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

MagicSean

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.

i take it you've never been to court. a learner driver would likely get a fine for a first offence with every thing else taken into consideration.

HigginsJ

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.

But he was not a provisional driver and he had another guard in the car.

He has been fined for everything and the Judge took all factors into account when deciding the fine.

He may well have to face further charges depending on the Garda Ombudsman enquiry so he is not finished yet

finty

Dont condone the guy who hit them driving without tax, insurance, a licence an bald tires.

but those 2 imbeciles fighting or whatever they were at on a motorway in the middle of the night got themselves killed and probably left the driver scarred for life!

Darwin award nomination for both

humbert

Are there consequences associated with a garda breaking the law? It can't say a lot for his attitude toward his profession.

dillo2k10

DarkJager wrote: »

A motorway is 120kph and driving slowly on one can lead to accidents.

In the middle of the night what kind of accident is going to be caused by driving at 90 instead of 120.

120 is also a speed limit, you dont have to go that speed, there is no min speed.

_feedback_

Seriously though, two people on the ground on a motorway in the middle of the night, and some people try to put some blame on the driver...

Really? Think about it, it's pure madness.

MagicSean

dillo2k10 wrote: »

In the middle of the night what kind of accident is going to be caused by driving at 90 instead of 120.

120 is also a speed limit, you dont have to go that speed, there is no min speed.

Are you honsetly suggesting that a person travelling at 90 kmph could have stopped in time?

Stark

dillo2k10 wrote: »

In the middle of the night what kind of accident is going to be caused by driving at 90 instead of 120.

120 is also a speed limit, you dont have to go that speed, there is no min speed.

Who's to say he would have seen them doing 90km/hr? It's a motorway, not Dublin quays, it's reasonable to expect you should be able to do 120km/hr on one without encountering drunken eejits brawling in the middle of the road.

dillo2k10

MagicSean wrote: »

Are you honsetly suggesting that a person travelling at 90 kmph could have stopped in time?

I dont know.

I dont think that it is the drivers fault that he hit those people, but I do think that in the eyes of the law it would be his fault.

hondasam

dillo2k10 wrote: »

I dont know.

I dont think that it is the drivers fault that he hit those people, but I do think that in the eyes of the law it would be his fault.

How is it his fault in the eyes of the law?

HigginsJ

humbert wrote: »

Are there consequences associated with a garda breaking the law? It can't say a lot for his attitude toward his profession.

Yes the Garda Ombudsman is currently carrying out an investigation and that is why no further charges have been brought

Kess73

Paparazzo wrote: »

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?"

Not only that but the sliproad which joins that stretch of motorway is coming at motorway at an angle and there is the small matter of the view to the left being obstructed as you come down that sliproad.

Two men lying or rolling on the ground would not be picked up by the headlights of any car coming down this sliproad simply because the lights would not be facing in a straight line and along the motor until after the car takes the bend to the left near the end of the slip road. Plus the sliproad itself is a wide bend which starts off heading in a different direction to the motorway and works it's way towards the motorway by way of a long right turn before entering the motorway with the left hand turn at the end.

There is also a high slope of rock/trees (the sliproad was cut into the land/slope) etc that completly block off a left sided view whilst on that sliproad.

Another thing is that the view to your right as you use the sliproad is not the greatest either, so anyone using the sliproad has to be careful of traffic coming from the right side as the flyover blocks that view somewhat plus the angle at the point where the sliproad starts to run alongside the motorway means that you have to watch the right hand side as you drive down as your car is at an angle to traffic coming from the right instead of running parallel with the motorway straight away.

I think that many people might be thinking of the nice straight sliproads on parts of the M50 when thinking about why the headlights did not light up the two men well in advance. Anything of car height to your left as you prepare to enter that stretch of motorway would not be easy to see, so two men rolling or lying on the ground at a height of maybe 24 inches of so would be next to impossible to see at that point until you were literally on them.

dillo2k10

hondasam wrote: »

How is it his fault in the eyes of the law?

You must only drive at a speed that you can stop within the distance that you can see to be clear. That could have been a broken down car, a car crash or something that fell of a car etc on the motorway.

HigginsJ

Stark wrote: »

Who's to say he would have seen them doing 90km/hr? It's a motorway, not Dublin quays, it's reasonable to expect you should be able to do 120km/hr on one without encountering drunken eejits brawling in the middle of the road.

Its a perfect road. 120kmphs is comfortable speed. Even the big articulated lorries do the 120 on the road.

He was not speeding so anyone saying he should have been driving slower is being a tad risiculous

flynnlives

hold on a sec!

is it that he never had a driving license or was he driving his car without having his license on him?

