The Extent of the Duty of Care of the Gardai

EducatedGuess

I am referring to the death of Mary Seavers, the 74 year old lady that was killed when a Garda Patrol Car crashed into the bus-stop where she was standing. I understand that the Inquest has shown that the "poor wet road surface and the tyres all contributed to causing the accident." Experts had said that although the tyres were within the legal thread depth, the PSV Inspector [ A garda] accepted that had the car come to him for a service with such tyres, he would have recommended they be changed.

My questions are, if that was a member of the public who crashed into the lady, what do you think would have happened to him/her?. [ii]Should the Gardai as a whole be responsible for negligence?

I do understand that this was an accident, and the Gardai were responding to an emergency call.

maidhc

EducatedGuess wrote:

if that was a member of the public who crashed into the lady, what do you think would have happened to him/her?.

Dangerous Driving. Surely the fact your car ends up in a bus stop is evidence enough of this.

EducatedGuess wrote:

[ii]Should the Gardai as a whole be responsible for negligence?

Didn't the ECHR in the Osman case say they should be?

EducatedGuess

Whats your opinions on it. Is the fact that the person is a Garda protect them from a case of dangerous driving? I am aware of the decision in the ECHR, but to what extent. Take for an example, the Gardai have an advanced driving course for members, but a Garda can officially drive a patrol car [after getting permission from the Supt] with a civilian full driving license. Is this acceptable as to their duty of care to the public?

HelterSkelter

EducatedGuess wrote:

Take for an example, the Gardai have an advanced driving course for members, but a Garda can officially drive a patrol car [after getting permission from the Supt] with a civilian full driving license. Is this acceptable as to their duty of care to the public?

I think it should be compulsary for them to complete an advanced driving course. They don't have to follow the same rules as the rest of us (i.e. they can break speed limits, red lights, etc). The standard driving test doesn't prepare you for everyday driving yet alone advanced driving like this.

maidhc

EducatedGuess wrote:

Is the fact that the person is a Garda protect them from a case of dangerous driving?

Entirely non legal answer follows:

No, I dont think so unless in "hot pursuit". It surely isnt too much to expect that they avoid endangering life when going to the scene of an emergency or general policing. Perhaps a modified standard of care would be in order for such circumstances where time is of the essence, but I really dont know. Certainly a garda with a civilian licence should not be allowed engage in hot pursuit or exceed the relevant speed limits.

If I recall correctly there was a discussion on the Pat Kenny TV show a few months back on this topic. One story a woman had was how her son/daughter was struck by a garda, they had huge difficulty getting a charge brought against the garda and when they did it was quite minor. The DC judge went into a rage when she heard the facts and gave a sentence above her jursidiction. I'm not sure what happened on appeal.

Sherlock

In the Mary Seavers case the guard driving the car said she wasn't speeding, only doing 30 mph in third gear, hit a bump in the road and lost control of the car ending up crossing the road and hitting the bus shelter.
Other witnesses say the car was doing about 70 mph at the bend and lost control.
What version do you think is most likely?. How many drivers will lose such control of their car when doing 30 mph?.
DPPs decision not to prosecute the driver was a disgrace

Eru

EducatedGuess wrote:

I understand that the Inquest has shown that the "poor wet road surface and the tyres all contributed to causing the accident." Experts had said that although the tyres were within the legal thread depth.

Thats enough to justify no charges under the circumstances. Someone above said that hitting the bus stop should be enough for a charge of dangerous driving but that person obviously doesnt understand the law concerning such a charge and is also failing to remember that theres dozens of car crashes every day in this country with most not being brought to the courts on criminal charges. Accidents happen, just because your a Garda doesnt change that fact.

EducatedGuess wrote:

IMy questions are, if that was a member of the public who crashed into the lady, what do you think would have happened to him/her?.

When do members of the public respond to major emergencies? Thats a very very big factor in this and as a result of the answer (no) its unfair to compare the 2. We speed because peoples lives depend on how fast we can get there. If your going to look for charges against Gardai when genuine accidents happen while going to an emergency then Gardai will refuse to go above the speed limit and people will die due to the slow response of Gardai. Will you then be asking why the Gardai werent driving faster? Its catch 22 and people need to decide how its going to be, will you accept that we must speed to get to calls but that speed increases the dangers of having an accident? Lets also remember that for all the calls we speed to theres sweet FA crashes.

