technacalities to get off penalty points

desbard

Hi All
I was stopped by a garda doing 118kmh in a 100kmh zone he said he would send out a ticket and add 2 points to my licence what technacalities can get me off this i.e. name spelled wrong

peasant

How about learning from it ?

OLDYELLAR

Why the F should you get off?

People getting off on technicalities make me sick.

Christ you broke the Fìng speed limit and got done for it , take it like a man!

The amount of people getting killed on the roads and then ya have tossers tryina get off on technicalities , eh the points are there for a reason , so the rest of us have a smaller chance of getting killed by idiots speeding for no good reason :mad:

zuutroy

OLDYELLAR wrote:

Why the F should you get off?

People getting off on technicalities make me sick. :

You're in Ireland, the home of the technicality!!

OLDYELLAR wrote:

Christ you broke the Fìng speed limit and got done for it , take it like a man!

The amount of people getting killed on the roads and then ya have tossers tryina get off on technicalities , eh the points are there for a reason , so the rest of us have a smaller chance of getting killed by idiots speeding for no good reason :mad:

I whole-heartedly agree with trying to get off. The VAST majority of speed checks take place on the nations safest roads...It's purely a money spinner

OLDYELLAR

Well I hope to god he does get done for it.

Speed limits are in place for a reason , maybe it`ll take a few more people to get killed on the roads to drum this into people.

zuutroy

OLDYELLAR wrote:

Speed limits are in place for a reason , maybe it`ll take a few more people to get killed on the roads to drum this into people.

Yeah, but a lot of them are senseless. Personally I find it very frustrating, almost unnatural to drive under 50kmh on a main road like Swords Rd etc. I agree with speed limits, but they need to be reasonable. If I was in charge itd be 60 in cities and towns, 80 on back roads, 90 on national roads, 110 on dual carriageways and 130 on motorways. I'd say most people would adhere to these and its really only driving in excess of these thats genuinely dangerous

Car Mad

ya i agree why do hell should u get off.i lost my cusin in a car crash and they wernt even speeding and some clowns go around breaking the limits do u want to kill everyone in the fecking country as if the roads wernt bad enough:mad: and that 18kmh over u were could make the differance between life and death think about that.and did u auctually think u wer going to get there faster going a couple of miles over the speed limit?i bet the guard slowed u down a long time :8)

OLDYELLAR

Well to be honest what you or anybody else would change them to or believe in your own head to be correct doesnt really matter because the limits are in place and are there to be adhered to.

The guy broke the law , he should fup up learn his lesson and take the points , might teach him to slow down in future.

Guy:Incognito

zuutroy wrote:

Yeah, but a lot of them are senseless. Personally I find it very frustrating, almost unnatural to drive under 50kmh on a main road like Swords Rd etc. I agree with speed limits, but they need to be reasonable. If I was in charge itd be 60 in cities and towns, 80 on back roads, 90 on national roads, 110 on dual carriageways and 130 on motorways. I'd say most people would adhere to these and its really only driving in excess of these thats genuinely dangerous

So to teach them a lesson your going to speed? It doesnt matter what the speed limit is, its teh law, and you have to obey it or pay a fine.

As for them being on safe roads, and it being a money spinner. If people didnt speed, it wouldnt matter if they followed you around with the gun all day. So the only reason it is a money spinner is because the people who break the law make it that way.

OLDYELLAR

Stekelly wrote:

So to teach them a lesson your going to speed? It doesnt matter what the speed limit is, its teh law, and you have to obey it or pay a fine.

As for them being on safe roads, and it being a money spinner. If people didnt speed, it wouldnt matter if they followed you around with the gun all day. So the only reason it is a money spinner is because the people who break the law make it that way.

I couldnt agree more.

Its the law , You broke it , take the punsihment!

mike65

...and its not even Friday night yet. :rolleyes:

Mike.

Our man in Havana

desbard wrote:

Hi All
I was stopped by a garda doing 118kmh in a 100kmh zone he said he would send out a ticket and add 2 points to my licence what technacalities can get me off this i.e. name spelled wrong

There are numerous technicalites that could be used in your case, don't think i should tell you them though!

69 mustang

desbard wrote:

Hi All
I was stopped by a garda doing 118kmh in a 100kmh zone he said he would send out a ticket and add 2 points to my licence what technacalities can get me off this i.e. name spelled wrong

Why not if you can if it happened to the guy next door and his bro or Da were a Guard they would, so why one law for them and another for us.

drdre

man you cannot get off the points as they will be put on ur licence, if the guards checked ur licence then nothing can happen.
anyway its only 2 points so just learn ur lesson now.