If he had insurance then he has a driving license.

It is an offense to drive a car without having your license on your person.
I suspect this is the charge he was done for.

hondasam

dillo2k10 wrote: »

You must only drive at a speed that you can stop within the distance that you can see to be clear. That could have been a broken down car, a car crash or something that fell of a car etc on the motorway.

Do you drive?

@flynnlives, you have ten days to produce you d/lic.

Dead Man Walking

HigginsJ wrote: »

Its a perfect road. 120kmphs is comfortable speed. Even the big articulated lorries do the 120 on the road.

He was not speeding so anyone saying he should have been driving slower is being a tad risiculous

80km/h is the speed limit for trucks

actua11

In normal circumstances a driver hitting those two men would be absolved of much of the blame as it would be considered nothing more than an unavoidable accident. However this case is different as a)The car was not road worthy with it's bald tires and should not have been on that road, b)The driver had no license or tax and as such such not have been on that road. The two men was always going to be hit by a car on that road, it just so happens that the car that did should never have been there to do it.

I think people at large could be frustrated by the hypocrisy shown by the Garda in question as the public are (rightly) punished with the tax/tires/license problems as described in this case but yet they read about a Garda trying to get away with it. It is such a miniscule minority of the Garda force that do something like this but it can create a stereotype of the corrupting nature of authority that reflects on the force on the whole. It's similar to how a bad customer experience in one store in a chain may lead to having a negative opinion about the chain as a whole.

The public expect to see the Gardaí leading by example, so it's understandable that when this is not the case, they cry hypocrisy and to an extent develop a negative stigma towards the Gardaí as a whole, unfortunately.

_feedback_

dillo2k10 wrote: »

You must only drive at a speed that you can stop within the distance that you can see to be clear. That could have been a broken down car, a car crash or something that fell of a car etc on the motorway.

The speed limit is posted on the road. That isn't the problem. It is every drivers responsibility to be alert and to expect the unexpected. There is nothing to say that he wasn't. The two people should not have been there.

Would you blame a train driver if they hit someone on their track?

flynnlives wrote: »

hold on a sec!

is it that he never had a driving license or was he driving his car without having his license on him?

If he had insurance then he has a driving license.

It is an offense to drive a car without having your license on your person.
I suspect this is the charge he was done for.

Yeah the wording isn't very clear in the article, but sure you can only assume that he didn't have a valid licence. Otherwise he could produce it afterwards..

HigginsJ

Dead Man Walking wrote: »

80km/h is the speed limit for trucks

I did not know that. They do an awful lot more than that

mathepac

Paparazzo wrote: »

Not nessessarly. If he followed the letter of the law he could have had his licence renewed the week before and still drove.
...

The reports say nothing about "an out of date licence", they say "he had no licence", ever. If the charge was driving on an out-of-date licence, then the reports would say that.

Paparazzo wrote: »

...
The people on the middle of the road were the people who made the biggest mistake here.

No dispute with that and they paid the ultimate price for their stupidity.

BUT

On an unlit stretch of roadway, a Guard would surely be expected to obey at least some of the rules of the road and drive within the limits of his lights, full-beam or dimmed. But then apparently he had no regard for rules or laws.

With headlights in use, how is it possible to not see two man-sized objects in the carriageway? (I mean no disrespect to the two people killed by the lunatic Guard describing them this way, but it's not like the two bodies were the size of cigarette packets). It makes no sense. Either his car, his eyesight or some other defect contributed to the collision and has not (or at least not yet) been investigated.

Why is he not an Ex-Guard now?

lividduck

prinz wrote: »

You're kind of missing the point. If he had a driving license, had taxed the car, had decent tyres in good condition........... he still would have driven over the two lying on the motorway. So in that sense the conditions of the tyres etc obviously were found to have had no bearing on the accident. Now if he had braked or something beforehand and it was found that the bald nature of the tyres played a role in hitting those people then you'd have a valid point.

Having said that, the fine is crazily low, and I hope he's turfed out of the force too.

No, You are kind of missing the point, a member of the Gardai was driving while unqualified to drive an unroadworthy car on a motorway, he got a fine, no ban, no suspended sentence just a fine, furthermore a qualified driver with their lights on is expected to drive in a manner that allows them a clear view of the road ahead and time to stop in an emergency, this unqualified driver didn't see two people on the road and even if he had with two bald tyres it is questionable if he could have stopped.

dillo2k10

hondasam wrote: »

Do you drive?

Yes I do, and If I had off been in his situation, I may hit them too, but I think that the law would say that he is at fault.

