Traffic watch-My day in court

De Hipster

Jumpy wrote:

he can still be convicted on a 'your word against mine' situation.

That's my point!

It's ridiculous that I could theoretically claim you overtook me at dangerous speed, on a continuous white line, while tuning the radio & snogging his girlfriend & almost causing me to mow down a group of small children and crash into a field of innocent new born lambs ...'no I didn't', 'yes you did', there is little or no burden of proof, if anything the accused would have to prove that the allegation was untrue...all hearsay & conjecture.

amerden

Read Jumpy's post again in its entirety.

Jumpy

De Hipster wrote:

That's my point!

It's ridiculous that I could theoretically claim you overtook me at dangerous speed, on a continuous white line, while tuning the radio & snogging his girlfriend & almost causing me to mow down a group of small children and crash into a field of innocent new born lambs ...'no I didn't', 'yes you did', there is little or no burden of proof, if anything the accused would have to prove that the allegation was untrue...all hearsay & conjecture.

It would depend on a lot of factors. No judge would just say "Screw you, I dont like the cut of your jib" and charge you. But if you have a poor driving record and have had Trafficwatch calls made against you before, then to be honest it is safer to have you off the road.

De Hipster

amerden wrote:

Read Jumpy's post again in its entirety.

I know what the post said, I'm still surprised that so many people are accepting of school yard tell tales & as they were previously referred to as budding Miss Marples...get a life if the one you have isn't sufficiently interesting.

unkel

Bond-007 wrote:

€1 a mile is the standard civil service rate for mileage expsenses.

In fact it is €1.1639 per mile for miles <4000 per year and a car of at least 1501cc

Any answers anyone to my basic questions? Maybe yourself Bond? You seem to be pretty knowledgeable on things legal

amerden

De Hipster wrote:

I know what the post said, I'm still surprised that so many people are accepting of school yard tell tales & as they were previously referred to as budding Miss Marples...get a life if the one you have isn't sufficiently interesting.

Obviously you need to give those brain cells another rub, and READ Jumpy's post AGAIN.

amerden

De Hipster,

I get the strange feeling, because of your prolonged protestations, that you must have been a victim of this traffic line.

De Hipster

amerden wrote:

De Hipster,

I get the strange feeling, because of your prolonged protestations, that you must have been a victim of this traffic line.

Bizzarely not, I'm afraid. I just don't have any comprehension of the mentality of individuals to take joy or satisfaction from reporting people in this way...as I said perhaps my life is interesting enough as is, without the adreneline rush of squealing on fellow road users.

amerden

De Hipster wrote:

Bizzarely not, I'm afraid. I just don't have any comprehension of the mentality of individuals to take joy or satisfaction from reporting people in this way...as I said perhaps my life is interesting enough as is, without the adreneline rush of squealing on fellow road users.

You just don't get the point do you, this is not some snitch telling tales at school, this is trying to save lives, even yours.

I have never used this telephone line, but after the success of Bond-007 I would consider it in future, if I thought the infringement warranted it.

Our man in Havana

unkel wrote:

If he's pleading guilty, do you still need a witness?

And if he's pleading not guilty and there is only one witness (yourself) is that enough proof? One word against one word?

Indeed it would boil down to one persons word against another, but it would hinge on who is more believeable, the witness or the defendant.

When I was told that it was going to court I was not promised in any way there would be a conviction. Infact I think its a long shot.

The fact he failed to show would tend to lend more crediabilty to the witnesses account.

Alun

It's not "squealing", or "grassing", or "telling tales" ... this isn't the criminal underworld, or the school playground we're talking about here, you know. If you saw someone breaking into the house next door, what would you do? Let him get on with it, and tell your neighbour when he got back that you didn't want to "squeal" on the poor burglar? What's the difference between this and seeing someone put other road users' lives at risk with their stupid behaviour?

De Hipster

Alun wrote:

It's not "squealing", or "grassing", or "telling tales" ... this isn't the criminal underworld, or the school playground we're talking about here, you know. If you saw someone breaking into the house next door, what would you do? Let him get on with it, and tell your neighbour when he got back that you didn't want to "squeal" on the poor burglar? What's the difference between this and seeing someone put other road users' lives at risk with their stupid behaviour?

Based on the unqualified opinion of another road user.

What I think is dangerous could be a perfectly legitimate manoeuvre & vice versa. The point is that it is the word of one road user against another, I could report a vehicle imbelish the story because I didn't like the fact that I was overtaken period...this system is open to all sorts of abuse. It should not be treated as credible by the courts.

