Question re. garda speed checkpoint/trap

glynf

Got a call from the mother earlier, caught doing 57kph in a 50kph zone, needless to say she feels a bit ticked off,(the reckless lunatic that she is ) she was in the wrong, but lets face it, 7kph is not much over.
Turns out the boys in blue were tucked nicely into a hedge at the end of the 50 zone, where people tend to speed up to 80, were not wearing their hi-visability jackets, just plain blue uniform, and had their squad parked around the corner in a car park.
Does anybody know what the legal position on the jackets is?
Are they not meant to be clearly visable to motorists, and should the car be visable also?

Our man in Havana

You can huff and puff all you like but 57km/h in a 50 is still an offence. She better pay up for get a roasting in court.

glynf

As stated above, she was in the wrong, but I was under the impression that the guards should be visable, etc.
If the way she was caught is questionable, does she have the right and a good reason to appeal?

Our man in Havana

nope, speeding is an absolute offence. No real grounds for appeal.

Guy:Incognito

glynf wrote:

Does anybody know what the legal position on the jackets is?
Are they not meant to be clearly visable to motorists, and should the car be visable also?

Course they do, and they have to put a sign up 500 yards down the road saying they are up ahead . :rolleyes:

Running Bing

you must be joking. how else would the government make millions off motorists going 5kmh over the spead limit on huge open roads?

Msfc

no guards dont have to give warnings to motorists that they are doing speed checks.. how else would they catch people out?? nor do they have to wear their bright jackets!

layke

Babybing wrote:

you must be joking. how else would the government make millions off motorists going 5kmh over the spead limit on huge open roads?

I'd say it has more to do with the 'quota' they have to fill.

You know they HAVE to catch xx amount per month to make it look like they are doing their job.

I haven't been caught speeding myself so i'm not sure how it works. Can you pay your fines at the local garda office? Or do you still have to tie up the courts with silly things like this?

As for appealing, you may as well, half the court stories i've heard have involved the guards not showing up and the offender getting off scott free.

ando

7kph is like what, 4 mph? I'd hardly call that speeding. You could possibly challenge that in court, the detector could be out of alignment or whatever you call it.

kippy

In my opinion-
She has no leg to stand on-pay the fine, take the points-it wont affect insurance in any way with most companies expecially for a woman.
Challanging it will result in legal fees, hassle, etc etc. And most definetly will not change the outcome.

Kippy

IDMUD

There's a margin of error used on the detectors, in sweden it's 3 kph. Getting tickited for 4 kph over the limit is madness and should be taken to court, i know i would.

PowerHouseDan

Chances are it ignored what prove do they have it was her that was going 57km could of been the car before her. Appeal.

IDMUD wrote:

There's a margin of error used on the detectors, in sweden it's 3 kph. Getting tickited for 4 kph over the limit is madness and should be taken to court, i know i would.

murphaph

It sounds like they were performing the speed check in a good location (for a change). You say it was a 50 zone just before an 80? Coming out of a built up area? These are the places that kiddies are killed. Pay the fine, and slow down.

I know we all get p!ssed of at An Garda Siochana when they sit on a dual carriageway and nail people for doing slightly over a clearly ridiculous limit, but this sounds like a built up area.

To those who say "it's only 4 mph etc.";

Boggle

You can huff and puff all you like but 57km/h in a 50 is still an offence.

nope, speeding is an absolute offence. No real grounds for appeal.

She has no leg to stand on-pay the fine, take the points-

Om my sweet jesus... tell me lads would ye honestly think the same things ifit happened to you?? Everyone drifts slightly above the sped limits on some sections of roads - "D'YA WANNA KNOW WHYYY???": Cos the majority of speed limits are poorly devised (ie picked out of thin air) and overextended, resulting in people adjusting their speed to what they feel is more appropriate for the conditions. And funnily enough, studies have shown that the vast majority of motorists will ajways adjust their speeds to the condition/situations presented.

Why do you think the standard of driving is so ****e?? Cos the common sense aspect of driving is being replaced with blind obedience as displayed by the comments above.

