Pulled over on the N7

ottostreet

driving back up to dublin tonight, came up to the naas exit, and notice a traffic corps car in the overtaking lane, with a jeep behind it, and me coming up behind the jeep. we cleared the traffic, and the jeep is going nowhere and pulls into the correct lane. then, i cruise past the jeep, up behind the TC car. he's not moving so i pull back into the correct lane and just match the squad cars speed. he sits there, not a problem until we hit the part where it becomes three lane and the speed limit drops.car coming up in my lane so i move out behind the traffic corps car in the overtaking lane and pass it. traffic clear again and the TC car moves over. i slowly accelerate past, indicate back across the two lanes into the left lane. i stay there, holding my speed at maybe 120 (100 zone) slowly pulling away. car in my lane, i indicate out to middle lane, then back in. then...my mistake. car in the middle lane. didnt want to undertake in front of the guards so i indicate out behind the upcoming car, then across into overtaking lane, then back across. TC car flies up behind me and pulls me over. says i was speeding (which i was), but says nothing else really. checks my discs and asks for my licence, then heads back to the car and sits there for a while. comes back, says ill get a letter for speeding. pay it and take the two points. if i bring it to court, hell tell the judge i was swerving dangerously all over the road, lane changing like a madman with "flashfloods" all over the place. i accepted it at the time, but now ive mulled it over, and the madder ive gotten. yes i was speeding, but apart from that, i dont feel i was in any way dangerous. i feel, based on his driving, he was out to pull someone over and i made a mistake in front of him. im going to pay the fine if it comes and all, but the main question is, can he do me for speeding if he has no proof? seeing as how he probably only matched my speed to see what i was doing. also, when pulling back out to rejoin traffic, a nissan micra was sitting in the middle lane doing 50mph, i wasnt about to start "swerving all over the lanes" again, so undertook him, right in front of the guard. im a little annoyed as you can probably tell lol

Geri Boyle

Can I ask what posessed you to speed in front of a traffic corps Garda car? You know it's their job to catch people speeding and issue tickets right? ie. He more than likely was out to catch someone as that is his job! He doesnt need proof, he observed you breaking the speed limit -which doesnt apply to him btw. Why did you think you'd get away with it? It's your own fault tbh, accept the fine and learn a lesson from it.

BostonB

Is this for real? Its like you were taunting him.

tossy

oh no here we go again!

i was speeding
i got caught.
what gives them the right to catch me!

take the points like a man!

MarkR

ottostreet wrote: »

driving back up to dublin tonight, came up to the naas exit, and notice a traffic corps car in the overtaking lane, with a jeep behind it, and me coming up behind the jeep. we cleared the traffic, and the jeep is going nowhere and pulls into the correct lane. then, i cruise past the jeep, up behind the TC car. he's not moving so i pull back into the correct lane and just match the squad cars speed. he sits there, not a problem until we hit the part where it becomes three lane and the speed limit drops.car coming up in my lane so i move out behind the traffic corps car in the overtaking lane and pass it. traffic clear again and the TC car moves over. i slowly accelerate past, indicate back across the two lanes into the left lane. i stay there, holding my speed at maybe 120 (100 zone) slowly pulling away. car in my lane, i indicate out to middle lane, then back in. then...my mistake. car in the middle lane. didnt want to undertake in front of the guards so i indicate out behind the upcoming car, then across into overtaking lane, then back across. TC car flies up behind me and pulls me over. says i was speeding (which i was), but says nothing else really. checks my discs and asks for my licence, then heads back to the car and sits there for a while. comes back, says ill get a letter for speeding. pay it and take the two points. if i bring it to court, hell tell the judge i was swerving dangerously all over the road, lane changing like a madman with "flashfloods" all over the place. i accepted it at the time, but now ive mulled it over, and the madder ive gotten. yes i was speeding, but apart from that, i dont feel i was in any way dangerous. i feel, based on his driving, he was out to pull someone over and i made a mistake in front of him. im going to pay the fine if it comes and all, but the main question is, can he do me for speeding if he has no proof? seeing as how he probably only matched my speed to see what i was doing. also, when pulling back out to rejoin traffic, a nissan micra was sitting in the middle lane doing 50mph, i wasnt about to start "swerving all over the lanes" again, so undertook him, right in front of the guard. im a little annoyed as you can probably tell lol

Speeding and going to change lanes without looking (right in front of the guards), what way did you see that meeting ending?

metricspaces

I think the question that the original poster was asking was:

Can you be legally charged with speeding if there is no evidence for you speeding other than the Gardas word i.e. would there be enough evidence to convict you in a court of law for speeding?