MrPudding

De Hipster wrote:

Based on the unqualified opinion of another road user.

What I think is dangerous could be a perfectly legitimate manoeuvre & vice versa. The point is that it is the word of one road user against another, I could report a vehicle imbelish the story because I didn't like the fact that I was overtaken period...this system is open to all sorts of abuse. It should not be treated as credible by the courts.

It could be argued that someone that has passed and driving test, thereby showing an ability to drive safely, could be expected to give a reasonalbly qualified opinion of what is or is not dangerous.

As others have mentioned, this is not that much different from reporting any other crime, or alledged crime.

Are you actually trying to say that, in this case, overtaking on a blind corner having crossed 2 solid lines (which are there presumably because someone has decided it would be dangerous to change lane here) is not dangerous?

It would be interesting to see how a contested case is handled.

MrP

De Hipster

MrPudding wrote:

It could be argued that someone that has passed and driving test, thereby showing an ability to drive safely, could be expected to give a reasonalbly qualified opinion of what is or is not dangerous.

As others have mentioned, this is not that much different from reporting any other crime, or alledged crime.

Are you actually trying to say that, in this case, overtaking on a blind corner having crossed 2 solid lines (which are there presumably because someone has decided it would be dangerous to change lane here) is not dangerous?

It would be interesting to see how a contested case is handled.

MrP

One could assume that the driver doing the alleged overtaking has also passed a driving test, therefore nullifying the argument that this suffices for qualified opinion of what is and is not safe on the roads.

My objection is that there is no burden of proof, I say your driving was dangerous, you say it wasn't ...the court decides with no footage of the incident, additional witnesses or garda corroboration of events.

I would lalso like to see the outcome of a contested case, I still do not agree with the methodology of such a system.

mike65

amerden wrote:

You just don't get the point do you, this is not some snitch telling tales at school, this is trying to save lives, even yours.

I have never used this telephone line, but after the success of Bond-007 I would consider it in future, if I thought the infringement warranted it.

The Traffic Watch scheme is being wound down I posted about it here a few weeks back.

Mike.

Our man in Havana

mike65 wrote:

The Traffic Watch scheme is being wound down I posted about it here a few weeks back.

Mike.

This is true sadly

Only 30 prosecutions in the whole scheme. Shame.

kdevitt

Phoning a hotline where you can inform the guards of a maniac on the roads, and let the guards send out a car to investigate = very good idea

Phoning a hotline, and being able to go to court with no other evidence except your word against theirs = very bad idea

Have seen these courts in action - you may get a judge who thinks the guy who should be locked up, and on the other hand you may get a judge who thinks you're wasting his time. Slap on the wrist and small fine I'd imagine will be in store for the guy.

528i

Gardai should now seek to prosecute all those idiots who undoubtably phoned in from their mobile phones while driving

Seth Brundle

528i wrote:

Gardai should now seek to prosecute all those idiots who undoubtably phoned in from their mobile phones while driving

I mentioned before about a friend driving towards Dublin on the M7 and was overtaken by a car which was missing a tyre and had sparks flying everywhere (his speed was estimated at about 100mph).
When he rang Naas gardai, the garda showed little interest in the lunatic on 3 wheels and my friend was told off for using his phone whilst driving! :rolleyes:

MrPudding

De Hipster wrote:

One could assume that the driver doing the alleged overtaking has also passed a driving test, therefore nullifying the argument that this suffices for qualified opinion of what is and is not safe on the roads.

On the contrary, given that the person in question admitted to the offense shows that he did, in fact, know that what he was doing was dangerous driving.

You are confusing not knowing what dangerous driving is with knowing what it is but doing it anyway.

EDIT: Exactly why, in this country, must one assume that because someone is driving on public roads that they have sat and or passed a driving test?

MrP

unkel

kdevitt wrote:

Phoning a hotline where you can inform the guards of a maniac on the roads, and let the guards send out a car to investigate = very good idea

Phoning a hotline, and being able to go to court with no other evidence except your word against theirs = very bad idea

Have seen these courts in action - you may get a judge who thinks the guy who should be locked up, and on the other hand you may get a judge who thinks you're wasting his time. Slap on the wrist and small fine I'd imagine will be in store for the guy.

Couldn't agree more with those two points, kdevitt

lomb

the country is going mad,, i cant believe the court system is taking people like oo7 seriously, if i was the boy racer i would turn up and say i wasnt even there. prove it..

typical irish begrudgery.... leave the law to the police.

