Penalty Points Process Clarity

bazman

I know a little about the penalty points systems, so for what it's worth:

Currently Hibernian are the only company with an direct interface with the Vehicle Registration Unit. They recieve a monthly interface file with all current penalty points for their customers. Pending penalty points are not on this file & I don't think there is any requirement to tell your insurance company until you recieve your penalty point notification from the VRU. Hibernian mainly use this information for renewal quototations - in the event of a claim I suspect they may phone the VRU for the most up-to-date information. All other insurance companies rely on your word for the moment. In the event of a claim they can phone the VRU to get your penalty point details.

The key that links all information together is your driver number, which is on your licence. Insurance companies will only be able to link your details to penalty point information if they have your driver number. I suspect that not all insurance companies have accurate driver number information, unless they insist on a copy of your driver licence on policy initiation.

Also, the VRU cannot accurately apply points to a licence without your driver number. You are requested this information when you pay. My understanding is that if the driver number provided is incorrect (doesn't match driver name & DOB) a file is sent back to the Gardaí in order to get the valid driver number. I'm not sure how they go about doing this - probably just by looking up their system.

seamus

edmund_f wrote:

the only minor qualification to the vase example, is that the child is allowed to see the evidence. If you are caught speeding, the only way to see any of the evidence, except for a grainy photo, is to take them to court

This is where I drop out. I've never actually seen one of these photos, nor an example of it, and I can't properly comment on whether it would be sufficient to make the "Yeah, I was caught" decision.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/

look up road traffic act 2002, section 21, all the evidence is 'prima facie' i.e. they are not obliged to prove any of it until you go to court

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that act says that all evidence that the state will use will be presented to you before you have to plead guilty or not guilty (i.e. make the choice between paying your fine or going to court). So if you that their evidence isn't proof, or you can refute it, then you go to court. Similarly if you know that the evidence is clear, you are guilty, then you pay your fine.

Or are you saying that they would happily give you fraudulent documents and pictures in the hope that you won't go to court, and successfully disprove their evidence?

Seth Brundle

seamus wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that act says that all evidence that the state will use will be presented to you before you have to plead guilty or not guilty (i.e. make the choice between paying your fine or going to court). So if you that their evidence isn't proof, or you can refute it, then you go to court. Similarly if you know that the evidence is clear, you are guilty, then you pay your fine.

I think this is a key point (no pun intended!). Many people who are sent notifications do not recieve any evidence that they offended. However, out of fear or presumption that the gardai could never be wrong simply pay up because they have neither the time nor ability to contest it in court.

Our man in Havana

Under what legislation do Hib have to get this info? Its personal data about me and I never gave Seamus Brennan permission to give it to anyone outside of the government.

edmund_f

you may have guessed at this point, but recently got two points. I was clocked at 57 in a 30, which i find totally unacceptable, as due to the penalty point system i tend to stick to speed limits. (lack of points and accidents to this point will attest to that, i.e. 0 points & 0 accidents)

When i asked for cal certs, training certs, approval etc etc, i was pointed to road traffic act 2002:21. Basically all they have to supply you with is nothing. The copy of the grainy photo i recieved was all the information i was given by the Garda, and based on this i had to make my decision on wether or not to pursue the matter further. I was not allowed access to any of the other documentation, and to get it i would have to go court.

i paid the fine, but i am continuing to persue it with the minister for justice.

Our man in Havana

kbannon wrote:

I think this is a key point (no pun intended!). Many people who are sent notifications do not recieve any evidence that they offended. However, out of fear or presumption that the gardai could never be wrong simply pay up because they have neither the time nor ability to contest it in court.

And it is this culture of not rocking the boat that has the Gardai in the position they are now. If a mere 10% went to court the whole system would collapse around its ears and would be scrapped.

Seth Brundle

Bond-007 wrote:

Under what legislation do Hib have to get this info? Its personal data about me and I never gave Seamus Brennan permission to give it to anyone outside of the government.

Apparently Hibs ask for your permission by asking for your licence number. This then gives them access to your database details.

Bond-007 wrote:

And it is this culture of not rocking the boat that has the Gardai in the position they are now. If a mere 10% went to court the whole system would collapse around its ears and would be scrapped.

Oh right, I see. And here is me thinking I had the right to a fair trial. If 10% appealed then
a) they should have thought of this by ensuring there were enough working in the justice system
b) it would also make the points system shambles more apparent!

