Boy Racer On L Plates Car Confiscated.

Green Hornet

The guards in New Ross confiscated a boy racers car last night because he was on L plates without a qualified driver in the car.

I suspect its as a consequence of the terrible accident in New Ross last weekend. A passanger was killed when 2 boy racers were racing each other on the back road and one clipped the other causing the car to flip.

Marcus.Aurelius

I hope it lasts longer than the usual kneejerk reaction from the higher officers. Nice to see it happening though, always warms my cold cold heart!

I reckon the accompanying driver rule should be enforced thoroughly, the accompanying driver might be able to stem the moments of utter stupidity that can be so prevalent in all of us when we were learning to drive.

Green Hornet

Marcus.Aurelius wrote: »

I hope it lasts longer than the usual kneejerk reaction from the higher officers. Nice to see it happening though, always warms my cold cold heart!

+1.

Great idea.:D

Fighting Irish

Green Hornet wrote: »

The guards in New Ross confiscated a boy racers car last night because he was on L plates without a qualified driver in the car.

I suspect its as a consequence of the terrible accident in New Ross last weekend. A passanger was killed when 2 boy racers were racing each other on the back road and one clipped the other causing the car to flip.

lol

i love how people can tell who a boy racer is

guil

theres no definition of a boy racer but everyone knows 1 when they c one i used to be like that and now when i'm driving on some roads i think its crazy some of the places i used to overtake

Seth Brundle

Was the car confiscated because he was a learner without L plates or accompanying driver or because the car may not have been roadworthy or for some other reason?
Can the gardai confiscate a car because the driver isn't abiding by the new licencing rules?

FruitLover

Fighting Irish wrote: »

i love how people can tell who a boy racer is

It's the guy in the Glanza with the bodykit.

Alanstrainor

kbannon wrote: »

Can the gardai confiscate a car because the driver isn't abiding by the new licencing rules?

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i remember reading somewhere that they would not be confiscating cars as the Gardaí would not have the resources to store them.

mthd

Marcus.Aurelius wrote: »

I reckon the accompanying driver rule should be enforced thoroughly, the accompanying driver might be able to stem the moments of utter stupidity that can be so prevalent in all of us when we were learning to drive.

We just need to copy the UK's rules imo. Insurance is void if there is no accompanying driver. That'll learn em!

vectra

Give them a driving ban for 4 years and a 5k fine..
That should give them something to think about

SuperSean11

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i remember reading somewhere that they would not be confiscating cars as the Gardaí would not have the resources to store them.

Id say they confiscated it because he took his L plates off.

ScouseMouse

About fecking time to !

Hanley

There is absolutely NO way of knowing why it was confiscated unlesss you were talking to the Garda who did it.

It could have been...
-no tax
-no insurance
-no nct
-generally "unsafe" in some way
-he coulda been drunk
-the car could have been stolen
-provisional driver without a license

unkel

Yeah, we need a link here, OP. Otherwise it didn't happen. I'll leave this open for a day or so...

legs11

Guardai should take all boyracer and skanger cars irrespective whether they have full licences or not tbh.


there, I said it..:cool:

TheNog

Gardai cannot seize a car if learner driver is unaccompanied, if the driver is drunk and we cannot seize a car for no NCT either. A car can only be seized under traffic laws for no insurance or no tax or if it is defective. A vehicle can also be seized if it was used in crime, if items in the car are believed to be stolen etc.

TheNog

mthd wrote: »

We just need to copy the UK's rules imo. Insurance is void if there is no accompanying driver. That'll learn em!

+1

but either the insurance companies or the government would have to sort this one out. I believe the insurance companies are legally required to insure a person as long as they have a licence

vectra

Hanley wrote: »

There is absolutely NO way of knowing why it was confiscated unlesss you were talking to the Garda who did it.

What about if someone was talking to the lad it was taken from ?

*Tripper*

TheNog wrote: »

Gardai cannot seize a car if learner driver is unaccompanied, if the driver is drunk and we cannot seize a car for no NCT either. A car can only be seized under traffic laws for no insurance or no tax or if it is defective. A vehicle can also be seized if it was used in crime, if items in the car are believed to be stolen etc.

Are you a guard?

L-M

FruitLover wrote: »

It's the guy in the Glanza with the bodykit.

Some glanza's cost money, and alot of the drivers pay high insurance premiums for those cars.

It's the fella who drives like he owns a ferrari in the white 92 ex-taxi corrolla with over a million on the clock, the biggest, most ugly and cheapest wheels they can find, "toyota" written on the windscreen, speed stripes and a back box that makes it sound like a tractor.
They are the boy racers of our generation:D

Hanley

vectra wrote: »

What about if someone was talking to the lad it was taken from ?

