stopped by gardai! looking for advice

Wild_Dogger

Yeah , I wouldnt worry about it .
Once you acted submissively , then they preserve their ego's and its forgotten .

The courts have no time for this BS , and the gaurds would actually have to make the effort to turn up in the court .

What people dont realise is the physical effort required to propel yourself to a level of potential movement ..... it's not like twisting a throttle on a motorcycle , or pressing the pedal of a motorcar .

If the light happens to be red , and there's absolutely no risk of an accident then continue on your way .

Its just like all the people who cross the road on foot , when there is no car coming .
strictly , they should continue to an alocated pedestrian crossing and wait for the green man etc .
Nobody bothers with that unless its either necessary or convienient .

A handy thing to look up is the name of the local garda inspector , and casually drop it in the conversation .
( Oh are you from XXXXX station ? ... ah , inspector XXXX is a friend of the family/neighbour etc !)
They wont abuse their position as a gaurd.

JonathanAnon

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

Yeah , I wouldnt worry about it . Once you acted submissively , then they preserve their ego's and its forgotten. The courts have no time for this BS , and the gaurds would actually have to make the effort to turn up in the court .

I would agree with Dogger 100%, and I have had more experience with such things than most. if you do get a summons, which I dont think you will, just stand up in court and apologize, and say that it wont happen again. Say that you were in a hurry because <insert "genuine" excuse here>, and it wont happen again. I REALLY wouldnt worry about it.

Whether it's the guards or the courts or any area of the public service, you have to kiss up to them, even though it pains you to do so.... Just say everything you would like to say to them in your head... good luck.

brayblue24

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

Yeah , I wouldnt worry about it .
Once you acted submissively , then they preserve their ego's and its forgotten .

The courts have no time for this BS , and the gaurds would actually have to make the effort to turn up in the court .

What people dont realise is the physical effort required to propel yourself to a level of potential movement ..... it's not like twisting a throttle on a motorcycle , or pressing the pedal of a motorcar .

If the light happens to be red , and there's absolutely no risk of an accident then continue on your way .

Its just like all the people who cross the road on foot , when there is no car coming .
strictly , they should continue to an alocated pedestrian crossing and wait for the green man etc .
Nobody bothers with that unless its either necessary or convienient .

A handy thing to look up is the name of the local garda inspector , and casually drop it in the conversation .
( Oh are you from XXXXX station ? ... ah , inspector XXXX is a friend of the family/neighbour etc !)
They wont abuse their position as a gaurd.

Firstly, nobody should act "submissively"-perhaps civilly but not submissively. There is absolutely no need for it, it's not a case of massaging egos, you're either right or you're wrong. If you're right don't worry about it but if you're wrong accept your medicine-that's what the police are paid to do.

As regards your advocating the breaking of red lights that's plain innapropriate for this forum.

To clear up another myth there is not widespread abuse of authority in the guards-recently published figures from the ombudsman will back that up. Ususally if a member starts to act in that sort of manner they will be given a wide berth by their colleagues so as to avoid themselves being found guilty by association. That's not to say there are no bad apples-I'm not that naive.

Finally, anyone who follows your advice about a certain inspector being a family friend etc. should take that with a pinch of salt-that cuts no ice and I would not reccommend anybody following that and the simplest reason I can give is-what if the guard in question does not like said inspector?

The bottom line is that of course nobody likes complaints being made about them but remember why you were stopped in the first place-YOU made an error. Also remember one last point-how many people here that have ever been stopped have got no more than a warning? I would hazard the vast majority. That's because in this country we police by dissent and unlike other countries discretion can be used instead of preosecution and as long as that remains I think we're in a reasonably good society..

Rant over;)

BumbleB

brayblue24 wrote: »

. That's because in this country we police by dissent and unlike other countries discretion can be used instead of preosecution and as long as that remains I think we're in a reasonably good society..

