Hauled to court...

rochie16

Back in March on a friday evening at 9.15 I was stopped on my bike by some rookie Garda who deemed it necessary to pull me up on my lack of lighting. I was wearing a hi-vis vest but had - a couple of days previous - removed my front light and forgot to return it. I had no back light. Whilst I understand this is not the safest way to travel, I argued it was only myself at risk. He, in is infinite wisdom, decided to have me produce my bike to a specific garda station (rathgar) the following saturday with a full set of lights. I told him that I had no intention of cycling down the 7km to Rathgar on a saturday morning, having commuted 100km to college Monday through Friday. Furthermore, I had prior commitments in the form of a football game I had to participate in. Anyways, today I received a court summons regarding this matter, and must attend court in mid September. Discarding the ridiculousness of the situation, has something similar ever happened to anyone here? What is likely to happen in court? Will the judge, like me and so many others, recognise that the matter is laughable, and strike it out of court. Or am I likely to receive some sort of fine?

Edit: A specific time on the Saturday (between 11 and 12)

me_right_one

This happened in March? And he left it fill August? I heard there was a 6 month rule, that if the guards dont follow up, the whole thing is forgotten about

rebel.ranter

I would not say that the judge will view the matter as laughable. The Garda gave you an opportunity to avoid a court appearance. He was only doing it for your own good too. The boyfriend of a girl I went to colege with was killed on his bike because he had no lights on it, she was devastated (probably still is), his family was devastated, the driver that hit him is also living with the guilt every day. It's not just you that gets affected.
You should have been able to present at a Garda station of your choice. Telling the Garda what's what did you no favours either, the chap was doing his job, enforcing the law. You'll probably get a fine.

Capt'n Midnight

The Guard could have done you there and then, instead you got a get of jail free card. Which you wasted.

Peyton Manning

Could you be more condescending? "Some rookie Guard". :rolleyes:

As Capt'n Midnight has pointed out, that "rookie Guard" was trying to be lenient with you. You want Guards to let you away lightly, and when they do, you turn down their compromise. They can't win with people like you.

FISMA

Fair enough, you're [more than likely] only going to hurt yourself. However, when I'm peeling you off of the side of my fender, hoping the kiddies are still asleep, there will be more than one person victimized.

True, the Gardai probably should be concerned with more important matters. However, you were in the wrong. Full stop. The Gardai gave you an option out and you chose to ignore it.

Now you must deal with the consequences.

In the future, when dealing with the Gardai, own up to the fact and take your punishment. Don't play games, seriously, 4.2 miles? You couldn't or wouldn't do that. I warm up for about 10-20 miles. 4.2?...

Why didn't you say, Garda, there's no excuse, I messed up, I don't expect a break, however, would appreciate one. I travel this route every day. If you see me tomorrow without a light, I'll sign the complaint guilty as charged.

stiffler123

I'm on your side Roachie. It's pretty hard not to notice a glow in the dark vest, don't think the guy was much in the wrong. Cop trying to be a bit of a grasshole imo.

Thor

I have to agree with the op, Its sounds ridiculous to have someone bring a bike down to a garda station to show lights on it.

Come on, What was he suppose to do even if he had realized that he didn't have lights on(walk home).

It was a simple mistake that he had no lights on and the fact that the garda wanted him to unnecessarily cycle 7km to show that there were in fact lights on the bike from that point on is just plain wrong.

Also if the garda was doing his job!! Why did he let him cycle away!!! What if he got hit by a car at that point!!

I'm sorry if i sound blunt but if the garda cared he should have given him a lift home! but no, He just let him cycle home without lights on his bike.

Sounds like that garda was NOT doing his job.

Russman

Sorry Op, with respect, have to say I think you're completely in the wrong here. The Garda gave you fair chance to avoid all this and basically because it didn't suit you, you turned it down. I would suggest complying with the authorities takes precedence over tiredness and a football match.

If you follow it on logically, where do we draw the line for offences that matter and those that don't ? To take it to silly levels, what if someone on bail decided he didn't want to sign on in a given Garda station because he'd had a long week and thought "sure it doesn't really matter anyway, its laughable, they know where I am" ?