Our man in Havana

Indeed

seamus

kbannon wrote:

apparent!

Not to mention transparent

Our man in Havana

All I can say is that the govt are on some very shaky constituional ground here. Its a wonder that no one has had the balls to challenge the 2002 Road Traffic Act.

Boggle

seumus wrote:

There's no point in dealing in the specific. As I said, I don't always agree with the law, and yes, the law sometimes does get it wrong. I'm not defending it at all, I'm just outlining the position as I see it. No, people should not be afraid to defend themselves *if they're innocent*. The actual crux of this specific case is - was he actually speeding? The actions of the other motorist are irrelevant. If he was actually speeding, then no, there's no point in trying to defend himself.

Of course there's point in dealing with the specific - its by dealing with the specific that you see how the law affects people. You'r argument that a) the law sometimes gets it wrong and b) people shouldn't be afraid to defend themselves "if innocent" are contradictory. Of course the law gets it wrong - but it is always better to err on the side of caution than the extreme. You seem to be advocating a system where there are 2 lines at the court house: 1 for the truly innocent and 1 for the chancers.

And of course he wasn't speeding - why would I give it as an example otherwise? The point being that he could have proven reasonable doubt if he had the courage to go to court but was afraid of getting the extra points.

seumus wrote:

I already dealt with it. It's not a doubling of any punishment. The punishment for speeding is 4 penalty points. The sentence is halved if you plead guilty. In the eyes of the law, if you're not guilty, don't plead guilty.

No you didn't. You gave precedent by citing a murderer getting a more leniant sentencing and I replied by saying that in that case the judge can punish based on merits whereas in a speeding case the sentencing is written before you start. I also submitted that it doesn't matter how you write it (2 points off or 2 points on), it still means thesame thing.

Oh right, I see. And here is me thinking I had the right to a fair trial. If 10% appealed then
a) they should have thought of this by ensuring there were enough working in the justice system
b) it would also make the points system shambles more apparent!

Well put.

ambro25

kbannon wrote:

Apparently Hibs ask for your permission by asking for your licence number. This then gives them access to your database details.

Your reg plate is public domain (e.g. anybody in the whole wide world can read it - well, at least those who look at your car!). BUT your personal details are not: I look at you and I don't know your name, address, if you have a license, how many points, etc... So how, exactly, does Hibernian pull this magic trick of (tacitly, presumably?) obtaining permission to access your private details by requesting public domain data? Me wonders lots'n'lots, here...

Bogger77

I just don't get it.

In most, if not all, western criminal justice systems, if you pleasd guilty to a crime you have committed, you get a discount on the sentance you would have recieved if you plead innocent and are found, by the courts to be guilty of the crime. For minor offences, most systems allow for on the spot dealing of cases, be it public order getting issued with a fine, littering or minor motoring offences such as speeding, using a handheld fone, not wearing seatbelts and invalid license plates.
All these offences have summary/maximum sentences, and so, in the case of speeding and points, in Ireland. The discount for pleading guilty is a reduction of 2 points and the fine is at least 50% of what you'd get in court.

As has been said many times by Seamus, our system is built upon the assumption that no innocent person can be found guilty, and so no one should fear going to court.

The legality of the RT act is something that could and should be brought to the Supreme court and tested.

The cops do make mistakes, and not all cops are trustworthy, but i just don't understand why some posters, freely admit to being in excess of the posted speed limits and are looking for backdoors out. Some on this and the other current thread re speeding, are complaining about speed cameras etc, while in other threads are pimping illegal* sprays to distort number places if flashed by a static gatso camera.


*under Irish law, the use of any device to interfer with speed checking equipment is illegal

Our man in Havana

*under Irish law, the use of any device to interfer with speed checking equipment is illegal

I like to see a Guard prove that you were using a spray? How could they if they can't see you number?

Bogger77

ambro25 wrote:

Your reg plate is public domain (e.g. anybody in the whole wide world can read it - well, at least those who look at your car!). BUT your personal details are not: I look at you and I don't know your name, address, if you have a license, how many points, etc... So how, exactly, does Hibernian pull this magic trick of (tacitly, presumably?) obtaining permission to access your private details by requesting public domain data?
Me wonders lots'n'lots, here...

It's quite open, when the legistation re: points was coming up, the minister announced that any insurance comp willing to give discounts to zero points drivers would be allowed to verify that driver has no points.

when you get a policy with Hib, you're asked do you want to avail of the discount, if so sign here to allow us to check and verify that you have zero points. I believe that they cannot load you for not registering with them for the points discount, and they cannot check on your license number without your approval.