HigginsJ

mathepac wrote: »

The reports say nothing about "an out of date licence", they say "he had no licence", ever. If the charge was driving on an out-of-date licence, then the reports would say that.

No dispute with that and they paid the ultimate price for their stupidity.

BUT

On an until stretch of roadway, a Guard would surely be expected to obey the rules of the road and drive within the limits of his lights, full-beam or dimmed.

With headlights in use, how is it possible to not see two man-sized objects in the carriageway? It makes no sense. Either his car, his eyesight or some other defect contributed to the collision and has not (or at least not yet) been investigated.

Why is he not an Ex-Guard now?[/QUOTE]

As it states at the end of the article and has been stated here, it is being investigated by the Ombudsman

HigginsJ

It would clear up alot and be very helpful to know the exact state of his licence.

Am I being presumptious in thinking that a member of the Garda Traffic Corp. would be a qualified driver?

_feedback_

HigginsJ wrote: »

It would clear up alot and be very helpful to know the exact state of his licence.

Am I being presumptious in thinking that a member of the Garda Traffic Corp. would be a qualified driver?

The information isn't great.. It was stated in court that he was a member of the traffic corp, but his Garda station later said he isn't.

I assume that the circumstances of him not having it (never/not renewed) don't matter to the court, and just the fact he does't have it.

Jesus Shaves

Funkstard wrote: »

If you wouldn't mind reading either my post or the article properly you'll see that he has been prosecuted for driving with bald tyres and without insurance or a licence, but none of these (as per an investigation stated in the article) led to the deaths of the two men. Them having a fight in the middle of the motorway, in the dark, is what led to their death.

Bull, Cars do have lights you know, He would have been able to see them and stop in time if his tyres weren't bald
No need to make excuses for him

HigginsJ

elviscostello wrote: »

The information isn't great.. It was stated in court that he was a member of the traffic corp, but his Garda station later said he isn't.

I assume that the circumstances of him not having it (never/not renewed) don't matter to the court, and just the fact he does't have it.

Nice when you get all the facts.

HigginsJ

darokane wrote: »

Bull, Cars do have lights you know, He would have been able to see them and stop in time if his tyres weren't bald
No need to make excuses for him

:eek: Cars do have lights but have you never had a close call on an unlit road no? Someone walking/cycling on the road with no lights?

_feedback_

dillo2k10 wrote: »

Yes I do, and If I had off been in his situation, I may hit them too, but I think that the law would say that he is at fault.

But the law clearly wouldn't?!

Think about it. It is two people in an extremely dangerous place, and they paid the ultimate price when the inevitable happened.

In this case (Link) - a pedestrian was hit by a car on a motorway and claimed compo, saying similar things to yourself.

The judge threw the case out of court saying the pedestrian was completely at fault.

Jesus Shaves

HigginsJ wrote: »

:eek: Cars do have lights but have you never had a close call on an unlit road no? Someone walking/cycling on the road with no lights?

Yes i have, and i didn't kill anyone

Yakult

Hold on, 2 people were lying down in the middle of a motorway??

HigginsJ

Yakult wrote: »

Hold on, 2 people were lying down in the middle of a motorway??

well on the ground fighting by the sounds of things

HigginsJ

darokane wrote: »

Yes i have, and i didn't kill anyone

And were they stationary unlit in the middle of the road on the ground?

hondasam

HigginsJ wrote: »

It would clear up alot and be very helpful to know the exact state of his licence.

Am I being presumptious in thinking that a member of the Garda Traffic Corp. would be a qualified driver?

Does it matter about his d/lic? he failed to produce it so you can assume he does not have one.
He was wrong to drive under the circumstances but it made no difference to the night of the accident. If he had a perfect car, d/lic tax etc he would still have hit them and killed them.

HigginsJ

elviscostello wrote: »

But the law clearly wouldn't?!

Think about it. It is two people in an extremely dangerous place, and they paid the ultimate price when the inevitable happened.

In this case (Link) - a pedestrian was hit by a car on a motorway and claimed compo, saying similar things to yourself.

The judge threw the case out of court saying the pedestrian was completely at fault.

Looks like this will have similar conclusion if this comment from solicitor turns out to be reliable/correct

"The solicitor said while he did not want to dilute the tragic consequences of this accident, the garda was not facing any driving charges and there was no criminal culpability in the case"

HigginsJ

hondasam wrote: »

Does it matter about his d/lic? he failed to produce it so you can assume he does not have one.
He was wrong to drive under the circumstances but it made no difference to the night of the accident. If he had a perfect car, d/lic tax etc he would still have hit them and killed them.

I agree completely with you.