Jumpy

lomb wrote:

the country is going mad,, i cant believe the court system is taking people like oo7 seriously, if i was the boy racer i would turn up and say i wasnt even there. prove it..

typical irish begrudgery.... leave the law to the police.

Begrudgery?

*sigh* I will be the first to admit the the irish are begrudgers, but I would suggest looking up the meaning of the word.

You have no traffic corps. The only way to get retards like that particular boy racer to court is to use your own iniative.

I hardly think people are going to go "Oh I am so jealous of the Micra with an exhaust I can fit my head in that I am going to ring trafficwatch on him"

lomb

Jumpy wrote:

Begrudgery?

*sigh* I will be the first to admit the the irish are begrudgers, but I would suggest looking up the meaning of the word.

You have no traffic corps. The only way to get retards like that particular boy racer to court is to use your own iniative.

I hardly think people are going to go "Oh I am so jealous of the Micra with an exhaust I can fit my head in that I am going to ring trafficwatch on him"

no but i object to stupid laws, an increase in regulation where someone who isnt trained can waste ur day in court because they dont like the look of u. what a joke, only in ireland! where does it end?this isnt a nanny state this is the free state!

Jumpy

lomb wrote:

no but i object to stupid laws, an increase in regulation where someone who isnt trained can waste ur day in court because they dont like the look of u. what a joke, only in ireland! where does it end?this isnt a nanny state this is the free state!

Because they dont like the look of you.... jesus.

If you drive stupidly on the road, putting others at risk it is not because they dont like the look of you. Its because they dont appreciate an asshole believing that he is invincible not considering the safety of others.

Also this is a messageboard, not a mobile phone, write full words.

amerden

Its quite obvious from some posts here that those who object to this phone line are the very drivers (so called) that think they can do what they like on the PUBLIC (all the citizens of this country) ROADS, if these so called drivers drove within the law and with consideration to other road users they would have nothing to fear, it is only because they do NOT that they object.

As previously stated, the Police will not bring a case to court unless they have sufficient proof, as in Bond-007's case the driver admitted his actions, also we do not know how many other GOOD CITIZENS had previously reported this moron for his driving.

Norinoco

This morning on the red cow roundabout, a silver ford fiesta went from the inside lane, across the middle lane ( nearly hitting a car) and then in to the outside lane, missing my car by an inch because I swerved and nearly hit the barrier over the M50.

I blew the horn and and both of us slowed down - then the car in front with 4 grown men all stuck the fingers up and took off laughing their heads off.

Got the number plate.

I was furoius - called traffic watch ( no answer!). Called tallaght garda station and was advised to call in to clonsilla garda station to make a statement.

Currently getting a background check done on him so see if there would be a case - if he has background history of this. Not going to waste my time going to court for a his word against mine. ( although i think there maybe cameras on the red cow roundabout)

In 007's case, he was fortunate that the other guy admitted and not turning up to court was a big mistake on his part. I hope they throw the book at him.

amerden

Good on you Norinoco, a few more GOOD CITIZENS like yourself and the Irish roads would be a safer place to drive.

Even if all the Police do is talk to this PRAT he will think twice before he puts others at risk in the future.

ambro25

Just remember that... "don't do to others what ye wouldn't be done unto you" (or words to that effect).

Noonbe will ever be able to garantee any "rat-a-moron (or crim')" -type system free of, or closed to, abuse, and certainly no such system would and should ever replace good policing... by Police, (i) professionally trained and (ii) legally sworn to (iii) enforce statutes.

[note (i) and (ii) required to do (iii) efficiently, IMCO, irrespectively of any opinions about the proficiency of Gardai and all that: having either (i), or (ii), or none is no different from a marauding band of Mugabe supporters.]

Not saying 007 is wrong pursuing the Court thing inasmuch as I'm inclined to give him some credence about the dangerous driving thing, just that "rat-a-moron" phone lines are a dangerous sub-system/component of the legal system and -from reading another post in the thread- thankfully being wound down.

My two cents.

De Hipster

amerden wrote:

Its quite obvious from some posts here that those who object to this phone line are the very drivers (so called) that think they can do what they like on the PUBLIC (all the citizens of this country) ROADS, if these so called drivers drove within the law and with consideration to other road users they would have nothing to fear, it is only because they do NOT that they object.

That's the most ridiculous thing I read here yet

It's the good old Irish attitude of "Look at the eyes on him Mary, sure he's up to something"...because some disagree with the system & question your faith in such a misguided method of law enforcement you tar us all as wreckless road-hogging lunatics, as I stated previously, my spotless, conviction & warning free, crash free driving speaks for itself ...ah go ring traffic watch & report me, i'll even give you my reg.