How do you know the Garda was a rookie anyway ? Just because he pulled you for a fairly trivial (in you eyes)matter ?

If I was in your position I'd be pi$$ed off too but I would have brought the fully lighted bike to the cop-shop and it would never have gotten to this.

Go to Court, be contrite, apologise profusely, and you just might get away with it. Take your current attitude in, and there's no way.

Thor

Just re-read something there.,

The garda cannot ask you to show in a garda station on a specific day, It must be an alloted time(within 10 days i believe) So him asking you to show on the saturday is also against the law.

What if you had a funeral that day!! there is no reason for you to show on a specific day so asking for it is not allowed by the garda.

stiffler123

Russman wrote: »

Sorry Op, with respect, have to say I think you're completely in the wrong here. The Garda gave you fair chance to avoid all this and basically because it didn't suit you, you turned it down. I would suggest complying with the authorities takes precedence over tiredness and a football match.

If you follow it on logically, where do we draw the line for offences that matter and those that don't ? To take it to silly levels, what if someone on bail decided he didn't want to sign on in a given Garda station because he'd had a long week and thought "sure it doesn't really matter anyway, its laughable, they know where I am" ?

How do you know the Garda was a rookie anyway ? Just because he pulled you for a fairly trivial (in you eyes)matter ?

If I was in your position I'd be pi$$ed off too but I would have brought the fully lighted bike to the cop-shop and it would never have gotten to this.

Go to Court, be contrite, apologise profusely, and you just might get away with it. Take your current attitude in, and there's no way.

Op, go to court- say the words "I'd like to represent myself your honor." Then proceed to make that rookie cop look like an idiot. And if you get in trouble, Chewbaca defence all the way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddT8xBhBXys&feature=related

Murph100

The Gardai usually have six months from the time of an offence, to refer it to court, hence you are hearing about it now.

Go to court, dont even think about skipping it, show respect in court, apologize to the judge and tell him it wont happen again SERIOUSLY ! He might even let you off with a warning.

The cop was doing his job, fair & square, he gave you a break and you threw it back in his face.

Spend a weekend with an emergency crew, you'll realise he was doing his job better than others.

Cabaal

rochie16 wrote: »

Back in March on a friday evening at 9.15 I was stopped on my bike by some rookie Garda who deemed it necessary to pull me up on my lack of lighting. I was wearing a hi-vis vest but had - a couple of days previous - removed my front light and forgot to return it. I had no back light. Whilst I understand this is not the safest way to travel, I argued it was only myself at risk.

Thats not overly true, you could cause somebody to hit you doing damage to them or to what they are driving. So its not just you at risk.

He, in is infinite wisdom, decided to have me produce my bike to a specific garda station (rathgar) the following saturday with a full set of lights. I told him that I had no intention of cycling down the 7km to Rathgar on a saturday morning, having commuted 100km to college Monday through Friday. Furthermore, I had prior commitments in the form of a football game I had to participate in.

Fair enough you might have been pissed off but you were requiested to visit the Gardai station a football game isn't a valid reason for not attending. Would you try the same argument if they asked you to produce tax for your car?

You had the chance to just get rid of the matter but you choose not to by not going to the station, not the best plan tbh. Own up like a man and accept that you were in the wrong when it came to you not having lights.

Jawgap

The Guard was obviously a complete numpty and you're right they should have better things to do, but to be honest you did give him the opportunity to excel at numptiness by not having lights in the first place and then refusing to participate in his petty power game.

However, at the end of the day the numpty has the authority to summons you for the matter and all the indignation in the world won't change that.

My advice would be to get a really nice suit, go to court, apologise, offer mitigation if you're allowed and display some humility and contrition - that and a bit of luck with the right judge and you might get away with the Probation Act or a small fine.

ROK ON

Ahh where's Lugs Brannigan when you need him.

Jawgap

Indeed - we'd a Seargent Breslin in Whitehall - if he caught you with no lights or cycling on the footpad he'd make you walk the bike home if it was the former and order you on to the road if it was the latter.