Rant over;)

So true ,the police in this country get such bad abuse and theyre not that bad compared to the states or Russia .If you get stopped in the US there is no leeway there .
I'm just back form Moscow and you get stopped constantly by police for your papers which is a load of bs .I like Ireland .

buffalo

brayblue24 wrote: »

Also remember one last point-how many people here that have ever been stopped have got no more than a warning? I would hazard the vast majority. That's because in this country we police by dissent and unlike other countries discretion can be used instead of preosecution and as long as that remains I think we're in a reasonably good society..

Rant over;)

I'm inclined to disagree with the "warning" approach. The majority of near-misses I've had in the past year have been with motorists on their phones. So far I've yet to come across anybody who's been caught on their phone and given more than a warning. This is obviously anecdotal, but it seems to me that there's a general perception that using a phone while driving is only a 'warnable' offence, and therefore, it's okay.

chakattack

I'd love to see a bigger clamp down on this.

Talking on the phone is one thing but texting is 10 times worse.

How about a few unmarked garda cyclists? You have amazing visibility into what people are doing in their cars when you're on a bike and I see orange/red lights being broken and people talking/texting countless times everyday.

Perfect job for you Brayblue!

You could catch people jumping red lights on their bikes and motorbikes in the cyclelane while you're at it.

CramCycle

chakattack wrote: »

How about a few unmarked garda cyclists?

There are actually a good few of them out and about in Temple bar in the evenings, that said they do seem to be quite effective at stopping those who are causing criminal damage and being a public nuisance

Chips Lovell

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

What people dont realise is the physical effort required to propel yourself to a level of potential movement ..... it's not like twisting a throttle on a motorcycle , or pressing the pedal of a motorcar

I LOLd at this one. No wonder I'm so tired after a spin, all that physical effort taking off from the lights has me worn out.

Cabaal

Unmarked gardai cyclists now thats a fantastic idea

rubadub

Dannyboy1987 wrote: »

If you cycle on roads , follow the road laws or stay on the cycle lanes .:mad:

If you do ANYTHING on the roads follow the laws. The biggest culprits are pedestrians, yet I have never heard of unmarked cop cars pulling up people breaking lights while walking. My mates brother was done for jaywalking on the N11, the only one I ever heard of, he is an awful prick so I imagine he gave them lip. I have seen a female garda actually assisting school children to break the law and jaywalk in the same spot he was caught. There is a pedestrian flyover right over where she did it too, I was shocked to see it.

monument wrote: »

:rolleyes:

That's nonsense.

They are not breaking the law, they are exempt from it.

They are exempt but I imagine the problem people have is potential hypocrisy. If cyclists are being pulled up for "reckless endangerment", then gardai should not be putting others at the same risk with their own actions. Now I doubt they do put people in danger much (though I have witnessed reckless driving by gardai almost causing a crash), but this is my point, some cyclists could be pulled up for technically breaking a law, but it was not the intention of the law to stop this specific behaviour. You just have a little hitler with a chip on his shoulder.

DirkVoodoo

rubadub wrote: »

They are exempt but I imagine the problem people have is potential hypocrisy. If cyclists are being pulled up for "reckless endangerment", then gardai should not be putting others at the same risk with their own actions. Now I doubt they do put people in danger much (though I have witnessed reckless driving by gardai almost causing a crash), but this is my point, some cyclists could be pulled up for technically breaking a law, but it was not the intention of the law to stop this specific behaviour. You just have a little hitler with a chip on his shoulder.

One night, cycling home I saw a Garda car doing what could most accurately be described as joy riding. It was about 12-1 am, little traffic and from when I first saw them at St. John of Gods up to Leopardstown road they broke every red light and (on Leopardstown road) overtook a car at speed over a solid white line.

