Garda with no licience,tax, and bald tyres kills two and gets a fine!

Guy:Incognito

Did he not have a licence or had he just not renewed it?

zenno

From RTE..He said Garda Clifford had no previous convictions, had an impeccable record and was a good and upstanding member of the community.

What the hell does this have to do with him driving without a licence. He should be banned from driving simple as that.

EDIT: awaiting confirmation on whether he had insurance or not.

hondasam

Funkstard wrote: »

Hang on, he knocked the two people down but they were on the ground having a scuffle in the middle of the motorway at night (as you do) and the car ran over them. If I remember correctly the garda didn't even know what he'd hit as it was so dark - that stretch of the motorway has no lights. He is being fined for driving without a licence or insurance and isn't culpable for anything else that happened.

He really should know better than to drive with no d/lic, bald tyres and on a motorway. He is there to uphold the law and break it.
I have some sympathy for him because he did not see the people on the ground and could not avoid them.

where does it say he had no insurance?

HeidiHeidi

zenno wrote: »

What the hell does this have to do with him driving without insurance, licence. He should be banned from driving simple as that.

Every person convicted is entitled to have a plea made in mitigation, and the judge must take these into account as well as how s/he pleaded. Them's the rules, like them or not.

tuxy

HigginsJ wrote: »

He has been fined for his motoring related offenses. He was not charged of speeding/drink driving so no ban.

I figured driving with no licence would normally mean a ban from the road.
Am I wrong?
And for driving with no insurance he should have points waiting to go on his licence if he applies for one.

prinz

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

But it did lead to their deaths. Had he followed the law he would certainly not have killed them.

If I jump off a motorway overpass, landing right in front of a car which hits and kills me is the driver to be held culpable for my death if it afterwards turns out his indicator lights weren't working? Or his brake lights?

seamus

marco_polo wrote: »

driving with no Insurance and License in an unroadworthy car should be an automatic driving ban.

There is nothing in the article to indicate that the Garda did not have insurance to be fair.

Driving without a licence is a tough one because it covers both people who have never done the test and people who have just forgotten to renew, which in reality are poles apart.

I would have the expected maximum monetary penalty for each charge though on the basis that a member of the Garda should know better.

Terrontress

hondasam wrote: »

Funkstard wrote: »

Hang on, he knocked the two people down but they were on the ground having a scuffle in the middle of the motorway at night (as you do) and the car ran over them. If I remember correctly the garda didn't even know what he'd hit as it was so dark - that stretch of the motorway has no lights. He is being fined for driving without a licence or insurance and isn't culpable for anything else that happened.

He really should know better than to drive with no d/lic, bald tyres and on a motorway. He is there to uphold the law and break it.
I have some sympathy for him because he did not see the people on the ground and could not avoid them.

where does it say he had no insurance?

I believe that if my car is not taxed or roadworthy that my insurance will not cover me.

And when I insure my car they always ask if I have a driving license. I haven't said no but if I did, would they insure me?

tuxy

seamus wrote: »

There is nothing in the article to indicate that the Garda did not have insurance to be fair.

Which insurance company takes on customers with no valid licence?

Micky Dolenz

hondasam wrote: »

He really should know better than to drive with no d/lic, bald tyres and on a motorway. He is there to uphold the law and break it.
I have some sympathy for him because he did not see the people on the ground and could not avoid them.

where does it say he had no insurance?

Having a license is a condition of having valid insurance.

seamus

Terrontress wrote: »

I believe that if my car is not taxed or roadworthy that my insurance will not cover me.

For the purposes of the law, once you have the policy in your hand, you're insured. It doesn't matter if you're driving the car without any tyres or lights, upside-down the wrong way down a motorway at night after 50 pints; you are still legally covered.

marco_polo

seamus wrote: »

There is nothing in the article to indicate that the Garda did not have insurance to be fair.

Driving without a licence is a tough one because it covers both people who have never done the test and people who have just forgotten to renew, which in reality are poles apart.

I would have the expected maximum monetary penalty for each charge though on the basis that a member of the Garda should know better.

Oops I think I misread the article.

hondasam

Terrontress wrote: »

I believe that if my car is not taxed or roadworthy that my insurance will not cover me.

