Garda procedures

Ray_Rod

Hi

I just got a fine on the post which I never thought I would get.

All happened when couple of months ago going to college, I got green/ amber traffic lights.
No time to really stop gently as traffic lights were just few meters away and following me a Garda car ... keep going for approximately 5 min drive with garda car behind still. No even bother as I was certain i haven’t done anything wrong.

Got into college and then into college car park ( aprox 2km from mentioned traffic lights), then in the car park the Garda car approach me (never stopped or given any sign)and without get out of the car ( 3 gardas on it) one asked me which was the colour of the lights, I told them that being sincere I had not really reaction time and I took the decision to keep going with amber instead of breaking abruptly and so I kept going, (so they did behind me)

Then one Garda came out of the car and asked me for Driving licence and insurance, as I was unable to provided it on the spot I provide college ID and address then I was advised that I had to provided within 10 day in x Garda station. ok bye, bye

That was all my conversation with them, the following day provided the driving licence and insurance in the agreed Garda station.

Never heard anything else until I got my fine.

My issue is not the money €80 or the points as I have a clean European licence, it is about principles, first of all because the light was yellow and they also pass with the lights in yellow (probably red by then) but I wasn’t notified neither verbally or produced a physical fine.

I friend of mine reckons i should chance it in court which i really think i shoild, but Should I?
Aren’t Gards obliged to inform me of the infraction?
Don’t they have to give me a ticket?
is my word agaisnt 3 gards = lost case?

I would appreciate any help as I’m not Irish and I’m not sure of the law here.

Thanks a lot

mikemac

Amber

Alun

micmclo wrote: »

Amber

Pedant. The OP said he wasn't Irish, and presumably English isn't his first language, so cut him some slack, OK?

Ian Beale

Ray_Rod wrote: »

My issue is not the money €80 or the points as I have a clean European licence, it is about principles, first of all because the light was yellow and they also pass with the lights in yellow (probably red by then)
Aren’t Gards obliged to inform me of the infraction?
Don’t they have to give me a ticket?
is my word agaisnt 3 gards = lost case?

They don't have to give a ticket there and then,to be honest just pay up is it really worth your time going to court over where you could get a bigger fine and more points?Especially against 3 guards I wouldn't chance it.

ITMissy

Take the points. you most likely will not win.

Owen

I had a similar situation before points were introduced, I was going to argue it, but instead I left it go and just fessed up. I couldn't believe the bangarda when I rolled down the window and she said "Bit of an amber gambler are we?" - we must have the only naturally sarcastic police force in the world.

I'm not a ROTR guru, but I know plenty here are. Does it not say in the rules of the road that Amber means stop, but only if it's safe to do so?

Alun

ned78 wrote: »

I'm not a ROTR guru, but I know plenty here are. Does it not say in the rules of the road that Amber means stop, but only if it's safe to do so?

Exactly. This is the exact text ...

An amber light means that you must not go beyond the stop line or, if there is no stop line, beyond the light. However, you may go on if you are so close to the line or the light when the amber light first appears that stopping would be dangerous.

Rowley Birkin QC

Sounds ridiculous that they followed you for 2km before pulling you.

To me it sounds like they weren't too pushed about it and only booked you when you pulled in of your own accord. That kind of stuff gives the Guards a bad rep in my opinion. If they were that concerned they should have pulled you there and then.

Gregor Samsa

ned78 wrote: »

I'm not a ROTR guru, but I know plenty here are. Does it not say in the rules of the road that Amber means stop, but only if it's safe to do so?

But there lies the problem. The OP will potentially have statements from 3 Gardai saying that it was safe to stop in time.

His word against theirs - not good odds.

OldmanMondeo

Alun wrote: »

Exactly. This is the exact text ...

Wish someone would teach the guard this. OP, I got done similar to yourself, to close to stop when the light went amber. Got the usual smart arse comment, "your were so late it was christmas", this was in march.

Best thing to do is just pay it, it will be your word against theirs and you will lose, more points and bigger fine then.

