Effing Bandon Gardaí

dahamsta

Apparently the person that owned the beamer before me has received a speeding ticket for 48 in a 30 down Bandon way. I'm pretty careful down that way because I know what fascist pr1cks the traffic cops are like there, but let's say it was me: What's the story with this kind of unattended ticket? Do they have to have a photograph? Do they require a printout from the speedgun? I've already got two points on my licence, I don't want any more.

adam

Merrion

The ticket must have a date on it, and your change of ownership document likewise would have a later date...I can't see that there's any problem...or am I missing something?

Victor

dahamsta wrote:

Apparently the person that owned the beamer before me has received a speeding ticket for 48 in a 30 down Bandon way. I'm pretty careful down that way because I know what fascist pr1cks the traffic cops are like there, but let's say it was me:

Say "hi" to Sgt. Moore

What's the story with this kind of unattended ticket?

Just show them the paperwork to say you just bought the car.

dahamsta

The guy seems pretty confident that it was issued after I bought the car, which is why I said "let's say it was me". Seriously though, I was down that direction, I'm just surprised I was speeding there, and I'm wondering if I can challenge it based on the recent court case. I'm also wondering why they wouldn't have pulled me. I'm not aware of any speed cams down that way, and I'd be surprised if one of the Transits was down there.

adam

BrianD3

It might have been a manned checkpoint with laser + recording equipment. This setup can be seen in the ad on telly at the moment where the cops have a speed trap on a motorway bridge (the music that plays during the ad is "everybody's got to learn sometime" by The Corgis, bit of useless info for you)

The only way to sort this is to have a look at the speeding ticket. There will be info on it which will make things a lot clearer.

It's possible that the previous owner was stopped at a manned checkpoint, was given a ticket and is now trying to wriggle his way out of it by claiming that it's actually an "unmanned" ticket and claiming some mix up over the car ownership. Investiagte this further - something sounds amiss here.

BrianD3

John R

dahamsta wrote:

The guy seems pretty confident that it was issued after I bought the car

If they cannot provide the date and time and the fascist pr1ck that issued the ticket then something is amiss, phone them up and demand to speak to the individual to confirm the details.

dahamsta

Haven't even got the ticket yet, but you can be sure I will when I know a bit more about it, thanks. Think I'll just let it sit now for a while, the ticket ain't made out to me so it's not my problem. Yet.

adam

dahamsta

Right, they obviously got it sorted out because I received a "Fixed Penalty Notice" in the post the other day, for 43 in the Link Road 30 in Bandon. Personally I think that's stretching things a bit and I'm inclined to challenge it, but I don't know what the judges are like down that way. Erratic is what I've heard tell.

I contacted the Garda station and enquired as to why I hadn't been stopped, and was told that it was a van parked at the side of the road, which takes a photo. I asked for a copy of the photo and I was told that they could send it out if I wanted, but it was very poor quality and that I was welcome to call in to view it if I wished. Which is bizarre in my view.

I asked for a copy anyway, and asked if the number plate was clearly visible if the photo was poor quality; she said it was. Then I asked if I could get a copy of a calibration certificate for the equipment in the van, and the person got a bit shaky on the details and referred me to the Sergeant of the Traffic Unit down there. I'll call him tomorrow.

So where do I stand with this guys? Will the calibration route work, or did they close that loophole after the recent challenge? Is it worth challenging it anyway? I have two points on my licence and I don't want any more, and this seems like a borderline case, but I'd be right ticked off if I got four instead. Opinions welcome.

adam

impr0v

I'm unfamiliar with the case you refer to, but the difference between 48 and 30 is a broken radar gun, not bad calibration.

Get the photo by all means, as far as i know the driver is visible in them and even if it is bad quality you should be able to recognise yourself. If it is you, I wouldn't bother on the challenge, it seems to me that there's a strong chance of you getting 4 points.

If you're sure, or become sure it isn't you, then I would do everything possible to avoid accepting someone elses points.

And in all fairness, booking someone for 48 in a 30 isn't really fascist behaviour, it's booking someone who was breaking the law. Even if the 30 limit was unjustified on that particular stretch, you/he were/was 60% over it.

Orion

impr0v wrote:

Get the photo by all means, as far as i know the driver is visible in them and even if it is bad quality you should be able to recognise yourself. If it is you, I wouldn't bother on the challenge, it seems to me that there's a strong chance of you getting 4 points.