.......then he'd go and phone yer Ma (seriously!) - much scarier than being brought to court:)

tunney

rochie16 wrote: »

Back in March on a friday evening at 9.15 I was stopped on my bike by some rookie Garda who deemed it necessary to pull me up on my lack of lighting. I was wearing a hi-vis vest but had - a couple of days previous - removed my front light and forgot to return it. I had no back light. Whilst I understand this is not the safest way to travel, I argued it was only myself at risk. He, in is infinite wisdom, decided to have me produce my bike to a specific garda station (rathgar) the following saturday with a full set of lights. I told him that I had no intention of cycling down the 7km to Rathgar on a saturday morning, having commuted 100km to college Monday through Friday. Furthermore, I had prior commitments in the form of a football game I had to participate in. Anyways, today I received a court summons regarding this matter, and must attend court in mid September. Discarding the ridiculousness of the situation, has something similar ever happened to anyone here? What is likely to happen in court? Will the judge, like me and so many others, recognise that the matter is laughable, and strike it out of court. Or am I likely to receive some sort of fine?

I think the insistance that without lights motorists can see you is laughable , I experimented riding with 2500 lumen of light, despite being bright enough to nearly blind people motorists still "didn't see me".

However you are getting done for not respecting the guards really, not the lights business.

Lumen

Whose business is it of anybody else's that you were riding without lights? It's not like there's a law against it.

You need to fight the system man.

Go to court, represent yourself and explain what an arsehole the officer was. Judges love the opportunity to take a garda down a peg or two.

Hungrycol

You're coming across as the eejit not the Gard. You cycle 100km during the week and wouldn't bother with 7km to the station and unless you're playing for the Irish National football team having to attend a football match on Saturday is no excuse, besides last I heard these are only 90 minutes long.

seamus

rochie16 wrote: »

Whilst I understand this is not the safest way to travel, I argued it was only myself at risk.

You, and the other person who pulls out in front of you who has to watch someone go flying over their bonnet, cracking your head on the ground or breaking an arm or two. Then your family has to deal with the worry if you're in hospital and for months afterwards about whether or not the roads are lethal and are they going to get another call about you having been knocked off your bike.

The ad for motorcyclists is equally valid for cyclists - it's not just you who crashes. Unless you have no friends and family, then someone else will *always* be affected by your crashes.

You're also forgetting that the roads aren't just used by cars. You've got other cyclists and motorcyclists who could be badly injured if they don't see you and knock into you and HGV drivers who can barely see you as it is and would have to live with having squished you under their wheels.

Cop on to yourself. Breaking red lights, not using lights, weaving all over the road; this is not exercising your right to put yourself at risk, you're affecting people around you.

I told him that I had no intention of cycling down the 7km to Rathgar on a saturday morning, having commuted 100km to college Monday through Friday.

Then an additional 7km should have been no bother to you.
Seriously, if he'd stopped on a public order offence or in your car, would you have been so quick to say, "Ah no Guard, I have better things to do now than go down to the Garda station. Run along with ye there now lad and go chase some real criminals, there's a good fella."

You seem to have forgotten that you don't decide what's legal and what's not and you don't get to decide whether or not you're being charged with something.

Will the judge, like me and so many others, recognise that the matter is laughable, and strike it out of court. Or am I likely to receive some sort of fine?

The judge will likely lambast you for having complete disregard for the rules of the road, putting yourself and others at risk (which is rule no. 1 when it come to using the road) and showing complete disdain for the law and Garda who attempted to enforce it.

By all means go to the court, scoff and laugh at the charges and say, "Ah yeah Judge, sure the charge is a whole load of me arse, right? Sure strike it out there so I can go and play footy".

If you've any cop on though, you'll turn up an hour early, in a suit, stand up when your name is called, apologise to the court and the Garda for wasting everyone's time by not having lights on your bike and then keep your head down and shut up and you might get off with a fine less than €200.

loyatemu

1. you were in the wrong - you didn't have lights.
2. you had an opportunity to resolve the issue by going to the Garda station - you didn't bother because you had a football game.

Its your own fault & I wouldn't go into court trying to argue that you were in the right - it'll only antagonise the judge.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

cycling on the footpad )

On the what?

