Go Safe van parked on side of motorway where the sign says Garda Cars Only

You stopped on the hard shoulder of a motorway just to take a photo? Are you aware of the stupidity of that?

This should be good 😆😆

Fight the good fight, my brother.

Report it to traffic watch(0818 205 805) be sure to let them know of the photographic evidence you have,

Even assuming you are right and they can’t park there, do you think their mistake or law breaking would nullify any speeding tickets they issued at that time?

I don’t think those signs have any legal bearing anyway. Maybe they’re mentioned in the Road Traffic Acts somewhere but the lack of an Irish translation suggests they’re only advisory.

Breaking the speed limit isn't such a natural thing to do.

Use your speed limiter or build a decent margin of error into your approach.

You're the reason we need speed vans on motorways.

People impact that concertina effect, the GoSafe can is just doing a job and not responsible for the actions of idiots! If people actually drove the way they were supposed to, there would be no need for these vans. Its not that difficult to drive and glance at your speed every now and again anyway. The whole slamming on the brakes when a speed camera is spotted drives me mad. Most of the time on motorways, people are generally under the limit. Same with the collective refusal of drivers to overtake a Garda vehicle on the motorway when they are clearly driving under the speed limit! Drive on and observe the rules. Nothing to fear then.

Here, I shall end my rant. :)

Well obviously you would only have to slam on every time it beeps! 😂

Who owns gosafe? It should be made very transparent if they are acting on behalf of gardai. I don't know why they don't just put speed cameras on motorways.

This is a complex and somewhat nuanced area. Evidence obtained in "deliberate and conscious breach" of someone's constitutional rights is not admissible in court against that person, except in very exceptional circumstances. So, the guards detain you in circumstances where they have no power of arrest; they beat the living snot out of you; they interrogate you brutally; you make admissions that are, um, contrary to your own interest. Those admissions cannot be given in evidence against you.

But that's clearly not this case. Here, the suggested illegality - parking in a place where they are not permitted to park - is not a breach of anyone's constitutional rights. Where evidence is gathered in a way that involves illegality but no breach of constitutional rights, it's up to the judge at the trial to decide whether to admit it, having regard to all the surrounding circumstances — whether the breach of law was inadvertant; whether it was minor or more significant; whether it bears on the nature or quality of the evidence gathered (if they had parked just down the road where parking was lawful, would the evidence they gathered have been any different?); everything that might be relevant.

I'm inclined to think that where the illegality complained of is a violation of parking regulations, there's a good chance that evidence would be admitted. But we can't be sure without an actual case with actual facts.

I know some "Go Safe" locations are dubious, esp when they blocking the pavement, or sight lines for entrances., driveways, etc. but a spot clearly marked "Garda Only" would not be one of these.

I assume you comment "speed cameras on motorways" is a reference to fixed speed camera. they never really go into them here for some reason, there were a few, but they all disappeared around the same time as the "Go Safe" contract came into force for some reason.

If you want to get technical as an aside (and not that relevant for the OP), then no. JC did revert away from the strict application in Kenny and back closer to O'Brien but it also extended the criteria to the case where superiors knew but subordinates did not. So the ignorance of the individual van operator is no longer an excuse if their superiors knew it was.

Once the judge has ascertained that the Constitutional right has been broken, they do not have discretion to allow it. Shaw was back in the 80's and involved competing Constitutional rights. They do retain discretion for other breaches such as breaches of the custody regulations or judges rules.

Slightly more relevant for the OP, Gardai can tag you anywhere. The vans cannot. For example, there has to be a camera warning sign for the vans to be in an area to tag you.

Where's the breach of constitutional right here?

The "Go Safe" operators are wearing incorrect hats when they take the pictures of drivers who are invoking their constitutional rights in breaching unconsitutional restrictions on their rights to excessive speed on sovereign highways and byways

.

Who owns gosafe? Does that person have any family or business connections to high level gardai or politicians? Are all details of the contract in the public domain? Do they make more money the more people they catch, or is it a flat fee? What equipment are they using and who controls it and has direct access to it?

All that information is easily found.

Btw, The equipment records the speed and details of every vehicle that passes.

An image file is sent to Thurles Garda station and a roads policing officer reviews all vehicles registered as going over the prescribed limit and decides if a fine is warranted.

Go safe have no input into it. They simply provide the images

That's fine then regarding who controls the data.

Basically this company is acting like a temporary speed camera that needs a van and a person to sit in it, when alternatively they could install permanent hidden cameras.

I guess it depends on the cost of the service vs the cost of having permanent cameras installed and operating. My guess is they'd rather pay more in the long term than take a short term hit for long term gains.