Anan1

If it were me, i'd start by calling the Garda in question. Given a decent approach, he may well agree to let the matter rest.

Biro

ned78 wrote: »

I'm not a ROTR guru, but I know plenty here are. Does it not say in the rules of the road that Amber means stop, but only if it's safe to do so?

Not really... It's stop unless it's unsafe to do so. There's a difference.

Owen

From another user's post Biro :

An amber light means that you must not go beyond the stop line or, if there is no stop line, beyond the light. However, you may go on if you are so close to the line or the light when the amber light first appears that stopping would be dangerous.

That would indicate that if in anyone's case they could prove that decelerating to try to catch an oncoming red light would potentially hurt a child in the rear seat, or cause a rear end pile up, that you would be able to argue the case in court - that you had followed the ROTR, and that the Garda in question should have a better understanding of this particular rule?

hi_im_fil

Did the garda car behind you manage to get through the "amber/red" light safely?

L1011

hi_im_fil wrote: »

Did the garda car behind you manage to get through the "amber/red" light safely?

From the OP: "and they also pass with the lights in yellow (probably red by then)"

So, yes, they did...

-Chris-

ned78 wrote: »

That would indicate that if in anyone's case they could prove that decelerating to try to catch an oncoming red light would potentially hurt a child in the rear seat, or cause a rear end pile up, that you would be able to argue the case in court - that you had followed the ROTR, and that the Garda in question should have a better understanding of this particular rule?

Yes but, you're then saying that the either the light was barely yellow and you were too close to the line to stop (which would be refuted by the Garda presumably) or that the light was healthy yellow/nearly red, but the car behind was too close for you to feel you had room to stop (but because the car behind was the Gardai themselves, I'm sure they'd refute this too).

Climate Expert

Go to court and contest. You'll most likely win. Quote the some rules of the road and tell them what you told us.

Blunder

Same thing happened to me. Amber light on. Went through and Robocop follow me through on his shiny new bike. He pulled me over and did the whole 'you've been a bold boy' routine. Anyway he told me that they had a new system in place where they didnt issue to ticket on the spot and that they would post it out to me in the post......I'm still waiting on it 2 and a half years later!:D

To be honest I dont think that going to court is going to be the solution. As you say its 3 guards words against yours. Judge will side with them most likely anyway.

Seth Brundle

I'm inclined to agree with Blunder.
Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, its you against three guards

su_dios

Its ridiculous that there is no real consistency with the ROTR/Driving Instructors and the Gardai's discretion. You do see chancers going for it but quite a lot of the time you'll know its too late to stop. From talking to a few people that have been done on this, most of them mentioned it was because they sped up going through the light.

robinph

Might be worth chancing it in court seeing as they cannot give you any points, just up the fine.

Why did they follow you through the questionable green/ amber/ red lights but then didn't actually stop you there and then. It's just as illegal for them to go through a red light and as they didn't stop you straight away they clearly didn't think you were a menace on the roads that needed stopping imediately. The following behind you for 2k's though was just so that they could check your details out before stopping you.

komodosp

If you are afraid of the possible expenses and poor chances of winning in court, you could always protest it in person, or send them a letter... Be sure to be nice about it, of course...

antodeco

OP, was it raining or clear when this happened. The reason I ask, if there was wet ground at the lights, stopping may have been more difficult and possibly more hazardous for those behind you..

Ray_Rod

I decided I'm paying the fine as I'll not get the points on my DL anyway.
If i go to court I "will waste" more tax payer money. As for the gards ,
I can see that things do not work as they should. They are not able to catch who they should and normal people we pay their frustrations. We are the easy ones to bully.

Thanks to everyone for your oppinion

John_Mc

I'd contest it. The 3 Guards will not all show up to court on the day, I'd be surprised if even one guard showed up to be honest.

Just explain that you thought the car behind was too close to abruptly stop, and that this was your understanding of the rules of the road.

Seth Brundle

robinph wrote: »

Might be worth chancing it in court seeing as they cannot give you any points, just up the fine.