De Hipster

kdevitt wrote:

Phoning a hotline where you can inform the guards of a maniac on the roads, and let the guards send out a car to investigate = very good idea

Phoning a hotline, and being able to go to court with no other evidence except your word against theirs = very bad idea

Have seen these courts in action - you may get a judge who thinks the guy who should be locked up, and on the other hand you may get a judge who thinks you're wasting his time. Slap on the wrist and small fine I'd imagine will be in store for the guy.

At last common sense!

Norinoco

ambro25 wrote:

Just remember that... "don't do to others what ye wouldn't be done unto you" (or words to that effect).

Easier said than done - I would have given anything to sent that muppet this morning flying at the barrier of a bridge over the M50 at rush hour.

It maybe possible that I am going after him for revenge rather than the good of others!

kdevitt

@Amerden - whats the story with putting every second word in CAPS... its highly irritating

Anyway - the way Traffic watch was setup obviously hasn't worked, or else it wouldn't be winding down. Its open to serious abuse by those with a grudge against others.

That said, I have phoned my local station when I've seen people driving like lunatics (someone driving round the round side of a roundabout etc) but purely in case theres a squad car floating around that might catch them in the vacinity doing something similar. Theres needs to be more evidence than just my word in a case like this - its not exactly like pointing out a murderer in a lineup.

Jumpy

Norinoco wrote:

Easier said than done - I would have given anything to sent that muppet this morning flying at the barrier of a bridge over the M50 at rush hour.

It maybe possible that I am going after him for revenge rather than the good of others!

Well in this case, your revenge serves the greater good.

prospect

1. I honestly can't see why anyone here is on bond007's case. The phone line is there to be used, and that is what he did! I say fair play, even if the offender isn't convicted, hopefully he/she will be more aware that other road users won't tolerate his/her dangerous, selfish driving manner.

2. 'Unqualified opinon' WTF? The vehicle performed an overtaking manouvre on a solid white line. That is breaking the law? What qualification is needed to recognise that?

3. All crimes witnessed by the public should be reported, this applies to people breaking the rules of the road. The Gardaí can't be everywhere, all the time!

4. There should definitly be more traffic corps out there. Every day I witness idiots doing the stupidest of things, and ignoring the simplest of road rules.

5. I think there is a strong possability there are one or two trolls knocking around this thread. A guy witnesses someone breaking the law. He rings a government phoneline (put there for reporting traffic violations), and reports it. The cogs turn and the offender is brought to court for a fair hearing. And some of you guys start abusing the OP. I feel these may be the posts of either trolls, or people guilty of regular dangerous driving who fear a law abiding citizen reporting them!

prospect

kdevitt wrote:

Anyway - the way Traffic watch was setup obviously hasn't worked, or else it wouldn't be winding down. Its open to serious abuse by those with a grudge against others.

Hmmmm, not necessarily true. Maybe the introduction and expansion of a Garda Traffic Corps has filled the gap that the phone line was originally introduced for.

amerden

prospect wrote:

1. I honestly can't see why anyone here is on bond007's case. The phone line is there to be used, and that is what he did! I say fair play, even if the offender isn't convicted, hopefully he/she will be more aware that other road users won't tolerate his/her dangerous, selfish driving manner.

2. 'Unqualified opinon' WTF? The vehicle performed an overtaking manouvre on a solid white line. That is breaking the law? What qualification is needed to recognise that?

3. All crimes witnessed by the public should be reported, this applies to people breaking the rules of the road. The Gardaí can't be everywhere, all the time!

4. There should definitly be more traffic corps out there. Every day I witness idiots doing the stupidest of things, and ignoring the simplest of road rules.

5. I think there is a strong possability there are one or two trolls knocking around this thread. A guy witnesses someone breaking the law. He rings a government phoneline (put there for reporting traffic violations), and reports it. The cogs turn and the offender is brought to court for a fair hearing. And some of you guys start abusing the OP. I feel these may be the posts of either trolls, or people guilty of regular dangerous driving who fear a law abiding citizen reporting them!

My views entirely Prospect, well put.

I suspect you are right about SOME posts here, they protest too much.

Seth Brundle

kdevitt wrote:

Have seen these courts in action - you may get a judge who thinks the guy who should be locked up, and on the other hand you may get a judge who thinks you're wasting his time. Slap on the wrist and small fine I'd imagine will be in store for the guy.