Anan1

Peasant, Oldyellar, CarMad -

I'm not sure that desbard cares much about your moral posturing. He asked a question, either you can answer it or you can't.

OLDYELLAR

Well Anan excuse me for having an opinion but did you answer his /her question in your post?

No I dont ruddy well think so :rolleyes:

Anan1

In case you hadn't noticed, I was answering you.

Our man in Havana

I answered his question.

colm_mcm

Bond-007 wrote:

I answered his question.

you told him you knew the answer!

Drax

Car Mad wrote:

and that 18kmh over u were could make the differance between life and death think about that.

I think now hitting someone at 100km/h and 118km/h are going to have pretty much the same effects. So less of the drama.

You were nicked dude. Accept it - I was on my bike 2 years ago - crossed the liffey at heuston there and went around the right hand turn to go up the quays - before I had the bike levelled back up I saw the garda waving his hand at me. I pulled over. He was actually nice enough - 'I know its 10pm at night and there road the traffic is light but I am going to have to take your details'...

I agree that some of the checkpoints are rediculous - 'the easier the better' mentality instead of manning the danger zones.

kdevitt

For a while, if you entered the wrong licence number when returning your fine they couldn't allocate the point to your licence... not sure if that been sorted yet

alias no.9

zuutroy wrote:

Yeah, but a lot of them are senseless. Personally I find it very frustrating, almost unnatural to drive under 50kmh on a main road like Swords Rd etc. I agree with speed limits, but they need to be reasonable.

I get what you're saying about appropriate speed limits but the OP was

desbard wrote:

stopped by a garda doing 118kmh in a 100kmh zone

so we're talking about an unrestricted national road, i.e. national speed limit, so there's no question of this being an inappropriate speed limit.

Drax wrote:

I think now hitting someone at 100km/h and 118km/h are going to have pretty much the same effects. So less of the drama.

It's not about hitting someone at the speed, it's about being in control of the car and having time to react to hazards and danger, to be able to minimise or even prevent any impact

- its the extra 10 meters you've travelled in the 2 seconds it takes you to react to a hazard at 118km/h compared to 100km/h, that's the length of two ford transits

- its the difference in stopping distances from 118km/h to 0km/h compared to 100km/h to 0km/h

- its the likelyhood of being able to regain control from a skid at 118km/h compared to 100km/h

- its the ability control the car if you have a blowout at 118km/h compared to 100km/h

You might call that drama, I don't.

seamus

alias no.9 wrote:

- its the extra 10 meters you've travelled in the 2 seconds it takes you to react to a hazard at 118km/h compared to 100km/h, that's the length of two ford transits

Indeed. Imagine you're flying around a corner, it's a long sweeping left-hand bend, with large trees all along the side, so your functional view of the road ahead is 30m at best. Suddenly there's a tractor, doing 20km/h on your side of the road, and you're doing 100km/h. There's no way in hell you can stop in time, so if you react quick enough, you can swerve to overtake (there's no oncoming traffic luckily enough). You do swerve and pass within inches of the tractor.

Now try the same thing again at 118km/h, with 10m less reaction time. Tractors are big and tough, If you hit the back of it, you're dead.

Anan1

Alias No9/Seamus -

It takes you TWO SECONDS to react to a hazard??? If this is true then, with all due respect, neither of you should be in command of anything quicker than a tricycle.

alias no.9

Anan1 wrote:

Alias No9/Seamus -

It takes you TWO SECONDS to react to a hazard??? If this is true then, with all due respect, neither of you should be in command of anything quicker than a tricycle.

Two seconds is the widely accepted average time it takes to respond to a hazard.

Ever heard of the two second rule?

Ever wondered where it comes from?

seamus

Anan1 wrote:

Alias No9/Seamus -

It takes you TWO SECONDS to react to a hazard??? If this is true then, with all due respect, neither of you should be in command of anything quicker than a tricycle.

Do'h, missed his 2 seconds. In reality, you will react somewhere between 0.5 and 1 second after spotting the stimulus. You may score lower reactions like 0.4 or 0.3, but anything quicker than that will be panic, and then catastrophe, unless you're an F1 driver. In reality, you have to factor in thinking time to your total reaction time (even if it only account for a tenth of a second), as few people will make the right choice without thinking.

It's still 5m in the difference for a 1 second reaction time. In my example above, by the time you've reacted you're almost upon the other vehicle, but with the lower speed you have up to 2 extra car lengths (depending on your vehicle obviously) in which to adjust your velocity.

Anan1

Think about it for a minute. 2 seconds? I've just done a quick Google and, as far as I can determine, the generally accepted average reaction time is somewhere in the order of 0.75 secs. Even that sounds long to me.

impr0v

Sounds like the OP is very eager to get away from these particular points, getting close to the magic 12 perhaps? In such a scenario it might be worth your while engaging a solicitor and a proven junior counsel with an established record in technicality exploitation.