And when I insure my car they always ask if I have a driving license. I haven't said no but if I did, would they insure me?

It never mentioned no insurance, I think if you pay your policy they have to honour it, open to correction but heard something on matt cooper about it ages ago.

Micky Dolenz

prinz wrote: »

If I jump off a motorway overpass, landing right in front of a car which hits and kills me is the driver to be held culpable for my death if it afterwards turns out his indicator lights weren't working? Or his brake lights?

Is the driver legally on the road?

An indicator or brake light out doesn't make it illegal to be on the road.

hondasam

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Having a license is a condition of having valid insurance.

Are we sure about this? I'm not 100% on that fact.

Terrontress

Terrontress wrote: »

I believe that if my car is not taxed or roadworthy that my insurance will not cover me.

Your insurance will revert to the minimum legal level. In other words, if the deceased men had not been killed but sustained serious injuries, your insurance would have covered the costs associated. They may not have covered the costs of your own car. It's not correct to say that you are not insured.

Micky Dolenz

hondasam wrote: »

It never mentioned no insurance, I think if you pay your policy they have to honour it, open to correction but heard something on matt cooper about it ages ago.

They all ask what type and how long you've had a license for. If you lie, it's void.

Micky Dolenz

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

They all ask what type and how long you've had a license for. If you lie, it's void.

See previous post. It's not void, it reverts to legal minimum level. 3rd parties would still be able to claim off your insurance.

hondasam

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

They all ask what type and how long you've had a license for. If you lie, it's void.

I know all this but I'm sure you are still covered if anything happens, I will look for something on it.
whether or which he should not have been driving, he should have known better, there is no excuse for him but it's unfair to say he could have avoided the accident happening.

Guy:Incognito

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Having a license is a condition of having valid insurance.

If you read an insurance policy it says somethign along the lines of "holds or has held a licence in the catagory concerned" . I believe that covers not renewing your licence.

tuxy

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

They all ask what type and how long you've had a license for. If you lie, it's void.

This used to be my understanding but I now think I was wrong.
He defiantly would have been charged with no insurance if that was the case.

My name is URL

The court heard Garda Clifford was driving home after work on the M20 southbound motorway outside Limerick when he was confronted by two pedestrians who were on the ground in the middle of the road.

They suffered fatal injuries after they were struck by Garda Clifford's car.

Does that read odd to anyone else? He was confronted by two pedestrians

seamus

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

They all ask what type and how long you've had a license for. If you lie, it's void.

Not necessarily from a legal perspective. EU law effectively compels any insurer to pay out a 3rd party claim against their policy if they are liable. If the insurer finds the policy "void", then they have to chase the insured person for their costs, they can't just walk away.

For the purposes of the road traffic act, this means that the driver is legally insured. The main aim is to ensure that an innocent 3rd party doesn't find themselves screwed over by someone who has obtained a policy fraudulently. This is why insurers have become a lot stricter in the last ten years about getting copies of driving licences and addresses - because if they don't check it out, they could end up paying out for someone who has lied to them.

In any case, we don't know if the Garda has never held a licence or if his was just expired. In the latter case, the insurance policy is still valid.

Kess73

HigginsJ wrote: »

Somewhere past the Raheen exit from what I understand

Yep where there are two flyovers, a bend and also a sliproad, combined with no lighting at all.

If I remember the case in question correctly there was a mention of another car that had been right beside where the two people were lying on the road, and that car took off fast when the car driven by the Garda struck the people lying on the road. That car was meant to have last been seen heading in the direction of Cork.


I know the stretch of road very well as I use it almost on a daily basis and live only a few miles from it, and I can safely say that any car that came upon that stretch at night would have a problem stopping in time if anything unexpected popped up in front of them.

The Garda being done for lack of car tax, bald tyres etc is spot on, but even if he was going at around 80ph to 100kph on that stretch of motorway stopping in time would have been very hard to do without sending the car into the embankment or into the flyover. Plus the bend and slip road in that stretch would mean that your headlights would not have lit the full stretch ahead of you were off the bend part and going in a straight line again.