To those who say "it's only 4 mph etc.";(...insert cool picture)

If I came up with a cool campaign swearing that the world was flat would you follow that too?? ...Don't you think you'd hit the brakes before hittin something - ergo don't you think her speed would be below thirty?? Also, since when is it bloody safe to hit a kid at 30 mph as in ur poster??

God, the hullibility of some people at home kills me - look at england, their speeds are vastly higher than ours but they have a better fatality rate per capita than at home. They barely prosecute for speed over here - and in order to put up a speed camera they have to prove that there is an accident rate in the area which justifies that camera...

(Enjoy ur privatised (rape) camera's!)

[End of rant]

kippy

Boogle,
I think you've missed the point.
The person was CAUGHT going over the legal speed limit for that area of the road.
Whether or not the limit was correct or the merits of speed cameras is not the issue.
The law was broken-the person was caught breaking the law by the Gardai-be responsible for your actions-take the points/fine-it wont affect your insurance and going to court will cost you money and time and still not result in the issue being resolved to your satisfaction.
Back onto your point about speed limits in certain areas-indeed some speed limits are stupidly imposed however you do not know enough about this case to say that the limit was wrong or over extended.
Simple facts are there to tell you that a large number of fatalaties are caused by excessive speed coupled with dangerous driving/overtaking. In built up areas speed limits should be adhered to-no matter how skilled a driver you are at judging the conditions-they are there for a reason.
I'd like to see you come up with a campaign about the world being flat because it'd be funny-completely different to the one here. The one here is based on SCIENTIFIC FACT and is harsh in order to strike a chord in drivers minds.
Kippy

Boggle

I think you've missed the point.

Did I? Maybe ur the one who lissed the point...

Whether or not the limit was correct or the merits of speed cameras is not the issue.

Why isn't it? Was she driving dangerously? If she was then she should be done for Dangerous Driving - otherwise she should not be treated like a handy little cash cow.

The law was broken-the person was caught breaking the law by the Gardai-be responsible for your actions-take the points/fine-it wont affect your insurance and going to court will cost you money and time and still not result in the issue being resolved to your satisfaction.

How do you know?? Why do you think they punish you for going to court? Cos it costs them money too and there are so many flaws in Irish laws that they're terrified of them being exposed. (printout being one example - the unconstitutionality of the above being another)

In built up areas speed limits should be adhered to-no matter how skilled a driver you are at judging the conditions-they are there for a reason.

Define a built up area. So you are now advocating a one size fits all speed limit approach, despite just admitting that one size fits all is a tstupid idea.

Simple facts are there to tell you that a large number of fatalaties are caused by excessive speed coupled with dangerous driving/overtaking.

The one here is based on SCIENTIFIC FACT and is harsh in order to strike a chord in drivers minds.

As has been said before, poor roads, poor driving and mistakes cause accidents. I'd like to see your scientific fact... by which I mean independent data - not just the govt/insurance comanies word for it. (2 guesses who benefits from all the talk about speed killing!)

Da Bounca

layke wrote:

As for appealing, you may as well, half the court stories i've heard have involved the guards not showing up and the offender getting off scott free.

That is the only thing that needs to be listened to.

kippy

As has been said before, poor roads, poor driving and mistakes cause accidents. I'd like to see your scientific fact... by which I mean independent data - not just the govt/insurance comanies word for it. (2 guesses who benefits from all the talk about speed killing!)

Driving too fast on poor roads, poor driving-like overtaking on blind bends, mistakes-driving too fast......all cause accidents......
The only report I could find on the issue:
http://www.nsc.ie/RoadSafety/RoadSafetyIssues/
I realise it is not independant however please show me one that is....
Since it is from the NSC I would think it is truthful.

Why isn't it? Was she driving dangerously? If she was then she should be done for Dangerous Driving - otherwise she should not be treated like a handy little cash cow.

I dont think anyone ever said that she was driving dangerously-she was just breaking the speed limit in the area. Hence breaking the law-and getting caught for it.

