake one lane at a time occupying lanes you have no reason to occupy.

Stark

You are required to obey the laws of physics which means no catching up on cars doing 90km/hr while you're doing 80

Berty

Stark wrote: »

You are required to obey the laws of physics which means no catching up on cars doing 90km/hr while you're doing 80

Damn you! damn you and your science. :mad:

Ok my theoretical car is doing 90kph and their car is doing 70kph.

Mr. Presentable

The easy way for the OP to get a definitive answer to his question: Ignore the letter and see how it goes in court.

Zube

Berty, It's perfectly legal to overtake by moving from the inside to the outside lane, one lane at a time. If you do it in one wild swerve, it's dangerous.

Somewhere in between the two, there is a threshold where the watching guard will decide to stop you and have a chat.

Wossack

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

If the guards only evidence of the speeding infringment is his word that he saw the car overtake him while he stayed at the limit, and the defendant contests this, says he was at the limit and the guard was below the limit, case dismissed everytime. Approximate speed is not a viable prosecution in the black and white eyes of the law.

this 'approximate speed' as you describe has been used to convict countless motorists I'd imagine - and you dont reckon someones tried contesting this before?

what are your figures on this 100% success rate?

tossy

If the garda was doing 100kmph and you were doing 120kmph it is pretty obvious even to the dimest of souls that you are speeding.My thinking is he might have even decided to cut you a break on the speeding,it seems so as you were well past him,but the fact you couldn't decide which lane you liked best probably swayed it for him.

Fight it in court and let us all know how you get on,i'd love to hear about it

Terra

I personally Blame the Micra for this!!

I wish they could get fined for lane hogging and driving slow in general....

There the real cause of people speeding.