Kess73

mathepac wrote: »

The reports say nothing about "an out of date licence", they say "he had no licence", ever. If the charge was driving on an out-of-date licence, then the reports would say that.

No dispute with that and they paid the ultimate price for their stupidity.

BUT

On an unlit stretch of roadway, a Guard would surely be expected to obey at least some of the rules of the road and drive within the limits of his lights, full-beam or dimmed. But then apparently he had no regard for rules or laws.

With headlights in use, how is it possible to not see two man-sized objects in the carriageway? (I mean no disrespect to the two people killed by the lunatic Guard describing them this way, but it's not like the two bodies were the size of cigarette packets). It makes no sense. Either his car, his eyesight or some other defect contributed to the collision and has not (or at least not yet) been investigated.

Why is he not an Ex-Guard now?

Because where the accident took place is not a straight stretch seeing as the Garda's car was coming off of a sliproad that comes at the motorway at an angle and that also has obstructed views to the left.

People keep making out that it happened on a big open straight stretch of road.

It happened on a stretch that has a sliproad with obstructed views and where the motorway itself has a fairly large bend on it. Throw in two flyovers that are close together and no lighting at all, and you get a small stretch where two men rolling on the ground could not be seen by any vehicle entering the motorway from that sliproad.

Another thing that would have blocked off the sight of the two men who were rolling on the motorway would be the crash barriers which would block the view of any car coming down the slip road.

Any local will know the sliproad by where the accident happened and know that anything the height of two men rolling could not be seen by a car coming down the sliproad, and even if the car was driving at a lower speed, it would have been very hard to not to connect with the two men as the headlights could not have lit that spot until the car had straightened up after leaving the curved part of the sliproad and at that point it would be nigh on impossible to avoid impact.

Personally I think more questions should be asked about who the people in the car that left the scene were and why they did not come forward to say why the men were rolling around on a motorway at night.

It is very simple. Coming down that sliproad at night, your headlights do not light up the motorway in the direction you will be going in advance of you reaching the actual motorway. You do not have a good view to your left and you have to come at the motorway at an angle and then turn left to enter it with your left hand view still obstructed until you are actually on the motorway itself.

Reports of the accident place the two men smack in that blind spot. Short of being able to see through solid objects, I fail to see how the garda or his passenger could have seen then until the very last second. The car's headlights simply could not have picked up on the two men as the light would not have been able to shine in that direction until the car was on the motorway and straightened up from the left hand curve/turn that brings you onto the motorway.


Now if the men had decided to fight on an unlit motorway but did so about 200 or 300 yards further out that motorway then they would have done so at a point where oncoming motorists would have seen them, but the fight or whatever it was was taken place in a blind spot where it was hard to spot and maybe that's why the fight was taking place at that spot, who knows.

Jesus Shaves

HigginsJ wrote: »

And were they stationary unlit in the middle of the road on the ground?

He should have seen them and took evasive action, having bald tyres contributed to their deaths, If he had good tyres there's a great possibility that the deaths could have been avoided, And that's not even mentioning the fact that he shouldn't have been on the road anyway.
Whilst the 2 men shouldn't have been on the motorway fighting on the motorway a driver with a roadworthy car would have avoided the incident

hondasam

darokane wrote: »

Bull, Cars do have lights you know, He would have been able to see them and stop in time if his tyres weren't bald
No need to make excuses for him

That is pure rubbish, have you driven at night? ever encounter someone walking wearing dark clothes and no light?

Yakult

Kess73 wrote: »

I fail to see how the garda or his passenger could have seen then until the very last second. The car's headlights simply could not have picked up on the two men as the light would not have been able to shine in that direction until the car was on the motorway and straightened up from the left hand curve/turn that brings you onto the motorway.

+1. It could have happened to anyone.

MagicSean

mathepac wrote: »

The reports say nothing about "an out of date licence", they say "he had no licence", ever. If the charge was driving on an out-of-date licence, then the reports would say that.

No dispute with that and they paid the ultimate price for their stupidity.

BUT

On an unlit stretch of roadway, a Guard would surely be expected to obey at least some of the rules of the road and drive within the limits of his lights, full-beam or dimmed. But then apparently he had no regard for rules or laws.

With headlights in use, how is it possible to not see two man-sized objects in the carriageway? (I mean no disrespect to the two people killed by the lunatic Guard describing them this way, but it's not like the two bodies were the size of cigarette packets). It makes no sense. Either his car, his eyesight or some other defect contributed to the collision and has not (or at least not yet) been investigated.

Why is he not an Ex-Guard now?

It's the same charge wether you have an expired licence, disqualified licence or no licence.