It's your driving license number, not the registration number, often called license number, of your car. Car reg and driver are not linked, only the registered owner is recoreded on the car db's. Only in Switzerland, is the registered owner of a registration number public information, according to Top Gear you can buy a directory in any shop.
Since Ambro, you drive on a non Irish license, the points database doesn't affect you in terms of insurance, I believe.

Bogger77

Bond-007 wrote:

I like to see a Guard prove that you were using a spray? How could they if they can't see you number?

It'd be illegal to import such a spray, and it will be traced via the postal system, ask people given warnings after importing a speed detector from the UK or the US, a mate of mine was.

As was pointed out on that thread, the doctored plates are quite easy to spot by the human eye, all a cop has to do is notice an extermely bright plate at nite, or even bright sunlight, while on patrol, confiscate the plate and get it examined. And it will happen, cops maybe Culchies with one eyebrow and knuckle rubbing the ground in some peoples here opinion but they're not stupid.
And of course, there's how many Fixed Flash gatso's in this state? 5 or 10? How many mobile vans, hairdryer radar and newer laser speedguns? Chances of getting caught speeding on one of those, which are 100% immune to the spray, is many times greater than the chances of getting caught at any of the few static well known camera sites.
Also, remember that very few cars are non descript! Do you have any car dealer stickers on the rear window of your car? It's simple deduction work, if for example have a sticker for Dealer XXX. The cops will visit dealer, dealer will give all details for cars of that type/colour and model he's sold. They will use simple detection work, and narrow down the list, and pay you a visit. Seems alot of work? Not really, cos the case would be in every paper as a warning.
Maybe, if driving in the UK on a UK plate it might be an idea, purely down the large amounts of cameras and the sheer volumes of cars. I'm guessing that there's not as many cars of your cars type/colur and model as you think, esp if it's not silver or blue!

Our man in Havana

Bogger77 wrote:

It'd be illegal to import such a spray, and it will be traced via the postal system, ask people given warnings after importing a speed detector from the UK or the US, a mate of mine was.

As was pointed out on that thread, the doctored plates are quite easy to spot by the human eye, all a cop has to do is notice an extermely bright plate at nite, or even bright sunlight, while on patrol, confiscate the plate and get it examined. And it will happen, cops maybe Culchies with one eyebrow and knuckle rubbing the ground in some peoples here opinion but they're not stupid.
And of course, there's how many Fixed Flash gatso's in this state? 5 or 10? How many mobile vans, hairdryer radar and newer laser speedguns? Chances of getting caught speeding on one of those, which are 100% immune to the spray, is many times greater than the chances of getting caught at any of the few static well known camera sites.
Also, remember that very few cars are non descript! Do you have any car dealer stickers on the rear window of your car? It's simple deduction work, if for example have a sticker for Dealer XXX. The cops will visit dealer, dealer will give all details for cars of that type/colour and model he's sold. They will use simple detection work, and narrow down the list, and pay you a visit. Seems alot of work? Not really, cos the case would be in every paper as a warning.
Maybe, if driving in the UK on a UK plate it might be an idea, purely down the large amounts of cameras and the sheer volumes of cars. I'm guessing that there's not as many cars of your cars type/colur and model as you think, esp if it's not silver or blue!

Uh, I dunno. I wonder how many green skoda estates are out there? mine dont have a dealer name. You reckon they would visit every Skoda owner in the country?

Bogger77

Bond-007 wrote:

Uh, I dunno. I wonder how many green skoda estates are out there? mine dont have a dealer name. You reckon they would visit every Skoda owner in the country?

I doubt there's that many in the republic, don't they publish numbers of car sold per year broken down in model?

Depends on what speed you were doing and wether they decided to make an example of you

seamus

In most, if not all, western criminal justice systems, if you pleasd guilty to a crime you have committed, you get a discount on the sentance you would have recieved if you plead innocent and are found, by the courts to be guilty of the crime. For minor offences, most systems allow for on the spot dealing of cases, be it public order getting issued with a fine, littering or minor motoring offences such as speeding, using a handheld fone, not wearing seatbelts and invalid license plates.
All these offences have summary/maximum sentences, and so, in the case of speeding and points, in Ireland. The discount for pleading guilty is a reduction of 2 points and the fine is at least 50% of what you'd get in court.

