Hauled to court...

SubLuminal

next time just say someone only just nicked your lights and you're on the way to report it..

Bunnyhopper

CramCycle wrote: »

the laws of PHYSICS apply

Yeah, but they're stoopid laws anyway and don't apply if you have other priorities

Guybrush T

Rochie16, you need to give these lads a call, they'll show you how to handle the courts. Tir Na Saor

seamus

Guybrush T wrote: »

Rochie16, you need to give these lads a call, they'll show you how to handle the courts. Tir Na Saor

If he goes down that route, we'll have to make a day of it. Crisps, sandwiches, popcorn, everything.

rochie16

I'll let yis know how I get on...

brianthebard

Guybrush T wrote: »

Rochie16, you need to give these lads a call, they'll show you how to handle the courts. Tir Na Saor

Should probably try to be judged on Brehon law while he's at it. Threads like this is why the cycling forum is win. OP I hope you give us a detailed report on your day out when it happens.

briano

www.irishsentencing.ie

It's not exactly the same. €300 euro fine.

In fairness to you though, he was drunk. However, in fairness to him, he apologized to the Gardai. Twice. And under cooperation was marked as "very"

I think "not turning up to the station due to prior football related commitments" definitely won't count against you. You should bring it up during your indictment of the rookie guard

Chips Lovell

briano wrote: »

www.irishsentencing.ie

It's not exactly the same. €300 euro fine....

LOL

Accused was motoring a bicycle while drunk. Garda stated he was on both sides of the road. Offence occured at 4.34 a.m. and he had no lights.

Accused works as a health and safety officer

petethedrummer

You don't have a cousin Vinny do you? Who is perhaps an unconventional, shoot-from-the-hip lawyer who ruffles the feathers of conservative judges, but ultimately gets you acquitted with the help of his way too hot girlfriend?

CramCycle

petethedrummer wrote: »

You don't have a cousin Vinny do you? Who is perhaps an unconventional, shoot-from-the-hip lawyer who ruffles the feathers of conservative judges, but ultimately gets you acquitted with the help of his way too hot girlfriend?

Am I the only one who didn't find Vinnys GF attractive, way to much of a stick your nose where it don't belong type of gal, those two kids should have hanged.

petethedrummer

CramCycle wrote: »

Am I the only one who didn't find Vinnys GF attractive, way to much of a stick your nose where it don't belong type of gal, those two kids should have hanged.

Yes you are gay. She can stick her nose where ever she likes as far as I'm concerned.

The karate kid should never be hanged.

CramCycle

petethedrummer wrote: »

Yes you are gay.

It would explain why the only two defenses were:

In the heart of the nation's capital, in a courthouse of the U.S. government Irish Republic, one man will stop at nothing to keep his honor match being played, and one will stop at nothing to find the truth a paid day off work.

or

No one would take on agree with his case... until one man was willing to take on the system

RobFowl

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/12/france-jails-prisoners-cycling-tour

Maybe you can ask to transferred to France to do the porridge....

(Don't wear the pink catsuit though)

kincsem

You were guilty of an offence.
You were asked to fix up your bike.
You did not fix the bike.

The judge will learn that.
He will ask you to explain.

If you are learning you will (1) lose the attitude (2) fix the bike (3) go the the Garda station with the fixed bike and apologise. (the Guard might drop the case or mention your actions in court).

Next time you might figure out it is easier to have your bike in order, and if caught and given a chance, take it. Less trouble for everyone.

brayblue24

Jawgap wrote: »

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.

What a pile of c**p. If the "numpty" was on a power trip there would have been no compromise offered but there was-which the OP arrogantly decided was beneath him. You were wrong-tough. Buy lights, they're cheaper than any fine.

This "numpty" could have seized your bike under S108 RTA:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0108.html

and you would then have been forced to call to the station, football match or not, with ID, to get it back. Grow up.

If you want to cycle go by the rules. It's like people breaking red lights, getting caught and then coming here looking for sympathy.

For what it's worth I am one of those "numptys" but also an experienced and avid cyclist and it's people like you that give the rest of us a bad name.

