Traffic watch-My day in court

De Hipster

It is up to each citizen to uphold the law, it is NOT up to each citizen to supervise other individuals adherence to the law, that why the state police force exists.

The introduction of the traffic-watch vendetta-line is typical of this country & ridiculous at best that it be admissible in court, nevermind that the 'recollection of fact' is by an individual who is seeking retribution/comeuppance for an individual who 'in their limited capacity/opinion' has committed an offence...RIDICULOUS & only in Ireland!

De Hipster

amerden wrote:

It is the duty of EVERY citizen to uphold the law of the country they reside in and likewise if they see the law being broken or peoples life's being put at risk this should be reported to the appropriate authority.

If YOUR opinion is that it doesn't matter how you drive or how much danger YOU put others in, then you deserve to be called a "moron", I am not name calling, you will find that the meaning of "moron" is "a mentally deficient person", this I deduced from your previous statement.

As for your DRIVING record, carry on with the attitude that it is OK to overtake or cross double white lines and you will end up with a different kind of record, at best.

...a better definition of 'moron' might be : one who willing pays a fee to complain about others & therefore on a self-imposed moral high ground opts to take on the role of the police voluntarily...just my 2cents.

magpie

We need more trafffic police rather than an 1850 phone line whose sole purpose is to distract away from the real problem and give the Miss Marples of this world an outlet for their Famous Five inclinations.

amerden

De Hipster wrote:

It is up to each citizen to uphold the law, it is NOT up to each citizen to supervise other individuals adherence to the law, that why the state police force exists.

The introduction of the traffic-watch vendetta-line is typical of this country & ridiculous at best that it be admissible in court, nevermind that the 'recollection of fact' is by an individual who is seeking retribution/comeuppance for an individual who 'in their limited capacity/opinion' has committed an offence...RIDICULOUS & only in Ireland!

So are you saying that Bond-007 is seeking retribution towards this other driver and that he has "limited capacity" to make a judgment whether or not this individual was breaking the law or not.
Within his "limited capacity" he must have been right otherwise the police would not have prosecuted nor would the driver have admitted his guilt.
If this traffic watch prevents just ONE life from being lost, it could be yours, then it has worked.

Jip

impr0v wrote:

I rang 'grasswatch' yesterday ....
So I pulled in and rang the line, was put on hold for about 3 or 4 minutes, and was then told blunty by the female robot voice 'We are experiencing a very high level of calls to traffic watch and cannot take your call, please call again some other time' .......

I thought the traffic watch phone line was been done away with and you're just put directly through to the Gardai now ?

De Hipster

amerden wrote:

So are you saying that Bond-007 ... has "limited capacity" to make a judgment whether or not this individual was breaking the law or not.
QUOTE]

Unless he is a qualified lawyer, who's expertise lies in Irish Road Traffic acts or is a member of the garda traffic corp, then yes that is precisely what I'm saying.

amerden

De Hipster wrote:

amerden wrote:

So are you saying that Bond-007 ... has "limited capacity" to make a judgment whether or not this individual was breaking the law or not.
QUOTE]

Unless he is a qualified lawyer, who's expertise lies in Irish Road Traffic acts or is a member of the garda traffic corp, then yes that is precisely what I'm saying.

Well I presume that Bond-007 is like the MAJORITY of drivers in that he/she will have a good knowledge of the rules of the road and know what is right and wrong, but what you are really saying that it is perfectly OK to cross over a double white line to overtake putting other road users and yourself in danger, tell that to the parents of the next child that is killed by some lunatic that doesn't give a toss about anyone else.

You can break the law as long as you don't get caught

Comments like that only back up my previous conviction.

Borzoi

De Hipster wrote:

I'm not a cop or traffic professional so therefore my unqualified opinion would not or certainly SHOULD NOT hold up in court.
!

By your own standards, ie the criticism of unqualified opinion, and the follow up about the activities of the court I must conclude that you sir are a barrister/judge or solicitor.

How about we leave this to the courts.

Though I am interested in the €1 a mile expenses

528i

I know if someone pursued a case against me (and there have been 'incidents' ) that I'd have a friend (or three) report & take a case against them for something similar.

MrPudding

Yeah, it's more people like you our society really need.

MrP

Our man in Havana

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

528i

MrPudding wrote:

Yeah, it's more people like you our society really need.

MrP

I don't like your attitude bucko, Four Courts - 3 weeks - Dangerous driving - you're going down

De Hipster

What's the number again?...I'm almost positive I could have nearly witnessed some almost seriously lethal infringements that'd be worth weeks in court!

De Hipster

528i wrote:

I don't like your attitude bucko, Four Courts - 3 weeks - Dangerous driving - you're going down

I may have seen that too...what was he driving, where & when?

Jumpy

De Hipster wrote:

It is up to each citizen to uphold the law, it is NOT up to each citizen to supervise other individuals adherence to the law, that why the state police force exists.

The introduction of the traffic-watch vendetta-line is typical of this country & ridiculous at best that it be admissible in court, nevermind that the 'recollection of fact' is by an individual who is seeking retribution/comeuppance for an individual who 'in their limited capacity/opinion' has committed an offence...RIDICULOUS & only in Ireland!

Dont be an idiot... by your logic 999 shouldnt exist. Because its up to the state police force to identify and deal with crimes.

If I saw someone breaking the road laws in a dangerous manner I would report them and follow through in court.

amerden

Jumpy wrote:

Dont be an idiot... by your logic 999 shouldnt exist. Because its up to the state police force to identify and deal with crimes.

If I saw someone breaking the road laws in a dangerous manner I would report them and follow through in court.

Thank you Jumpy,

Someone with common sense.

De Hipster

Jumpy wrote:

Dont be an idiot... by your logic 999 shouldnt exist. Because its up to the state police force to identify and deal with crimes.

If I saw someone breaking the road laws in a dangerous manner I would report them and follow through in court.

It's not up to you to prove & follow through court, that's what we have a state police force for.

If I thought someone committed murder would it stand up in court on my say so alone with no proof or investigation...I'd sincerely hope not!

Jumpy

De Hipster wrote:

It's not up to you to prove & follow through court, that's what we have a state police force for.

If I thought someone committed murder would it stand up in court on my say so alone with no proof or investigation...I'd sincerely hope not!

You as a witness stands as proof mate. Its up to the judge and jury.

However...

If you have read through the thread from start to finish you would notice that the individual in question has admitted to the dangerous driving offense. A confession is enough to convict. Normally though a second witness is required. However I am sure that if the accused has a poor driving record then he can still be convicted on a 'your word against mine' situation.

Jumpy

De Hipster wrote:

It's not up to you to prove & follow through court, that's what we have a state police force for.

Also... you have obviously never been in an accident, the Gardai will do anything and everything to try and wiggle out of making any sort of decisions unless someone is injured. Its up to you and a solicitor, the gardai assume they have better things to do.

amerden

De Hipster wrote:

It's not up to you to prove & follow through court, that's what we have a state police force for.

And what do you think they did in this case, took the driver to court.

They have a witness, the driver admitted the offense.

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.