OP I think everyone else has said it fairly well: the garda tried giving you a break, you threw it in his face. Have some cop on at the court and next time a garda is being nice to you, accept it graciously instead of moaning about your commute.

Lumen

bluewolf wrote: »

On the what?

Footpad

concussion

Saturday stretches all the way to 23:59, why couldn't you pop down after your match? Despite the exertion on the field, your body should be well conditioned due to your 2x10 km daily commutes.

Tordelback

Leaving aside the wrongs and, errr, wrongs of the OP's situation, I'd offer some advice (from experience) of how to get through the Court appearance without a significant fine.

Wear a suit. Be humble and polite. Address the judge directly. Admit what you did was wrong, promise you'll never do it again, come up with an explanation for why you didn't show up at the station and admit that that was wrong, and sound sincere. Do not criticise the Guard. Do not criticise the law. Do not argue with the Judge. Wear a suit.

Your goal should be to get out of the court with as little damage as possibly, not to expose the failings of the system or assert your human right to endanger yourself and other road users as you see fit.

The very triviality of your offense actually makes the situation worse once you get to court - the judge is likely to be furious that you're wasting his time, the Guard's time, clogging up the court system and wasting taxpayers money. There will be serious stuff the court has to deal with and the judge will not be amused that he's being burdened with some eejit with no lights on his bike - and he will not see this as the Guard's fault.

I've watched a lad convicted of serious vandalism (multiple parked cars) stroll out of court with a caution because he played ball with the arresting Guard (who gave evidence of a difficult personal situation) and made a frank apology, while a bolshy git caught without car insurance tried to argue his way out of it and got 5 points and a very hefty fine - other non-displayers the same day with a better attitude got less than half that.

Play nice, OP, and take your medicine.

oflahero

OP, you're coming across as a bit of a knob. I know this because I was that same knob when I was done for no lights and footpad/th cycling years ago in college.

When the rage at a bitterly unfair society that punishes cyclists for not complying with the law subsides, and the urge to tell law enforcement what you think of it Student Grant-style fades away, you'll realise that you just need to take it on the chin in the least painful way.

My case: turned up to court looking smart, fella ahead of me was a drunk driver, I was next, got to plead 'guilty!' in court, did the contrition thing, fined a fiver, bought some lights. Problem solved.

It wa a bit like paying a fiver to go to Court Theme Park, and the garda got his day off. Pity the whole thing probably cost the taxpayer a couple of grand.

Chips Lovell

In my experience, if there's anyone who likes a bit of attitude more than Guards, it's judges.

07Lapierre

Hey OP? when is your court appearance? If i can I'd love to be there to see what happens...

p.s WEAR A SUIT!, Apologise to the judge and if you do get sent down..if you drop the soap in the showers..Don't bend over to pick it up!

Beasty

I'm amazed at the number of people around here who seem to have personal experience of the Irish judicial and penal systems ...

Hermy

rochie16 wrote: »

I argued it was only myself at risk.

What about other cyclists?

07Lapierre

Beasty wrote: »

I'm amazed at the number of people around here who seem to have personal experience of the Irish judicial and penal systems ...

More like a mis-spent youth at the cinema..."Papillion" "the Shawshank redemption" "lockup" etc. etc.

Jawgap

Lumen wrote: »

Whose business is it of anybody else's that you were riding without lights? It's not like there's a law against it.

You need to fight the system man.

Go to court, represent yourself and explain what an arsehole the officer was. Judges love the opportunity to take a garda down a peg or two.

In preparation for your court appearance you should watch a "Few Good Men"

The order to produce the bike at the station was an illegal one - get the Guard on the stand and prove it to the court:)

tomasrojo

stiffler123 wrote: »

I'm on your side Roachie. It's pretty hard not to notice a glow in the dark vest, don't think the guy was much in the wrong. Cop trying to be a bit of a grasshole imo.