This is a legitimate question to ask and the bottom line is if there isn't enough evidence for the charge to hold in court then there is no reason why the OP should accept the charge - even though he was speeding.

Speeding is not like dangerous driving. Speeding isn't a subjective measure like dangerous driving. Either your speed was above the legal limit or it wasn't.

I would be surprised if a Garda saying "Judge, I know this guy was speeding as I matched his speed based on the speedometer in my car" would be strong enough evidence in a court of law to convict a driver of breaking the speed limit.

We all know that speedometers are not accurate. We know that speed cameras are calibrated by some recognized body and thus accepted as accurate and evidence that a driver was speeding.

I remember reading about cases in the UK where speeding fines were struck out of court because the driver was able to prove that the speed camera used was inaccurate or used in a manner that would make the reading inaccurate, or left too great a room for error. So even speed cameras are open for challenge.

So, if the only evidence that a Garda has to prove that you were speeding is that the speedometer in his car says you were - is that enough evidence to convict someone in a court of law for a speeding offence? If not, then there is absolutely no reason why the OP should have had to accept the fine if this is the only evidence that the Garda had.

Sofiztikated

Are Traffic Corp cars not fitted with cameras, like in England?

Being honest, I think your driving warrented the pull. Why, when pulling out again and spotting the "micra doing 50" did you not slow down? Then again, the Garda may have pull you anyway for driving without due car & attention or whatever the equivelent in law here is.

(My experience only comes from watching a lot of Road Wars and the like, and a healthy dose of common sense.)

Can a Garda testimony stand up without evidence? Evidence is generally accepted as proof, but a Garda is an "upstanding member of law" and a judge will be more likely, when it comes to word against word, listen to the Garda.

Seth Brundle

Firstly we don't know if there was speed recording equipment within the patrol car. Secondly, I don't really want to re-read the OPs post as it was hard enough the first time - how many garday were there? Two or more can corroborate stories to gain a conviction without any evidence.

metricspaces

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Can a Garda testimony stand up without evidence? Evidence is generally accepted as proof, but a Garda is an "upstanding member of law" and a judge will be more likely, when it comes to word against word, listen to the Garda.

I doubt very much that there is a Garda in the country that can accurately judge your speed by just looking at your car.

The point is if the Garda does not have a speed camera he is using his speedometer as a method of gauging your speed.

Speedometers are not accurate.

So I think the question is, if a Garda has not got evidence that you were speeding from using a speed camera, is it strong enough evidence to convict a driver in a court of law for speeding based on a Garda saying that a driver was speeding based on the speedometer in the Garda car.

Berty

Always drive like an Angel around TC. Its their job, they have no other job.

Most people will never overtake a TC ever. I did yesterday but you spend the whole time watching them in the rear view.

Yakult

ohh I love the TC's. They will try and get you for anything, be it there jobs of course.

^I couldnt agree more with berty.

metricspaces wrote: »

I doubt very much that there is a Garda in the country that can accurately judge your speed by just looking at your car.

The point is if the Garda does not have a speed camera he is using his speedometer as a method of gauging your speed.

Speedometers are not accurate.

afai it states that evidence can be given from a speed camera/vehical speedometer (could be wrong with the speedometer). Eitherway, your voice against the guards. Aint gonna go your way I would think.

milltown

I thought Garda cars had calibrated speedos?
If he was travelling at the speed limit and you passed him, that seems pretty conclusive.

vibe666

it sounds (imho) like he was trying to scare you into not fighting it because he know's if you do, it'll be more trouble than it's worth for him.

(assuming he didn't havea video camera in the car) he has no evidence other than his own testimony and I doubt that will be enough for a solid conviction if you contest it.

afaik, gatso's etc. have to be reguarly re-calibrated to ensure accuracy.