Fair enough if there was an emergency, but they didn't seem to be going anywhere in particular or following a car. Most importantly, it was all done without any use of sirens or lights. If some idiot had been walking home drunk and decided to cross the road (let's be honest, we have all done it) then he would have had no warning.

brayblue24

!. Sometimes we will do what Dirk saw so as not to overdo the whole blues and twos as to do so may make them have less effect ( I rarely drive anymore so-it was defo not me anyway:))
2.I NEVER give leeway to 2 offences-parking in disabled bays and using the mobile while driving.
3. Yes, Gardai are exempt under the RTA using their mobiles while driving under certain circumstances but I will put the hand up here and say, yeah-IT LOOKS CRAP (not to mention unprofessional!)-but there's always one as they say:rolleyes:

Fiskar

OP is getting a lot of milage out of this thread (don't know if kilometres sounds as good!)
Personnaly, won't be happy until Minister of Transport or Gormley put the clappers on cyclists to obey traffic laws ON THE ROAD like everybody else.

Still think the OP should be summons and fined, he might reflect that they saved his life...

rubadub

Fiskar wrote: »

Still think the OP should be summons and fined, he might reflect that they saved his life...

:eek: they saved his life?? I must have missed that bit.

And you say "like everybody else" have you ever broken any road related laws yourself, e.g. jaywalking? and do you think you should have been summoned and fined if you have? Pedestrians are by far the biggest offenders.

Fiskar

rubadub wrote: »

:eek: they saved his life?? I must have missed that bit.

And you say "like everybody else" have you ever broken any road related laws yourself, e.g. jaywalking? and do you think you should have been summoned and fined if you have? Pedestrians are by far the biggest offenders.

Thats a rhetorical question. I am a biker, I see alot of near misses. fatally wise the cyclist tops my list. Oh, I did trap a jaywalker at Dundrum on the road well away from traffic lights, you should have seen the fright she got and I got. people are so oblivious when they cross a road.

BTW the junction at gardiner street to talbot street is a jaywalkers paradise.

Set a precedent and then we may all be safer.

tomasrojo

Is there a term for the phenomenon where people tend to say that a life was saved because of X, or would have been saved if X had been used, despite the lack of any really convincing evidence?

I'm thinking primarily of helmet threads, but the phenomenon seems to turn up quite a bit everywhere now, as we've just seen.

tomasrojo

Fiskar wrote: »

Thats a rhetorical question. I am a biker, I see alot of near misses. fatally wise the cyclist tops my list.

By "biker", I assume you mean you're a motorcyclist?

Do you mean cyclists are over-represented in the road death statistics? They're not, but motorcyclists are.

Fiskar

tomasrojo wrote: »

Is there a term for the phenomenon where people tend to say that a life was saved because of X, or would have been saved if X had been used, despite the lack of any really convincing evidence?

I'm thinking primarily of helmet threads, but the phenomenon seems to turn up quite a bit everywhere now, as we've just seen.

It's down to attitude on the road. On the Road is the key word. Not to get too dour on the topic but look at the stats on cyclists deaths just in and around Dublin city where speed limits are reduced. Perhaps to appear green and save lives we have these cycle tracks (that are in many cases not up to the required standard). All we ask is that the traffic light and Rules of the Road are obeyed by all.

Fiskar

tomasrojo wrote: »

By "biker", I assume you mean you're a motorcyclist?

Do you mean cyclists are over-represented in the road death statistics? They're not, but motorcyclists are.

Label one, label all.

They travel further, Motorways and proper roads keep us alive.

rubadub

Fiskar wrote: »

Thats a rhetorical question.

None of the questions were supposed to be rhetorical, I can understand why you refuse to answer them. The very fact you thought it was rhetorical just goes to show how common it is to break road laws. It reminds me of the hypocrites against the headshops who are blind to the fact that 99% of them use/abuse psychoactive drugs themselves.

Ah sure its only alcohol/jaywalking, sure everybody does it so it must be grand...

tomasrojo

Fiskar wrote: »

It's down to attitude on the road. On the Road is the key word. Not to get too dour on the topic but look at the stats on cyclists deaths just in and around Dublin city where speed limits are reduced.

http://273k.net/cycling/accidents.html

They were substantially down last year. I'm still not sure what point you're making.