EducatedGuess wrote:

Should the Gardai as a whole be responsible for negligence?

This accident has nothing to do with negligence, in fact it would be negligent if the car hadnt been speeding as we have a duty to respond asap to a dangerous situation. See my above answer.

Willful negligence resulting in loss of life or injury should be investigated but the DPP's decision (as they have all the facts) needs to be accepted.

maidhc

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Someone above said that hitting the bus stop should be enough for a charge of dangerous driving but that person obviously doesnt understand the law concerning such a charge

Normally when you KILL someone an entirely different set of criteria come into play. I.e. if a dog runs out from behind a bus and I knock it down I will try and find who the owners is so I can claim damages. But if I knock down a child in the same circumstances I may very well be facing a charge of manslaughter by gross negligence.

Here a woman died, and you cannot deny but there are a few questions unanswered. I'm not judging the Gardaí one way or the other.

Eru

maidhc wrote:

Normally when you KILL someone an entirely different set of criteria come into play. I.e. if a dog runs out from behind a bus and I knock it down I will try and find who the owners is so I can claim damages. But if I knock down a child in the same circumstances I may very well be facing a charge of manslaughter by gross negligence.

Here a woman died, and you cannot deny but there are a few questions unanswered. I'm not judging the Gardaí one way or the other.

You may face a charge but not dangerous driving. Did I claim anything else? No.

And no there is no further questions, witnesses gave statements, Gardai gave statements, scene was examined, car was examined and the DPP made a decision. Case closed.

maidhc

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

You may face a charge but not dangerous driving. Did I claim anything else? No.

FYI s53 RTA 1961, Also see People (AG) v. Quinlan (1963)

Eru

maidhc wrote:

FYI s53 RTA 1961, Also see People (AG) v. Quinlan (1963)

Section 53, what about it? Includes speed, Gardai are exempt from speeding when going to an emergency call.

Now if they werent going to a call and using their siren and lights. thats a different matter alltogether.

Turner

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Section 53, what about it? Includes speed, Gardai are exempt from speeding when going to an emergency call.

Now if they werent going to a call and using their siren and lights. thats a different matter alltogether.

Even when responding with blue lights + sirens Gardai must not endanger other road users. For example drivin on the wrong side of the road. If a crash was caused by this a charge of dangerous driving could be initiated.

However, as the person behind the wheel when a call does com over the radio, lets say a call where a gang is kicking an unconscious man in the head on the ground.

You will try everything to get to the call as quick as you can, often endangering yourself in the process, many garda cars do not have traction control and do not respond well to being driven hard.

EducatedGuess

Karlitosway I never implied that members of the public respond to emergencies. The Garda in question stated that she was driving at 30mph, witnesses say 70mph. I do understand that eye witnesses get things wrong. I think your jumping the gun too much. The question is the extent of the duty of care. If a civilian crashed the car and killed a person regardless of the conditions they would be contributory negligent and in turn would bring a case of causing death of dangerous driving. Stop pointing out the obvious, I think we understand that Gardai need to respond quickly to emergencies and that accidents happen everyday. I specifically asked for opinions on the matter, not automatic defences. No-one is blaming anyone. If Gardai driving the car are going to be using excessive speed, should they all be required to sit an advanced driving course at least? Are the Gardai [as an organisation] contributing to the risk it poses to the public? You pointed that many car crashes take place, that indeed is correct, the majority are single car collisions [ladposts only hit cars in self defence]. And I am sure you are aware that this is not a criminal law topic, its Tort and the action would be civil, where the burden of proof is on the balance of probabilty and not beyond a reason doubt. You also point out that "it would negligent for the Garda not to be speeding", then the Garda is negligent, she claims she wasn't speeding [30mph]. I always believe to get a good perspective of a situation, but yourself in the affected familes shoes. Do you think if that was your parent or my parent, that we would just accept the DPP's decision?

besty

On a related note, Karlitosway, is it true that emergency service personnel are covered under their own personal driving insurance? I remember hearing that regarding ambulancemen but found it hard to believe. Can you clarify the position, out of curiosity.

