Penalty Points

antodeco

Hopefully some can help here. Was caught going over the speed limit down by hueston station by a garda sitting behind a tree on his bike. He pulled me over and showed me my speed. He asked for my licence, and then told me that I would receive a letter and 2 points in the post. Firstly, I thought that they had to endorse your licence there and then. Also, I was in a group of cars, all going roughly the same speed. How can he prove that it was me going that speed as all he showed me what the speed was on the back of his speed gun.
Any help would be helpful,
Thanks

Dooom

IIRC, don't they have to show you a printout showing your car or something?
I'm sure some more experienced members of the forum can clear this up, but I'm pretty sure they have a fairly shoddy case there..

antodeco

i know it seems a bit strange. I accept that I was driving over the speed limit, but the speed he showed me, matched more like the other cars that were overtaking me!
Also, how many penalty points does it take to effect your insurance? I know alot of insurance companies dont ask if you have any points, but do you have to delcare it to them?

Dooom

antodeco wrote:

i know it seems a bit strange. I accept that I was driving over the speed limit, but the speed he showed me, matched more like the other cars that were overtaking me!
Also, how many penalty points does it take to effect your insurance? I know alot of insurance companies dont ask if you have any points, but do you have to delcare it to them?

I'm not an expert when it comes to these issues, but tbh if he just showed you a speed figure, without an reference to your car bar his word, then he could have been pointing the gun at a bird for all you know.

As for points and insurance, I'm afraid I haven't a clue! Only sorting mine out now. Although I'd take a guess and assume it'd be one of those things you're supposed to declare..could be way off though.

Seth Brundle

1. You were caught and accepted the gardas word at the scene so why complain now?
2. He is claiming that is your speed was over the limit. he doesn't need to prove anything - you ahave to prove your innocence!
3. The garda doesn't need to give a printout anymore - that was closed off over a year ago.
4. The garda has a limited time from detecting a car to showing the driver the reading (3 minutes?) so I doubt that he gve you an incorrect reading. Anyhow refer back to points #1 & 2.
5. You will be notified by post of your offence and given the option of either 'admitting guilt' (2 points) or contesting it in court (4 points if guilty). The points will last for 3 years from whenever they are applied by the DoE.
The only insurance company who can access your points count directly is Hibernian (and its subsidiaries).

jdwals

Insurance companies don't care if you have two points on your licence, even though I do think Hibernian give you a bit of a discout if you have no points and a bit less of a discout if you have only two. Not sure on that though.
I don't think most insurance companies worry about a person having four points on their licence either. Except with Hibernian you get no discout.
Six and upwards though and I believe that Insurance companies start thinking about making more money off you.
Not sure on if you have to declare points or not. Some reports say that if you are in a crash and have points that you have not disclosed to your insurance company, they can invalidate your insurance.
I think there is a website, maybe the data commissioners one - that tells you what information people need to disclose and I think it covers penalty points as well. Keep meaning to go look at it but always get lazy.

Sleipnir

antodeco wrote:

Hopefully some can help here. Was caught going over the speed limit down by hueston station by a garda sitting behind a tree on his bike. He pulled me over and showed me my speed. He asked for my licence, and then told me that I would receive a letter and 2 points in the post. Firstly, I thought that they had to endorse your licence there and then. Also, I was in a group of cars, all going roughly the same speed. How can he prove that it was me going that speed as all he showed me what the speed was on the back of his speed gun.
Any help would be helpful,
Thanks

When you get the letter, nominate somone who lives outside the state. There's a section where you can declare that someone else was driving.
They'll probably send a letter to that person but that's all they can do as they are outside this jurisdiction.

dts

kbannon wrote:

1. You were caught and accepted the gardas word at the scene so why complain now?
2. He is claiming that is your speed was over the limit. he doesn't need to prove anything - you ahave to prove your innocence!
3. The garda doesn't need to give a printout anymore - that was closed off over a year ago.
4. The garda has a limited time from detecting a car to showing the driver the reading (3 minutes?) so I doubt that he gve you an incorrect reading. Anyhow refer back to points #1 & 2.
5. You will be notified by post of your offence and given the option of either 'admitting guilt' (2 points) or contesting it in court (4 points if guilty). The points will last for 3 years from whenever they are applied by the DoE.
The only insurance company who can access your points count directly is Hibernian (and its subsidiaries).