Terrontress

whoopsadaisydoodles wrote: »

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

They all ask what type and how long you've had a license for. If you lie, it's void.

See previous post. It's not void, it reverts to legal minimum level. 3rd parties would still be able to claim off your insurance.

Would the insurer not pursue the policyholder for those costs?

kirving

Yes, but it could run out during the insurance period, they don't ask when it will run as far as I know.

Anyway, if a drunk driver crashes, it's assumed that the reason he crashed was because he was drunk. In reality, it may only have been a contributary factor.

Same goes for tyres. If they were so badly warn that he was fined, I doubt they were 0.1mm below the legal minimum, so why isn' this taken more seriously? All else being equal, he may have stopped more quicly with legal tyres.

seamus

Terrontress wrote: »

Would the insurer not pursue the policyholder for those costs?

They would be entitled to. However in most cases it wouldn't be worth the cost of going to court, and cancelling the policy would be far more punitive to the policyholder.

Micky Dolenz

I didn't know that about he insurance. Makes sense though.

It would be interesting to know that part of the story though and what will the insurance company do next.

Micky Dolenz

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I didn't know that about he insurance. Makes sense though.

It would be interesting to know that part of the story though and what will the insurance company do next.

I would imagine that they will no longer insure him anyway as they will say that he broke the terms of his previous insurance. If the families of the deceased men claim off the insurance for their deaths (there's a standing payout of something like €26,000), then the insurance provider may well chase the man for costs but it's a rare enough occurence.

sheesh

Does everyone understand that the reason he has not faced other legal charges is because it is the garda ombusman has to investigate the incident because he is a garda

No further garda investigation is being carried out into this fatal accident, as all matters, including any criminal matters that may arise, are investigated in their entirety by the Garda Ombudsman's Office.

hondasam

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I didn't know that about he insurance. Makes sense though.

It would be interesting to know that part of the story though and what will the insurance company do next.

The insurance company will have to pay compensation if the families sue. It makes you wonder why the d/lic is such a big issue when getting insurance.

HigginsJ

Why could he be sued?

For the state of the car or for killing the 2 men?

What possible prosecution/charges would the guy face. Would he have to face man slaughter charges?

hondasam

HigginsJ wrote: »

Why could he be sued?

For the state of the car or for killing the 2 men?

What possible prosecution/charges would the guy face. Would he have to face man slaughter charges?

It was not man slaughter, they were in the middle of the road fighting, it was pitch black, how could he have seen them.

KarlDrake

hondasam wrote: »

It was not man slaughter, they were in the middle of the road fighting, it was pitch black, how could he have seen them.

Is €200 the standard fine for no tax or is it a Garda thing?
Is €200 the standard fine for no license or is it a Garda thing?

Thirdly, is it just the Gardaí's word we have for two guys lying on the road?

hondasam

KarlDrake wrote: »

Is €200 the standard fine for no tax or is it a Garda thing?
Is €200 the standard fine for no license or is it a Garda thing?

Thirdly, is it just the Gardaí's word we have for two guys lying on the road?

Some people get no fine for no tax, all depends on the judge same with d/lic.
From what I remember there was another garda in the car with him and there was other people there but they drove of.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=two%20men%20killed%20limerick%20fighting%20on%20mororway&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.ie%2Fnational-news%2Fgardai-seek-identity-of-second-man-hit-by-offduty-officers-car-2495902.html&ei=WT-QT8q2KMSLhQev7oWlBA&usg=AFQjCNEQ0VtS8P75gIin-qt_Am-IXsKRtw

HigginsJ

hondasam wrote: »

It was not man slaughter, they were in the middle of the road fighting, it was pitch black, how could he have seen them.

Thats what i'm wondering. I mean, he did kill them, unitentionally and am wondering if he could face those charges

HigginsJ

KarlDrake wrote: »

Is €200 the standard fine for no tax or is it a Garda thing?
Is €200 the standard fine for no license or is it a Garda thing?

Thirdly, is it just the Gardaí's word we have for two guys lying on the road?[/QUOTE]


Well the fact that he drove over them pretty much backs that up no?

U thinking he pulled them out of the drunktank, cuffed them, lay them down on the road and ran over them, ala the cartoon scene with the girl tied to the railway tracks??