Turner

Gardai are covered by the state. They do not use their own insurance policy.

HelterSkelter

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

This accident has nothing to do with negligence,

What about the person (senior gardai, Government minister?) who made the decision that a Guard who has not passed an advanced driving course can drive to an emergency call?

Turner

She had passed the offical patrol car course which is a two week intensive driving course focusing on high speed driving.

This course has very high failure rates.

EducatedGuess

[The Official Patrol Car Course has been reduced to a one week course, and the reason it has a high failure rate is due to the testers believing it should be a two week course, hence if you fail it after the first week, you will have to go back for a second week. Failure was much less a percentage when it was a two week course.]

Edited: Apologies chief, your right, was thinking of the special driving course which is actually 9 days. But it also be pointed out that from last year 4667 Gardai had passed the course while 2646 Gardai were allowed drive after getting permission from the Supt with at least a B civilian license. May I also point out that one third of the Garda Traffic Corps have no training in driving, and less than 10 per cent have set the advanced course. Now before the Traffic Corps was implemented recruits to the regional traffic divisions were required to have a minimum of a standard Garda motorcycle course and a driving course before applying for transfer there, and would also complete an advanced motorcycle course before joining. Is this going backwards in the duty of care being shown?

Turner

Im afraid that is incorrect.

The patrol car course is a 2week course, with a final drive on the friday of the second week.

Many people are sent home in the first week alright if their driving is not suitable or they are not making progress.

To compete the course you must complete the full two weeks.

Let me add if you fail the course or sent home early (failure) you are no longer allowed to drive any patrol car, and your "chiefs permission" if you have it, is revoked.

Eru

besty wrote:

On a related note, Karlitosway, is it true that emergency service personnel are covered under their own personal driving insurance? I remember hearing that regarding ambulancemen but found it hard to believe. Can you clarify the position, out of curiosity.

What I think your refering to is our licenses. Even when you have passed the car course its still your original drivers license that your using and when penalty points were brought in there was an opinion that emergency services responding to calls could be stopped and get penalty points. Im not sure where this came from as we are exempt Road Traffic law when responding to emergencies but in theory if we speed for no reason then we could get points.

Chief,
Gardai are exempt from RTA 61/2002 in the execution of our duties provided its reasonable safe to do so and having taken all the factors into consideration. Otherwise you wouldnt see the vans on Henry Street. Unrelated, you seem to know a fair bit, are you a Garda or connectecd with one?

Educated,
You cannot compare emergency services driving to someone driving home with the shopping. You simple cannot do it as the situations the Gardai, firemen or ambulance crews are trained for and must do will almost never be encountered by a normal 'civilian' driver.

As for criminal or tort law, I believe people are speaking about dangerous driving which falls under my area of knowledge.

Now, answer me this, would this even be spoken about if it was an ambulance that hit someone? would anyone be calling for the DFB mans head?Strange but for some reason I doubt it.

maidhc

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Now, answer me this, would this even be spoken about if it was an ambulance that hit someone? would anyone be calling for the DFB mans head?Strange but for some reason I doubt it.

I think they would to be honest.

IIRC a fire engine driver was prosecuted for dangerous driving in the UK many moons ago. It was held he had absolutely no lawful reason not to obey the law in the circumstances but the judge suggested the case probably should not have been brought before him. I cant remember the name of it.

Eru

maidhc wrote:

I think they would to be honest.

IIRC a fire engine driver was prosecuted for dangerous driving in the UK many moons ago. It was held he had absolutely no lawful reason not to obey the law in the circumstances but the judge suggested the case probably should not have been brought before him. I cant remember the name of it.

would you believe I found the story? (http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/123/123403_999_crash_death_fireman_accused.html)

The law in the UK is isolated in that its the emergency service that has right of way in nearly all nations. In fact in the US you get prosecuted for failing to give way even if they run into you.