From point 2, I thought you were innocent until proven guilty?

Duiske

Sleipnir wrote:

When you get the letter, nominate somone who lives outside the state. There's a section where you can declare that someone else was driving.
They'll probably send a letter to that person but that's all they can do as they are outside this jurisdiction.

Antodeco has already stated that the Garda asked for his licence at the time he was stopped. The Garda will have recorded his name and licence number.
Do you want him to get done for giving false and mis-leading information ?

Seth Brundle

jdwals wrote:

I don't think most insurance companies worry about a person having four points on their licence either. Except with Hibernian you get no discout.
Six and upwards though and I believe that Insurance companies start thinking about making more money off you.
Not sure on if you have to declare points or not. Some reports say that if you are in a crash and have points that you have not disclosed to your insurance company, they can invalidate your insurance.

I have not heard anything of the sort. Only Hibernian (& its subsidiaries) have access to the points database. I have not been asked my point count by any other insurer.
Also when you take out insurance, your policy is decided by the information given then. AFAIK, you are only required to inform the insurer (may differ between policies) if you are convicted of an offence - earning points is not the same as a conviction.

Sleipnir wrote:

When you get the letter, nominate somone who lives outside the state. There's a section where you can declare that someone else was driving.
They'll probably send a letter to that person but that's all they can do as they are outside this jurisdiction.

As mentioned, this is both illegal and of no use to the OP.

dts wrote:

From point 2, I thought you were innocent until proven guilty?

Welcome to Ireland!

quarryman

Question:

I was on the M7 last week and as I passed a flyover entrance to the motorway on my left I spotted a cop with his speed gun pointing it at passing cars. I was below 120kph when i passed but if i hadn't been does he (or his cop buddy) not have to stop me to inform me of my speed etc? Or could i just expect a letter in the post?

Sleipnir

Duiske_Lad wrote:

Do you want him to get done for giving false and mis-leading information ?

Can it be both?
To answer your q, yes I do. Guilty pleasure is the best sort.

Sorry, missed that bitabout the Garda checking the license:o

Sleipnir

kbannon wrote:

As mentioned, this is both illegal and of no use to the OP.

It is quite legal to nominate another person as driving at the time of the offence. There's a section on the form for it.

Seth Brundle

Sleipnir wrote:

It is quite legal to nominate another person as driving at the time of the offence. There's a section on the form for it.

What I had meant but didn't fully state was that if the OP decided to nominate someone else then it is illegal. But as the OP showed their licence to the garda, there is no point in nominating someone else!

Sleipnir

kbannon wrote:

What I had meant but didn't fully state was that if the OP decided to nominate someone else then it is illegal. But as the OP showed their licence to the garda, there is no point in nominating someone else!

Quite true, unfortunately!

antodeco

Thansk for the replies. Nominating someone else would be handy, especially if they didnt exist! What annoying me more is that there were 2 cars overtaking me and they didnt get stopped. It was just me and he showed me the speed that I was doing. In reality, how can I be certain that it wasnt the other cars speed he saw and got them mixed up?

FX Meister

Sleipnir wrote:

It is quite legal to nominate another person as driving at the time of the offence. There's a section on the form for it.

Unless you can prove it then it's still on your head. It's not as easy as you think.

Seth Brundle

As I said before you effectively have to prove your innocence.
If it were in a court there would be a garda with plenty of expreience (presumably) in speed detection against yourself who did not protest the charge initially.
Whether or not he detected someone else is irrelevant at this stage (or at any other really).
What it comes down to is the fact that you were caught. If a stealth bomber went flying past you at the same time is irrelevant. It just means you were unlucky.

FX Meister

antodeco wrote:

What annoying me more is that there were 2 cars overtaking me and they didnt get stopped. It was just me and he showed me the speed that I was doing. In reality, how can I be certain that it wasnt the other cars speed he saw and got them mixed up?

You can't be certain. But he stopped you and that's the luck of the draw. You were speeding and you got busted, boo hoo.