Down the pub, over some pints. Just after the same guy turned down Cameron Diaz cos he was getting it on with Jessica Alba?? :pac:

AntiVirus

Green Hornet wrote: »

The guards in New Ross confiscated a boy racers car last night because he was on L plates without a qualified driver in the car.

I suspect its as a consequence of the terrible accident in New Ross last weekend. A passanger was killed when 2 boy racers were racing each other on the back road and one clipped the other causing the car to flip.

How do you know this? A friend told you?

This is like when the smoking ban came in, remember all those threads about people getting caught smoking and having to pay the 3000 euro fine.

Green Hornet

unkel wrote: »

Yeah, we need a link here, OP. Otherwise it didn't happen. I'll leave this open for a day or so...

I dont know the detail but three people who work with me from New Ross were all aware of it on Friday morning. I'm not from New Ross but perhaps somebody else on the forum might be able to elaborate on the detail. I'll find out more on Monday morning.

yayamark

TheNog wrote: »

Gardai cannot seize a car if learner driver is unaccompanied, if the driver is drunk and we cannot seize a car for no NCT either. A car can only be seized under traffic laws for no insurance or no tax or if it is defective. A vehicle can also be seized if it was used in crime, if items in the car are believed to be stolen etc.

A car can be siezed for not having An NCT.

DonJose

TheNog wrote: »

Gardai cannot seize a car if learner driver is unaccompanied, if the driver is drunk and we cannot seize a car for no NCT either. A car can only be seized under traffic laws for no insurance or no tax or if it is defective. A vehicle can also be seized if it was used in crime, if items in the car are believed to be stolen etc.

I thought these new laws were "traffic laws".

mondeo

Good to hear them towing that car away, regardless if it was because he was a boyracer or not...One less inconsiderate driver of the road thank god.

jhegarty

yayamark wrote: »

A car can be siezed for not having An NCT.

Under what law ?

bonkey

mthd wrote: »

We just need to copy the UK's rules imo. Insurance is void if there is no accompanying driver. That'll learn em!

No ****ing way.

Consider the following scenario:

L-driver with no accompanying causes accident...causing horrific injuries to another road-user. Why should the victim be faced with either :

a) Having their own insurance to foot the bill
or
b) No insurance footing the bill.

I would suggest the Swiss approach. Insurance is still valid for third-party-claims, but the insurance company can then claim between 40% and 70% of any pay-out back from the driver. This is enforced by law, to the extend that the driver is required to materialise any and all available assets and if that is insufficient is entitled to nothing more than subsistence earnings until such times as the debt is repaid.

If that means losing their car, their house, their lifes savings, and living off less than what the Dole would give them until such times as the debt is repaid, then thats what they do.

That will learn them.

Oh - and its off-topic...but drunk-drivers get the same treatment.

TheNog

yayamark wrote: »

A car can be siezed for not having An NCT.

That's not correct. A car cannot be seized for no NCT. A car can only be seized if there is no tax or insurance under Section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1994

TheNog

Green Hornet wrote: »

The guards in New Ross confiscated a boy racers car last night because he was on L plates without a qualified driver in the car.

A car cannot be seized if the driver is unaccompanied or if there is no L plates displayed or both. There is no section of the traffic laws that empower gardai to seize a car under these situations. However the garda should not allow a person to continue to drive because the garda would be implicated in allowing that person to break the law. The only reasonable solutions is either have that person leave the car on the roadside or bring it to the station to be picked up later by the owner or a person with a full licence.

Steve

TheNog wrote: »

Gardai cannot seize a car if learner driver is unaccompanied, if the driver is drunk and we cannot seize a car for no NCT either. A car can only be seized under traffic laws for no insurance or no tax or if it is defective. A vehicle can also be seized if it was used in crime, if items in the car are believed to be stolen etc.

The car can also be siezed under VRT legislation in the Finance act.

AFAIK, it can also be 'removed' if it's deemed to be parked illegally / dangerously or causing an obstruction.

Slig

I'm all on for factual reports but in this case I dont see anything wrong with a little scaremongering.
Maybe if storys like this start to get around then those little scumbags might actually think about how they behave. They might actually start to think twice about driving in circles around housing estates all night if they are afraid of getting their car taken off them and having to walk home to mammy and daddy.

Vertakill

mondeo wrote: »

Good to hear them towing that car away, regardless if it was because he was a boyracer or not...One less inconsiderate driver of the road thank god.