Thank you. Exactly what I wanted to say. Everyone seems to accept that it's OK to give a more lenient sentence for pleading guilty to any offence but speeding.

Boggle wrote:

Of course there's point in dealing with the specific - its by dealing with the specific that you see how the law affects people.

Of course, but when discussing how the law *should* affect *everybody*, you cannot bring in specific cases (with the exception of those cases which created/changed the law in the first place).

You'r argument that a) the law sometimes gets it wrong and b) people shouldn't be afraid to defend themselves "if innocent" are contradictory. Of course the law gets it wrong - but it is always better to err on the side of caution than the extreme. You seem to be advocating a system where there are 2 lines at the court house: 1 for the truly innocent and 1 for the chancers.

This is where I've probably failed to express myself properly. I'm playing devil's advocate to a degree. The law isn't designed to recognise mistakes. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the ultimate erring on the side of caution. You can't get any fairer than that. If you can come up with a foolproof system that eliminates the issue of innocent people going to jail, by Christ I'll vote for you.
The justice system cannot allow for this margin of error. We're human. If it's proven that someone is guilty, even though they are in fact innocent, that's undetectable.
I'm not advocating any system, I'm saying that's the system we're stuck with because it's the best one we can come up with.

We're getting way off the point here anyway. If thousands of people starting receiving summonses for murder (sorry to compare to such an extreme crime, but it helps), you could be damn sure they'd contest it. Why don't they contest the speeding fines? Because the vast majority of them know damn well that they were probably speeding, and wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they challenged it.

And of course he wasn't speeding - why would I give it as an example otherwise? The point being that he could have proven reasonable doubt if he had the courage to go to court but was afraid of getting the extra points.

As I say above, why not? (I missed the relevance of the second driver to your story). If he was so sure of his innocence, and there was no printout saying otherwise, he should have contested it. If he was too scared, that's his problem. I'd rather take my day in court if I knew for a fact I was innocent, extra points or no.

No you didn't. You gave precedent by citing a murderer getting a more leniant sentencing and I replied by saying that in that case the judge can punish based on merits whereas in a speeding case the sentencing is written before you start. I also submitted that it doesn't matter how you write it (2 points off or 2 points on), it still means thesame thing.

So you would rather see the sentence for all crimes halved for all offenders who plead guilty, or would you rather every speeder was brought to court, and given points at the discretion of a pissed-off judge? Where's the fairness if one judge is dishing out 4 points to everyone, and another judge is handing out 1 point to older drivers and 4 points to younger drivers?

ambro25

Bogger77 wrote:

Since Ambro, you drive on a non Irish license, the points database doesn't affect you in terms of insurance, I believe.

No, but I've always paid more (in the UK) because they can't verify jack sh1t, only that I have a license - which, funnily enough, none of my UK insurers has ever asked proof of over the years .

I'm an unknown quantity, ergo a bigger risk, is the way it's been so far... Pity I can't get insured in France on UK or IE car, coz you abso-f***ing-lutely would NOT belive the difference (we're talking orders of magnitude, here, for maths-savvy Forum readers).

For a 1.4 Citroen AX TZS (same as GT except badge), back in early 90s, with less than 2 years-old license, I remember paying something like EUR375-ish [was FRF 2300] fully comp' AFTER rear-ending a Jag' Sovereign (I always say: if you're gonna do it, do it right or don't do it at all if you're gonna crash - roll it at least twice and if you're gonna rear-end, make it at least a 60 grand+ car LOL!) AND AFTER getting points and suspension for speeding in a rather grand way. More current, my Mum pays fully comp' on her twingo (weird 1.4 Renault, France-only thingy), with my Bro' and dad as named drivers (both with lots of points :rolleyes: ) - EUR 112!!! :eek: That's per year, btw.

Next few weeks will be interesting when I get quotes with IE insurers

ambro25

Bogger77 wrote:

It's quite open, when the legistation re: points was coming up, the minister announced that any insurance comp willing to give discounts to zero points drivers would be allowed to verify that driver has no points.

Now, call me cynical, but that smacks of a behind-the-door, lobby-induced deal, here.

Let me explain: you see lots of them ads on TV and wherever offering 'discounts' for no points, big accumulated NCB, etc. My questions is: discounts off WHAT? Do insurers have a list price or something? I used to work in engineering supplies years back, with discounts off everything, and wherein everyhing had a list price, and every buyer had the same price list. Buyer buys more, gets bigger discount - simple. With car insurance, however, since it seems variations in IE quotes are just as astronomical as in the UK (2 grand difference was the most I ever got through quotes on a f***ing Hyundai S-Coupe :eek:!!!) and quotes vary with EACH insurer, that prompts me to think tere is no such 'list prices' - so WTF is that discount off?