Sleipnir

FX Meister wrote:

Unless you can prove it then it's still on your head. It's not as easy as you think.

The onus of proof lies with the gardai, not me. They have to prove that I was driving the car, which they can't, hence the option to nominate another driver.
Or to put it another way, I don't have to prove that I was not driving the car; the Gardai have to prove that I was.

Our man in Havana

Lads, the option to name another driver only appears on notices in relation to fixed cameras and Gatso vans.
The best option if actually stopped would be to assert ones right to silence and thus preserve any grounds of appeal you might have.

Seth Brundle

Sleipnir wrote:

The onus of proof lies with the gardai, not me. They have to prove that I was driving the car, which they can't, hence the option to nominate another driver.
Or to put it another way, I don't have to prove that I was not driving the car; the Gardai have to prove that I was.

erm, no it doesn't. In the OPs case, he was stopped and his licence checked so your point doesn't apply. The garda said that the OP was over the limit, showed him a reading. Thats it. If the OP want to challenge it then so be it but he cannot challenge the authenticity of the reading (whether the garda or the gun was at fault) so he has nowhere to go really.

As for 'remote' traps where a photo is posted to the cars registered owner, the owner has to disprove that they were the one speeding. They can do this by nominating another drivers name or by going to court and hoping that they are believed for whatever reason. however, again the garda don't have to defend their case as the photo says it all.

Sleipnir

We've already established that the above wouldn't apply to the OP. I agreed to that. The garda interviewed him so when that is admitted as evidence it will prove his guilt.


With regards to gatso cameras.....

The presumtion of innocence means that people do not have to prove their innocence, they only need to defend against the charge of guilt.
"innocent until PROVEN guilty"!

.......the photo says it all.

That's just it, it doesn't "say it all"
The owner of the car does not have to disprove that they were the one speeding, the Garda has to prove that the person was speeding but they can't do that as they only have a photo of the reg. It's proof that the car was speeding but it ain't proof that the owner was the one driving.
That's the whole point.

'Nominating' another driver does not PROVE that I was not the one driving. How could me saying "he did it" be proof?
All it means is that you're saying
"I wasn't driving, this guy was"
Then they send him a letter but as he's ouside the jurisdiction, they can't proscecute the case any further.

Our man in Havana

Sleipnir wrote:

'Nominating' another driver does not PROVE that I was not the one driving. How could me saying "he did it" be proof?
All it means is that you're saying
"I wasn't driving, this guy was"
Then they send him a letter but as he's ouside the jurisdiction, they can't proscecute the case any further.

This is where the waters are muddied a bit. If they don't get a satasfactory response from the foreigner they will come back to the OP and demand proof that Mr X was driving. Now whether you are obliged to prove this is a completely different kettle of fish. Once you have named someone else your obliglations under sect 107 of the RTA 1961 are met.

Seth Brundle

Sleipnir wrote:

That's just it, it doesn't "say it all"
The owner of the car does not have to disprove that they were the one speeding, the Garda has to prove that the person was speeding but they can't do that as they only have a photo of the reg. It's proof that the car was speeding but it ain't proof that the owner was the one driving.
That's the whole point.

See this http://193.178.1.79/ZZA12Y2002S11.html

11.—(1) The following section is substituted for section 103 of the Principal Act:
"103.—(1) This section applies to such summary offences under the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 2002, and the Roads Act, 1993, as may be declared by the Minister by regulations, made after consultation with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to be fixed charge offences and an offence standing so declared is referred to in this section as a fixed charge offence.
(2) Where a member of the Garda Síochána has reasonable grounds for believing that a fixed charge offence is being or has been committed by a person—

• 
  (a) if the member identifies the person, the member shall serve, or cause to be served, personally or by post, on the person a notice under this section,

• 
  (b) if the member does not identify the person and the offence involves the use of a mechanically propelled vehicle, the member shall serve, or cause to be served, personally or by post, on the registered owner of the vehicle a notice under this section.

(3) In a case referred to in subsection (2) of this section, if the offence concerned is not a penalty point offence (within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act, 2002)—

• 
  (a) the references in that subsection to a member of the Garda Síochána shall be construed as including references to a traffic warden, and

• 
  (b) paragraph (b) of that subsection shall be construed as if 'or shall affix such a notice to the vehicle' were inserted after 'notice under this section'.