Loving the sweeping comments being made based on absolutely NO information.

I especially like the way if you're a young male learner driver you're automatically assumed a boy racer. (That's not directed at you mondeo)

There's just as many grannies/grandads or just grossly incompetent middle-aged men and women out there that rarely get any grief. Mostly because they're your mams/dads and you've just come to accept their **** driving due to sitting in the backseat of their car for so many years.

I've had loads of near misses from people who should definitely be made sit their test again, yet I don't think I've ever had a near miss from a boy racer. I'm not saying they're never involved in accidents because they are, but I think it's blown way out of proportion and they're totally being used as scapegoats for the Irish people's serious lack of driving skill.

For example, had this been your Aunt who's been driving on a provisional license for the past 25 years, who got pulled up in New Ross and had their car confiscated, would we even be discussing this? I doubt it.

-Chris-

Marcus.Aurelius wrote: »

I hope it lasts longer than the usual kneejerk reaction from the higher officers. Nice to see it happening though, always warms my cold cold heart!

I reckon the accompanying driver rule should be enforced thoroughly, the accompanying driver might be able to stem the moments of utter stupidity that can be so prevalent in all of us when we were learning to drive.

Hey MA, quick (semi-related) question.

What kind of liability/responsibility does the accompanying driver have for the actions of the learner driver. Are they merely there to be able to drive the car home if the learner can't continue the journey, or do they have a duty to intervene if the learner is being irresponsible or unsafe?

-Chris-

Vertakill wrote: »

Loving the sweeping comments being made based on absolutely NO information.

I especially like the way if you're a young male learner driver you're automatically assumed a boy racer. (That's not directed at you mondeo)

There's just as many grannies/grandads or just grossly incompetent middle-aged men and women out there that rarely get any grief. Mostly because they're your mams/dads and you've just come to accept their **** driving due to sitting in the backseat of their car for so many years.

I've had loads of near misses from people who should definitely be made sit their test again, yet I don't think I've ever had a near miss from a boy racer. I'm not saying they're never involved in accidents because they are, but I think it's blown way out of proportion and they're totally being used as scapegoats for the Irish people's serious lack of driving skill.

+1 - there's LOADS of people who are unsafe drivers and should be put off the roads.

I don't think being a young male learner driver instantly qualifies you as a boy racer, but being a racer nearly guarantees you're a young, male, probably learner driver.

I'd much rather be hit by
a) some old incompetent biddy at 5 miles per hour because she can't see over the steering wheel
or
b) some young learner girl at 10 miles per hour because she was too busy rearranging her nodding dog collection on the dashboard of her Nissan Micra (that she's named Dolly)
than
c) the "boy racer" who's coming around a blind corner well beyond his abilities or the abilities of his car

That's a lot of stereotyping before noon, but you get my point...

Vertakill wrote: »

For example, had this been your Aunt who's been driving on a provisional license for the past 25 years, who got pulled up in New Ross and had their car confiscated, would we even be discussing this? I doubt it.

I'd hope that they get equal coverage, it's only by publicising the enforcement of traffic laws that you get changes in driver behaviour.


"[it] is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done" - Lord Hewart CJ

af666x

Vertakill wrote: »

Loving the sweeping comments being made based on absolutely NO information.

+1 also.

If there's even a shred of truth in the OP, I'd laugh.

But hey - you'd make a great tabloid journalist!

EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT!!!!
INTERNET USER WIELDS STEREOTYPE AND PROVOKES DEBATE AND SARCASM AMONGST FORUM USERS

TOPLESS PICTURES OF LINDSAY LOHAN ON PAGE 16!!!

/rant

tomred1

Where's pg16?

r3nu4l

af666x wrote: »

But hey - you'd make a great tabloid journalist!

Or the Indo...

Either way, this is the same old debate about Boy Racers. I'm of the firm belief that if we shot them all or sent them to work in labour camps the problem would disappear soon enough.

/tongue in cheek.

Green Hornet

Okay. Talked to the guys from New Ross this morning.

Point 1. It was a young male driver in a Glanza.
Point 2. It was not just down to L plates. He was not properly taxed or insured either.

Henry Ford III

Just as an aside. Can a cop order an illegal L plater to stop driving on the spot and make his/her own way to their destination?

Steve

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Just as an aside. Can a cop order an illegal L plater to stop driving on the spot and make his/her own way to their destination?

I would assume so.

Illegal driving is illegal driving.

It's a bit like asking "should a drunk driver be allowed to continue on after getting a ticket?"

Atomic Pineapple

Green Hornet wrote: »

Okay. Talked to the guys from New Ross this morning.