Now, were I an insurer, it sure would be nice to know if Mr X has points or not - and more interstingly what for? Just so I can charge them MORE than I ever did before (when I didn't know if thy had points or not OR just had to take their word for it). So what do I do? "Hey Mr Minister, of course we'll give discounts, just you give us the data" (and how TF is he ever going to prove that such discounts don't correspond / amount to anything at all?).

Boggle

So you would rather see the sentence for all crimes halved for all offenders who plead guilty, or would you rather every speeder was brought to court, and given points at the discretion of a pissed-off judge? Where's the fairness if one judge is dishing out 4 points to everyone, and another judge is handing out 1 point to older drivers and 4 points to younger drivers?

I get what your saying but points are effectively a criminal conviction and are on your record and should not be used as something to deter people from defending themselves. Also, I believe that a crime should either have a fixed punishment, or the judge should have the power to decide (inside specifications or guidelines) what your punishment is going to be based on the merits of the case. Surely the cost of taking a case to court and losing should be enough of a deterrant if you know your guilty?? (And if you saw that a judge had a history of discrimination then you would have ammo to use in an appeal)
Basically if the courts had a general trend of giving more points than a guilty plea I would have no problem. What I do take issue with is the fact that its written down in law and is intended to bully people out of their rights to defend themselves - or do you disagree with this analysis?

Thank you. Exactly what I wanted to say. Everyone seems to accept that it's OK to give a more lenient sentence for pleading guilty to any offence but speeding.

No I dont. The case should be assessed based on its merits. Fair enough if you plead guilty, you show remorse but if a speeder killed my nephew then I wouldn't give a damn if he was remorseful or not, would you? Personally, I think if more cases went to court you might see a difference between the punishment given for being 1mph(kph for metric fans!!) and someone who is 15 or 20mph over the limit.

Because the vast majority of them know damn well that they were probably speeding, and wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they challenged it.

Probably being the operative word. Thing is you get caught on a speeding ticket and have no idea how to defend yourself so you don't even try for fear of getting shafted.

As I say above, why not? (I missed the relevance of the second driver to your story). If he was so sure of his innocence, and there was no printout saying otherwise, he should have contested it. If he was too scared, that's his problem. I'd rather take my day in court if I knew for a fact I was innocent, extra points or no.

Oh right - it was the second driver who was speeding (the guy who overtook him) but as yer man was fair moving, by the time the gard caught up he was over the horizon (so to speak). Apologies - dont often explain myself well.
But the issue of being scared being his problem is a misconception imo. He is an example of the law in operation and is by no means unusual as far as I can tell. Were there no doubling of punishment he would have contacted a solicitor and realised that he had a case - but as it was he didn't want to risk fighting it. (This was pre-printout thing)

magpie

Some on this and the other current thread re speeding, are complaining about speed cameras etc, while in other threads are pimping illegal* sprays to distort number places if flashed by a static gatso camera.

I wasn't pimping anything, you'll find I was enquiring about the legality / effectiveness of these. My objection is to having to pay a fine and getting penalty points for being caught in a mindless speed trap set up to generate revenue. If I had been flashed down by a cop doing 95 through Enfield or similar then fair enough.

I've been driving for 15 years and have never so much as paid my car tax late, never mind get stopped for speeding, because I don't speed! However I did get caught in the nonsensical system on the N7 where the limit goes from 30, to 40, to 60, back to 40, then to 50 in seemingly random intervals, purely because I was maintaining what I thought was a reasonable speed instead of peering constantly for miniscule signs informing me of the latest wacky, random limit change.

If as you say there are 5 or 10 fixed camera sites in the state, then tell me where they are so I know to drive past them at 25mph and p iss every other road user off royally. Thanks.

seamus

OK, the field now changes a bit. I checked out the Road Traffic Act, and it turns out that the 2 points are in fact written in law (unlike I had thought), but specify that they're a fixed penalty, not a conviction.

The 4 points are a penalty upon conviction, whereas the 2 points don't seem to be a conviction, but an endorsement upon payment of a fixed fine. This changes all of our arguments really, since the 4 points are not a punishment for trying to defend yourself against conviction (since you're not getting a conviction), nor is it a "bonus" for pleading guilty, since you're not actually pleading guilty to anything.