DirkVoodoo

Unless your surname is Rooney I think you could have skipped the game, I'm sure the lads would understand that you have to appear in front of the Garda to avoid going to court.

Which reminds me, I was coming back from Brittas the other week and noticed my Knogg imitation light was missing the little plastic tab that secures it to the bike. As light was fading, I was forced to cycle with my arm behind my back holding the light between my fingers.

Moral of the story: Always check you have lights before leaving home, it's also handy to have a spare set (the aforementioned Knoggs are quite good for this). The sooner everyone cycling without lights is stopped by the Gardai the better, it's incredibly stupid not to fork out 20 euro for something so important.

Ant

When I was younger, I was stopped by guards a couple of times for breaking lights or sneaking up the wrong way on a one-way street. I always knew I was in the wrong and straight away admitted it and apologised as well as giving a reason as to why that instance of law-breaking was a one-off and how I wouldn't normally do such a thing. Being contrite was usually enough for the guard in question though one guard threatened me with a summons which I never received.

That guard was being decent. He gave you a chance to show that you were taking the issue seriously and you threw it back in his face. FWIW, proceeding with the prosecution would not have improved his promotional prospects. He was simply doing his job.

Interestingly, last winter the guards seemed to be working with the RSA on some campaign to encourage cyclists to wear hi-vis vests. My sister was stopped on her bike by a clueless and excessively aggressive guard who gave out to her for not having a hi-vis vest even though she had bright lights (front and back). As pointed out by tomasrojo, hi-vis vests are a very poor substitute for properly bright lights and should only be worn as a complement.

manwithaplan

A Young Guard's Ode to his Night Rider

It's amazing how you just came to me door
And me only just out of Templemore
You came out of the dark and landed upon us
With no light on your bike and a face like Adonis
I only knew I must see you again
So I whipped out me notebook and me Garda pen
Will you call to see me at me little hatch?
But then you mentioned the football match.

Hell hath no fury like a Garda scorned
Do you not like a man in uniform?
We'll resume our encounter on the steps of the court
(For some gentle touching I'll withdraw my report)
Don't worry my love, the judge will comply
As soon as he sees your Trinity tie
We'll go out to dinner and drink his health
And then you'll get more than your collar felt

dave2pvd

brayblue24 wrote: »

Grow up.

And there you have it.

Tordelback

I have one final bit of advice for the OP to ignore.

Pop into the court for a wee while before your own date - they often run through traffic offenses first. Watch what happens to offenders who argue the toss, having been given a non-Court way of resolving the issue. Then consider your approach.

Again:

The judge does not want you clogging up his court, and wasting the Garda's time, the officers of the court's time and most importantly his time. Arguing your 'case' increases this waste.

You were given the option to avoid this happening.

You have made no effort to explore other non-court options, such as ringing the Garda in question and arranging to present your properly-lit bike to him at a time convenient to both of you. This Garda's main motivation seems to have been using the law he's paid to enforce to ensure you didn't kill yourself, rather than earning himself a boring morning in court.

The judge that you are determined to inconvenience will probably see you as most of this forum sees you, someone who feels they are above the law and needs to be taken down a peg.

CramCycle

I found a video of Rochie16 (real name chris) online:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0gJX1gv418

The very last bit of ^^^ video is how Rochie16 sees the world:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RJ8qcyL6m8

:P

07Lapierre

Tordelback wrote: »

I have one final bit of advice for the OP to ignore.

Pop into the court for a wee while before your own date - they often run through traffic offenses first. Watch what happens to offenders who argue the toss, having been given a non-Court way of resolving the issue. Then consider your approach.

Again:

The judge does not want you clogging up his court, and wasting the Garda's time, the officers of the court's time and most importantly his time. Arguing your 'case' increases this waste.

You were given the option to avoid this happening.

You have made no effort to explore other non-court options, such as ringing the Garda in question and arranging to present your properly-lit bike to him at a time convenient to both of you. This Garda's main motivation seems to have been using the law he's paid to enforce to ensure you didn't kill yourself, rather than earning himself a boring morning in court.

The judge that you are determined to inconvenience will probably see you as most of this forum sees you, someone who feels they are above the law and needs to be taken down a peg.

If it was trail by Jury the OP is "Going DOWN!"