Why did they follow you through the questionable green/ amber/ red lights but then didn't actually stop you there and then. It's just as illegal for them to go through a red light and as they didn't stop you straight away they clearly didn't think you were a menace on the roads that needed stopping imediately. The following behind you for 2k's though was just so that they could check your details out before stopping you.

Gardai are exempt from most of the rules of the road whilst carrying out their duties!

faceman

kbannon wrote: »

Gardai are exempt from most of the rules of the road whilst carrying out their duties!

Not that it would make any difference to the OP but i thought emergency service vehicles must have their blue lights flashing when performing an action outside the ROTR?

stifz

The joke of an irish justice system gives you an added kick in the teeth.. if you do go to court and loose you then get 4 points instead of the 2.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Omcd

Is video evidence required in these circumstances ? .

biko

stifz wrote: »

The joke of an irish justice system gives you an added kick in the teeth.. if you do go to court and loose you then get 4 points instead of the 2.

Absolutely ridiculous.

This is I think to stop every Tom, Dick and Harry out there to waste court time with their petty stuff. If the penalty was the same everyone would contest in court just to try to get the case dismissed. If you have something to lose by going to court (namely 2 points) then you'll think twice.
Works imo.

Btw, I don't think all 3 Guards has to show up. It's enough to have them all witness it in the judges eyes.

GreeBo

its a tough one to take, but at the end of the day its probably more worth your while to pay it and move on.

I dont know how they can decide that it was unsafe for you to do it but ok for them to do it (with no lights/siren on)
Next time they follow you get the car washed and go to a McDonalds drive thru

Omcd

GreeBo wrote: »

...Next time they follow you get the car washed and go to a McDonalds drive thru

Maybe going to a place that sells donuts is not such a good idea....:D

Seth Brundle

faceman wrote: »

Not that it would make any difference to the OP but i thought emergency service vehicles must have their blue lights flashing when performing an action outside the ROTR?

The lights are irrelevant

stifz wrote: »

The joke of an irish justice system gives you an added kick in the teeth.. if you do go to court and loose you then get 4 points instead of the 2.

Absolutely ridiculous.

The penalty in many cases is reduced if you avoid a court appearance. Its not increased if you go to court!

GreeBo wrote: »

its a tough one to take, but at the end of the day its probably more worth your while to pay it and move on.

I dont know how they can decide that it was unsafe for you to do it but ok for them to do it (with no lights/siren on)
Next time they follow you get the car washed and go to a McDonalds drive thru

Wow - I never thought I'd agree with Greebo

John_Mc

biko wrote: »

Btw, I don't think all 3 Guards has to show up. It's enough to have them all witness it in the judges eyes.

Which is a complete joke cos the 3 of them are surely going to maintain the same story regardless of what actually happened :rolleyes:

robinph

kbannon wrote: »

The lights are irrelevant

Agreed, the blue lights on or not is irrelevant.

Emergency vehicles still have to follow exactly the same rules as the rest of us though, the blue lights and sirens are their more as a request for the rest of us to ignore them and keep out of their way as they go about their business. An emergency vehicle jumps a red light with sirens and lights on but then causes a crash, they are at fault, not whoever they crashed into. The emergency vehicle is the one that will be done for jumping the red light, blue lights and sirens does not give them an exemption from any law, just the possibility of it being ignored.

Quint

I was in a car that was stopped (and done) for the same reason as the op's. Why do the cops do this? Do they want people to hate them? If you (like most people) have very little contact with the police, all it takes is one or 2 incidents like this to grow a disrespect/hate for them.

-Chris-

I think a little perspective is needed at this point - the Gardai stopped the OP, and you Quint, for breaking a light. That's illegal and it's their job to stop people from doing illegal things.

It's their discretion whether to turn a blind eye or go by the letter of the law, and it's their discretion whether the light was barely amber, or really amber.

Every time they pull someone over and do them for something like this, they run the risk of having to go to court and go through the rigmarole of "proving" the driver they pulled over was in the wrong - and all the attendant effect on their day-to-day workload by doing this.