So my meagre legal understanding drops me out of the loop here.
Anyone?

magpie

Some interesting reading from the Dept of Transport Website http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=5553&lang=ENG&loc=1801

Statistics for penalty points show that 96% of penalty point notifications up to March 2004 related to speeding. These speeding offences broke down like this:

797 of the total notifications issued, related to speeding offences in the 30mph zones nationwide,

Some 1,319 penalty point notifications related to speeding offences in the 40mph zones in Dublin,

A further 752 related to speeding offences in the 50mph zones in Dublin,

Twenty seven notifications related to speeding offences in the 60mph zones nationwide,

And a further 19 related to exceeding the speed limits on motorways nationwide

In other words, the higher the speed limit the less infractions occured. So is it the case that 117,000 evil speeders were driving in 30/40 zones with no regard for their fellow men, or is it the case that many 30/40 mph zones should be more realistically designated to reflect an adequate speed limit. (for instance the Dual Carriageway past UCD).

Interestingly in the same document Mr Brennan states

He was confident that measures he would be introducing over the coming months, including the extension of the points system to other offences, the roll-out of speed cameras countrywide and the introduction of full random breath testing, would make a significant contribution to reducing deaths and serious injuries on the roads.

a) Other offences like what?
b) More speed cameras for those of you who reckon there are only 5 in the state
c) Random breath testing? Why not follow this with random lifting of pedestrians to see if they are committing any crimes? Surely a breach of civil rights? Breath Testing under suspicion is one thing, but random is unbelievable.

Boggle

[see seumus' last post]

??? Not sure really what that means - how can you be punished by law without a conviction? Even if you plead guilty to a crime you must still be convicted....

Should bring this in for other minor crimes too if its not unconstitutional. Assault: 5 years penalty. Assault and conviction: 10 years... Obviously if the penalty points system were deemed constitutional then so must this.

seamus

Boggle wrote:

[see seumus' last post]

??? Not sure really what that means - how can you be punished by law without a conviction? Even if you plead guilty to a crime you must still be convicted....

Well I've always known that minor traffic offences weren't "permanent record" style punishments, but I had assumed they were still convictions of a sort. Perhaps not.

Should bring this in for other minor crimes too if its not unconstitutional. Assault: 5 years penalty. Assault and conviction: 10 years... Obviously if the penalty points system were deemed constitutional then so must this.

I'd assume it would be unconstitutional to lock up someone who hadn't been convicted of a crime (or had a trial pending). Dunno though.

ambro25

magpie wrote:

c) Random breath testing? Why not follow this with random lifting of pedestrians to see if they are committing any crimes? Surely a breach of civil rights? Breath Testing under suspicion is one thing, but random is unbelievable.

All for it, sorry mate. If there's no randmoness about it, there's no incentive for people to stop drink-driving. I've lived in France and the UK long enough to see the (very) vast difference in attitude of the general public about this, and a very revealing snapshot is to be had when you consider the propensity of people to use taxis when they go out: can't find one in France except perhaps Paris, beat'em off with a stick anywhere in the UK.

Being bashed upon for breaking speed limits (and ranting about same) is one thing: at the end of the day, the driver's got control of the car and its speed and driving over/at/under the speed limit is a conscious decision.

But driving with impaired vision/perception (of speed, distances, etc.) is totally different: the control's not all there, and anybody stating differently usually ends up around a tree (if practising the offense). And that's downright dangerous and unconscionable, not to say criminal should 'anything' happen as a result of a alcohol-induced error of judgment, God forbid!

AND I would like to see drugs testing as well (I've never done any, not even one drag of pot, but it is my understanding that the effects are similar - therefore, presumably, so is the driving ability impaired).

magpie

I understand your arguments, but where do you draw the line between increased safety and infringement of civil liberties?

It's like saying the police should be allowed to stop and strip search people randomly to deter terrorists.

Increased 'safety' and 'security' are very convenient ways for the police to get extra powers, and are usually based on very spurious statistics.

Attempts to introduce RBT in the UK have been thrown out http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3739599.stm.

edmund_f

doubt you would have to be worried about the Gardai infringing on yoru civil liberties. Based on their performance on enforcing speed limits, you would just have to look outside any pub carpark at about 12, and watch them breathalise anyone getting into cars. It would not have any affect on day to day driving