About a dozen cyclists are killed in a typical year in Ireland -- about 2-3% of the road deaths, and cyclists are about 2-3% of the traffic make-up.

Motorcyclists, on the other hand:

Motorcycles represent less than 1 in 50 of all licensed vehicles in Ireland, but motorcycle users account for 1 in 8 road deaths.

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/motorcyclists/index.html

tomasrojo

Fiskar wrote: »

Label one, label all.

They travel further, Motorways and proper roads keep us alive.

Is "Label one, label all" a phrase in common usage? I have no idea what you mean.

Risk is properly measured in terms of risk per hour spent on the road anyway. If you wish to measure it in terms of fatality per kilometre, that means being a pedestrian is the most dangerous way of getting around, not cycling.

Fiskar

tomasrojo wrote: »

http://273k.net/cycling/accidents.html

They were substantially down last year. I'm still not sure what point you're making.

About a dozen cyclists are killed in a typical year in Ireland -- about 2-3% of the road deaths, and cyclists are about 2-3% of the traffic make-up.

Motorcyclists, on the other hand:


http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/motorcyclists/index.html

I get your point, should have stuck by "damn lies and statistics". I have over 100 K miles clocked in 8 years, no accidents, No penalty points BTW.
I have though colleagues who have been pulled for similar situations as the OP and still bring up the topic as if victimised for the discretion.

The point is road safety. We have in this country a majority of roads and foot paths with very few cycle tracks. The road is not a footapath, the road is not a cyclist track. The rules of the road therefore should be obeyed by cyclists when on the road

DirkVoodoo

Fiskar wrote: »

I get your point, should have stuck by "damn lies and statistics". I have over 100 K miles clocked in 8 years, no accidents, No penalty points BTW.

That's why they use statistics, to spot trends. You are obviously a good motorcyclist and a little bit lucky, nothing more than that. You cannot hold your own experiences up and say it is statistically significant.

No one is arguing here against the rules of the road, read back through the posts, a lot of people said the OP should take responsibility here: he broke the law and now he must face the consequences.

GSF

anoble66 wrote: »

well of course the gardai can go through red lights, speed, have no tax, cycle wherever the hell they want - who is going to do them for it? ..

Garda Ombudsman, where they cause a serious incident.

Spook_ie

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

That's why they use statistics, to spot trends. You are obviously a good motorcyclist and a little bit lucky, nothing more than that. You cannot hold your own experiences up and say it is statistically significant.

No one is arguing here against the rules of the road, read back through the posts, a lot of people said the OP should take responsibility here: he broke the law and now he must face the consequences.

Also a lot of people seem to be of the opinion that he shouldn't be worrying about it, as they won't/rarely follow through. He broke the law and should be done for it, time to bring in cyclist licenses and put people who shouldn't be cycling back onto shank's pony

rubadub

Spook_ie wrote: »

they won't/rarely follow through. He broke the law and should be done for it, time to bring in cyclist licenses and put people who shouldn't be cycling back onto shank's pony

What about pedestrian licences? Maybe prevent them walking on main roads if they prove to be unfit to do so. They rarely will prosecute jaywalking but tens of thousands of people break this law each day, and they "should be done for it". But thank christ most gardai are not pedantic power hungry idiots and going around prosecuting everyone, they display sensible discretion, otherwise the country would be in an even worse state with the cost of prosecuting all these law breakers.

Fiskar wrote: »

The road is not a footapath, the road is not a cyclist track. The rules of the road therefore should be obeyed by cyclists when on the road

And the rules of the road should be obeyed by pedestrians, it would be good if parents taught the kids to respect them from an early age.

BTW some of the Irish rules of the road for pedestrians.

• You should always wear reflective clothing at night when walking outside built-up areas.
• You should always carry a torch when walking at night time.
• Don’t run across the road.
• Don't cross at a corner or bend in the road.