I don't get the "poor me, the Gardai are picking on me" thing - I've been pulled over a number of times for various things. On mature reflection, the Garda was within their rights in each case and they used their discretion to either lecture me, fine me or see me in court.

I have faith in 99.9% of Gardai and the job they do, I think you only get belligerence from them if you're being a smart-arse or if you're blatantly denying something you quite obvoiusly did. Treat them with respect, 'fess up, apologise - odds are you'll be let away with a warning.

Climate Expert

But the OP didn't break the law so why should he suffer the consequences.

-Chris-

The Gardai seem to think he did, and this is my point - do people really think that there are 3 Gardai going around in a car making things up and harassing people about it?

Biro

robinph wrote: »

Agreed, the blue lights on or not is irrelevant.

Emergency vehicles still have to follow exactly the same rules as the rest of us though, the blue lights and sirens are their more as a request for the rest of us to ignore them and keep out of their way as they go about their business. An emergency vehicle jumps a red light with sirens and lights on but then causes a crash, they are at fault, not whoever they crashed into. The emergency vehicle is the one that will be done for jumping the red light, blue lights and sirens does not give them an exemption from any law, just the possibility of it being ignored.

Actually you're sort of right, the blue lights do mean that they can legally break red lights, but having said that they must not drive in a manner that can be construed as being dangerous.

Anan1

Climate Expert wrote: »

But the OP didn't break the law so why should he suffer the consequences.

How do you know this?

Climate Expert

AudiChris wrote: »

The Gardai seem to think he did, and this is my point - do people really think that there are 3 Gardai going around in a car making things up and harassing people about it?

No but it doesn't mean they are infallible. If the OP thinks in his opinion he did nothing wrong then he is entitled, and I would say obliged, to challenge the fine in court.

Biro

AudiChris wrote: »

The Gardai seem to think he did, and this is my point - do people really think that there are 3 Gardai going around in a car making things up and harassing people about it?

Maybe it was touch and go, but I agree with you. If the guards bothered to pull him then it must have been more touch than go.
I've often pushed the limit a little with an amber light and was always amazed at not so much the car behind me following, but two or three cars behind me that all follow suit.

badlyparkedmerc

Bit different but I was once approaching amber lights, it was 50/50 whether to go on or not. Normally will stop unless the car behind is obviously going to plough into me.

When I checked saw a garda transit behind me (no lights or siren), moving more quickly than I'd have liked and closer than necessary but felt I'd no option but to stop - so hit the brakes.

Garda moves right to overtake at the now red light, see exasperated looking garda in passenger seat looking at me as they move past. They obviously would have preferred for me to just go through the amber.

I think this is one of the offences that shouldn't be points, since it's often down to a split second matter of opinion. Just give a fine, that should be enough. With points it's like giving someone a yellow card for being offside in football.

If it's clearly dangerous driving give more points for dangerous driving instead.

Quint

AudiChris wrote: »

I think a little perspective is needed at this point - the Gardai stopped the OP, and you Quint, for breaking a light. That's illegal and it's their job to stop people from doing illegal things.

Well you're wrong there for a start. ROTR are:

An amber light means that you must not go beyond the stop line or, if there is no stop line, beyond the light. However, you may go on if you are so close to the line or the light when the amber light first appears that stopping would be dangerous.

I wasn't driving, my mate was, the light just turned orange and the cop insisted it was red! He did exactly what the ROTR said. The cop wasn't even at the same junction as us, so he couldn't see the light from where he was. Why should I have respect for this guard? I'm not stupid enough to argue with him, I know it's pointless. Basically you have to listen to all the "bit of an amber gambler" or whatever ****e they come out with, bend over and take it!

Keith186

kbannon wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree with Blunder.
Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, its you against three guards

Whats the chances of the same three gardai turning up to court over a minor incident?
Slim to none. It's probably you against only one of them.

They do have a tendency to follow after an offence.

I did the same thing breaking lights and they followed be for 6/7 miles before they pulled me over. They said I was going too fast it took them that long to catch up with me, complete bolloxology, I was on a pesky moped!!

