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

lividduck

team2 wrote: »

its actually a steep fine the norm is a conviction and fine on the most serious offence and the rest are taken into consideration

Evidence to back that up?
Actually the norm is a sieries of fines and it is not unusual where three offence occur at the same time to recieve a ban.
B ut since you appear to have joined Boards to downplay the seriousness of this Guards offences I will presume that nothing anyone says will affect you and the other members of the GRA views.

thebullkf

team2 wrote: »

your missing the point totally the chap drove his car and committed a few minor road traffic offences hevrecieved a steep fine for those offences. He did not expect to find two idiots on a motorway rolling around on the ground he will live with that for the rest of his life. None of the offences he committed contributed to the deaths if those lads proof is he was not charged.... You appear to have the view it was all his fault hi can't understand if he wad at fault why wad he not charged with dd causing death can you explain this?

i can't, of the witnesses, two are directly involved, two are dead, and two are on the run....shambolic.

Theres more to this that meets the eye.

MagicSean

thebullkf wrote: »

the garda who was a passenger is also guilty of negligence.

this statement is beyond stupid

ResearchWill

thebullkf wrote: »

isnt it one month.....how long was his tax out....????

the garda who was a passenger is also guilty of negligence.

We don't know how long the tax was out, or of his history of paying tax.

How was the passenger guilty of negligence?

team2

Merch wrote: »

ResearchWill wrote: »

Good to know, I assume you have never broken a law, for example have you crossed a road close to a crossing. If you drive do you carry your license at all times. If you drive when did you last check tyre thread dept, brake fluid level and all lights to make sure they are working. Do you check the tax details on every car you drive if owned by someone else same with NTC.

But itsgood to know there is one perfect driver in the country.

team2 wrote: »

your missing the point totally the chap drove his car and committed a few minor road traffic offences hevrecieved a steep fine for those offences. He did not expect to find two idiots on a motorway rolling around on the ground he will live with that for the rest of his life. None of the offences he committed contributed to the deaths if those lads proof is he was not charged.... You appear to have the view it was all his fault hi can't understand if he wad at fault why wad he not charged with dd causing death can you explain this?

Is that what you think? minor! I think they are pretty serious offences, whats the norm, no road tax for more than 3 months, can expect car to be taken off you. If the people that died are stupid, that doesnt mean they deserved to die, because of someone elses carelessness/thoughtlessness.
By your rationale (and many others) lets say a deaf person crosses the road, you blast away with the horn, they dont hear you, so you drive over them, but you weren't expecting a deaf person, you just assumed they could hear.
If I was driving along, I'd rather drive the car off the road than hit someone, even if they are somewhere they shouldn't be. Rolling around in a lane on the motorway is idiotic, but the driver shouldn't just assume they can do the limit (or more) as its a motorway, he should not have been driving full stop!

Yes minor offences that the vast majority of people don't get prosecuted for, may be zero tolerance should be the way forward, if that be the case 90% of people would be off the road, pulling into the junction box 2 points and a fine, crossing over the line waiting to make a turn another 2 points and a fine, pretty soon we are all off the road
the vast majority of road users commit offences practically every day and thanks to the grace of god the vast majority are not fatal. On this occassion they were but who is to blame not the idiots punching the head off each other in the dark on the motor way
no its the driver who was foolish enough to commit minor road traffic offences... Correct he shouldn't have been on the road but who is more dangerous in the situation... Its a bit like playing with a loaded gun its going to go off if your careless and in rlthis case the lads were so careless they caused their own deaths

Bruthal

Merch wrote: »

By your rationale (and many others) lets say a deaf person crosses the road, you blast away with the horn, they dont hear you, so you drive over them, but you weren't expecting a deaf person, you just assumed they could hear.

Its hardly an equal comparrison. Its safe to assume he did not see them. Having tax and good tyres wouldnt of improved his vision.

hondasam

MagicSean wrote: »

this statement is beyond stupid

If she knew he had no d/lic, no tax and bald tyres should she have done something about it? Is she supposed to uphold the law if she was aware of it?

Bruthal

thebullkf wrote: »

the garda who was a passenger is also guilty of negligence.

Why is that?

MagicSean

hondasam wrote: »

If she knew he had no d/lic, no tax and bald tyres should she have done something about it? Is she supposed to uphold the law if she was aware of it?

Legally? No. Morally? Maybe. When you get offered a lift to you perform these checks?

CiaranC

Was there any evidence presented that these two were in the middle of the motorway? CCTV footage?

foggy_lad

HigginsJ wrote: »

And it's no tthe end of the matter.

Garda Ombudsman is carrying out a full investigation so he may still have to face further charges.

Doubt he will face any further charges as his passenger will back up his version of events.

HigginsJ wrote: »

It was at night, on an unlit part of the motorway, doing 120kmph.

I drive home that road every night, I cant imagine that it would be that easy to spot the 2 guys. Doubt they were wearing hi-viz jackets.

I have driven all over the country on motorways and dual-carriageways as well as national primary and secondary routes at a time when the unofficial speed limit was 100mph. Most of the driving was at night and in the hundresd of thousands of miles I have never killed anyone and not even killed as much as a badger out of the hundreds of creatures I have encountered on the roads in the dead of night, if you are aware and awake you will see everything on the road even on the darkest of nights!
I have killed a few cats and rabbits/hares that ran from hedgerows into the path of the car at dusk.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Having a license is a condition of having valid insurance.

Lying about having a license will void any policy you take out.

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.

He must have closed his tired wee eyes for a minute or two, or maybe his mind was elsewhere like on his passenger? how could he NOT have seen them if he was paying attention!

Kess73 wrote: »

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

That was just a way of sweeping the whole unsavoury affair under the big carpet.

ResearchWill wrote: »

Section 38 (6) of the 1961 Act don't think it has been amended,

<snip>

(6) Subsections (1) to (5) of this section shall not apply in relation to a member of the Garda Síochána driving a mechanically propelled vehicle in the course of his duty.

<snip>

He was not driving in the course of his duties and his station have made a statement that he is not a member of the traffic corps!

Begs the question now How many members of the traffic corps do not have a driving licence??

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I just heard that the guard's solicitor said he "had been on late duty for a number of days prior to this incident, and that he intended going to a dealer when he realised the condition of his car"

Was he so tired (having worked late duty) that he forgot that he didnt have a license??? Intended going to a dealer, for a car he didnt have a license for? .. was he gonna get somebody else to drive his car to the dealer? Strange statements from the defence, the aim of which I presume was to highlight "mitigating circumstances"

He was knackered tired and possibly nodding off at the wheel but his passenger will back up his version of events even if they were both not paying attention to the road ahead or if she was somehow distracting him from his driving.

This guy is responsible for the deaths of two people who might otherwise have lived, He should be sacked and lose his pension entitlements at the very least, he is paid to uphold the paw and instead was quite happily breaking the law!

It appears there is a lot of strange perks available to Guardai like not having to have a driving licence as well as being able to claim they are on official duty when involved in accidents in their own cars!

team2

lividduck wrote: »

team2 wrote: »

its actually a steep fine the norm is a conviction and fine on the most serious offence and the rest are taken into consideration

Evidence to back that up?
Actually the norm is a sieries of fines and it is not unusual where three offence occur at the same time to recieve a ban.
B ut since you appear to have joined Boards to downplay the seriousness of this Guards offences I will presume that nothing anyone says will affect you and the other members of the GRA views.

nothing to do with who committed the offences its the rational of hang the guard just cause he is a guard that bothers me. I'm not in the GRA or a guard for that matter I like to see a fair perspective on things.. . Ad for backing up the conviction and taking into consoderation go to any district court and you will see it. . . itsva free country I can join any board I like and post any view I like as long as its not offensive wouldn't life be so boring if everyone agreed with each other

hondasam

MagicSean wrote: »

Legally? No. Morally? Maybe. When you get offered a lift to you perform these checks?

Fair point.

CiaranC wrote: »

Was there any evidence presented that these two were in the middle of the motorway? CCTV footage?

It was never suggested they were any other place. Do you think he hit them and moved them there.

ResearchWill

CiaranC wrote: »

Was there any evidence presented that these two were in the middle of the motorway? CCTV footage?

Even if such evidence exists it would not be presented in relation the the charges brought to court. If the charge was dangerous driving causing death then evidence by accident investigators should be presented.

Motorist

Another huge embarrassment for the gardai. It seems a story of lawlessness or incompetence on the part of the gardai breaks every other week.

I had to despair at the insistence of the garda press office that garda Enda Clifford was not a member of the Traffic Corps. I would say he was, but more importantly why would that even matter!? He is still a garda that was driving around with no licence, tax, and with a defective vehicle - appalling standards by the gardai tax collectors who penalise motorists in their droves for the most minor of road traffic offences (offences less serious than those Clifford was guilty of).

Also was his insurance not null and void if he had no licence?

ResearchWill

foggy_lad wrote: »

He was not driving in the course of his duties and his station have made a statement that he is not a member of the traffic corps!

Begs the question now How many members of the traffic corps do not have a driving licence??

Just to clarify I posted the section to ask the self same question you did, why have such a section for AGS.

hondasam

foggy_lad wrote: »

He must have closed his tired wee eyes for a minute or two, or maybe his mind was elsewhere like on his passenger? how could he NOT have seen them if he was paying attention!

I nearly knocked someone down recently and I did not see him until the last moment, it was dark, he was wearing dark clothes and no light. I am not a nervous driver and drive a lot every day but it fcuking scared me and gave me a serious fright.
I was alone in the car and was not distracted, it happens and the driver is not always in the wrong. It's easy to say it will never happen but the reality is a bit different.

Motorist

ResearchWill wrote: »

Just to clarify I posted the section to ask the self same question you did, why have such a section for AGS.

It seems that it takes a fatality of serious accident for this disregard of the law and recklessness of the gardai to surface. In this case it took two fatalities for a separate investigator to check the compliance of the garda with the law, in a separate case heard two weeks ago it took a serious high speed collision on the m50 to uncover that a garda had consumed 10 pints while on duty. I suspect such disregard for the law is widespread amongst many garda members and we only hear about it when something goes seriously wrong,

Bruthal

foggy_lad wrote: »

I have driven all over the country on motorways and dual-carriageways as well as national primary and secondary routes at a time when the unofficial speed limit was 100mph. Most of the driving was at night and in the hundresd of thousands of miles I have never killed anyone and not even killed as much as a badger out of the hundreds of creatures I have encountered on the roads in the dead of night, if you are aware and awake you will see everything on the road even on the darkest of nights!
I have killed a few cats and rabbits/hares that ran from hedgerows into the path of the car at dusk.

How many lads did you see lying in the middle of the motorway at night in that time? Never took eye off the road even for a second in all your driving?

I never even hit a cat yet. It means nothing. This fella probably never hit anyone before this either.

Merch

robbie7730 wrote: »

Its hardly an equal comparrison. Its safe to assume he did not see them. Having tax and good tyres wouldnt of improved his vision.

He should have had some foresight then, he should NOT have been driving the car and it seems any car.
I wouldn't go on the road not having a licence at all, expecting to be treated harshly for it but assuming also I didnt have the qualification or experience to drive.
As he is expected to uphold the law, I think it is fair to say Gardai should be held to the highest standards,
€900 euro doesn't seem a fair punishment for being so negligent, where his negligence and inexperience at least contributed to the deaths of two people.
I'd expect an experienced person/driver (even a person with limited experience should be aware of these limitations) would consider to expect the unexpected when driving and that their car would be in a roadworthy condition, which he admits he knew it was not.

Milk & Honey

Motorist wrote: »

Also was his insurance not null and void if he had no licence?

No.
Insurance can't be voided by lack of a licence. Article 13 of directive 2009/103/EC.

mathepac

TylerIE wrote: »

It would have been quite easy for the forensic investigators to see if the tyres would have changed anything - based on the brake marks at the scene, the positioning of the deceased prior to impact and the relative line of sight, and the braking distance assuming perfect tyres / and the actual braking distance on the vehicle in the condition it was in.

Per the solicitor in court there was an extensive forensic investigation, if there was any evidence that these contributed significantly to the incident there is no doubt in my mind that The Ombudsman would have pursued further charges.

The Ombudsman's has made it clear they pursue Gardai so if they could have done so in this case Im sure they would.

So the simplistic view is that because there was no prosecution, there was no offence committed.

That is nonsense. How many times have we heard reported that "x number of previous offences were taken into account", or "the accused pleaded guilty to 3 sample charges out of 56" or "the accused pleaded guilty to a lesser charge in return for discount on his sentence", etc, etc? Many many times the State (DPP) decides not to pursue a prosecution in order to save time in court, save money or severe embarresment for the State or to help bolster the badly clear-up stats. (This is after the Garda Commissioner some years ago moved certain types of crime out of the so-called "headline zone" and then reported on this movement as an improvement in detection rates.)

The fact that no prosecution happened is not the same as saying no offence was committed.

MagicSean

Ok I'll indulge you

foggy_lad wrote: »

Doubt he will face any further charges as his passenger will back up his version of events.

Well unless the forensic investigation agrees with that version lying is pointless.

foggy_lad wrote: »

I have driven all over the country on motorways and dual-carriageways as well as national primary and secondary routes at a time when the unofficial speed limit was 100mph. Most of the driving was at night and in the hundresd of thousands of miles I have never killed anyone and not even killed as much as a badger out of the hundreds of creatures I have encountered on the roads in the dead of night, if you are aware and awake you will see everything on the road even on the darkest of nights!
I have killed a few cats and rabbits/hares that ran from hedgerows into the path of the car at dusk.

So you have killed things that appeared suddenly in poor lighting. Yet somehow you think this is different. At 120 kph your stopping distance is five times your reaction distance. I'm assuming you have no super powers and that you are human. As has been explained this particular incident happened on a bad bend in pitch dark. If he had a chance to take evasive action he would have. It's a natural reaction. Of course he and his passenger would likely be the deceased ones. if you were driving the car in those exact conditions you would be no different to him.

foggy_lad wrote: »

Lying about having a license will void any policy you take out.

No it doesn't.

foggy_lad wrote: »

He must have closed his tired wee eyes for a minute or two, or maybe his mind was elsewhere like on his passenger? how could he NOT have seen them if he was paying attention!

Because dark clothing against a dark backround (the road) leaves little to no outline. If you ever drove country roads at night and encountered an unlit pedestrian you would know this.

foggy_lad wrote: »

That was just a way of sweeping the whole unsavoury affair under the big carpet.

Yes it worked well. Nobody knows.

foggy_lad wrote: »

He was not driving in the course of his duties and his station have made a statement that he is not a member of the traffic corps!

So he should be treated like anyone else.

foggy_lad wrote: »

Begs the question now How many members of the traffic corps do not have a driving licence??

Each Garda who has not completed a course must renew their driving priviledge each year and the application includes a copy of your licence so I doubt any drivers have no licence. Of course you can be a member of the traffic corps and not be a driver.

foggy_lad wrote: »

He was knackered tired and possibly nodding off at the wheel but his passenger will back up his version of events even if they were both not paying attention to the road ahead or if she was somehow distracting him from his driving.

They are some serious accusations with nothing to back them up.

foggy_lad wrote: »

This guy is responsible for the deaths of two people who might otherwise have lived, He should be sacked and lose his pension entitlements at the very least, he is paid to uphold the paw and instead was quite happily breaking the law!

They would have lived if they had not been rolling around on a motorway. There is nothing this person could have done to avoid them. That is a fact wether you like it or not.

foggy_lad wrote: »

It appears there is a lot of strange perks available to Guardai like not having to have a driving licence as well as being able to claim they are on official duty when involved in accidents in their own cars!

This fella did neither.

Cee-Jay-Cee

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

he was driving with no driving license ?

I would like to see anyone else just get a fine for having no licene... If it was anyone else they would get more then a fine

No they wouldnt, its a very minor offence. He had no licence simply means that his licence had expired and he hadnt renewed it, it doesnt mean he wasnt qualified to drive. Insurance companies will cover you to drive so long as you held a licence for the type of vehicle you are driving within the previous 5 years. If he never held a licence then there would also have been a charge of having no insurance in there.

2 idiots were fighting in the middle of a road, if the guard had a set of the most expensive performance tyres available for his car it would not have made one iota of a difference. He would still have hit and killed them because they were lying in the middle of the f**king road!!!!

If you read through the courts pages in your local paper you'll actually see that he was heavily fined in comparison to what other people get fined for minor motoring offences which is all these actually are.

celticcrash

Would you leave your daughter out the door to be picked up by a fella
with no licence, no insurance, no tax and bald tyres.
The man is a loose canon, a dangerous one at that.
A fine of a weeks wages is a joke.

Padkir

professore wrote: »

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

Sorry didn't read the rest of this thread, but need to point out something and might have a bit of a rant about it!

He might not have had full beams on if there was oncoming traffic across the island, something which a lot of people driving on motorways seem to forget and don't care about blinding someone across the median!!!

There should be nothing in the way and because a motorway is not likely to have any sharp corners or anything you should be happily able to tip along on dipped beams! Not his fault there were pedestrians on the motorway, much less that they were lying in the middle of the road!

In saying that, prob should have got a higher fine and thrown out of the guards for not having a licence but as was said, ombudsman is still investigating!

MagicSean

celticcrash wrote: »

Would you leave your daughter out the door to be picked up by a fella
with no licence, no insurance, no tax and bald tyres.
The man is a loose canon, a dangerous one at that.
A fine of a weeks wages is a joke.

He was not charged with having no insurance.

thebullkf

MagicSean wrote: »

this statement is beyond stupid

lemme guess... you a garda?

celticcrash

MagicSean wrote: »

He was not charged with having no insurance.

Ok let me put it this way Would you leave your daughter out the door to be picked up by a fella
with no licence, iffy insurance, no tax and bald tyres.

thebullkf

MagicSean wrote: »

Ok I'll indulge you




They would have lived if they had not been rolling around on a motorway. There is nothing this person could have done to avoid them. That is a fact wether you like it or not.

really??......now who's making stupid statements:rolleyes:


um ...eh... he could've avoided them if..............


... he OBEYED THE LAW !!! and not driven a car he legally had no right to drive.

hondasam

celticcrash wrote: »

Ok let me put it this way Would you leave your daughter out the door to be picked up by a fella
with no licence, iffy insurance, no tax and bald tyres.

what difference does that make if he had all those things but was a lunatic on the road.

hondasam

thebullkf wrote: »

really??......now who's making stupid statements:rolleyes:


um ...eh... he could've avoided them if..............


... he OBEYED THE LAW !!! and not driven a car he legally had no right to drive.

Just say he had everything in order on the night in question what difference would it have made? would they not have been on the road? would he not have hit them if he had a d/lic and tax?

celticcrash

hondasam wrote: »

what difference does that make if he had all those things but was a lunatic on the road.

A simple yea or no will suffice.

Bruthal

thebullkf wrote: »

really??......now who's making stupid statements:rolleyes:


um ...eh... he could've avoided them if..............


... he OBEYED THE LAW !!! and not driven a car he legally had no right to drive.

If your motor tax is out for one day, does that make you more to blame for running over someone lying in the dark on a motorway, than someone who`s tax is out the next day?

micropig

Ah, we should leave this poor lad alone, as someone once said while trying to defend their Garda mate drink driving......He'll probably get an awful slagging off his mates for it...

hondasam

celticcrash wrote: »

A simple yea or no will suffice.

It's a silly question. If he had everything in order but was reckless then no I would not let her out with him.

Itsdacraic

He did society a favour getting rid of that heroin dealer

thebullkf

hondasam wrote: »

Just say he had everything in order on the night in question what difference would it have made? would they not have been on the road? would he not have hit them if he had a d/lic and tax?

We'll never know:(


but what we do know is, that due to illegality on both parties, 2 are dead, one gets a €900 fine despite knowlingly breaking laws he was employed, and swore to uphold.

He brings other garda into a bad light.


The defence of him (and what he did) here i hope is not indicative of the Gardai in general, they do trojan work but there are some right clowns wearing the uniform (same as other professions no doubt) but the role of AGS should be held in higher scrutiny, there should be a higher onus on the part of a Garda to act in a manner befitting his station.

This clown failed, miserably, and deaths or no deaths i would wager its not the first time he's broken the law.

Man should lose his job, Safety Officers on building sites lose their jobs through no fault of their own, by workers stupidity,and taking shortcuts, being over confident and arrogant. This man is no different, and should be treated with the same contempt he displayed in refusing to obey the law.

foggy_lad

hondasam wrote: »

I nearly knocked someone down recently and I did not see him until the last moment, it was dark, he was wearing dark clothes and no light. I am not a nervous driver and drive a lot every day but it fcuking scared me and gave me a serious fright.
I was alone in the car and was not distracted, it happens and the driver is not always in the wrong. It's easy to say it will never happen but the reality is a bit different.

I have had similar near misses in the past but was always able to stop in time because i was concentrating on driving and the road rather than mobile phone or other modern distractions

robbie7730 wrote: »

How many lads did you see lying in the middle of the motorway at night in that time? Never took eye off the road even for a second in all your driving?

I never even hit a cat yet. It means nothing. This fella probably never hit anyone before this either.

Came across a few scary fellas around the country, one night out in the wilds of monaghan miles from anywhere two lads had stopped their van and got out at 4.30am to beat the sh1t out of each other. I have on several occasions picked up young women walking alone on narrow country roads full of drink/drugs and often went out of my way to drop them home in the dead of night, I came across one guy one night who was having a sh1t on the road, I have been involved in a few collisions and luckily nobody was injured in any of them.

MagicSean wrote: »

Ok I'll indulge you

Thank you

Well unless the forensic investigation agrees with that version lying is pointless.

Do the gardai not look after their own?

So you have killed things that appeared suddenly in poor lighting. Yet somehow you think this is different. At 120 kph your stopping distance is five times your reaction distance. I'm assuming you have no super powers and that you are human. As has been explained this particular incident happened on a bad bend in pitch dark. If he had a chance to take evasive action he would have. It's a natural reaction. Of course he and his passenger would likely be the deceased ones. if you were driving the car in those exact conditions you would be no different to him.

Things/animals which have more or less committed suicide by running out so close that taking evasive or avoiding action would not have been possible or safe

No it doesn't.

I was always told that lying on any insurance form will void the policy you are taking out. you must be honest in your dealings with the insurer at all times otherwise you destroy the relationship between them and you.

Speaking of Honesty, the Garda in this case could do with a few pointers about honesty.

Because dark clothing against a dark backround (the road) leaves little to no outline. If you ever drove country roads at night and encountered an unlit pedestrian you would know this.

I have come across many older people walking along what were old national primary and secondary routes walking home from the pub wearing nothing reflective and the only way I would see them was the feint shine off the wellingtons.

Yes it worked well. Nobody knows.



So he should be treated like anyone else.



Each Garda who has not completed a course must renew their driving priviledge each year and the application includes a copy of your licence so I doubt any drivers have no licence. Of course you can be a member of the traffic corps and not be a driver.

Can they "complete a course" without holding a licence?

They are some serious accusations with nothing to back them up.

THey go back to the assumption which more and more people will make that the Gardai look after their own in cases like this and the ridiculous fines handed down only bolster this in the minds of decent law abiding people who have a licence and who would never even dream of driving without one or if their car was untaxed or unroadworthy!

They would have lived if they had not been rolling around on a motorway. There is nothing this person could have done to avoid them. That is a fact wether you like it or not.

How is this fact? those two lads would be alive and well today if that off duty garda had not decided he was above the law!

It would be interesting to find out how long he was driving without tax and with two bald tyres and with no licence, I am getting the impression that it is the norm for him and many other gardai rather than just a case of neglecting to check the tryes regularly, neglecting to get a driving licence and neglecting to tax a car.

This guy would forget his head if it wasn't attached!

This fella did neither.

lots more have been found out to be abusing their positions and rules like the licence one.

thebullkf

robbie7730 wrote: »

If your motor tax is out for one day, does that make you more to blame for running over someone lying in the dark on a motorway, than someone who`s tax is out the next day?

coupled with baldy tyres, no license , and (allegedly) no insurance... of course..!!!


Shouldn't be on the road in the first place!!

He didn't "just" have no tax.... why fixate on that ?

What if he killed your brothers?... still think he's not to blame?..

thebullkf

Itsdacraic wrote: »

He did society a favour getting rid of that heroin dealer

So its ok for Gardai to break the law once its dealers they "get rid of" ...

hondasam

thebullkf wrote: »

We'll never know:(


but what we do know is, that due to illegality on both parties, 2 are dead, one gets a €900 fine despite knowlingly breaking laws he was employed, and swore to uphold.

He brings other garda into a bad light.


The defence of him (and what he did) here i hope is not indicative of the Gardai in general, they do trojan work but there are some right clowns wearing the uniform (same as other professions no doubt) but the role of AGS should be held in higher scrutiny, there should be a higher onus on the part of a Garda to act in a manner befitting his station.

This clown failed, miserably, and deaths or no deaths i would wager its not the first time he's broken the law.

Man should lose his job, Safety Officers on building sites lose their jobs through no fault of their own, by workers stupidity,and taking shortcuts, being over confident and arrogant. This man is no different, and should be treated with the same contempt he displayed in refusing to obey the law.

If all his documents were in order we would not be having this conversation and the accident would still have happened.
Have you ever broken the law? driven without tax, no seat belt or any motoring offence? I know I have driven without tax for a few days and I know I drive over the speed limit. Most of us break some law at some time.

hondasam

foggy_lad wrote: »

I have had similar near misses in the past but was always able to stop in time because i was concentrating on driving and the road rather than mobile phone or other modern distractions

Are you suggesting I was on my mobile phone at the time or you saying he was on his at the time?
I did not stop I only just swerved on time, if I hit him you would assume I was in the wrong?

thebullkf

hondasam wrote: »

If all his documents were in order we would not be having this conversation and the accident would still have happened.
Have you ever broken the law? driven without tax, no seat belt or any motoring offence? I know I have driven without tax for a few days and I know I drive over the speed limit. Most of us break some law at some time.

i agree HS, but to an extent... Action vs Consequence.

Through his arrogance and incompetence he killed 2 people. for him to get a fine like that is paltry:mad:

if he didnt pay the household charge he could be fined nearly TRIPLE that amount.... you telling me thats comparitive (not saying House charge is fair)

The legislation behind the charge also provides for fines of up to €2,500 for people who do not pay the charge on time.

http://www.thejournal.ie/details-on-household-charge-penalties-emerging-418752-Apr2012/

Bruthal

thebullkf wrote: »

coupled with baldy tyres, no license , and (allegedly) no insurance... of course..!!!


Shouldn't be on the road in the first place!!

He didn't "just" have no tax.... why fixate on that ?

Because the law says no driving without tax also. So if you hit someone and have no tax, is that ok?

What if he killed your brothers?... still think he's not to blame?..

What if your driving, and a fella is lying on the road in pitch dark and you fail to see him, and you run over him, are you to blame?

Or if you are going 140kph in a 120 zone, and later you kill someone who suddenly runs out in front of you while going 50kph in a 50 zone, are you to blame there?

hondasam

Itsdacraic wrote: »

He did society a favour getting rid of that heroin dealer

I'm sure he does not think the same as you seeing as he has this man's death on his conscience. What ever he was involved in has no bearing on how he died.

hondasam

thebullkf wrote: »

i agree HS, but to an extent... Action vs Consequence.

Through his arrogance and incompetence he killed 2 people. for him to get a fine like that is paltry:mad:

I don't agree with any of those tbh, It was an accident he could not avoid it. If he was fined ten thousand and banned for ten yrs would it make a difference?

foggy_lad

Padkir wrote: »

Sorry didn't read the rest of this thread, but need to point out something and might have a bit of a rant about it!

He might not have had full beams on if there was oncoming traffic across the island, something which a lot of people driving on motorways seem to forget and don't care about blinding someone across the median!!!

There should be nothing in the way and because a motorway is not likely to have any sharp corners or anything you should be happily able to tip along on dipped beams! Not his fault there were pedestrians on the motorway, much less that they were lying in the middle of the road!

In saying that, prob should have got a higher fine and thrown out of the guards for not having a licence but as was said, ombudsman is still investigating!

Fair enough but on a motorway even in the dead of night in the wet your vision is far better than it is on most other roads simply by the road being more open to moonlight and your lights being more effective on the better road surface, he should have seen these two lads and should have made some attempt to avoid hitting them. from what i have read so far it appears no avoiding or evasive actions were taken or there was no evidence of this from the markings on the road after the incident.

micropig wrote: »

Ah, we should leave this poor lad alone, as someone once said while trying to defend their Garda mate drink driving......He'll probably get an awful slagging off his mates for it...

Might be a while before he is sent down for the chips and pizzas, Maybe they have an old station bike they could give him?

hondasam wrote: »

If all his documents were in order we would not be having this conversation and the accident would still have happened.
Have you ever broken the law? driven without tax, no seat belt or any motoring offence? I know I have driven without tax for a few days and I know I drive over the speed limit. Most of us break some law at some time.

What a ridiculous statement!

This guy is responsible for the deaths of two other people! No matter what way you spin it if he was obeying the laws he took an oath to uphold then those two lads would be alive and well today!

They are dead as a direct result of his unlawful actions.

hondasam

foggy_lad wrote: »

What a ridiculous statement!

This guy is responsible for the deaths of two other people! No matter what way you spin it if he was obeying the laws he took an oath to uphold then those two lads would be alive and well today!

They are dead as a direct result of his unlawful actions.

You call my statement ridiculous and then you post that :pac:
How would he have avoided the accident?

foggy_lad

hondasam wrote: »

Are you suggesting I was on my mobile phone at the time or you saying he was on his at the time?
I did not stop I only just swerved on time, if I hit him you would assume I was in the wrong?

I am suggesting that all drivers today are at greater risk of being distracted whist driving by several things, mobile phones, sat nav, dvd players, stereos you need a degree to operate, handsfree kits that are not set up properly, tinted glass that obscures the view, etc etc.

years ago you were lucky to have a seat belt and a push button radio and had nothing else to do except drive! also tyres were chacked for thread every few weeks and for air weekly, I am saying his mind was not on his driving or he would have seen those poor unfortunates in time to avoid killing them!