DirkVoodoo

Spook_ie wrote: »

Also a lot of people seem to be of the opinion that he shouldn't be worrying about it, as they won't/rarely follow through. He broke the law and should be done for it, time to bring in cyclist licenses and put people who shouldn't be cycling back onto shank's pony

I'm sorry, after your last comment about knocking people down, I won't be listening to any of your replies....ignore button to the rescue.

I'll be happy when you lose your driver's license and the roads are safer.

Spook_ie

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I'm sorry, after your last comment about knocking people down, I won't be listening to any of your replies....ignore button to the rescue.

I'll be happy when you lose your driver's license and the roads are safer.

Ignore my pearls of wisdom at your own peril, but for the record, driving in Ireland for 19 years+, No Penalty Points, No Accidents ( including Cyclists), don't intend on even smudging my license never mind losing it

Sorry did forget the one incident two years ago, when I actualy stopped ( with passengers in the car ) for a hedehog that ran in front ( for those of you unaware of them they are frighteningly fast on their feet ), missed him but lost sight of him, nicked him with the rear wheel when driving off ( sorry Mrs.Tiggywinkle I did try! )

Bluefoam

Spook_ie wrote: »

Ignore my pearls of wisdom at your own peril

Please enlighten me. You are obviously a person of superior intellect that can prove this by not having made a serious insurance claim in several years. I am in awe of you and will certainly not put you on ignore!

Spook_ie

All serious cyclists should be bio engineered to have wheels instead of legs,

They should also be geneticly x-bred to enable them to use the gray matter that a lot of cyclists seem so lax with

They should have surgicly implanted light sensitive ( should that be dark? ) lamps on their forehead and backside that are powered by solar panels fixed attop a surgicly implanted skull plate

papac

I feel ill.

DirkVoodoo

Spook_ie wrote: »

Ignore my pearls of wisdom at your own peril, but for the record, smug smug smug, smug smug smug.

Glad you have such confidence in your own infallibility, part of being a good road user is knowing how vulnerable and likely to make a mistake you are.

Spook_ie

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Glad you have such confidence in your own infallibility, part of being a good road user is knowing how vulnerable and likely to make a mistake you are.

See knew you weren't ignoring me......even smugger now :cool:

DirkVoodoo

Spook_ie wrote: »

See knew you weren't ignoring me......even smugger now :cool:

Yeah, I'm too lazy to even click a damn button now.

SleepDoc

Spook_ie wrote: »

See knew you weren't ignoring me......even smugger now :cool:

It must get lonely in the cab. Tim Allen, Fencer and now you. Two (one?) people who just don't understand how vulnerable cyclists are and how your irresponsible and facetious attitudes make it less safe for everyone to use the roads.

Spook_ie

SleepDoc wrote: »

It must get lonely in the cab. Tim Allen, Fencer and now you. Two (one?) people who just don't understand how vulnerable cyclists are and how your irresponsible and facetious attitudes make it less safe for everyone to use the roads.

Nah plenty of cyclists to give out to, even at 3 or 4 AM in the morning, just wind the window down and yell out of the window that if he wants I'll buy him some ****in batterys/lights rather than attend the inquest, of the cretin without lights who I've nearly creamed

Yes I do have a bee in my bonnet about cyclists without lights

the_syco

grizzly_beer wrote: »

admittdley i was stupidly breaking 2 red lights at the time, I was just in a bad mood, tired, slightly lost, it was drizzling

I think they were trying to scare you, as jumping a red light is stupid. Jumping a red light when it's drizzling (reduced visibility) is fairly stupid, and may cause you to hit.

If a car was going at 60kmph, saw the light was green, and kept going, how far across the road would the cyclist be across the road before they saw the oncoming car? And due to the reduced visibility, how far far could the cyclist see, when not stopping for the red light? I'm surprised more haven't been killed for jumping the red lights.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yes I do have a bee in my bonnet about cyclists without lights

I don't blame you. I've nearly hit some of them, when I was cycling myself. Now, I have full beams to see them with.