But they don't really glow in the dark, do they? They reflect direct light. Without direct light, they're not very visible at all. For example, if you're in a car on a rural road entering a roundabout, you can't see cyclists wearing high-visibility and using no lights approaching you on the roundabout from the right, because your headlights throw light to the left. So at best, they're only a supplement to good lights. I've noticed this on the Inchicore Road too, where cyclists are using a two-way contraflow and are positioned to the right of cars on the main one-way road. On this road, cyclists with high-visibility jackets and no lights are less visible than cyclists with lights only.

In foggy conditions high-visibility clothing is also less effective than lights, since the incident light is diminished by the droplets of water on the way to the reflective strips, and the reflected light diminished again on the way back to the motorist's eyes.

Thor

Its not like you weren't visible on the road!!

The Garda saw you!!!

Captain Havoc

I cycle before football games to warm up, a lap of Kilkenny which is 14km long, so infact your cycle to the garda staion would have been an ideal warm up. Manchester United players use excercise bikes to warm up and at half time to keep their muscles warm.

Just to clarify:

Oxford Dictionary wrote:

footpad (foot|pad)

Pronunciation:/ˈfʊtpad/

noun

historical

• a highwayman operating on foot rather than riding a horse

Sparky2

The guard was well within his rights. You broke the law for not displaying a light under the Road Traffic (Lighting Of Vehicles) Regulations 1963. You may be given a caution or you may be issued with a summons to appear in court, I'd say with with your lack of cooperation with the guard the caution was a non runner.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/travel-and-recreation/vehicle-standards/lighting-of-bicycles-in-ireland/

Chips Lovell

Beasty wrote: »

I'm amazed at the number of people around here who seem to have personal experience of the Irish judicial and penal systems ...

You know you can just go to court to watch?

07Lapierre

tomasrojo wrote: »

But they don't really glow in the dark, do they? They reflect direct light. Without direct light, they're not very visible at all. For example, if you're in a car on a rural road entering a roundabout, you can't see cyclists wearing high-visibility and using no lights approaching you on the roundabout from the right, because your headlights throw light to the left. So at best, they're only a supplement to good lights. I've noticed this on the Inchicore Road too, where cyclists are using a two-way contraflow and are positioned to the right of cars on the main one-way road. On this road, cyclists with high-visibility jackets and no lights are less visible than cyclists with lights only.

In foggy conditions high-visibility clothing is also less effective than lights, since the incident light is diminished by the droplets of water on the way to the reflective strips, and the reflected light diminished again on the way back to the motorist's eyes.

+1 its a common mistake that people make. People "assume" that a hi-vis" jacket is a good substitute for lights. Its not. AFAIK There is no "legal requirement" to wear a hi-vis jacket, but you must have lights..thats the law.

Cabaal

07Lapierre wrote: »

+1 its a common mistake that people make. People "assume" that a hi-vis" jacket is a good substitute for lights. Its not. AFAIK There is no "legal requirement" to wear a hi-vis jacket, but you must have lights..thats the law.

Agreed, this is a very common mistake.
A hi-vis can certainly help you be seen but you should have lights to be seen properly especially from a distance

blorg

@OP- I would suggest in addition to wearing a suit and appearing contrite you bring your lights to court. If you are lucky and play your cards right you may get away with a small fine.

-Chris-

I'm just wondering what'll happen if the summons if for teh same day the OP has a football match and is in a courthouse 7km+ away...

I'll be waiting for the thread in mid-September that says "Laughable judge issues preposterous arrest warrant because I didn't have lights on my bike".

cantalach

Sorry, but you are completely undeserving of any sympathy for this. It's amazing that you would even own up to such idiotic behaviour in a public forum. It's a testament to the young Garda's training that he managed to keep his cool in the face of such arrogance because a more robust reaction would have been very understandable.

Andrew33

OP's attitude is pretty typical, if some poor motorist had hit him, the law would still favour the stupid cyclist who doesn't even have the brains to recognize how vulnerable they are on the road and that motorist would be put tru hell. A Darwin award is just made for you. And then has the fcuking cheek to come on here whinging because the guard did his job!
I hope the guard shows up in court and explains to the judge that he gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked you to "produce" which you failed to do.