Thor

€20 says the guard won't even show up to court.

-Chris-

Jawgap wrote: »

Please:rolleyes:..........you know as well as I do what Guards are like when they are fresh out of Templemore - it takes them about 6 months or so to learn how to police as opposed to apply the law.

Honestly, what do you think the numpty's skipper said when he found out?

Something like
"Good man Mick, we've got crime so much under control on a Friday evening that this is a productive use of your time"??

I doubt it.

Actually this should have taken no more than a few minutes - a couple of minutes to administer the side of the road bollocking and take the OP's details, and a couple of minutes to inspect the OP's bike on the Saturday morning and update his notes to reflect that the OP turned up.

I'm sure when he decided to stop the OP, the Garda thought it'd be a quick exchange to "scare" some sense into the OP, and he'd be able to go back to doing real policing with minimal fuss.

Unfortunately he underestimated the OP's sense of self-righteousness.

Jawgap wrote: »

There was two of them in it.

Finally, was this a productive use of the numpty's time? And will the morning he spends in the District Court equally be a good use of his time - it's hardly something that is likely to feature far up the list which means he'll be sitting on his backside for most of the session while the rest of his shift is left an officer down because he lacked people skills on Friday night in D6.

If you have an issue with this court date being a waste of Garda and court resources, you should take it up with the OP. He's the one who caused this by his actions (or lack thereof).

Jawgap

-Chris- wrote: »

If you have an issue with this court date being a waste of Garda and court resources, you should take it up with the OP. He's the one who caused this by his actions (or lack thereof).

The OP didn't issue the summons - it's not that unusual for a Guard to stop you, boll1ck you, then leave you dangling for 6 months with the impression that a summons is going to arrive as a means of teaching you a lesson.

I wonder why he left it 5 months to issue the summons? I suspect I know the reason why, but I'd have no evidence to back it up. Usually if Guards are going to summons you for a straighforward offence such as this, the summons issues a lot quicker.

Thor

Still has to be pointed out that the guard did not have the authority to make the op go on the specific day and to a specific gardi station. He should have had the choice of station and day(up to 10 days) of his choice.

Also i can't get over the fact the guard let him cycle away, If it was a safety concern that be pulled him over, why did he make it so convenient for him to let the op cycle home(without proper safety lights)

I'm not saying the op wasn't in the wrong, But the guard definitely made some mistakes aswell.

-Chris-

Jawgap wrote: »

The OP didn't issue the summons - it's not that unusual for a Guard to stop you, boll1ck you, then leave you dangling for 6 months with the impression that a summons is going to arrive as a means of teaching you a lesson.

I wonder why he left it 5 months to issue the summons? I suspect I know the reason why, but I'd have no evidence to back it up. Usually if Guards are going to summons you for a straighforward offence such as this, the summons issues a lot quicker.

Is it possible he was allowing the maximum possible time for the OP to contact him and say "sorry for not showing up, let's pick another mutually convenient time"?

I guess we'll never know...

Thor wrote: »

Still has to be pointed out that the guard did not have the authority to make the op go on the specific day and to a specific gardi station. He should have had the choice of station and day(up to 10 days) of his choice.

This does seem unfair, and could possibly be a mistake on behalf of the (alleged) rookie cop. I'm sure a simple phonecall to the station would have cleared it up.

Thor wrote: »

Also i can't get over the fact the guard let him cycle away, If it was a safety concern that be pulled him over, why did he make it so convenient for him to let the op cycle home(without proper safety lights)

I'm not saying the op wasn't in the wrong, But the guard definitely made some mistakes aswell.

I'd be interested to hear what the OP has to say on this, but I'd be surprised if the Garda didn't ask the OP to walk the bike home or stay on the paths and ride slowly/carefully.

seamus

Thor wrote: »

Still has to be pointed out that the guard did not have the authority to make the op go on the specific day and to a specific gardi station. He should have had the choice of station and day(up to 10 days) of his choice.

Someone already did point this out - the 10 day thing is enshrined in legislation for particular items. It does not apply to anything else. That is, you have no right to be given 10 days to produce anything, except for your insurance cert or your licence (if the Garda is being generous).