On that - do you think it's fair that you're points can be doubled for challenging it in court. Kind of negates our constitutional right to be heard in court doesn't it?

But as the law stands I agree. Don't challenge it unless it's not you in the pic.

impr0v

No, I think the threat of the imposition of four points on a driver upon being unsuccessful in a challenge is a much better example of fascist behaviour, though I can see the reasoning behind it.

Jip

The points for speeding are 4 not 2 but you're being given a reduced penalty if you accept it and pay up. If you go to court and loose you're given the original 4 points, you're not penalised an 'additional' 2 points.

Orion

Tom-ah-to, To-may-to. Either way you're being given an incentive to not exercise your right to a fair hearing. As Impr0v said, I understand the reasoning behind it - preventing flippant cases - but not sure whether I agree with the solution. I can see the legality of it being challenged by someone.

unkel

Macros42 wrote:

Either way you're being given an incentive to not exercise your right to a fair hearing

Yes very unfair and in Adam's situation where you already have 2 points, you can't really afford to have 6

It would be fair if you decide to go to court and loose, to have to pay all costs, NOT get additional points...

beer enigma

Hey Adam,

can I ask the date you 'allegedly' got the ticket ??

I'm challenging a recent one from the Link Road right now (30mph on a bypass !! - should be a candidate for a Darwin Award)....I was supposedly clocked at 44 in the 30 zone.....

Anyhoo......I actually had a courtesy car that day & although I was driving the link road, I was playing with the cruise control & had it set to 30mph !!!

As the car was a 04 Alfa, I can't see the clock being that far out, so I've gone for the challenge route :eek: - albeit like you I do already have 2 points (I think - paid the fine but have never been notified).

I was also clocked by a van, but there's something VERY dodgy going on..

unkel

Andip wrote:

30mph on a bypass !! - should be a candidate for a Darwin Award

You probably mean something like muppet of the week for whoever put that in place? Darwin award is something rather different

mike65

dahamsta wrote:

I asked for a copy anyway, and asked if the number plate was clearly visible if the photo was poor quality; she said it was. Then I asked if I could get a copy of a calibration certificate for the equipment in the van, and the person got a bit shaky on the details and referred me to the Sergeant of the Traffic Unit down there. I'll call him tomorrow.

So where do I stand with this guys? Will the calibration route work, or did they close that loophole after the recent challenge? Is it worth challenging it anyway? I have two points on my licence and I don't want any more, and this seems like a borderline case, but I'd be right ticked off if I got four instead. Opinions welcome.

adam

I'd take the medicine and stop speeding! Seriously 43 in a 30 is not really
something you can contest if thier equipment is working. 4 points better than 6.

Mike.

beer enigma

unkel wrote:

You probably mean something like muppet of the week for whoever put that in place? Darwin award is something rather different

Thats the one Unkel.....been a loooooong day

dahamsta

[EDIT: Ah, I see now. See my last post guys, it's 43, not 48.]

StupidLikeAFox

Ya were caught speeding, 13 miles an hour makes a big difference ya know! Jus pay up, quit your whining, think of it as a lesson learned

sceptre

Andip wrote:

(30mph on a bypass !!

It's a terrible by-pass anyway. The designer should be given a special prize for being a special person. All of which is irrelevant to Adam's situation of course.

I'm too lazy to look up the relevant Act (I think Victor posted something relevant a good while back) but as far as I remember the equipment is presumed to be calibrated correctly and you don't get to question its accuracy. Which I very strongly don't agree with by the way - I'd be happy if it could be proved that the thing had been calibrated correctly in the past six months and a cert could be obtained of this.

Even at 43 rather than 48, the machine would still pretty much need to be broken to get your speed wrong by 45ish percent. Not that that's impossible mind.

dahamsta

Don't mind the calibration thing, that's a side issue. This is the case I'm talking about -- it's not about calibration, it's about the receipt. Anyone got an opinion on how this applies to, eh, let's say "unattended" Fixed Charged Penalties?