How do you know?? Why do you think they punish you for going to court? Cos it costs them money too and there are so many flaws in Irish laws that they're terrified of them being exposed. (printout being one example - the unconstitutionality of the above being another)

The punish you for going to court only if you have broken the law-which in these instance appears to be the case. If it is proven in court that you have not proken the law then you are not punished.....pretty much justice at work.

Define a built up area. So you are now advocating a one size fits all speed limit approach, despite just admitting that one size fits all is a tstupid idea.

For your information:
http://www.eionet.eu.int/gemet/concept?cp=1065

I did not say one size fits all is a stupid idea-please read my remark again.

And funnily enough, studies have shown that the vast majority of motorists will ajways adjust their speeds to the condition/situations presented.

Indeed, the the minority will too-these minority who potentiall cause the accidents which in some/a lot of cases involve the majority you speak of. For this minority we have speed limits and laws which prosecute when the limits are broken.

Bottom line on this post as we have gone completely off topic.
Law has been broken which woman admits to-however small over the limit you were or however stupid the limit was. Take the points and the fine-its not going to be a big enough issue to make all the hassle of going to court over.
Kippy

murphaph

Boggle wrote:

If I came up with a cool campaign swearing that the world was flat would you follow that too??

If your campaign had scientific fact to disprove our centuries of accumulated knowledge which leads us to the conclusion that the world is spherical then I might. I doubt you'll find such fact.

Boggle wrote:

...Don't you think you'd hit the brakes before hittin something - ergo don't you think her speed would be below thirty??

The poster was posted in response to someone who claimed 4mph was insignificant. It highlights that just a few mph is very significant when striking a child's head. In any case-by your 'logic' if I have a better braking system than the next car, I should be able to travel faster than it in mine. How would you enforce this 'logic'? How would you set speed limits? Different for every car? Perhaps every driver could be tested for their reaction time and those posessing sharper reactions should be licenced to drive at 35mph? :rolleyes:

Boggle wrote:

Also, since when is it bloody safe to hit a kid at 30 mph as in ur poster??

It's never safe to strike a child with a motor vehicle. There's a 1 in five chance the child will be fatally injured when struck at 30mph. There's a 4 in 5 chance at 40mph. 10mph more makes a fatality 4 times more likely. 4mph is significant in this context, what part of this don't you understand?

Boggle wrote:

God, the hullibility [sic] of some people at home kills me - look at england, their speeds are vastly higher than ours

Proof? Statistics?

Boggle wrote:

but they have a better fatality rate per capita than at home.

Specious reasoning.

Boggle wrote:

They barely prosecute for speed over here

Hmmm, facts figures? That's not the impression get to be honest.

mike65

Boggle you sound like the sort of chap who rages against the sky when it rains!

The law is the law even when its an ass. If you want to debate speed limits then start a fresh thread.

Mike.

glynf

Re. the original post, I have found out since(from a solicitor)the guards legaly have to wear the jackets, they must be visable-as much for their own saftey as any other reason.
And the garda car/jeep/van must also be clearly visable, I was told keep an eye out for mondeo estates with their boot lid open fully to hide the lights and yellow stripe on the back door, the latest tactic...
My mum is paying the fine, she's just not happy with the under hand way she was caught.
If it was me, I would go to court, I have little or no respect for the majority of guards any more, ever since my girlfriend was mugged at knife point
off Grafton St. on a sat. afternoon last year, and it took them over 1hour to get there-and tell her:
"relax-youll be all right, they're long gone." :rolleyes:
But thats just me.

Guy:Incognito

glynf wrote:

My mum is paying the fine, she's just not happy with the under hand way she was caught..

But can she not see the logic that if she wasnt breaking the law it wouldnt matter who was hiding where.?

BrianD

Yawn yawn

1) Your mother was over the stated speed limit. She should take her points and be more attentive in future. There used to be a rule of tumb that there was a 10% tolerance rate. Therefore up to 55 she'd be good over and she's not.