Drax

alias no.9 wrote:

I get what you're saying about appropriate speed limits but the OP was

so we're talking about an unrestricted national road, i.e. national speed limit, so there's no question of this being an inappropriate speed limit.



It's not about hitting someone at the speed, it's about being in control of the car and having time to react to hazards and danger, to be able to minimise or even prevent any impact

- its the extra 10 meters you've travelled in the 2 seconds it takes you to react to a hazard at 118km/h compared to 100km/h, that's the length of two ford transits

- its the difference in stopping distances from 118km/h to 0km/h compared to 100km/h to 0km/h

- its the likelyhood of being able to regain control from a skid at 118km/h compared to 100km/h

- its the ability control the car if you have a blowout at 118km/h compared to 100km/h

You might call that drama, I don't.

Yes I agree with you. However I made a statement that hitting someone at both those speeds will more than likely obviously have bad outcomes. I am well aware of how speed affects reaction times... I see some amount of ****e on our roads, as does everyone else I am sure. It all about reacting to the driving conditions at hand and knowing how to control the vehicle. The post I said was dramatic included other quotes like:

Car Mad wrote:

do u want to kill everyone in the fecking country as if the roads wernt bad enough

This guy got done for speeding. Many others get done for speeding.

seamus

The "average" has to take into effect things like fatigue, stress levels (or lack thereof), age, etc. You couldn't say that you would react in X time. What happens if your left hand is changing the radio station right at that time, and your right arm is resting on the windowsill, loosely gripping the steering wheel? It'll take at least 0.1 seconds (optimistically) to get both hands firmly onto the wheel. It may not sound like much, but you've just lost yourself another 3m.

Kermitt

I believe this isn't a 'who's got the best reflexes' thread.

The OP got caught speeding. Tough Shi'ite Muslims on ya. If you weren't speeding, you wouldn't have got caught. Plain and simple. There shouldn't be any technicalities to get out of it. If someone smashed your window, would you like it if they got away with it on the technicality that it was the stone that broke it and not the person. Methinks not. MOOVE ON....

Anan1

I stand by my point that anyone who feels that it would (or might) take them 2 seconds to react to a hazard has no business being in control of a car.

alias no.9

Anan1 wrote:

Think about it for a minute. 2 seconds? I've just done a quick Google and, as far as I can determine, the generally accepted average reaction time is somewhere in the order of 0.75 secs. Even that sounds long to me.

That would be about right in a test situation. In real life when an event is completely unexpected, it can take longer. When driving in particular, there are a multitude of distractions which will increase this further

- talking to a passenger
- smoking a cigarette
- eating
- drinking
- answering a mobile (even a handsfree)
- changing the radio/cd/tape
- singing along with the radio
- shouting at the ref in the commentary game
- changing the heater/AirCon
- opening/closing a window or sunroof
- wondering why the hell that car coming the opposite direction was flashing you

All of this assumes, of course, that your first action is effective, which may not necessarily be the case, so it can become an itterative loop until you eventually take effective action.

Seth Brundle

Leaving the previous suggestions aside and to answer the OPs question, the only way you will get off is due to admin errors by the gardai (name, date, location, etc. written down incorrectly).
Also, there may be local authority errors here (very very unlikely). Soem local authorities have roads with a certain limit but these limits were not sanctioned by the local authority and are therefore not legal limits (see http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/motoring/2006/0215/267531824MOT15LIMITS.html)
However, as you were doing 118kmph which would only be legal on a motorway, I doubt this could apply to you.

Anan1

"That would be about right in a test situation. In real life when an event is completely unexpected, it can take longer. When driving in particular, there are a multitude of distractions which will increase this further"

I think the figure of .75 secs takes all this into account. If the driver is all ready and expecting something, the figure would be far lower. Just apply a bit of common sense to this. 2 seconds is an awfully long time.

seamus

Anan1 wrote:

If the driver is all ready and expecting something, the figure would be far lower.

But there's your problem. How often are you "all ready and expecting something"? Surprisingly little of the time, even for the most aware drivers. Actual reaction times are hard to examine, since if someone knows their reaction times are being measured, they're both focussed on reacting and are expecting something to emerge which will test their reactions.

A "comfort zone" of 0.5 seconds would be reasonable to add to any average reaction times measured in a testing environment.

Your reaction time is the time between spotting the hazard and taking evasive action, not the time between spotting the hazard and reacting to it (There's a slight difference). Unless you drive everywhere with your hands firmly on the wheel, in the 10-to-2 positions, and observing test-level eagle observation, then you will run the risk at times of having an inflated reaction time.