Trojan911

I'm curious to know why this officer was not prosecuted. I am also curious as to why Donnybrook Gardaí were investigating their own and if this officer really did check her vehicle prior to taking it out. If so, why did she not spot that the tyres were not up to standard or at least think to seek advice on them, having passed this intensive course.

An urgent review should take place in to what is classed as an emergency call i.e. a member of the public or indeed a member of the emergency services getting seriously assaulted on the street with numbers of witnesses calling "999" would get my backing to get to the scene on a blues & twos run whereas an intruder alarm, which I believe was the case here, should be judged on the probability of it being a false alarm & downgraded to a non blues & twos run unless a member of the public has called in stating "suspects on premises" where the alarm is sounding (based on stats from the percentage of false alarms).


TJ911...

Trojan911

EducatedGuess wrote:

Whats your opinions on it. Is the fact that the person is a Garda protect them from a case of dangerous driving? I am aware of the decision in the ECHR, but to what extent. Take for an example, the Gardai have an advanced driving course for members, but a Garda can officially drive a patrol car [after getting permission from the Supt] with a civilian full driving license. Is this acceptable as to their duty of care to the public?

EG,

All emergency services drivers should not be protected in my opinion. They should be accountable for their actions just like any other road user and prosecuted likewise.

The decision by the DPP not to prosecute in this case baffles me and disappoints me.

TJ911...

Our man in Havana

Is there any way to challenge a decision of the DPP?

Trojan911

Here is an example that happened only a few weeks back in Central London. These were emailed to me a few hours after the collision. The response car was responding to an intruder alarm call along with two other response vehicles (awaiting update on whether it was false or not or set off in error). The female response driver jumped a red and collided with a member of the public in a BMW. As you can see the response car ended up on its roof.

It is extremely likely she will be served an N.I.P. (Notice of Intended Prosecution) & prosecuted for her actions (I'll keep you posted if the thread stays alive that long).

Fortunately all concerned were only slightly injured and the member of the public & the officer were treated in hospital and released shortly later. It could have been a lot worse.

TJ911...

Our man in Havana

Why did you cover up the name of the street?

Trojan911

Bond-007 wrote:

Why did you cover up the name of the street?

To keep it anonymous.... It's a small world, someone may know someone who may have been involved, wouldn't want to cause any distress etc..

TJ911...

Our man in Havana

No bother, I understand.

Eru

Trojan911 wrote:

EG,

All emergency services drivers should not be protected in my opinion. They should be accountable for their actions just like any other road user and prosecuted likewise.

The decision by the DPP not to prosecute in this case baffles me and disappoints me.

TJ911...

Well I have to be honest guys. Your either supporting us or your not and if you wont support us and actually call for us to be prosecuted when all we were doing was trying to save someones life then we will stop driving at speed when going to calls. In fact I wont even run in future in case I bump into someone and they fall over.

Will you stand by your comments here when a person dies because emergency services wouldnt drive at high speed?

Thats where this is going, if your saying I will go to jail for trying to help someone else then why would we? Theres no 'S' on my chest folks but I along with my colleagues still run into danger to protect others. Maybe the Gardai in Raheny, Finglas and Store Street should have simple walked on instead of tackling armed criminals?

BTW, not one person here can explain why a civilian driver needs to speed in the city centre and therefore its not fair to hold us to the same restrictions.

Trojan911

Well I have to be honest guys. Your either supporting us or your not and if you wont support us and actually call for us to be prosecuted when all we were doing was trying to save someones life then we will stop driving at speed when going to calls. In fact I wont even run in future in case I bump into someone and they fall over.

Oh I do support the Gardaí but there are limits to what I expect. Is an intruder alarm call that urgent? do Gardaí really need to travel at high speed to respond to one? I say no to certain response calls. How many intruder alarms are set off in error compared to actual genuine ones?

Will you stand by your comments here when a person dies because emergency services wouldnt drive at high speed?

A person did die as a result of an emergency vehicle speeding. Thus the creation of this thread.

It will make all emergency drivers accounable for their actions and make them think of the consequences should a collision occur. Emergency services know the risks involved, it comes with the package. If you don't like it then leave.


TJ911...