Point 1. It was a young male driver in a Glanza.
Point 2. It was not just down to L plates. He was not properly taxed or insured either.

ah the old 1.3 on log book trick, the amount of young lads insured in them as 1.3 starlets is a joke, the gardai should be stopping and checking them all!

Slig

SteveC wrote: »

I would assume so.

Illegal driving is illegal driving.

It's a bit like asking "should a drunk driver be allowed to continue on after getting a ticket?"

It is as simple as this
You cannot drive on the road if you only hold a provisional license. the exemption is if you have a qualified driver with min 2 years full license and they have to be fully insured to drive the vehicle and capable of driving (not drunk).
and it is up to the discression of the Guard as to whether they allow you to drive after being stopped.

mondeo

draffodx wrote: »

ah the old 1.3 on log book trick, the amount of young lads insured in them as 1.3 starlets is a joke, the gardai should be stopping and checking them all!

Ye thats true! Everyone I heard off who had one when they were 17 always said " just insure it as a 1.3, No one is gonna know like "

Either if your an old Biddy at 10kmh with L plates or boyracer with L plates the same practice of punishment should be implemented.

Steve

Slig wrote: »

and it is up to the discression of the Guard as to whether they allow you to drive after being stopped.

I've often wondered about that.

Guard stops you for doing something illegal, issues a summons / ticket, and then sends you on your way doing the same illegal thing - doesn't make sense.

Anyone know if the unaccopmanied drivers are just sent on their way after a checkpoint or do they have to wait for someone to 'collect' them?

Marcus.Aurelius

SteveC wrote: »

Anyone know if the unaccopmanied drivers are just sent on their way after a checkpoint or do they have to wait for someone to 'collect' them?

Depends entirely on the location of the detected offence. TheNog is correct in his interpretation of the Road Traffic Act. Cars cannot be seized except where they are suspected of being involved in a crime or where they are not insured or taxed. You can make sure they don't drive unaccompanied, I hope it might knock some sense into them through the sheer inconvenience and bollicking they get when caught.

In the case of VRT evasion. I'm not too clear on it but I assume its possible to seize a car for non-payment of VRT within a reasonable time-frame.

Slig

The only time I have heard of somebody being stopped and told they cant drive has been when there was a question if they were over the limit. The guard drove their car back to their house and then walked from there.
I think the more likely senario is:
Heres your fine now on your way.

TheNog

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Just as an aside. Can a cop order an illegal L plater to stop driving on the spot and make his/her own way to their destination?

Yes a learner driver can be ordered to park the car and make their own way or have a full licensed driver collect them and their car.

SteveC wrote: »

The car can also be siezed under VRT legislation in the Finance act.

AFAIK, it can also be 'removed' if it's deemed to be parked illegally / dangerously or causing an obstruction.

True on all counts but rarely happens. For VRT a car can be seized but Customs are notified and if the car is not worth much they will not bother towing it away to their compound. It is then left to the guard who seized it to get rid of it one way or another. Most guards don't want the hassle of it cos it is just hassle. However if the car was worth 30-100 grand customs would be down in a flash.

Seizing car dangerously parked are again rarely towed away. It is usually handier and quicker to contact the owner to have it moved rather than wait for a tow truck. Same for causing an obstruction but it would depends on what the car is obstructing. Different matter if the car is obstructing any emergency services vehicle.

Slig wrote: »

it is up to the discression of the Guard as to whether they allow you to drive after being stopped.

True discretion can be used but technically a learner driver should not let on their way of at all possible. If the car cannot be parked in a safe manner near the checkpoint it would be better to send them home bound.

SteveC wrote: »

I've often wondered about that.

Anyone know if the unaccopmanied drivers are just sent on their way after a checkpoint or do they have to wait for someone to 'collect' them?

Same as above

yayamark

TheNog wrote: »

That's not correct. A car cannot be seized for no NCT. A car can only be seized if there is no tax or insurance under Section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1994

Quote:
Originally Posted by yayamark
A car can be siezed for not having An NCT.




Under what law ?

Under the New Road Traffic Act that came in well over a year ago a car can be siezed under Sec 41 for no Nct

Seth Brundle

yayamark wrote: »

Under the New Road Traffic Act that came in well over a year ago a car can be siezed under Sec 41 for no Nct

Is this what you mean?
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/act/pub/0023/sec0019.html#id1151527007.25

TheNog

yayamark wrote: »

Under the New Road Traffic Act that came in well over a year ago a car can be siezed under Sec 41 for no Nct

Ah my bad :o