Is the Driver Hotline no good?

MontgomeryClift

Driving on a winding road from Kilkenny yesterday evening I spotted a bright blue 05 D reg Peugeot 407 in my right mirror. It overtook the car behind me, me, and the car in front on a bend. If anything had been coming the other way round the bend we would have seen a major smash up. He then overtook another car on an unbroken white line on another bend.

I got the number and a description of the driver, and rang the "hotline." Your man took all the details, and said the Guards might ring me to check the details. They didn't.

So does this hotline do any good, or could it be scrapped to save money? Can we be assured that the Guards only want to turn up when somebody is killed, and have no interest in prevention; and that we can then dish out our own law? Has this "hotline" ever produced results?

SV

I rang it once after someone very nearly side swiped me, the garda station rang me 10 mins later, asked would I make a statement if they caught the guy. I said yes and they sent a car out to look for it, heard them talking about it on the scanner.

never found the prick but..regardless, very handy.

gofaster_s13

The problem with the "ratline" as its known is its your word against the other drivers, all he has to do is deny it(unless you have another witness)

cml387

It does help. The information may go on Pulse.

SV

gofaster_s13 wrote: »

The problem with the "ratline"

Gardas are pigs too I take it? :rolleyes:

gofaster_s13

ClioV6 wrote: »

Gardas are pigs too I take it? :rolleyes:

If you say so !! It's called the ratline by the Guards, and its not taken too seriously by them unless they get a number of calls on the same reg!!

Mailman

gofaster_s13 wrote: »

....unless they get a number of calls on the same reg!!

A Gaurd confirmed this to me last week.

Seth Brundle

I have rang them a number of times. AFAIK its a call centre in Sligo that answers and faxes (:rolleyes:) the details to the nearest station to the incident who then have the responsibility to respond.
My most recent call involved a driver who persists in driving each morning with his young kid unrestrained (sometimes in the front). I was offered the option of having a warning given to the driver or a court appearance - I opted for the latter so I was asked to call into my local station to make a formal complaint. Anyhow, I did but there were two lads in talking about some serious stuff so I decided that I should leave them in peace and call back another day.
In the meantime I got a call from a garda who has received the file and he wants to meet me to go through it all.
The system does actually work!

galwaytt

kbannon wrote: »

....... I was offered the option of having a warning given to the driver or a court appearance - I opted for the latter so I was asked to call into my local station to make a formal complaint.

there's something seriously wrong with a system where Joe Citizen gets to effect policing and judicial practice. That's the Garda's and Court's job - they should have taken your info, possibly looked to see if it's happening, on patrol, and actioning it themselves. Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast etc..etc...

TheNog

galwaytt wrote: »

there's something seriously wrong with a system where Joe Citizen gets to effect policing and judicial practice. That's the Garda's and Court's job - they should have taken your info, possibly looked to see if it's happening, on patrol, and actioning it themselves. Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast etc..etc...

A witness only makes the complaint. The Garda does the work but the witness must be willing to go to court and yes the more witnesses the better.

Seth Brundle

Correct TheNog - I must go to court and be able to present my view and presumably the judge will listen to both sides with impartiality.

galwaytt

Problem is - who are you ? (not literally....:) )....from a legal standpoint ?

It's your word against his - if you're the only witness, then, I'd just as happy take your report as ......defamatory ?

You swear an affidavit that it happened, he/she one that they didn't.

So, now what ? You can't have people convicted on hearsay of Joe Public - otherwise the system would collapse with frivolous complaints.

Esel

galwaytt wrote: »

You can't have people convicted on hearsay of Joe Public - otherwise the system would collapse with frivolous complaints.

Evidence from an eye witness is not hearsay.

TheNog

galwaytt wrote: »

Problem is - who are you ? (not literally....:) )....from a legal standpoint ?

It's your word against his - if you're the only witness, then, I'd just as happy take your report as ......defamatory ?

You swear an affidavit that it happened, he/she one that they didn't.

So, now what ? You can't have people convicted on hearsay of Joe Public - otherwise the system would collapse with frivolous complaints.

You are right to say it is one word against another so it is preferable to have more than one witness. The problem is where a station is manned by one Garda and so can only take one call at a time. TrafficWatch line does come in handy here sometimes. Usually where one complaint has been made a patrol car will attempt to intercept the offending driver in the hope that other drivers will stop and make complaints at the roadside.

By the way hearsay is something that you heard or told by another but didn't actually witness it yourself. In these cases a witness would be someone who saw the event and is therefore allowed to give evidence in court.

javaboy

galwaytt wrote: »

there's something seriously wrong with a system where Joe Citizen gets to effect policing and judicial practice. That's the Garda's and Court's job - they should have taken your info, possibly looked to see if it's happening, on patrol, and actioning it themselves. Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast etc..etc...

As the Nog was saying, the witness needs to be willing to go to court in the case of pushing for anything more than a warning. If people that put in a call to the Hotline were obliged to make a court appearance, there would be a lot less calls.

That's why kbannon was given the choice as to how far it would be pursued. With that said though, there's nothing wrong with a Garda taking note of the reg and going out to witness it for themselves one morning.

TheNog

javaboy wrote: »

As the Nog was saying, the witness needs to be willing to go to court in the case of pushing for anything more than a warning. If people that put in a call to the Hotline were obliged to make a court appearance, there would be a lot less calls.

+1

javaboy wrote: »

That's why kbannon was given the choice as to how far it would be pursued.

Hmm the choices. I have a problem with one of the choices, guess which one.

Choice one - complainant willing to go to court etc - all grand

Choice two - complainant not willing to go to court but wishes warning only to driver. Garda goes out to offending driver and issues a warning. Offending driver makes complaint to Ombudsman that he is being treated unfairly, felt it was a threat and Garda has no evidence an offence has even occured.

javaboy wrote: »

With that said though, there's nothing wrong with a Garda taking note of the reg and going out to witness it for themselves one morning.

This one does happen. Sometimes doesn't work cos of pesky flashers

MontgomeryClift

A guard did ring. I was offered the choice to take a case or have your man visited. I chose the latter because having a visit from the Guards should have the right effect without using court time. All I want is to prevent the driver from doing something similar in future.