(4) Where—

• 
  (a) a notice under this section is served on the registered owner of a mechanically propelled vehicle or affixed to such a vehicle, and

• 
  (b) the registered owner of the vehicle was not driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the alleged offence to which the notice relates,

the registered owner shall—

• 
  (i) not later than 28 days after the date of the notice give or send to a member of the Garda Síochána or a traffic warden at the Garda Síochána station or other place specified in the notice a document in the prescribed form signed by the registered owner and stating the name and address of the person who was driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of such commission, and

• 
  (ii) give or send to a member of the Garda Síochána or a traffic warden within such period as may be specified by the member or warden at the Garda Síochána station or other place aforesaid such other information within his or her knowledge or procurement as the member or warden may reasonably request for the purpose of identifying, and establishing the whereabouts of, the person referred to in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph.
  
  <snip>
  (8)(d)

• • 
    (i) not later than 28 days after the date of the notice, to give or send to a member of the Garda Síochána or a traffic warden at a specified Garda Síochána station or at another specified place a document in the prescribed form signed by the registered owner and stating the name and address of the person who was driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of such commission, and

• • 
    (ii) to give or send to a member of the Garda Síochána or a traffic warden within such period as may be specified by him or her at a specified Garda Síochána station or another specified place such other information within his or her knowledge or procurement as the member or warden may reasonably request for the purpose of identifying, and establishing the whereabouts of, the person referred to in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph,

There is loads more in there!

Sleipnir

Directing me to the Irish Statute Book doesn't prove your point.

Basically what it says is
"If the garda does not identify the drive, the notice is served to the registered owner"
If the owner was not driving the vehicle, they must
"state the name and address of the person who was driving"

Now, I've done that. I sent the notice back with the name and address of the person who was driving at the time.
Therefore, I have done what I am required to do under the Act.

That person is outside the State and therefore outside of the jurisdiction of the applicable law.

Seth Brundle

I provided taht info because you claimed that the owner does not need to disprove that they were the one speeding. I showed that they do have to!

Sleipnir

Bond-007 wrote:

This is where the waters are muddied a bit. If they don't get a satasfactory response from the foreigner they will come back to the OP and demand proof that Mr X was driving. Now whether you are obliged to prove this is a completely different kettle of fish. Once you have named someone else your obliglations under sect 107 of the RTA 1961 are met.

That's what I mean. Where the Garda didn't prove that I was driving in the first instance, i.e. they didn't stop me or get a photo of me driving at the time, the burden of proof doesn't then transfer to me. The Gardai still to provide proof or give evidence that I was the one driving.
Certainly, the Act does not say that I must prove I wasn't driving rather than the Gardai proving I was.

Seth Brundle

Im not sure I follow you then.
Part 4 of the act quoted above says that if the owner wasn't driving then they must give the name and address of the driver to the gardai.
The act also states (not quoted above) that it is an offence to not comply with part 4
Once the car is detected then the onus falls on the owner who must then fight their case!

Sleipnir

That's what I did.
I gave the name of the other person who was driving so I did comply with the act however, the person I named lives in the U.K. so the gardai can't procescute it any further.
The car did not (and cannot!) be the one who broke the law, only the driver.
As the act allows the owner of the car to say "I wasn't driving, this other person was" then it also means that you can nominate someone who is now outside of the state and therefore, the law cannot be applied to that person.
They could apply for an extradition order but would they? For a traffic offence??!!

That also means that the onus does not fall on the owner. How can it if the law allows you to say someone else was driving.
The Act doesn't say "if we can't get the person you nominated, then the owner is still liable"
The Act also doesn't state that you cannot nominate someone outside the state.

Ta da!

Seth Brundle

Yes but the initial onus fell on you as the owner. You then had to either 'prove' that you weren't driving by nominating someone else or else you had to accept the charge.
That was my point.

Sleipnir

But nominating someone else isn't "proof" that that person was driving. How can it be? It certainly isn't proof under the act.

quarryman

quarryman wrote:

Question:

I was on the M7 last week and as I passed a flyover entrance to the motorway on my left I spotted a cop with his speed gun pointing it at passing cars. I was below 120kph when i passed but if i hadn't been does he (or his cop buddy) not have to stop me to inform me of my speed etc? Or could i just expect a letter in the post?

anyone know the above?