2) The gardai can wear what they like. Apparently if they are addressing you and issuing a ticket they are supposed to wear their hat. This is how you know it's areal garda!! Bizarre.

3) You argue all you like about the rationale behind speedlimits. The bottom line is that once they are posted the onus is on you the driver to heed it. SLOPPY and CARELESS drivers use the speed limit appropriatness arguement to justify their careless driving. Speed limits are just one of many things in life that can be illogical, unfair or just odd. Pay attention and get on with it.

I suggest that she doesn't waste her money and the taxpayers money and takes her due punishment.

glynf

Stekelly wrote:

But can she not see the logic that if she wasnt breaking the law it wouldnt matter who was hiding where.?

I'll point that out next time I'm home-shee might have cooled down by then
What pisses me off is she will probably spend more time checking her speedo every time she enters a built up area than watching whats happening around her, imo much more dangerous than a few kph over the limit.(que moral brow beating...)

stag39

Brian D Quote <<1) Your mother was over the stated speed limit. She should take her points and be more attentive in future. There used to be a rule of tumb that there was a 10% tolerance rate. Therefore up to 55 she'd be good over and she's not.>>

just to point out... 10% of mph does not equal 10% of kph...

the reason for this tolerance is that the speedo's aren't calibrated exactly...

that said the speedo is made by the manufacturer to read above the road speed by a small amount..as far as i recall..

jayok

just to point out... 10% of mph does not equal 10% of kph...

Actually it does, the conversion between MPH and KPH is perfectly linear. As such 10% of the limit in MPH will convert to 10% of the limit in KPH. I could use linear algebra to prove it but it's hard to type math in this screen. Suffice to say

10% of 50mph = 5mph
10% of 80km/hr = 8km/hr

55mph = 88km/hr (or thereabouts!)

:cool:

unkel

jayok wrote:

I could use linear algebra to prove it

Long time no see that

DubTony

The last time I was done for speeding (a month before penalty points came in) was on Tallaght by-pass at Cheeverstown House. Two bike cops were standing behind their bikes in the shoulder. (No lights on, no yellows on, helmets in the panier and the Garda cap on.) Didn't see them until the blues were flashed and one of them stepped out waving a red light thing. So it seems that they dont have to be visible. Wouldn't be any fun for them if they were. Interestingly, the bikes were facing oncoming traffic. I suppose this was to ensure that their rear reflectors didn't show.

I've heard that British cops use a "+10% +2mph tolerance"
So a 50 mph limit would allow 57mph. Looks like our guys don't use it. Although, 57 kmh in a 50 kmh zone, depending on what sort of road it is, could be seen to be dangerous.

Seth Brundle

Gardai just need to state that you were over the limit.
You possibly won't get any proof that you were over the limit.
You can't ask if the equipment is properly calibrated - you must presume that it is.
You are not entitled to 10% tolerance.
The garda's word is pretty much final!

Victor

glynf wrote:

Re. the original post, I have found out since(from a solicitor)the guards legaly have to wear the jackets, they must be visable-as much for their own saftey as any other reason.

They have to wear their **uniform**. There are variations in the uniform and they oinly need to conform to Garda Regulations and the instructiosn of their superiors.

Why was your mother bending at a bend? (You know the one at the carpark)

MrPudding

Boggle wrote:

God, the hullibility of some people at home kills me - look at england, their speeds are vastly higher than ours but they have a better fatality rate per capita than at home. They barely prosecute for speed over here - and in order to put up a speed camera they have to prove that there is an accident rate in the area which justifies that camera...

(Enjoy ur privatised (rape) camera's!)

[End of rant]

What are you talking about? Speed limits here are higher. Also, they do presecute for speeding. Drive from Hammersmith to the city airport and you will pass over a dozen gatso cameras. I reckon most of them will have cameras and film in them.

As for the lower fatality rate, how about they are just better drivers? I am sorry but any country that allows inexperieced learner drivers to drive unaccompanied, has a crap driver education system and very little enforcement can't really expect to have a low road fatality.

MrP