WTF was the van doing in Bandon anyway? And why is the "bypass" a 30? I think a trip down there after I've gotten the photo might be a good idea. The Bandon Traffic cops are complete assh0les, it'd be just like them to park the van in front of the speed limit sign.

adam

Nuttzz

dahamsta, if you feel that you may be innocent then fight it, dont roll over and let the cops tickle your belly, a friend of mine was stopped on paddys day with 17 pints in him, the cops made such a balls of the case he got off and their super was called in to account for their actions, not that i am defending his actions, but the cops can present very weak cases at times and a challenge in the courts normally knocks their case dead.

parsi

dahamsta wrote:

Don't mind the calibration thing, that's a side issue. This is the case I'm talking about -- it's not about calibration, it's about the receipt. Anyone got an opinion on how this applies to, eh, let's say "unattended" Fixed Charged Penalties?

WTF was the van doing in Bandon anyway? And why is the "bypass" a 30?
adam

The van was on Skehard Road last week around a lunchtime which was surprising so maybe they are bringing it on tour.. also notice that the tripod camera is back again on the south ring near the Bloomfield Interchange - it was nowhere to be seen for months during the roadworks...

Victor

On that - do you think it's fair that you're points can be doubled for challenging it in court.

No, they are halved if you plead guilty and don't tie up court time.

John R

sceptre wrote:

It's a terrible by-pass anyway. The designer should be given a special prize for being a special person. All of which is irrelevant to Adam's situation of course.

I'm too lazy to look up the relevant Act (I think Victor posted something relevant a good while back) but as far as I remember the equipment is presumed to be calibrated correctly and you don't get to question its accuracy. Which I very strongly don't agree with by the way - I'd be happy if it could be proved that the thing had been calibrated correctly in the past six months and a cert could be obtained of this.

I am not saying you are wrong about there being such a law but wouldn't that go against the more fundamental laws of criminal prosecutions?
The burden is on the state to prove a case so wouldn't that mean that they would have to prove that the equipment was accurate?

Victor

John R wrote:

The burden is on the state to prove a case so wouldn't that mean that they would have to prove that the equipment was accurate?

Normally yes. However, the law was specificly worded to say the presumption is that the equipment is in order. Otherwise, every year you would have hundreds of thousands of people challeging the accuracy of a few dozen / hundred pieces of equipment. They would spend more time in court than on the street.

dahamsta

And of course you'd have the lawyers of people with money to burn asking that the equipment used to test the calibration of the speeding equipment be tested. And the equipment used to test that be tested. Which makes the presumption fair enough to a degree. However isn't the presumption dangerous? Shouldn't calibration certificates be required occasionally, say in $n random test cases per year? Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?

adam

Victor

I understand they are tested every six months or so at manufacturer level.

John R

Victor wrote:

Normally yes. However, the law was specificly worded to say the presumption is that the equipment is in order. Otherwise, every year you would have hundreds of thousands of people challeging the accuracy of a few dozen / hundred pieces of equipment. They would spend more time in court than on the street.

That sound like a very shaky piece of legislation to me. The elimination of due process for the sake of expediency is also a very dangerous precedent.

Boggle

The points for speeding are 4 not 2 but you're being given a reduced penalty if you accept it and pay up. If you go to court and loose you're given the original 4 points, you're not penalised an 'additional' 2 points.

Semantics really isn't it? The reason they do this is to discourage(deter) people to defend themselves. Thats pretty unconstitutional by any standards. Just because its handier for the govt is no excuse whatsoever.

I reckon if you were going to fight this the best guarantee would be to fight the bill itself - arguing that it is unconstitutional and that people are afraid to defend themselves as they get double the punishment. This would effectively wipe all points though.

Do these vans have a backup measurement system to ensure that the gun isn't getting a misreading? I read about a man in england(think he was a mayor or something) who was done for speeding by a fixed a camera and when he requested the footage he was able to work out by the lines on the road that he was well under the limit. Apparently these guns aren't foolproof and are alot more prone to mistakes than people realise - probably because people are afraid to defend themselves.

Merrion

Maybe you could use the law of relativity to argue that, relative to you, the Gardai were in fact speeding away at approximately 43mph?

Boggle

"I swear your honour, I wasn't actually moving at all!! The world and everything else was in fact what was moving .... HONEST!!!"

....maybe not....

Merrion

"At this point the defense would like to call professor of physics, Dr. Stephen Hawking"...

Nuttzz

http://www.unison.ie/corkman/stories.php3?ca=34&si=1180089&issue_id=10858

THOUSANDS of speeding charges countrywide could be thrown out of court after decisions by two Cork judges.

On March 3 this year, Judge Con O’Leary dismissed a prosecution against a Dublin man charged with driving at 80 miles an hour in a 60-mile zone at Mallow Road, Cork, on June 5, 2003, where the speed had been measured by a ‘radar gun’, an apparatus that doesn’t produce any permanent record or simultaneous print-out of the speed.