Seth Brundle

More than likiely either he or his buddy would have to pull you over

MrPudding

They did a section about this on Fith Gear a couple of years ago. It was dealing with the myths of getting off with penalty points.

Obviously it dealt with the UK but it is not unreasonable to assume the Gardai might do something similar here. Actually who am I kidding? This would require police work. Sorry.

I post it anyway. If someone fills in the form saying someone outside the state was driving it will most likely, but not always, be let go the first time. However, if it becomes a habit they will chase up the details. The police were citing some examples where they had the police in Australia trying to track someone down who was supposedly driving a speeding car in the UK.

They will chase it up and if there is no evidence to show that person was driving the resigtered owner will have the points applied to them.

There were also some test cases in Scotland. People refused to fill in the form as they believed it was a derogation of their right to remain silent. These cases were overturned.

I am not sure exactly what the state of play is here. I got a speeding notice but it was actually my GF that was driving. I filled in her details and never heard anything more about it. She got the notice 2 weeks later and accepted it. It would be interesting to know what would have happened if she had of returned it saying it was not her driving.

This might be one for the legal discussion board?

MrP

daymobrew

antodeco wrote:

I accept that I was driving over the speed limit

Why not accept your punishment of 2 points?

Why not let the Garda get on with their job and not have wasting a morning in a court room?
The right turn from Clontarf Road onto Alfie Byrne Road has a filter light that loads of cars break. I used to frequently report this to Clontarf Garda Station. They told me that they didn't have the Gardai to patrol this junction because they were heading into court at that hour (~9am).

Sleipnir wrote:

the Garda has to prove that the person was speeding but they can't do that as they only have a photo of the reg.

Mine, from the Gatso on Navan Road near Skreen Road, was a photo of the whole car, including reg and me.

Sleipnir wrote:

It is quite legal to nominate another person as driving at the time of the offence. There's a section on the form for it.

But it is not 'quite legal' to use that section to lie.

I will admit that the Gatso van location near Heuston is a lazy location (as is the Navan Road one where I was caught ). They should be elsewhere getting the real dangerous drivers.

Sleipnir

quarryman wrote:

anyone know the above?

Not if they have a photograph of your reg. You would get it through the post.

FX Meister

Sleipnir wrote:

The onus of proof lies with the gardai, not me. They have to prove that I was driving the car, which they can't, hence the option to nominate another driver.
Or to put it another way, I don't have to prove that I was not driving the car; the Gardai have to prove that I was.

Sorry but you are wrong. You have to prove you were not driving the car. And that's a fact.

Sleipnir

FX Meister wrote:

Sorry but you are wrong. You have to prove you were not driving the car. And that's a fact.

Well CHRIST!
There we were debating the law as laid out in the Road Traffic Act 1961 regarding gatso cameras, debating different interpretations of it and the laws of jurisdiction and then....you fly out like a superhero and in one fell swoop and dash my arguments to RUINS!

"And that's a fact"

JUDGE: "Well counsel, I've heard your arguments and the one that convinced me of the defendant's innocence was your insightful "and that's a fact" point. I can see no alternative but to throw this case out"

dahamsta

He should really have said it like this:

FACT!

The judge is never convinced otherwise.

FX Meister

Sleipnir wrote:

Well CHRIST!
There we were debating the law as laid out in the Road Traffic Act 1961 regarding gatso cameras, debating different interpretations of it and the laws of jurisdiction and then....you fly out like a superhero and in one fell swoop and dash my arguments to RUINS!



JUDGE: "Well counsel, I've heard your arguments and the one that convinced me of the defendant's innocence was your insightful "and that's a fact" point. I can see no alternative but to throw this case out"

I know. Don't feel bad for yourself. It's not your fault.

Our man in Havana

It will make for some very interesting cases if someone had the balls to challenge the current system of guilty till you prove yourself innocent.

I for one would like to see a case where naming another person is thrashed out. IE where you name someone is that sufficent to discharge your obligations under sect 107.