Are there any "low profile" Garda cars? (no lightbars)?

Hooch

goldie fish wrote: »

No doubt you have legislation that supports your affirmation?

Im not trying to be smart or disrespectful when I say this but as someone who says he was a member of AGS...... with each passing post I realise why your not anymore.......

ROAD TRAFFIC (LIGHTING OF VEHICLES) REGULATIONS, 1963

Sections 41, 42, 43 and 48.


Stand corrected when your ready.......

goldie fish

nice guy always wrote: »

Im not trying to be smart or disrespectful when I say this but as someone who says he was a member of AGS...... with each passing post I realise why your not anymore.......

ROAD TRAFFIC (LIGHTING OF VEHICLES) REGULATIONS, 1963

Sections 41, 42, 43 and 48.


Stand corrected when your ready.......

I'm waiting for the bit that says strobes mounted on motorcycles are illegal.

Irish_polizei

There was once a time where i would post till the cows came home and then had a full on conversation with the cows about amber, green, pink, black,purple blue lights on here, but that time has long gone because no matter whats explained with facts joesoap says other...gets on a mans breast at times.... and besides was the thread not to do with low profile marked cars? :pac:

Alpha Papa

well said that man +1

eroo

goldie fish wrote: »

I'm waiting for the bit that says strobes mounted on motorcycles are illegal.

41(2) and 43(3)(b) cover it I would have thought. The motorcycle is not being used by a public utility to illuminate works etc and so cannot have lights to the rear unless they are red, and it is not included in the list of vehicle types operated that can be used with lighting(excluding indicators). Well thats my take on it..

Regardless, it does not say anywhere that strobes mounted on motorcycles are 'illegal'. They may simply be contrary to specific Sections and subsections as above.

goldie fish

Thanks eroo. Its all about interpretation.

Incedentally, can any of the genii here tell me the difference between "illegal" and "unlawful"?

eroo

goldie fish wrote: »

Thanks eroo.

No bother at all.

source

goldie fish wrote: »

Incedentally, can any of the genii here tell me the difference between "illegal" and "unlawful"?

According to the dictionary there is no difference.

ILLEGAL. Contrary to law; unlawful. 2. It is a general rule, that the law will never give its aid to a party who has entered into an illegal contract, whether the same be in direct violation of a statute, against public policy, or opposed to public morals. Nor to a contract which is fraudulent, which affects the defendant or a third person. 3. A contract in violation of a statute is absolutely void, and, however disguised, it will be set aside, for no form of expression can remove the substantial defect inherent in the nature of the transaction; the courts will investigate the real object of the contracting parties, and if that be repugnant to the law, it will vitiate the transaction. 4. Contracts against the public policy of the law, are equally void as if they were in violation of a public statute; a contract not to marry any one, is therefore illegal and void. See Void. 5. A contract against the purity of manners is also illegal; as, for example, a agreement to cohabit unlawfully with another, is therefore void; but a bond given for past cohabitation, being considered as remuneration for past injury, is binding. 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 3853. 6. All contracts which have for their object, or which may in their consequences, be injurious to third persons, altogether unconnected with them, are in general illegal and void. Of the first, an example may be found in the case where a sheriff's officer received a sum of money from a defendant for admitting to bail, and agreed to pay the bail, part of the money which was so exacted. 2 Burr. 924. The case of a wager between two persons, as to the character of a third, is an example of the second class. Cowp. 729; 4 Camp. 152; 1 Rawle, 42; 1 B. & A. 683. Vide Illicit; Unlawful.

Source: Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)

sdanseo

nice guy always wrote: »

Im not trying to be smart or disrespectful when I say this but as someone who says he was a member of AGS...... with each passing post I realise why your not anymore.......

ROAD TRAFFIC (LIGHTING OF VEHICLES) REGULATIONS, 1963

Sections 41, 42, 43 and 48.


Stand corrected when your ready.......

According to that, any reflective material attached to a vehicle "shall be red if facing to the rear, amber if facing to the side, and white if facing to the front", also any light which is adapted in such a way that in can be made functional (i.e. turned on from the inside while driving) is illegal too.