Eru

Trojan911 wrote:

Oh I do support the Gardaí but there are limits to what I expect. Is an intruder alarm call that urgent? do Gardaí really need to travel at high speed to respond to one? I say no to certain response calls. How many intruder alarms are set off in error compared to actual genuine ones?

Well unlike yourself we dont have the ability to see the future so we cannot decide in advance if its a false alarm or if someone is 10 seconds away from being stabbed or shot. I call that worthy of a fast response.

Trojan911 wrote:

A person did die as a result of an emergency vehicle speeding. Thus the creation of this thread.

Have you deliberately misread? Will you stand by your comments when a person dies because we DIDNT speed to the call and get there too late? well?

Trojan911 wrote:

It will make all emergency drivers accounable for their actions and make them think of the consequences should a collision occur.

Yes and that means we will no longer speed or respond with any form of speed. Is this what you want? Will you stand by your comments when we will no longer risk jail time to save lives? You take advantage of emergency services and our dedication to duty.

Trojan911

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Well unlike yourself we dont have the ability to see the future so we cannot decide in advance if its a false alarm or if someone is 10 seconds away from being stabbed or shot. I call that worthy of a fast response.


Have you deliberately misread? Will you stand by your comments when a person dies because we DIDNT speed to the call and get there too late? well?


Yes and that means we will no longer speed or respond with any form of speed. Is this what you want? Will you stand by your comments when we will no longer risk jail time to save lives? You take advantage of emergency services and our dedication to duty.

KW1978,

This is where your lack of experience lets you down.... Get a few years service under your belt then I'll take notice of you.

TJ911...

Eru

Trojan911 wrote:

KW1978,

This is where your lack of experience lets you down.... Get a few years service under your belt then I'll take notice of you.

TJ911...

get any experience at all and then you will know what the hell your talking about.

face it, Im right.

Trojan911

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

get any experience at all and then you will know what the hell your talking about.

face it, Im right.

You should really take the blinkers off and look around yourself.....

TJ911...

Eru

Trojan911 wrote:

You should really take the blinkers off and look around yourself.....

TJ911...

Trojan, you have no knowledge and this is the best yiou can do? Pathetic.

Answer yes or no:

will you still state emergency services should not speed when a person dies as a result of the delayed response?

hullaballoo

Karlitosway and Trojan, can you keep it civil please? This heckling doesn't sit well with me.

Turner

Ahh everybody is finding it entertaining, i cant seem to stay away from this thread.

Eru

hullaballoo wrote:

Karlitosway and Trojan, can you keep it civil please? This heckling doesn't sit well with me.

Im trying to have a civilised debate here but Trojan is the one getting personal and dodging fair questions.

maidhc

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

will you still state emergency services should not speed when a person dies as a result of the delayed response?

Hardly to the extent of doing 70mph in a 30mph zone, as was alledged in the above story.

If you were to exceed the motorway limit by the same ratio you would need to be doing about 180mph. I'm not saying gardaí should abide the limits to the last letter, but probably shouldnt show totaly disregard either: Becuase it casues people to die.

Karlito, you seriously need to cool down though!

Turner

You would be lucky to get a formula 1 car around that corner at 70mph!

For a car with a rear bald tyre and with bumps on the road 35-40mph would lose control on that corner.

Its was alleged and the DPP did not have evidence to support a charge of Dangerous driving.

Trojan911

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Trojan, you have no knowledge and this is the best yiou can do? Pathetic.

Answer yes or no:

will you still state emergency services should not speed when a person dies as a result of the delayed response?

Read my previous posts, take your time & digest them, the answer is there and when you get some experience under your belt you just may understand that it's not all about racing around in cars with blues & twos going. You make alot of incorrect assumptions. (I have no further to discuss on this matter).

TJ911...

alfie

This incident is not the norm it rarely ever happens so i dont see the need for emergency services to change the way they drive. Dont get me wrong it is terrible what happened but dont hundreds of people die a year from civilians speeding

mountainyman

Given that the driver had passed the Advanced Driving Test negligence must arise from
1 the condition of the car
2 the nature of the test
3 recklessness on the part of the guard concerned

If driving at 35 mph then only 1 could arise (I suspect).
If driving at 70 mph than all could be causes of action.