B0 SELECTRA

banana republic :eek:

Kess73

KarlDrake wrote: »

Is €200 the standard fine for no tax or is it a Garda thing?
Is €200 the standard fine for no license or is it a Garda thing?

Thirdly, is it just the Gardaí's word we have for two guys lying on the road?

Yes. The Garda driving and his passenger who is also a garda.

The vehicle or vehicles that the two men came from did not stick around and left the scene of the accident, and afaik none of them have come forward to give their side and nor have any of the family members of the deceased said how the two men from Cork happened to be lying on a stretch of Motorway just miles outside Limerick city.

Seemed quite odd to me at the time that the other car would leave and that no proper explanation was ever given as to how the men got to Limerick or how they were to return to Cork. One thing that did stand out was that at least one of them was well known to the Cork gardai, and as such maybe whoever was driving their car/cars were as well.

It is not exactly a stretch of motorway that you would walk to as it is a fair walk from the city and even a fair walk from the nearest bus stop or pub/club.

MagicSean

Terrontress wrote: »

You could possibly swerve to avoid them though.

I'm interested to know why he had no license but owned a car. Had he never had a license, had he lost a license, was he not required to have a license?

There was a Garda on the N3 who killed a woman while driving and, if I recall correctly, he had no license. The outcome of a court case was that he did not need one as he was a Garda.

Edit:

This is the case I am referring to

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/garda-in-fatal-crash-didnt-have-a-driving-licence-inquest-told-1945362.html

It says that the legislation not requiring him to have a license was recommended to be reviewed so maybe they do need it now.

He was driving to court when he killed her so he was doing so in the line of his duty but if you have no license but own a car and kill someone while driving, it is obvious you have been driving for a while.

Gardaí on duty are exempt from the majority of Road Traffic laws with the exception of dangerous driving and drink driving. As he was not charged with having no insurance it is likely he had allowed his licence to expire which is a common occurence in this country.

hondasam

HigginsJ wrote: »

Thats what i'm wondering. I mean, he did kill them, unitentionally and am wondering if he could face those charges

It was an accident.

Ellis Dee

If a society wants its citizens to respect the law, it must demand exceptionally high standards of those who are paid to exercise public power. :cool:

A police officer who drives without a licence, has not paid his road tax (and is thereby defrauding the taxpayer) and, by having bald tyres, is on the road in a potentially dangerous vehicle, does not meet the standard of probity that it is reasonable to expect of someone in his position, and he is providing others with an excuse to disregard the law. He likewise can not plead poverty or shortage of funds, as might be the case with someone who is unemployed or enjoys less pay and benefits than our boys in blue.:rolleyes:

A person like him has no place in the police force of a democratic country, and I hope the Garda Ombudsman soon comes to the same conclusion.:)

KarlDrake

Kess73 wrote: »

Yes. The Garda driving and his passenger who is also a garda.

The vehicle or vehicles that the two men came from did not stick around and left the scene of the accident, and afaik none of them have come forward to give their side and nor have any of the family members of the deceased said how the two men from Cork happened to be lying on a stretch of Motorway just miles outside Limerick city.

Seemed quite odd to me at the time that the other car would leave and that no proper explanation was ever given as to how the men got to Limerick or how they were to return to Cork. One thing that did stand out was that at least one of them was well known to the Cork gardai, and as such maybe whoever was driving their car/cars were as well.

It is not exactly a stretch of motorway that you would walk to as it is a fair walk from the city and even a fair walk from the nearest bus stop or pub/club.

Thanks for that. Most peculiar set of circumstances.