It may be the latter if this judge is sitting...
www.rte.ie/news/2002/0905/motorist.html

Jumpy

kbannon wrote:

It may be the latter if this judge is sitting...
www.rte.ie/news/2002/0905/motorist.html

I agree with that though... driving under 50 on a straight road also merits dargerous driving in my book.
Although if I was driving 60 on a dodgy country road and got overtaken I would crucify them.

amerden

kbannon wrote:

It may be the latter if this judge is sitting...
www.rte.ie/news/2002/0905/motorist.html

Thats a very good article and I think the Judge was right in his opinion of the slow driver, they can be just as dangerous as the fools that cross over double white lines to overtake a line of cars, both these type of people are a spin off of the poor driving standards in this country, no proper training and being allowed to drive on provisional licenses and for some older drivers just given a driving a licence without ever doing a test.

Boggle

I honestly can't see why anyone here is on bond007's case. The phone line is there to be used, and that is what he did! I say fair play, even if the offender isn't convicted, hopefully he/she will be more aware that other road users won't tolerate his/her dangerous, selfish driving manner.

I don't think anyone should be critisizing 007 as he did witness a blatantly dangerous maneouvre. What De Hipster is getting at (I think) is that this system is totally prone to abuse.

As for the scheme being wound down, I have to say that I'm glad as I was nearly the victim of some prick once. (Overtook some lad in a van doin 50 on a normal enough stretch but he decided to accelerate to try and push me back I guess. Long story short I had a bit left so went past him regardless and the vindictive fcuk reported me for dangerous overtaking or something. Explained to the gard what happened but only for a prefect driving record, I'm not sure if the cnut couldn't have made life very difficult for me. )

mcguiver

Scheme was a disaster alright,
Like the case of the off duty Garda, car on front is acting dangerously, wandering from lane to lane ..not indicating. So he comes to a set of red lights... he hops out runs up to the car and tells them their drivings terrible and that the cars behind are in danger etc...but doesn't identify himself as a cop.

So he drives off, half an hour later he gets a call from the station to say he's been reported as driving dangerously ... everyone who's been pi**ed off by another driver can call in and waste time+ resources.

How many drivers do we see every day who don't know how to use a roundabout/ yellow box junction ?? They think they're right (as we all do) so they can then phone in etc.. etc..

The theory is good ..but!! Roll on a dedicated traffic corp

De Hipster

Boggle wrote:

I don't think anyone should be critisizing 007 as he did witness a blatantly dangerous maneouvre. What De Hipster is getting at (I think) is that this system is totally prone to abuse.

As for the scheme being wound down, I have to say that I'm glad as I was nearly the victim of some prick once. (Overtook some lad in a van doin 50 on a normal enough stretch but he decided to accelerate to try and push me back I guess. Long story short I had a bit left so went past him regardless and the vindictive fcuk reported me for dangerous overtaking or something. Explained to the gard what happened but only for a prefect driving record, I'm not sure if the cnut couldn't have made life very difficult for me. )

Nail on head there Boggle.

Coupled with the fact that the guard takes the word of one against another, with no substansiating evidence...

Dilbert75

Like 007, I've used Traffic Watch to report some instances of (very) dangerous driving I've observed on my commute to work. If all it achieved was to get someone stopped and warned to slow down, that'd be good enough. Unfortunately it never did. Invariably I found myself behind the morons at the first set of lights we met and never a Guard in sight.

Our man in Havana

Result: €500 fine or 1 month in Jail. Judge gave a very severe ticking off.

Funxy

What a stupid choice really ..... i mean as if anyone would pick a month in jail over 500 euros Not surprised the judge was harsh if he was a no show on first day of case tho ...

unkel

Any peno points?

Our man in Havana

No points, he had a foreign licence anyways.

Super led me thru my evidence and he simply said that my testimony was accuarte and he pleaded guilty.

Corben Dallas

Funxy ever thought that someone might be unable/unwilling to pay the € 500?

its either or.

I think that phone service should be used to track the looneys on our roads , if someones regularly keeps getting reported (by different ppl) it would give the guards a pretty good case to do them, or just follow them on any given day and get all the info they need on how bad/dangerous a driver they are.

But it should be a matter for the guards only, not Joe versus Mick in court.

kdevitt

Thats really pissed me off - thats twice the fine some wanker got for driving uninsured, ploughing into the side of my car, and giving wrong details at the scene of the accident.

****ing judicial system needs a bit of consistency.