However while I have no particular love for the Gardai I would trust the assessment of a guard regarding her own speed before a crowd of civillin witnesses.

The fact that someone has died makes us believe that the ban garda concerned must be in the wrong, not so. A 74 year old woman could have died from anything.

Regarding the issue of the Tyre depth PSV license holders' tyres are not presented for inspection every day.
If the tyre depth conformed to the legal standard then it conformed to the legal standard.

I am sure that Garda forensics could estimate speed based on tyre tracks left on the roadand so on.

With regard to the broader issue I believe that the Garda Siochana as a whole should be held accountable for the misdeeds of its members.

PS Cause of action 2 HOW GOOD CAN THE TEST BE IF A WOMAN CAN PASS IT
This case will never come to court
74 year old woman waiting for a bus = NO QUANTUM.

MM

mountainyman

Chief--- wrote:

Ahh everybody is finding it entertaining, i cant seem to stay away from this thread.

It is annoying and there isn't a pair of them in it.

MM

EducatedGuess

Garda cars are not PSV's, drivers are not required to sit a PSV test, hackneys, taxi's and hearses are all required to have a PSV licence holder driving. Garda cars don't. Although some comments have been personal and too be fair some views and questions. It is not a matter of us and them, for us or against us. Emergency vehicles are required to speed to respond as quickly as possible to any given situation. Lives have been lost by both slow garda and DFB responses, no question. The legal tyre depth is for cars not used as emergency vehicles, civilian vehicles are not driven as 'hard' as emergency vehicles and it should be presumed that emergency vehicles come under a different test.

The argument that people are putting forward that "well if we were to prosecute every garda for dangerous driving" in circumstances such as these, the Gardai just wont respond as quick. The question is to what extent should the Gardai be responsible then, Gardai are not above the law even within their duty of care. Untrained drivers and over used cars must be swaying the balance? "The fact that someone has died makes us believe that the ban garda concerned must be in the wrong, not so. A 74 year old woman could have died from anything." Could have but didn't. Sure if we were all to go around with that attitude, I could go out shoot a 62 year old man and say well, he could have died from anything. A life is a life, are you saying that the accident did not contribute to her death? As to the evidence of tyre tracks, tyre marks are seldom left at a scence during rainy conditions due to aqua plaining [not sure of spelling]. The car skids on a layer of water and it is only after a certain distance marks will be left. So they are unreliable.

See the basis of the question is, I can sue an individual member of the Gardai [civil action] for not carrying out his/her duties in respect of any case relating to me. So why can I not hold the organisation responsible?

mountainyman

EducatedGuess wrote:

"The fact that someone has died makes us believe that the ban garda concerned must be in the wrong, not so. A 74 year old woman could have died from anything."

Could have but didn't. Sure if we were all to go around with that attitude, I could go out shoot a 62 year old man and say well, he could have died from anything. A life is a life, are you saying that the accident did not contribute to her death?

I am not suggesting that the accident played no role in her death.
I am aware of the eggshell skull rule, however could a car travelling at 30 mph kill a 74 year old woman?

EducatedGuess wrote:

Garda cars are not PSV's, drivers are not required to sit a PSV test ... The legal tyre depth is for cars not used as emergency vehicles, civilian vehicles are not driven as 'hard' as emergency vehicles and it should be presumed that emergency vehicles come under a different test.

Is the Advanced driving test not more difficult that the PSV test. I suspect the PSV comparison is something of a red herring.
The Garda Siochana would limit its exposure by considering the matter of the tyre depth.

EducatedGuess wrote:

The argument that people are putting forward that "well if we were to prosecute every garda for dangerous driving" in circumstances such as these, the Gardai just wont respond as quick... Gardai are not above the law even within their duty of care.

Clearly a balance must be struck between response speed and the safety of other road users. The matter must be formally considered and guidelines and procedures put in place, perhaps as part of the advanced driving test. It is not acceptable to leave the matter to individual Gardai and then hang them when something goes wrong. If such guidelines exist individual gardai should adhere to them.