Kess73

Ellis Dee wrote: »

If a society wants its citizens to respect the law, it must demand exceptionally high standards of those who are paid to exercise public power. :cool:

A police officer who drives without a licence, has not paid his road tax (and is thereby defrauding the taxpayer) and, by having bald tyres, is on the road in a potentially dangerous vehicle, does not meet the standard of probity that it is reasonable to expect of someone in his position, and he is providing others with an excuse to disregard the law. He likewise can not plead poverty or shortage of funds, as might be the case with someone who is unemployed or enjoys less pay and benefits than our boys in blue.:rolleyes:

A person like him has no place in the police force of a democratic country, and I hope the Garda Ombudsman soon comes to the same conclusion.:)

He pleaded guilty to all the charges put against him and did not try to plead poverty or make any other excuses.

hondasam

Ellis Dee wrote: »

If a society wants its citizens to respect the law, it must demand exceptionally high standards of those who are paid to exercise public power. :cool:

A police officer who drives without a licence, has not paid his road tax (and is thereby defrauding the taxpayer) and, by having bald tyres, is on the road in a potentially dangerous vehicle, does not meet the standard of probity that it is reasonable to expect of someone in his position, and he is providing others with an excuse to disregard the law. He likewise can not plead poverty or shortage of funds, as might be the case with someone who is unemployed or enjoys less pay and benefits than our boys in blue.:rolleyes:

A person like him has no place in the police force of a democratic country, and I hope the Garda Ombudsman soon comes to the same conclusion.:)

why can't he plead poverty or shortage of funds?

He was involved in an accident which he did not cause, yes he is guilty of having no d/lic and no tax (not the biggest crime btw) and bald tyres, I'm sure he is sorry for what happened. You think he should be sacked?

Paparazzo

professore wrote: »

Did he not have lights on his car? Surely if it was dark he would have had full beams on.

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

Its a motor way... big enough road and space for a car to be moved.. hardly imagine the 2 of them where taking up the whole road

Seriously, have either of you ever driven on an unlit motorway before? A car could have been coming the other way, so dips were on. Next time you're doing 120kph on a dark road, imagine coming across something like a person on the road. You'd hit it before you have a chance to think "what the fúck is that?"

dillo2k10

If someone was to do that with a provisional licence they would get a €2000 fine for not having a licences driver with them and no L plates. Then they would be fined for No Tax, bald tyres and the car impounded for no NCT. Then extra for driving on a motorway and then extra for killing two people.

Sure you dont expect 2 people to be on the ground of the motorway but you should only drive as fast as you can stop within the distance that you can see clear, even on a motorway.

They should be banned from Driving and/or imprisoned with the fine on top.

hondasam

dillo2k10 wrote: »

If someone was to do that with a provisional licence they would get a €2000 fine for not having a licences driver with them and no L plates. Then they would be fined for No Tax, bald tyres and the car impounded for no NCT. Then extra for driving on a motorway and then extra for killing two people.

Sure you dont expect 2 people to be on the ground of the motorway but you should only drive as fast as you can stop within the distance that you can see clear, even on a motorway.

They should be banned from Driving and/or imprisoned with the fine on top.

He had a passenger maybe she had a full d/lic. Do you know the speed limit on a motorway? I would think the car was impounded or TE.

HigginsJ

Ellis Dee wrote: »

If a society wants its citizens to respect the law, it must demand exceptionally high standards of those who are paid to exercise public power. :cool:

A police officer who drives without a licence, has not paid his road tax (and is thereby defrauding the taxpayer) and, by having bald tyres, is on the road in a potentially dangerous vehicle, does not meet the standard of probity that it is reasonable to expect of someone in his position, and he is providing others with an excuse to disregard the law. He likewise can not plead poverty or shortage of funds, as might be the case with someone who is unemployed or enjoys less pay and benefits than our boys in blue.:rolleyes:

A person like him has no place in the police force of a democratic country, and I hope the Garda Ombudsman soon comes to the same conclusion.:)

Do you know him personally. I dont.

He may well be an excellent Garda (or a rubbish one)

He was involved in an accident of which he is not at fault and tax/licence would have made no difference to that (neither would tyres tbf)

DarkJager

dillo2k10 wrote: »

Sure you dont expect 2 people to be on the ground of the motorway but you should only drive as fast as you can stop within the distance that you can see clear, even on a motorway.

A motorway is 120kph and driving slowly on one can lead to accidents. These 2 gob****es from what I recall had an argument in the car and pulled over, and then got out to have a fight...on the ****ing motorway. Regardless of what condition his car was in, these 2 imbeciles took themselves out of the gene pool with their stupidity.

Regardless of that though, a 900e fine for no licence and no tax is a joke.