And at Mitchelstown District Court last week, the legality of the ‘radar gun’ was again challenged by a Dublin based solicitor, who was allegedly clocked travelling at 73mph in a 50mph zone.

Representing himself, Barry McCarthy of 8 Eaglewood, Rochestown Avenue, Dun Laoghaire said he was stopped by Garda Martin Healy about two miles beyond the Glocca Maura Inn.

“He issued me with a fixed notice but I was never given a copy of the reading from the electronic apparatus,” Mr McCarthy told Judge Michael Pattwell.

Questioned by Inspector Senan Ryan as to whether he had sought to see the speed reading, Mr McCarthy replied that he was issued with a ticket but had not asked the garda for anything else. “He has to produce a record and he didn’t. It’s my contention that I must be furnished with a copy of that reading,” he added.

Acknowledging that this defence has already been used in other Cork courts, Inspector Ryan said he understood what the defendant was saying and the challenges were such that the issue had been taken up by their law advisors..

Stating that he would have to consider the facts put to the court, Judge Pattwell adjourned ruling on the case until July 2.

In a statement issued to The Corkman this week by Judge O’Leary, in which he sets out his reasons for dismissing the speeding charge on March 3, the judge explained that a ‘radar gun’ uses laser technology rather than radar to show – on a screen – numbers purporting to be the speed of an approaching or receding vehicle.

But, he added: “no ordinary guard can explain in court the physics which cause the numbers to appear nor why they should be relied on as accurate” – a difficulty for the Prosecution that, until last June, was very significantly reduced by Section 105 of the 1961 Road Traffic Act.

“This meant that a sufficiently expert witness might be able to challenge the efficacy or accuracy of the apparatus (radar gun) but, until someone could show otherwise, the evidence of the guard regarding the reading (if believed) would suffice for a conviction,” explained Judge O’Leary.

However, things ceased to be so easy for the prosecution when Section 25(2) of the Road Traffic Act 2002 – which repealed Section 105 of the 1961 Act – came into effect on June 1, 2003.

The effect of the new amendment is that, for a successful prosecution, a speed-measuring apparatus now has to issue documentary evidence of the offending speed and that a copy of this document has to be ‘furnished to the accused person before the commencement of the trial of the offence’.

This is where the problems start because, as was pointed out by the prosecution during the Blarney District Court case, the Garda-held ‘radar gun’ is incapable of producing a permanent record of the speed of a vehicle.

Section 21 of the 2002 Road Traffic Act goes on to state that ‘the uncorroborated evidence of one witness stating his opinion as to... speed shall not be accepted as proof of that speed’.

Concluding his statement containing his reasons for dismissing the case, Judge O’Leary said: “I believe that this means that the presumptions of efficacy and accuracy of the apparatuses, which include car speedometers, is now effective only where the apparatus produces a ‘record’, as required by the Act, of the reading, which is then served on the defendant in accordance with the terms of the section.

“Accordingly, all speeding prosecutions, where neither expert evidence is available nor ‘record’ produced and served, must fail.”

Inspector Peter Callanan, Traffic Inspector with the Traffic Unit at Anglesea Street Station, says “well in excess of 1,000 speeding charges” detected with the use of the ‘radar gun’ have been made in his jurisdiction since June 1, 2003.

And the latest figures from the Garda Traffic Bureau show that 246,196 speeding notices were issued by Gardai in 2002 – in 76% of these cases fines were paid but at the end of 2002 court proceedings were pending in respect of 8,517 cases.

Most of these are likely to be as a result of radar gun detections.

Commenting on further implications of the amended law and of Judge O’Leary’s ruling in the matter, another Garda source said: “As I see it, there are two implications. One – that the hand-held ‘radar gun’ will become redundant as a method of detecting speed.

“This also means that penalty points will not be an issue for the offender if a prosecution isn’t brought.

“The second implication is that the Department of Transport may issue amending legislation ... then we’re back on track.”

Inspector Callanan says Gardai must now seek advice from the DPP or the Attorney General on the matter.


This speeding detection crux comes on top of a similar problem with drink-driving charges, where, last month, Judge Patwell dismissed a raft of prosecutions because he wasn’t satisfied with ‘intoxilyser’ evidence garnered at the roadside by Gardai.