EducatedGuess wrote:

As to the evidence of tyre tracks, tyre marks are seldom left at a scence during rainy conditions due to aqua plaining [not sure of spelling]. The car skids on a layer of water and it is only after a certain distance marks will be left. So they are unreliable.

I was unaware of that.

EducatedGuess wrote:

See the basis of the question is, I can sue an individual member of the Gardai [civil action] for not carrying out his/her duties in respect of any case relating to me. So why can I not hold the organisation responsible?

Why do you believe that you can't?

MM

maidhc

mountainyman wrote:

Given that the driver had passed the Advanced Driving Test negligence must arise from
1 the condition of the car
2 the nature of the test
3 recklessness on the part of the guard concerned

If driving at 35 mph then only 1 could arise (I suspect).

This does not really hold true, speed on its own is proof of very little (and it isnt a defence for a charge of dangerous driving). I think for instance a garda car would be negligent by going past a school at 3pm doing 30mph if children were running in all directions.

mountainyman wrote:

A 74 year old woman could have died from anything.

If you go down this road too far then the inevitable conclusions is that since everyone is going to die, we might as well legalise murder.

mountainyman wrote:

Clearly a balance must be struck between response speed and the safety of other road users. The matter must be formally considered and guidelines and procedures put in place, perhaps as part of the advanced driving test. It is not acceptable to leave the matter to individual Gardai and then hang them when something goes wrong. If such guidelines exist individual gardai should adhere to them.

I agree.

EducatedGuess

Completley agree with mountyman on his points above, a proper system needs to be put in place. But all consider this, the transcript of the Coroners Court is interesting. The engineer pointed out that the tyre on the left rear of the car was 1.6mm, Ford [the maker of the car] recommend 3mm tyre depth. He also said that cost to the Gardai if they were to adhere to Ford's recommendations would be approx €10 million for about 2,200 cars. The jury in the Coroners Court are restricted in the view that if the Coroner directs them to a verdict they must hold the same, he may only give one or two options. However, the jury can make recommendations and these are enforceable. The jury in this case did state that patrol car tyre depth needs to be reviewed.

Now I know that the Garda budget is tight enough and that patrol cars are of substandard, radio communication is poor and not one Garda has a stab vest. But then who is responsible? Does the duty of care fall in the hands of the Gardai, or the State? Lets also remember a Garda died in a patrol car that was not equipped with airbags. So not only are they putting civilians at risk, they are putting Garda lives at risk eveyday. Now some may argue that Gardai understand that in the line of duty, thier lives are at risk. But is it not reasonable to assume that the Gardai put every measure in place to protect members of the force i.e. stab vests etc.

Trojan911

EducatedGuess wrote:

Now I know that the Garda budget is tight enough and that patrol cars are of substandard, radio communication is poor and not one Garda has a stab vest. But then who is responsible? Does the duty of care fall in the hands of the Gardai, or the State? Lets also remember a Garda died in a patrol car that was not equipped with airbags. So not only are they putting civilians at risk, they are putting Garda lives at risk eveyday. Now some may argue that Gardai understand that in the line of duty, thier lives are at risk. But is it not reasonable to assume that the Gardai put every measure in place to protect members of the force i.e. stab vests etc.

I agree, and the question I would next ask is, why are their vehicles, communications and personal safety allowed to be compromised when this is an outright safety issue all round for public and Gardaí.

What steps have been taken to resolve these issues?

A Garda knows that when he / she steps out on patrol there is a remote chance they may not return home alive that evening, that comes with the package. The government should, in my opinion, ensure that safety is not compromised but maximised and not an issue that falls within a budget. One should not excuse finance for safety.

For instance, is there a minimum strength requirement for any team that starts a shift? What if that strength falls below the minimum requirement. There is now a safety issue for both Gardaí & the public right there. How often has this happened?

TJ911...

Scumbag69

Trojan911 wrote:

it's not all about racing around in cars with blues & twos going. You make alot of incorrect assumptions. (I have no further to discuss on this matter).

R U a guard or an enlgish copper? 'Blues and twos' is English slang.