Spook_ie

Spook_ie wrote: »

All serious cyclists should be bio engineered to have wheels instead of legs,

They should also be geneticly x-bred to enable them to use the gray matter that a lot of cyclists seem so lax with

They should have surgicly implanted light sensitive ( should that be dark? ) lamps on their forehead and backside that are powered by solar panels fixed attop a surgicly implanted skull plate

Just decided to add they should all have an extra pair of ears so that they can use the walkman and still be able to hear traffic around them

Diarmuid

Fiskar wrote: »

I get your point, should have stuck by "damn lies and statistics". I have over 100 K miles clocked in 8 years, no accidents, No penalty points BTW.

Here's another one for you "The plural of "anecdote" is not "fact""

Raiser

el tonto wrote: »

Should be noticed that the cops did say recently they would be taking a harder line with cyclists breaking the law.

It will be a great and wondrous day when the Public takes a harder line with Gardaí who plague ordinary Taxpayers for harmless lawbreaking cause it means they don't have to ever meet an actual Criminal - Ever.

Cabaal

Raiser wrote: »

It will be a great and wondrous day when the Public takes a harder line with Gardaí who plague ordinary Taxpayers for harmless lawbreaking cause it means they don't have to ever meet an actual Criminal - Ever.

Harmless law breaking?
Ah sure theft of a wallet is only a little crime, sure breaking into a house is much worse
:rolleyes:

If there's a law then its the Gardai's job to enforce it, what some people see has "harmless law breaking" others see as extremely dangerous and stupid

Example One:
- People driving in the overtaking lane on motorways using it as a "fast lane"
:rolleyes:

rubadub

Cabaal wrote: »

If there's a law then its the Gardai's job to enforce it,

Then somebody better report the gardai in cabinteely garda station, as they do not enforce the law there. In fact a few gardai have given me a nod of approval as I broke the red lights. I break them almost every morning, for my own safety, I have also gotten a nod cycling on footpaths, again for my own safety. As I said before, than god most gardai are not pedantic bitter kunts like some people. They realise the REAL purpose of laws and enforce where appropriate, they can see I am putting nobody in danger and am assisting the flow of traffic and protecting myself.

tomasrojo

I dislike breaking red lights personally, but I'm not going to get judgmental on people who do it for safety reasons, whether they be perceived or real.

However, I must say the Gardai could not possibly enforce every law on the books all the time. You'd end up with the legal equivalent of a Work to Rule: nothing illegal being done, but everything becoming absurdly congested. There are also probably some absurd laws on the books still that have never been struck out.

I have to say that some turning of a blind eye by police is a good thing -- such as the way Australian police don't arrest or prosecute the parent of every child not wearing a bicycle helmet they see, for example. I have a problem with laws that criminalise children for doing something their parents did without censure. I'm sure quite a few police do too.

mockler007

grizzly_beer wrote: »

yesterday I was stopped by 2 cops in a normal car (not a cop car)
admittdley i was stupidly breaking 2 red lights at the time, I was just in a bad mood, tired, slightly lost, it was drizzling and I was fairly pissed off after getting a lot of aggro from motorists on the road from drumcondra to the airport (which is an absolutely horrible road to cycle on btw!)
The gard took my details, name, dob, address, he asked whether i have a driving liscence to which i replied no, but I'd forgotten I actually did just get a provisional one recently, he mentioned something about me getting a court summons at some stage, and I'm pretty sure he mentioned "reckless endangerment" and off he went...

Anyway I'm totally pissing myself about this, anyone have any, experience / advice for this kind of thing? would be much appreciated thanks!!

fact you wont get a summons, scare tactics, you should learn from riding lioke a total retard, cause your in a bad mood, cop on would yah, muppets like you give us cyclists a bad name, if i was the cop i would have taken the bike off you and sold in on adverts. grow up, ive cycled that route loads of times and never get hassle, maybe you need to adress your skills and stop going on like daddys girl