Few archaic regulations and more grammatical faux-pax's in there than a knacker's essay but that's neither here nor there.

I stand corrected, NGA :P

Hooch

goldie fish wrote: »

I'm waiting for the bit that says strobes mounted on motorcycles are illegal.

Please see Section 40 of the said act. It clearly states mechanically propelled vehicle and the sections that must comply.

Definition of an MPV

"mechanically propelled vehicle" means a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including—
( a ) a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, whether or not the attachment is being used,
( b ) a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical or partly electrical and partly mechanical

Hooch

eroo wrote: »

Regardless, it does not say anywhere that strobes mounted on motorcycles are 'illegal'. They may simply be contrary to specific Sections and subsections as above.

Strobes not in use are not illegal.......use of them is. Contrary to a section is to be acting in such a way that is against this section.....therefore not legal.

goldie fish

nice guy always wrote: »

Strobes not in use are not illegal.......use of them is. Contrary to a section is to be acting in such a way that is against this section.....therefore not legal.

By your interpretation of the act, hazard lights are also "illegal".

I have read the acts you have quoted many times and have yet to see reference to amber flashing lights front and rear that are not direction indicators.

I look forward to you pointing out my misinterpretation. Hopefully in a way that does not call me a liar again.

Hooch

goldie fish wrote: »

By your interpretation of the act, hazard lights are also "illegal".

I have read the acts you have quoted many times and have yet to see reference to amber flashing lights front and rear that are not direction indicators.

I look forward to you pointing out my misinterpretation. Hopefully in a way that does not call me a liar again.

No they are not illegal in most cases. You are interpeting the law to suit yourself.

The term hazard lights is a common term. Brake lights are also a common term......however there is no such thing as brake lights but stop lamps.

Bareing the above in mind, hazard lights do not exist but direction indicators do. There is nothing in the act to state they cannot be used together. However, misleading lights are. So a vehicle parked can use them, however someone driving down the road with them on may mislead traffic and are infect a breach of the relevant legislation.

goldie fish

No they are not illegal in most cases.

Finally you are understanding where I am going.

Interpretation is the issue. One judge will decide one thing, another will decide the opposite. Incedentally, the next generation stop lamp will also be illegal.(It is a high level strobe, becoming very common in europe).

Perhaps it is time to update the legislation that dates from a time before motorways, even dual carriageways existed? The legislation is so vague to be unenforceable. I showed it to some of my friends in the UK police and they laughed loudly. No mention of intensity, just vague references to the area a lamp is supposed to light up.

In the UK and elsewhere in the EU, you can use a motorcycle, with amber front facing strobes, and red rear facing strobes, to escort oversize loads. You can also use front facing strobes if delivering blood or Organs. Yet the only way you can use a similar vehicle here is if said load is for construction purposes, which is not always the case, and the legislation provides no definition for strobes, apart from specifying the speed at which flashing direction indicators can flash.

As far as the legislation is concerned, many things you consider to be illegal, do not even exist!.

goldie fish

Customs vehicles do not use Blue lights. The only ones that do work exclusively within dublin airport.
All their marked vehicles that are used on Public roads use Amber strobes.

deadwood

Could an off duty garda, exceed the speed limit in the overtaking lane going to the doctors use a flashing light on the front and rear of his vehicle alternating between blue, green and amber within the confines of Dublin Airport?

Going forward at the end of the day.

Alpha Papa

deadwood wrote: »

Could an off duty garda, exceed the speed limit in the overtaking lane going to the doctors use a flashing light on the front and rear of his vehicle alternating between blue, green and amber within the confines of Dublin Airport?

Going forward at the end of the day.

This brought a smile to my face! Sarcasm I presume ;-)

Alpha Papa

goldie fish wrote: »

Customs vehicles do not use Blue lights. The only ones that do work exclusively within dublin airport.
All their marked vehicles that are used on Public roads use Amber strobes.

Goldie is this not a contridiction saying customs don't use them but then giving an example of how they do :-) this vehicle utilize blues for similar reason to APS vehicles at checkpoints on the airport

etc..

Hooch

Think this has gone on long enough.....we all went off topic on this one

Thread locked