So the Garda was well within his rights to ask the OP to produce himself and his bike at a particular station & time. He was using his discretion to give the OP an out - he could have chosen to seize the bike there and then, and just go ahead with the summons.
Unfair, perhaps. Incorrect, no.

Thor

seamus wrote: »

Someone already did point this out - the 10 day thing is enshrined in legislation for particular items. It does not apply to anything else. That is, you have no right to be given 10 days to produce anything, except for your insurance cert or your licence (if the Garda is being generous).

So the Garda was well within his rights to ask the OP to produce himself and his bike at a particular station & time. He was using his discretion to give the OP an out - he could have chosen to seize the bike there and then, and just go ahead with the summons.
Unfair, perhaps. Incorrect, no.

Have to disagree with you there, The whole point of producing your insurance cert or license is exactly that, To prove you have it.

the op showing up with lights on his bike doesn't prove anything, He could just take them off again or in fact forget(exactly what happened the first time)

The fact remains that it was a mistake and correcting the mistake by making the op produce lights on a bike is pathetic and should not be allowed. If the guard wanted to make sure he cycles safely, Why let him cycle away without the lights in the first place.

CramCycle

-Chris- wrote: »

This does seem unfair, and could possibly be a mistake on behalf of the (alleged) rookie cop. I'm sure a simple phonecall to the station would have cleared it up.

I'm sure if the OP said, sorry Garda but would you mind if I called in at another time or can you tell me when your next shift is and i'll try and pop down then, if that's OK?.

Key point: politeness and courtesy

I realise some will always take the view that the Gardaí are unreasonable but I have been stopped alot for various things (nearly all of them minor :eek: ) but have never found any Garda to be unreasonable, so long as your decent, AFAIK, so are they. They are representatives of OUR law, which, I'm not sure but we are all meant to adhere to. There will always be a very tiny minority who fit the stereotype portrayed in other posts but I'm confident they are small in numbers and I will continue to hold alot of respect for the Gardaí until that changes.

To be honest, and I'm not condoning it but if the OP had said sorry and I'll see you there and just rang the station on the day and said sorry, I can't make it due to flat tyre, babysitting, work called me, etc. is it OK if i come down another time, I find it hard to believe that the Garda would have said NO.

Thor

I just taught of something there, What would happen if say the batteries on your lights died say mid journey, Would the same rules apply!!

Bluefoam

Mod note: Post removed

Jawgap

I'm open to correction, but I'm not sure the Guard had the authority to require the OP to produce the bike and lights.

But, I think that's a side issue - if you're caught and something so cut-and-dried as no lights on a dark night then the only way out is to hold your hands up, apologise and explain. I'd say most Guards would respond to a reasonable attitude reasonably - give you a ticking off and tell you to walk the bike home, knowing full well you'll hop back on as soon as you're around the corner.

Giving the Guard static cuts into his scope for discretion and escalates the situation, which means it's only going to end badly for the perp!

I'm surprised the case went to court - I thought Supers had to sign off on prosecutions (but again I'm open to correction).

-Chris-

Thor wrote: »

Have to disagree with you there, The whole point of producing your insurance cert or license is exactly that, To prove you have it.

the op showing up with lights on his bike doesn't proof anything, He could just take them off again or in fact forget(exactly what happened the first time)

The fact remains that it was a mistake and correcting the mistake by making the op produce lights on a bike is pathetic and should not be allowed. If the guard wanted to make sure he cycles safely, Why let him cycle away without the lights in the first place.

I'm not sure what your ideal outcome is.
He didn't confiscate the bike, he didn't issue a fine, he didn't even say "show me a receipt for new lights".
He merely said "show me the bike with lights on it and I'll presume you're mature enough to have taken this seriously and we'll say no more about it".

The Garda has chosen the minimum amount of punishment possible barring ruffling the OP's hair and saying "run along you little scamp".

CramCycle wrote: »

I'm sure if the OP said, sorry Garda but would you mind if I called in at another time or can you tell me when your next shift is and i'll try and pop down then, if that's OK?.

Key point: politeness and courtesy

I realise some will always take the view that the Gardaí are unreasonable but I have been stopped alot for various things (nearly all of them minor :eek: ) but have never found any Garda to be unreasonable, so long as your decent, AFAIK, so are they. They are representatives of OUR law, which, I'm not sure but we are all meant to adhere to. There will always be a very tiny minority who fit the stereotype portrayed in other posts but I'm confident they are small in numbers and I will continue to hold alot of respect for the Gardaí until that changes.

To be honest, and I'm not condoning it but if the OP had said sorry and I'll see you there and just rang the station on the day and said sorry, I can't make it due to flat tyre, babysitting, work called me, etc. is it OK if i come down another time, I find it hard to believe that the Garda would have said NO.

+1. I've never found a Garda to be unreasonable if you're being reasonable to them. A simple and polite conversation with the Garda any time before 10:01am on Saturday would have allowed him to reschedule the appointment.
I'd bet €100 that even a simple and polite conversation within a reasonable number of days after the Saturday would have had the same effect.

Jawgap

Thor wrote: »

I just taught of something there, What would happen if say the batteries on your lights died say mid journey, Would the same rules apply!!

If you have a football match on Saturday, then yes:)

No lights is no lights whatever the reason and sounding off at the Guard is probably going leave you serving as the OP's bitch in the 'Joy!

seamus

Thor wrote: »

the op showing up with lights on his bike doesn't proof anything, He could just take them off again or in fact forget(exactly what happened the first time)

It proves that he at least has lights and knows where they are. I'm sure everyone who's stopped goes, "Oh...yeah...ah...uh....you see I do have them, but I forgot them because I was rushing this morning and the wife distracted me and the kids had hidden them...".
By the same token, showing an insurance cert at a Garda station doesn't prove that you're always insured, just that you're currently insured. The person could cancel their insurance after walking out of the station.

If the guard wanted to make sure he cycles safely, Why let him cycle away without the lights in the first place.

Because seizing the bike is a pretty extreme thing to do. We don't know if he did cycle away without lights. More than likely he was told to walk home.

It's been standard policy for the last few months in these cases to have cyclists produce themselves and their bikes at a station with their lights. There's nothing wrong with this - it shows at the very least that the person at least *has* a set of lights in the first place, and is inconvenient enough to remind them to attach the lights to the bike.

This is one of those cases where a Garda trying to do the socially correct thing (as opposed to the legal maximum) gets criticised for it. The OP was given one of two choices:
1. Present yourself at the station with your lights
2. Go to court.

The Garda didn't have to give him any choices, he did it because option 1 is the eminently easier and more sensible option and he is entitled to use his discretion to offer this option.

As Cramcycle says, if the OP had simply said, "Oh sorry Garda, Saturday is a *really* bad time for me - any chance I could pop into the station tomorrow with them?", then I have no doubt that the Garda would have been open to it. Instead he had an attitude, told the Garda to take a hike and is now paying for being unreasonable.

CramCycle

Thor wrote: »

Have to disagree with you there, The whole point of producing your insurance cert or license is exactly that, To prove you have it.

the op showing up with lights on his bike doesn't prove anything, He could just take them off again or in fact forget(exactly what happened the first time)

The fact remains that it was a mistake and correcting the mistake by making the op produce lights on a bike is pathetic and should not be allowed. If the guard wanted to make sure he cycles safely, Why let him cycle away without the lights in the first place.

Same reason you get punishments at home or in school when you are a child. So you'll remember the next time.

Giving him a chance to produce lights would be an incredibly minor inconvenience (for most people) but it may hopefully help them remember the mistake the next time, as well as to more than likely avoid a court appearance, TBH the Garda sounds like he was being reasonably efficient by dealing with it on the side of the street and hopefully, lesson learned, save the OP/pedestrians/other road users from possible injury.

When this clearly wasn't working and the OP had clearly been disrespectful then a summons was issued, he had several months (even the next day) to ring the station and say sorry for not calling down and sorry for being a bit argumentative. A bit of manners cost nothing.

Murph100

Why dont you try it out, assert your points to the Guard and tell him he has no right to make you appear at his station the following day ... tell us what happens :rolleyes:

Thor wrote: »

I just taught of something there, What would happen if say the batteries on your lights died say mid journey, Would the same rules apply!!

-Chris-

Thor wrote: »

I just taught of something there, What would happen if say the batteries on your lights died say mid journey, Would the same rules apply!!

I'd expect the Garda to tell you to walk the bike home, and if you have any money to pop your head into any of the late-night newsagents/garages and buy a new set of batteries before cycling again.

The fact that you have lights attached to the bike with dead batteries, and your general attitude, would enable him to use his discretion and allow you on your way.

Russman

Thor wrote: »

If the guard wanted to make sure he cycles safely, Why let him cycle away without the lights in the first place.

I'm not so sure the guard wanted to make sure he cycled safely though. If the Op wants to kill himself, let him go ahead but do it within the rules. I think its a case of there are rules and the Op broke one. Now, whether the rules are silly or not is another matter. I reckon the guard was being decent in giving the op a chance to avoid any real hassle while at the same time inconveniencing him just a little bit to teach him a fairly painless lesson. He probably assumed the Op would be mature about it and take it for what it was.
Imagine his annoyance when his decency is thrown in is face for a football match ?? Seriously, anyone would be pi$$ed off with that kind of arrogance !
No doubt when the file rose its head, the guard remembered who it was, saw he hadn't bothered to turn up and decided to "punish" him.

Thor

-Chris- wrote: »

I'm not sure what your ideal outcome is.
He didn't confiscate the bike, he didn't issue a fine, he didn't even say "show me a receipt for new lights".
He merely said "show me the bike with lights on it and I'll presume you're mature enough to have taken this seriously and we'll say no more about it".

So just to reiterate

He has to cycle 7km to a specific station to show that same guard that he now has lights on his bike!!

A state officel making anyone cycle unnecessarily should NOT be allowed.

Maybe if he asked him to produce the lights themselves, just to show he had them in the first place, But no they had to be on the bike.

Also i don't understand what you mean by mature enough, Its not like when he got his bike out to cycle to and from college, 'Sure you know what i'm going to leave the lights here'. He forgot, simple mistake that for some reason requires a 7km journey on a bike.

droidus

seamus wrote: »

It's been standard policy for the last few months in these cases to have cyclists produce themselves and their bikes at a station with their lights. There's nothing wrong with this - it shows at the very least that the person at least *has* a set of lights in the first place, and is inconvenient enough to remind them to attach the lights to the bike.

Its been standard policy for at least 15 years...

Thor

Murph100 wrote: »

Why dont you try it out, assert your points to the Guard and tell him he has no right to make you appear at his station the following day ... tell us what happens :rolleyes:

He doesn't have any right to tell you that, It will and always will be a garda station of your choosing(I.E the closest one to your home is normally the one or perhaps one close to were you work).

CramCycle

Thor wrote: »

I just taught of something there, What would happen if say the batteries on your lights died say mid journey, Would the same rules apply!!

The lights on my HGV died one night driving home one night. Of course some *numpty* pulled me over. That said once he seen the lights, he was grand. He asked if I would mind calling by the station and just flashing them through the window at the weekend.

WTF, I said. Promptly flipped him off and went on my merry way, cheek of him, it's not like I could hurt anyone else, pry straight out of Templemore.

Haven't heard anything yet (looks around), have to go check those blue lights outside my gaff, who the hell has lights on at this time of day.

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm open to correction, but I'm not sure the Guard had the authority to require the OP to produce the bike and lights.

I'm surprised the case went to court - I thought Supers had to sign off on prosecutions (but again I'm open to correction).

Its perfectly legal to ask you to produce lights at a station as its a public health and safety issue. Someone else can google the terminology, something along the lines of a danger to yourself and the general public.

If the Super heard he was ignorant after being given an out, I can't see why he wouldn't sign off on it.

CramCycle

Thor wrote: »

Also i don't understand what you mean by mature enough, Its not like when he got his bike out to cycle to and from college, 'Sure you know what i'm going to leave the lights here'. He forgot, simple mistake that for some reason requires a 7km journey on a bike.

As in mature enough to admit his error, say sorry and it won't happen again. I'll show you my lights ASAP

Thor wrote: »

He doesn't have any right to tell you that, It will and always will be a garda station of your choosing(I.E the closest one to your home is normally the one or perhaps one close to were you work).

Refusal to follow the directions of a Garda on the road is a really serious offence AFAIK

Bluefoam

I can just imagine how the Garda's unreasonable conversation went:

Garda: So if you don't mind, I'd like you to drop down to the station to show you have attached lights - within the next ten days.

OP: How dare you, do you know I commute 100km a week and could possisbly add another 7km to satisfy the law that I am serious about my responsibilities to other road users. Besides, I have preschool during the week.

Garda: I can see you are a busy person. Why not drop down on Saturday, if that suits...

OP: **** you you numpty, you are waisting my parents tax money. I refuse to accept your agressive tone on social and economic grounds. Besides even though I was committing an offense - I was 100% in the right. I AM DEADLY!!!

Garda: So, if you'd like to drop down to the Garda station at your convinience I'll let you on your way. Have a nice evening.

OP: I dropped my choc ice

5 Months Later...

Garda: Hmmm... I have given that 12 year old in an adults body plenty of time to produce his bike. I'm concerned that he didn't fully understand the seriousness of the situation. I have no choice but to follow the law, for which it is my job to uphold. I realise that he may have learning difficulties (as shown by his lack of action) but I need to get the message accross somehow. I'm sure he will take the correct action now that he has a summons and avoid further difficulties...

OP: **** THE WORLD. I AM KING, ALL WILL BOW TO MY WHIMS
* & I'm always right... the judge will see things my way...

bikenut74

Lugs Brannigan would have punched Rochie in the neck and told him to cop on. Its not the worst crime in the world but I can't see the Judge laughing when he hears that you had a chance to avoid wasting his court time. The most you can get is a small fine anyway but you'll probably have to listen to a lecture from the Judge as well.

-Chris-

Thor wrote: »

So just to reiterate

He has to cycle 7km to a specific station to show that same guard that he now has lights on his bike!!

A state officel making anyone cycle unnecessarily should NOT be allowed.

Again, I'm not sure what your ideal outcome to this would be. Care to enlighten us?

It's not unreasonable to ask someone who cycles 100km per week to cycle an additional 7km.
Maybe the bike could have been delivered on a bike rack, I doubt the Garda insisted that the bike was cycled to the station.

Thor wrote: »

Maybe if he asked him to produce the lights themselves, just to show he had them in the first place, But no they had to be on the bike.

Of course they had to be on the bike. Why not take it a step further and just ask the OP to email the Garda a photograph of some lights while you're at it?

Thor wrote: »

Also i don't understand what you mean by mature enough, Its not like when he got his bike out to cycle to and from college, 'Sure you know what i'm going to leave the lights here'. He forgot, simple mistake that for some reason requires a 7km journey on a bike.

He said in the OP that he had removed his front light and had no back light (I read this as he doesn't own one rather than that he left it at home).
Anyway, by mature enough I mean that he's adult enough to recognise that the Garda's letting him off lightly on the condition that at a specific point in the future the OP will demonstrate to him that he's taken the criticism on board and has obtained lights for the bike.

-Chris-

Bluefoam wrote: »

Garda: Hmmm... I have given that 12 year old in an adults body plenty of time to produce his bike. I'm concerned that he didn't fully understand the seriousness of the situation. I have no choice but to follow the law, for which it is my job to uphold. I realise that he may have learning difficulties (as shown by his lack of action) but I need to get the message accross somehow. I'm sure he will take the correct action now that he has a summons and avoid further difficulties...

ROFL :D

blorg

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm open to correction, but I'm not sure the Guard had the authority to require the OP to produce the bike and lights.

But he didn't "require" the OP to do so, he merely offered it as an out to avoid prosecution. I take it you think the Gardá should have confiscated the bike on the spot, that was the only legal reasonable thing to do, right?

Thor wrote: »

I just taught of something there, What would happen if say the batteries on your lights died say mid journey, Would the same rules apply!!

I imagine they would tell you to get new batteries... generally they would be more understanding if you actually at least had the lights on the bike. Legally speaking though cycling with lights without batteries is the same as not having them at all.