Kess73

darokane wrote: »

Bull, Cars do have lights you know, He would have been able to see them and stop in time if his tyres weren't bald
No need to make excuses for him

The corner/bend where the fight was happening is one that is pretty blind to cars coming off the sliproad. If two grown men decide to roll about in a spot where an oncoming car cannot possibly see them due to the fact it's headlights will not be facing that direction until the last second, then even good tyres would not have made a difference.

People are assuming that the Garda's car was driving straight along the motorway when the accident happened. The garda's car was coming off of the sliproad, a curved sliproad that enters a motorway at a spot where the motorway itself is entering a pretty big bend.

hondasam

darokane wrote: »

He should have seen them and took evasive action, having bald tyres contributed to their deaths, If he had good tyres there's a great possibility that the deaths could have been avoided, And that's not even mentioning the fact that he shouldn't have been on the road anyway.
Whilst the 2 men shouldn't have been on the motorway fighting on the motorway a driver with a roadworthy car would have avoided the incident

I dunno how you could even type that.

why do accidents happen? why do brand new car with new tyres have difficulty stopping and avoiding hitting things?

MagicSean

darokane wrote: »

He should have seen them and took evasive action, having bald tyres contributed to their deaths, If he had good tyres there's a great possibility that the deaths could have been avoided, And that's not even mentioning the fact that he shouldn't have been on the road anyway.
Whilst the 2 men shouldn't have been on the motorway fighting on the motorway a driver with a roadworthy car would have avoided the incident

What a load of bull****. You've obviously not read any of the thread.

marco_polo

mathepac wrote: »

T
On an unlit stretch of roadway, a Guard would surely be expected to obey at least some of the rules of the road and drive within the limits of his lights, full-beam or dimmed. But then apparently he had no regard for rules or laws.

Imagine all these years I never realised that I should be jamming on the brakes everytime I dim the headlights.

Kess73

Yakult wrote: »

+1. It could have happened to anyone.

I know. As I said earlier I live within a few miles of that stretch and it is not a clear stretch for anyone coming down that sliproad from the Raheen side. The straight stretch of road arguement simply holds no water as the Garda's car was not coming off of a clear or straight stretch. Plus the two men could not have been seen by a car coming off the sliproad as they would have been blocked from view by solid rock and trees when the car was further back the slip road and by the crash barriers as the car tried to take the left turn at the end of the sliproad. At no point whilst on that sliproad would the garda's car have been travelling in a straight line alongside the motorway until the point where it gets to enter the motorway, so at no point would it's headlights have been able to light up where the men were fighting even if there was not a combination of solid rock, trees and finally a crash barrier in the way.

The second that car made the left turn onto the motorway and it's headlights came across those men would have been just as it began to hit them. The men on the ground had no chance imho, and neither did the driver of the car.

HigginsJ

Kess73 wrote: »

I know. As I said earlier I live within a few miles of that stretch and it is not a clear stretch for anyone coming down that sliproad from the Raheen side. The straight stretch of road arguement simply holds no water as the Garda's car was not coming off of a clear or straight stretch. Plus the two men could not have been seen by a car coming off the sliproad as they would have been blocked from view by solid rock and trees when the car was further back the slip road and by the crash barriers as the car tried to take the left turn at the end of the sliproad. At no point whilst on that sliproad would the garda's car have been travelling in a straight line alongside the motorway until the point where it gets to enter the motorway, so at no point would it's headlights have been able to light up where the men were fighting even if there was not a combination of solid rock, trees and finally a crash barrier in the way.

The second that car made the left turn onto the motorway and it's headlights came across those men would have been just as it began to hit them. The men on the ground had no chance imho, and neither did the driver of the car.

Do you know were the 2 guys in the same car and did a 3rd person in the car then drive off when the accident happened?

hondasam

HigginsJ wrote: »

Do you know were the 2 guys in the same car and did a 3rd person in the car then drive off when the accident happened?

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=limerick%20motorway%20garda%20crash&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CE0QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.ie%2Fnational-news%2Fgardai-seek-identity-of-second-man-hit-by-offduty-officers-car-2495902.html&ei=SVaQT_-GDoKwhAfT9_SIBA&usg=AFQjCNEQ0VtS8P75gIin-qt_Am-IXsKRtw

I posted this earlier.

Canis Lupus

Was driving the other day and road was closed but barriers had fallen. Had to jump on the brakes and barely made it to a stop a foot from the fallen barriers. This was in broad daylight at around 50mph. No way in hell you'd see two people lying on the road at night in the dark in time to stop. Not a chance.

Who the hell even STOPS to have a fight on a motorway anyway. Darwin awards should be notified.