Lumen

Andrew33 wrote: »

OP's attitude is pretty typical, if some poor motorist had hit him, the law would still favour the stupid cyclist who doesn't even have the brains to recognize how vulnerable they are on the road

Please detail the laws which assign default responsibility for road accidents between cyclists and cars to the motorist. I was not aware of this.

Andrew33

Lumen wrote: »

Please detail the laws which assign default responsibility for road accidents between cyclists and cars to the motorist. I was not aware of this.

Don't ask me to quote paragraphs and sub sections but the pedestrian ALWAYS has "right of way". If a pedestrian steps off a path in front of you, you are obliged to stop. The law will always side with the pedestrian (or pedestrian vehicle). There might be a small degree of responsibility on the side of the pedestrian but the driver of a motorised vehicle will bear the brunt of it.
(Unless they've changed the law in recent years?)

Doctor Bob

Andrew33 wrote: »

Don't ask me to quote paragraphs and sub sections but the pedestrian ALWAYS has "right of way". If a pedestrian steps off a path in front of you, you are obliged to stop. The law will always side with the pedestrian (or pedestrian vehicle). There might be a small degree of responsibility on the side of the pedestrian but the driver of a motorised vehicle will bear the brunt of it.
(Unless they've changed the law in recent years?)

Please quote paragraphs and sub-sections.

Thanks in advance.

PS And when you're done with that, please post the definition of 'cyclist' and the definition of 'pedestrian'.

Jawgap

Lumen wrote: »

Please detail the laws which assign default responsibility for road accidents between cyclists and cars to the motorist. I was not aware of this.

Just my tuppence worth.......

....but there is no law assiging strict liability to motorists in collision situations. However, one of the sociological aspects of the court system suggests that laibility be assigned on the basis of affordability. Generally motorists are insured so lumping them with liability means the cost of dealing with injuries etc falls on the insurance company (and by extension all motorists) rather than the public purse - it may seem unfair, especially in situations where the injured party has behaved exceptionally negligently, but it makes sense to judges.

Generally, they'll be quite reluctant to wholly blame an uninsured injured party, but they do occasionally.

Andrew33

Andrew33 wrote: »

...pedestrian vehicle...

You're just making stuff up aren't you?

Lumen

Andrew33 wrote: »

Don't ask me to quote paragraphs and sub sections but the pedestrian ALWAYS has "right of way". If a pedestrian steps off a path in front of you, you are obliged to stop. The law will always side with the pedestrian (or pedestrian vehicle). There might be a small degree of responsibility on the side of the pedestrian but the driver of a motorised vehicle will bear the brunt of it.
(Unless they've changed the law in recent years?)

Pedestrian vehicle? Like this?

Cyclists are not pedestrians. In any case, motorists have an obligation to take reasonable care to avoid running over pedestrians, but this does not make them liable in all collisions with pedestrians.

If you wish to assert differently, first read some law.

Jawgap

Andrew33 wrote: »

Don't ask me to quote paragraphs and sub sections but the pedestrian ALWAYS has "right of way". If a pedestrian steps off a path in front of you, you are obliged to stop. The law will always side with the pedestrian (or pedestrian vehicle). There might be a small degree of responsibility on the side of the pedestrian but the driver of a motorised vehicle will bear the brunt of it.
(Unless they've changed the law in recent years?)

That's quite untrue - pedestrians do not have an automatic right of way - if they did we wouldn't need pedestrian crossings.

Just because they get damages following accidents, it doesn't always follow they were right. A good test is to look at how a damage award breaks down - if the judge doesn't go much beyond medical expenses and some other expenses, it's their way of saying the pedestrian was wrong, especially if they limit the calculation of lost earnings and pain & suffering.

Andrew33

Lumen wrote: »

Pedestrian vehicle? Like this?

Cyclists are not pedestrians. In any case, motorists have an obligation to take reasonable care to avoid running over pedestrians, but this does not make them liable in all collisions with pedestrians.

If you wish to assert differently, first read some law.

A bicycle is a pedestrian powered vehicle. Same rules apply to cyclists as pedestrians. If you want to continue driving around treating peds and cyclists as "just another road user" , by all means, go ahead. Does Lumen have some connection with brightness:rolleyes: