Pulled over for speeding by a static guard.

sidcon

Ok my situation.
Garda standing beside a motorbike at a laybye putting on his helmet, observes me driving past him and then drives after me. Blue lights so I pull over.
He says do you know why I pulled you over and I said i might have been going fast while overtaking (dual carriage way)
He then says I was doing 150, he takes my licence and does the normal procedures, he comes back and says you've been stopped here before 3 points and a fine will be sent through the post. Get the fine and it states a speed of 150kph.
Question is
Does the Garda not have to prove I was speeding, if he was not using a gun to detect my speed is his judgement enough to prosecute me?

daveohdave

Did he pace you?

sidcon

daveohdave wrote: »

Did he pace you?

He couldn't have, I saw him putting on his helmet as I passed him and breaked to the speed limit and then he got onto his bike and he came after me.

GerardKeating

sidcon wrote: »

He couldn't have, I saw him putting on his helmet as I passed him and breaked to the speed limit and then he got onto his bike and he came after me.

So, you admit you were actually speeding ?

Bepolite

If you want to dispute it you're entitled to your day in court.

Little CuChulainn

Are you sure he was alone?

sidcon

GerardKeating wrote: »

So, you admit you were actually speeding ?

Yes I was speeding but no way was it 150. It's beside the point.
The question being asked is a garda allowed to use his judgement as a way of prosecution for a speeding offence.

sidcon

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Are you sure he was alone?

Yes he was alone

ironclaw

There is no provision in current legislation for a Garda to prove you were speeding nor the equipment, if used, is in proper working order or even calibrated. I'm sure someone can put it more eloquently than me, but if a Garda says you were speeding than you were even if he just pointed his finger and said 'You'. Utter nonsense. Its in the current Road Traffic Act.

Seeing as you admitted it, how fast were you going? You sure it was his helmet? The Garda laser gun (UltraLtye) is silver in colour and from a distance and moving quick, could resemble part of his attire especially if he was putting it away. It would be unusual for a Garda conducting a speed check to remove his helmet as you'd waste time putting it back on.

You should have asked them how they clocked your speed.

sidcon

ironclaw wrote: »

There is no provision in current legislation for a Garda to prove you were speeding nor the equipment, if used, is in proper working order or even calibrated. I'm sure someone can put it more eloquently than me, but if a Garda says you were speeding than you were even if he just pointed his finger and said 'You'. Utter nonsense. Its in the current Road Traffic Act.

Seeing as you admitted it, how fast were you going? You sure it was his helmet? The Garda laser gun (UltraLtye) is silver in colour and from a distance and moving quick, could resemble part of his attire especially if he was putting it away. It would be unusual for a Garda conducting a speed check to remove his helmet as you'd waste time putting it back on.

You should have asked them how they clocked your speed.

Cheers for answering my question, was doing 120-130 on n7 in the second overtaking lane. He was pulled in at the weighbridge before Rathcoole, was defiantly his helmet he was putting on.
Guess I just have to suck it up and take it on the chin.

ironclaw

sidcon wrote: »

Cheers for answering my question, was doing 120-130 on n7 in the second overtaking lane. He was pulled in at the weighbridge before Rathcoole, was defiantly his helmet he was putting on.
Guess I just have to suck it up and take it on the chin.

Were you called in by a car further back perhaps? Thats a possibility as they live on that particular section of road, both marked and unmarked cars.

Mary63

Is there anyone you could talk to to get the points wiped,seemingly some lucky beans have had their points wiped up to eight times and for doing the speed he said you were doing.I would love to see the details of these drivers published and who okayed the quashing of the points.
A million euros has now been allocated to get to the bottom of the points controversy,its very simple really,anyone who has had their points quashed is to have their name and address published and the reason why their penalty points were removed,if they have been lucky enough more than twice they get a special mention in the report,this shouldnt cost a million euros,there are hardly hundreds of thousands of lucky beans or maybe there are.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

brownmini

sidcon wrote: »

Ok my situation.
Garda standing beside a motorbike at a laybye putting on his helmet, observes me driving past him and then drives after me. Blue lights so I pull over.

Is it possible that he saw you 1 or two minutes before you saw him and he had already 'clocked you' and then put his helmet on?

sham58107

Probably a "catch car" down the road,thats the reason he was putting on helmet.
Probably just have to suck it up.

Little CuChulainn

Mary63 wrote: »

Is there anyone you could talk to to get the points wiped,seemingly some lucky beans have had their points wiped up to eight times and for doing the speed he said you were doing.I would love to see the details of these drivers published and who okayed the quashing of the points.
A million euros has now been allocated to get to the bottom of the points controversy,its very simple really,anyone who has had their points quashed is to have their name and address published and the reason why their penalty points were removed,if they have been lucky enough more than twice they get a special mention in the report,this shouldnt cost a million euros,there are hardly hundreds of thousands of lucky beans or maybe there are.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bit late to the party aren't you?

fleetfoot

Its a bloody shame,if YOU had been polish or rum ect there would have been no problem,shame we are Irish

Jimfo1970

sidcon wrote: »

Cheers for answering my question, was doing 120-130 on n7 in the second overtaking lane. He was pulled in at the weighbridge before Rathcoole, was defiantly his helmet he was putting on.
Guess I just have to suck it up and take it on the chin.

What is wrong with you ? If he did not have a speed gun then you go to court and argue it out. Chances are the guard won't even turn up if he is guessing the speed and the charge will be struck out.

BaronVon

Best practice would dictate the Guard should show you the speed on the gun. He can't prosecute you without a calibrated instrument to determine speed, however he could prosecute you for careless/dangerous driving based on his opinion of your speed.

Most likely, he pinged your speed from a few hundred metres back before you were even aware of him, had put the speed gun in the pannier of the bike, and was putting his helmet on to go after you. He should have showed you the gun, but the fact he didn't wouldn't negate a prosecution on its own.

You could go to court and argue this, and risk 6 points and a fine, or pay the fine, as you were most likely caught fair and square!

Timberrrrrrrr

fleetfoot wrote: »

Its a bloody shame,if YOU had been polish or rum ect there would have been no problem,shame we are Irish

Mr Sheene and Malibu?

BornToKill

sidcon wrote: »

Cheers for answering my question, was doing 120-130 on n7 in the second overtaking lane.

That is a 100kph zone, isn't it?

Losty Dublin

sidcon wrote: »

Yes I was speeding but no way was it 150. It's beside the point.
The question being asked is a garda allowed to use his judgement as a way of prosecution for a speeding offence.

My aunt was found guilty of speeding about 20 years ago solely on the word of a garda. In her case the garda gave evidence of having chased her and pulled her over for speeding. She admitted that she pulled over and that was enough for the presiding judge to convict her.

Served her right; she told us she "only" did 100MPH:rolleyes:

hullaballoo

fleetfoot wrote: »

Its a bloody shame,if YOU had been polish or rum ect there would have been no problem,shame we are Irish

What is this, I don't even?


Banned.

Prisoner6409

I would normally advise you to have your day in court given the Guard does not appear to have used the proper equipment, however it also seems a bit odd that the Guard is guessing your speed. Either way Guards normally take notes and if in his notes you are quoted as admitting to speeding, well, game over. Suck it up as going to court may cost you more.

Mary63

What does banned mean in the second last post.

whomitconcerns

Means the previous poster is banned for posting nonsense irrelevant posts. Op as others have said,. He was probably radioed by someone v else.

sidcon

So contacted the guard this morning, he informed me that his notes say I admitting to speeding, he told me I was doing 150 and that I nodded. Lovely so, my word or a Guards word in court, I know who the judge is going to believe,
€80 fine and 3 points is a lot easier to take. Thanks for your replies

BornToKill

It's not, though, that he claims you were speeding and you claim you were not. You accept that you were going too fast. The only argument seems to be about how much over the speed limit that was. The fine and points are justified for 130kph as well as 150kph.

ironclaw

infacteh wrote: »

Best practice would dictate the Guard should show you the speed on the gun. He can't prosecute you without a calibrated instrument to determine speed, however he could prosecute you for careless/dangerous driving based on his opinion of your speed.

In Irish law, there is no provision for the equipment used to be calibrated, in working order or produce a permanent record. They don't even have to show you the equipment used or the reading taken. Its absolute insanity.

thehouses

Get a dash cam - they not only record your driving and speed if you get the right one but they also can record conversations and it would not be one word against the other then. Too late now though.

Little CuChulainn

sidcon wrote: »

So contacted the guard this morning, he informed me that his notes say I admitting to speeding, he told me I was doing 150 and that I nodded. Lovely so, my word or a Guards word in court, I know who the judge is going to believe,

You say that like he is making a liar of you. But you've actually admitted in this thread that you were speeding. Stop playing the victim.

sidcon

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You say that like he is making a liar of you. But you've actually admitted in this thread that you were speeding. Stop playing the victim.

I'm not playing the victim, I was trying to get off on a technicality but now that the guard has said I admitted to speeding there is nothing I can do.
The fact that he says I admitted to speeding even though I didn't is wrong though, I never admit liability in my line of business it can land you in a lot of trouble and I always practice it.

Kop On

sidcon wrote: »

The fact that he says I admitted to speeding even though I didn't is wrong though, I never admit liability in my line of business it can land you in a lot of trouble and I always practice it.

You might need to practice it a bit harder, in your first post you admitted you said to the Garda that you "might have been going fast while overtaking (dual carriage way)". If that isn't an admission of speeding then I don't know what is.

You're just gonna have to suck this one up I think. In future when the Garda asks you do you know why I pulled over your response is "No, Garda, I have no idea?".

Tefral

From the road traffic act

Evidence of speed.

105.—Where the proof of the commission of an offence under this Act involves the proof of the speed at which a person (whether the accused or another person) was driving—

(a) the uncorroborated evidence of one witness stating his opinion as to that speed shall not be accepted as proof of that speed,

(b) the onus of establishing that speed prima facie may be discharged by tendering evidence of indications from which that speed can be inferred which were given by a watch or electronic or other apparatus, and it shall not be necessary to prove that the watch or electronic or other apparatus was accurate or in good working order.

Arbiter of Good Taste

thehouses wrote: »

Get a dash cam - they not only record your driving and speed if you get the right one but they also can record conversations and it would not be one word against the other then. Too late now though.

But the OP was speeding - in fact considerably so in a 100kph zone with 3 lanes of traffic. So dash cam isn't going to be much use to him

ironclaw

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

But the OP was speeding - in fact considerably so in a 100kph zone with 3 lanes of traffic. So dash cam isn't going to be much use to him

Dash cam is also inadmissible in court.

Shady Tady

sidcon wrote: »

I'm not playing the victim, I was trying to get off on a technicality but now that the guard has said I admitted to speeding there is nothing I can do.
The fact that he says I admitted to speeding even though I didn't is wrong though, I never admit liability in my line of business it can land you in a lot of trouble and I always practice it.

I love giving tickets to the likes of you!

Kop On

ironclaw wrote: »

Dash cam is also inadmissible in court.

You sure of that? I can understand how an audio recording from it might be inadmissable but how would video footage of a dash cam differ from say for example CCTV footage from a garage forecourt in a court case?

Tenger

Mary63 wrote: »

Is there anyone you could talk to to get the points wiped,seemingly some lucky beans have had their points wiped up to eight times and for doing the speed he said you were doing...............

Is that you Ivor?

Bang_Bang

ironclaw wrote: »

Dash cam is also inadmissible in court.

Why is this? Surely it's proof?. I'd love to know why lie detectors are not admissible either?

h2005

Ask to see the reading next time. When I was caught the guard offered to show it to me.

EunanMac

infacteh wrote: »

Best practice would dictate the Guard should show you the speed on the gun. He can't prosecute you without a calibrated instrument to determine speed, however he could prosecute you for careless/dangerous driving based on his opinion of your speed.

Most likely, he pinged your speed from a few hundred metres back before you were even aware of him, had put the speed gun in the pannier of the bike, and was putting his helmet on to go after you. He should have showed you the gun, but the fact he didn't wouldn't negate a prosecution on its own.

You could go to court and argue this, and risk 6 points and a fine, or pay the fine, as you were most likely caught fair and square!

This. If you can't handle the fine, don't do the crime.
A lawless free for all on the roads is the alternative.
Why do some people think speed limits and penalties only apply to other people and not to them ?
This country is just full of chancers and moochers.

endacl

Bang_Bang wrote: »

Why is this? Surely it's proof?. I'd love to know why lie detectors are not admissible either?

Neither are verifiably calibrated and/or standardised. Failing a lie detector test doesn't mean you lied. It just means you failed the test. Or stupidly agreed to go on the Jeremy Kyle show.

Bang_Bang

endacl wrote: »

Neither are verifiably calibrated and/or standardised. Failing a lie detector test doesn't mean you lied. It just means you failed the test. Or stupidly agreed to go on the Jeremy Kyle show.

Ok so they are not calibrated to ISO standards or something similar, that makes sense, but why do they use them in the states?

FreudianSlippers

I don't necessarily buy that a recording wouldn't be admissible in court. You have the right to present evidence to support your case and the Guard could be cross-examined regarding the contents of the recording. At the end of the day if the Guard denies that is him/her at the time in question it is for the court to determine whether they believe that testimony. The Guard is not the ultimate arbiter of the case, the court is.

Peppa Pig

You may want to consciously slow down. At least the third time you've been caught ....

sidcon wrote: »

was doing 120-130 on n7 in the second overtaking lane.

sidcon wrote: »

he comes back and says you've been stopped here before

sidcon wrote:

Got stopped for speeding doing 165 on the M1 by a unmarked jeep, not paying attention to the clock silly me

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71237091&postcount=1

Never mind

sidcon wrote:

I was in court the other day for being drunk and disorderly, failing to obey a Garda's orders and assaulting a Garda, none of this could be proven and the court Sargent said that CCTV backed up my claim. However I was still ordered to pay €200.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82189680&postcount=1

You are quite the rebel

endacl

Bang_Bang wrote: »

Ok so they are not calibrated to ISO standards or something similar, that makes sense, but why do they use them in the states?

I think you mean 'but why do they use them on the telly'. Many states don't allow them to be admissible. Some do, but only under certain limited circumstances and only with strict stipulations, agreed by both parties. Apart from the questionable accuracy of the machine itself, individual somatic responses to questioning, and the machine operator's interpretation of what they think they are looking at, are just to variable.

ironclaw

Bang_Bang wrote: »

Ok so they are not calibrated to ISO standards or something similar, that makes sense, but why do they use them in the states?

Theres a difference between an eBay DVR and a proper blackbox system that is forensically sound. If you had such a device in your car, then you could probably admit it as evidence. But then again, and I'm not read in law, I'd imagine you'd need to follow the chain of evidence procedure. I doubt you can just turn up on the day with your laptop

daveohdave

ironclaw wrote: »

Dash cam is also inadmissible in court.

That's simply not true, dashcam footage was used in court only recently. As far as I can remember it was used as video evidence for a non-traffic offence, but once it's in its in.

The dashcam data doesn't need to be used for speed if calibration if the GPS unit is in question. We still have physics and maths for that. Even the Gardai still using pencils can do that.

FreudianSlippers

endacl wrote: »

I think you mean 'but why do they use them on the telly'. Many states don't allow them to be admissible. Some do, but only under certain limited circumstances and only with strict stipulations, agreed by both parties. Apart from the questionable accuracy of the machine itself, individual somatic responses to questioning, and the machine operator's interpretation of what they think they are looking at, are just to variable.

I'd actually disagree with you flat out on this but I don't have an opportunity to pull out individual legislation from the US at the moment.

Police use both audio (recorded on their person) and video (recorded via dashcam) as evidence in something like 42 States at present.

Individuals may use video recorded via the dashcam in most states and can use the audio once the person in question being recorded is informed that they are being so recorded and give consent. If an officer refused to consent to recording and they are in uniform, if the person continues to record audio they are frequently threatened pursuant to the state's wiretapping or eavesdropping lawys, however, approximately 12 state courts have ruled that "a police officer at a traffic stop has no expectation of privacy" and that the recording is both lawful and admissible.

AlekSmart

sidcon wrote: »

Cheers for answering my question, was doing 120-130 on n7 in the second overtaking lane. He was pulled in at the weighbridge before Rathcoole, was defiantly his helmet he was putting on.
Guess I just have to suck it up and take it on the chin.

Just to clarify this,what is the 2nd Overtaking lane at this point...is it the Outer Lane or a different one ?

Export

What's a static guard?