Ginger83

I would like to add a little tip if I may, I drive a 4x4 for a living so do come up against these situations all the time. I do not wash my vehicle half as much as i used to, dont get me wrong I keep the windows, mirrors and light shades very clean but the body does not bother me as I dont own it.
Between fixed or mobile camera I am not bothered anymore. A mobile speed camera uses an accurate lazer to detect a vehicles speed but must catch the reg plate and speed on a focused still picture, hence my problem solved.
If I am stopped by a garda for speeding he can do absolutely nothing as it is not recorded and he knows he is wasting his time, the only problem I have encountered was being asked to show my vehicle clean at a station within a week or ten days, solution- gf's ma works for a cop, pick up mates clean 4x4 run up to his gaf and say there you are take a note Haven't time to go in myself.
Happy days;)

Our man in Havana

Didn't think they could compel you to wash your car?

Alun

Bond-007 wrote:

Didn't think they could compel you to wash your car?

They can't, but having an illegible number plate, for whatever reason including mud, is an offence.

ninty9er

First of all if it was a 100km/h zone it was probably a dual carriageway, where the limit should be at least 125 in the first place.

On the technicalities scale, not sure if it still exists but;

e.g.

1- fine = €100

2- Write cheque €105.95

3- Garda have to send a cheque for the change

4- don't cash it

5- transaction not complete, points not added

Don't know if this has been rectified, but imho points are a moneymaking scam, not a safety device.

This country has the worlds best Road Safety Strategy document, it's just its implementation is the problem;)

Our man in Havana

Won't work. They will simply return your cheque and the clock keeps ticking.

BTW there is one sure way to beat speeding tickets that are posted to you, but it involves perjury and so I won't go into it here.

Turner

ninty9er wrote:

Don't know if this has been rectified, but imho points are a moneymaking scam, not a safety device.

Will you speed on the same stretch of roadway again though??

I know where i was caught i certainly wont as its a regularly patrolled area.

CrowdedHouse

ninty9er wrote:

First of all if it was a 100km/h zone it was probably a dual carriageway,

You obviously don't drive yourself

dbnavan

zuutroy wrote:

It's purely a money spinner

No its a pure life saver, look at statisics, speed kills. Pay your fine, take ur points and be a man about it.

ninty9er

I really hate the speed kills line.

Autobahn anybody. Among the worlds safest roads. Speed limits = none, restrictions= possibly in rainy weather.

Bad driving kills. Not speed, though bad driving can involve speed.

No its a pure life saver, look at statisics, speed kills. Pay your fine, take ur points and be a man about it.

Thats why road deaths have increased year on year since penalty points were introduced. Doubt it!!

AdMMM

I was told that the driving test in Germany costs thousands of Euro's. Maybe thats why Germany has one of the best records concerning road safety in Europe?

seamus

ninty9er wrote:

Thats why road deaths have increased year on year since penalty points were introduced. Doubt it!!

Actually, they haven't increased, they just haven't decreased by any great amount.

dbnavan

ninty9er wrote:

I really hate the speed kills line.

Autobahn anybody. Among the worlds safest roads. Speed limits = none, restrictions= possibly in rainy weather.

Bad driving kills. Not speed, though bad driving can involve speed.



Thats why road deaths have increased year on year since penalty points were introduced. Doubt it!!

Speed, on roads that are not condusive to speed, kills. None of the irish roads are comparible to the Autobahn

JohnCleary

desbard wrote:

what technacalities can get me off this

Suicide

junkyard

I agree with ninty9er, its bad driving kills and badly designed and badly maintained roads are also a major factor in car accidents. The big problem is the roads just aren't up to speeding on and the government has taken upon itself to blame the motorist and take his or her money for a problem that they haven't the guts to rectify. Look at the billions the government has taken off the motorist in taxes and VRT over the years and look at the pitiful return the motorist got back. I feel more people should make a stand and realise that we are being taken for a ride once again. A lot of the categories for penalty points are just incredible if you break them down, a friend of mine who drives an articulated truck for a living reckons that if he were to abide by the new rules 100% he would break the law everyday or spend 24 hours a day trying to reach his destination. I'm not condoning road safety but I think we have to be realistic, if the government wants people to tow the line they should also play ball and sort out the lethal roads and not just hand them over to some private company to charge us a toll to use a road that we have already paid for.
The standard of driving is also a big problem and the waiting lists for driving tests and the number of learner drivers on the road, I could go on......

Seth Brundle

bad roads don't really kill. It is the drivers that don't drive at speeds appropriate to the roads.