-Chris-

Climate Expert wrote: »

No but it doesn't mean they are infallible. If the OP thinks in his opinion he did nothing wrong then he is entitled, and I would say obliged, to challenge the fine in court.

I would never deny the OP's right to stand up for themselves, and nobody's infallible. That's fair enough.

I would be swayed by the fact that 2-3 Gardai witnessed what they thought was a traffic law violation, followed him for 2Km (during which time, they had time to discuss among themselves whether it was a big deal and worth their time, or not) and then did the paperwork to fine the OP.

I would expect that the Judge would see it that way too and therefore that contesting the issue in court isn't a productive use of time, but if the OP firmly believes they did nothing wrong, then they're entitled to defend themselves.

Biro wrote: »

Maybe it was touch and go, but I agree with you. If the guards bothered to pull him then it must have been more touch than go.
I've often pushed the limit a little with an amber light and was always amazed at not so much the car behind me following, but two or three cars behind me that all follow suit.

There's a couple of lights on the N11 where you'll ALWAYS see 3 or more people breaking the lights. It's mental there aren't more accidents there.

GreeBo

The problem is that the longer the lights stay at amber the more people try to poke through.

More annoying is the guys who block the junction to get "through" the lights before they change. They should be shot.

-Chris-

Quint wrote: »

Well you're wrong there for a start. ROTR are:

I know the ROTR, I expect the Garda does too.

Quint wrote: »

I wasn't driving, my mate was, the light just turned orange and the cop insisted it was red! He did exactly what the ROTR said. The cop wasn't even at the same junction as us, so he couldn't see the light from where he was. Why should I have respect for this guard? I'm not stupid enough to argue with him, I know it's pointless. Basically you have to listen to all the "bit of an amber gambler" or whatever ****e they come out with, bend over and take it!

Did he issue a fine or summons your mate to court? Did your mate go to court and contest it, seeing as they were in the right?

I don't know the particulars and obviously wasn't there, I didn't mean to imply that your mate was definitely "guilty". I'm merely saying that a Garda thought he was "guilty" of breaking the light, and most of the time, based on my own personal experience, I'd take the word of the Garda over the driver.

galwaytt

AudiChris wrote: »

I would be swayed by the fact that 2-3 Gardai witnessed what they thought was a traffic law violation, followed him for 2Km (during which time, they had time to discuss among themselves whether it was a big deal and worth their time, or not) and then did the paperwork to fine the OP.

...mmm, the way I'd read that action is that they saw a possible infringement, and decided to follow to see if OP would do anything else. After 2km, and no further offence forthcoming, they decided to just have a go on the initial, possible, offence.

This is not fair play, and is, possibly, baiting. If I was OP, I'd contest on the grounds of above, stating that the fact none of the 3 Garda could find fault with any of the OP's subsequent driving in the following 2km's, is indicative, and lends credence to, the OP's defence that he is a careful driver. And that his decision at the light was in keeping with that practice, and was both correct and properly executed, the advice of the ROTR being taken into consideration.

My 0.02, anyway.

agent_smith

Just reading through some of the comments here I have to say i do not agree with some of what Audi_Chris is saying.
Firstly, as has been discussed over and over here we must all be familiar by now with the rules of the road concerning amber lights. I believe the problem with the law in this regard (which really is another thread in its own right) is that the law is subjective with no tangible measurable scale of right and wrong. The OP may have a different perspective on what constitutes a dangerous situation to the garda behind. Does that garda in the patrol car behind the OP know the braking capabilities of the car in front? Quite possibly and reasonably the OP made a conscientiously safe decision given his car, tires, braking ability etc... I believe in Sydney Australia, similar ambiguous laws are avoid the ambiguity by the use of cameras on traffic lights. If you break a light, or cross on an amber, the camera can record traffic to the front and rear. If you wish to challenge the fine, you can via photographic evidence.

With regard to the OP, i would challenge this. If you honestly believe stopping would have been hazardous to other road users, the law affords you the right to present your case before a judge and have your case heard.