Anan1

ottostreet wrote: »

says ill get a letter for speeding. pay it and take the two points. if i bring it to court, hell tell the judge i was swerving dangerously all over the road, lane changing like a madman with "flashfloods" all over the place.

Did he just come out with this, or had you asked what would happen if you went to court?

egan007

Somethings are a given on the road - 'I was surprised that the taxi pulled straight out in front of me' - Where's the surprise that's expected.

doing 120 in a 100 Zone in the presence of a cop car

There's another one.

Seth Brundle

milltown wrote: »

I thought Garda cars had calibrated speedos?
If he was travelling at the speed limit and you passed him, that seems pretty conclusive.

You cannot accurately calibrate a speedo because many factors such as tyre wear affect the readings.

vibe666 wrote: »

afaik, gatso's etc. have to be reguarly re-calibrated to ensure accuracy.

Thats the manufacturers instruction but the law here explicitly states that the equipment is presumed to be working perfectly so there is less of an onus to keep it maintained.

BigCon

1. Driver acts like a Muppet (speeding, 20% over the limit, and changing multiple lanes in one maneuver, in plain view of the Guards, (I think, hard to read).

2. Guards do their job (after being goaded for quite a distance).

What's there to complain about (except maybe the Guards were too lenient)?
This idiot has done this before (admitting in other threads to driving at 80mph
beside a cop car on the N7, driving around looking for checkpoints for fun.

And to top it all off, he's driving this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58395985#post58395985

egan007

kbannon wrote: »

You cannot accurately calibrate a speedo because many factors such as tyre wear affect the readings.

My car speedo 80K miles - 10 on the tyres, 7 years old matches my sat nav speed almost perfectly (to within a km or two).
They are not exact but are not inaccurate either.

ciscokidder

Was behind one going west from lucan once. He was doing 10 under the speed limit in the fast lane and constantly speeding up and slowing down. Occasionally pulling into slow lane and slowing down then speeding up as soon as someone got the courage to overtake. Miles long tail back. They just have a laugh half the time by looks of things.

TheNog

BigCon wrote: »

1. Driver acts like a Muppet (speeding, 20% over the limit, and changing multiple lanes in one maneuver, in plain view of the Guards, (I think, hard to read).

2. Guards do their job (after being goaded for quite a distance).

What's there to complain about (except maybe the Guards were too lenient)?
This idiot has done this before (admitting in other threads to driving at 80mph
beside a cop car on the N7, driving around looking for checkpoints for fun.

And to top it all off, he's driving this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58395985#post58395985

+1


OP your driving was sloppy, very sloppy. Why would you feel the need to overtake in lane 3 then move into lane 1 and back into lane 3 again?? You were a red rag to a bull.

From your own account there were three reasons why you were pulled over:

1. speeding in front of a marked traffic car
2, speeding while overtaking a marked Traffic car
3. poor lane discipline in front of a traffic car

Tbh I would have done the exact same thing as them even just to see who you are. It would appear to me you were being cocky, trying to push the limit of what you can do with traffic corps present. It was a stupid thing to do and I were you I would look again at my driving skills/behaviour/attitude.

-Chris-

1) Gardai were (probably) doing an indicated 100KMPH, OP was pulling away from them, therefore they know he was speeding.

2) They didn't have a camera or speedgun so they know they can't prove speeding in court.

3) They observed driving that they considered could be seen as dangerous driving

4) They pulled the OP and basicially said "we can't prove you were speeding, but you know it and we know it. Accept the charge and the points or we'll do you for dangerous driving".

That sounds very fair to me OP, and I don't think you're right to be annoyed. If the Gardai really felt you were driving dangerously, they'd have done you for dangerous driving, they really just wanted to do you for speeding (but knew they couldn't definitively prove it) and are hoping you'll be smart enough to admit the offence and move on.

Henry Ford III

OP was unwise to drive as he did I think. Man up and accept the penalty due.

voxpop

Sounds like they only pulled him when he went across 3 lanes.So for driving in the left most lane and not undertaking a guy cruising in the middle lane, he gets nicked.

OldmanMondeo

voxpop wrote: »

Sounds like they only pulled him when he went across 3 lanes.So for driving in the left most lane and not undertaking a guy cruising in the middle lane, he gets nicked.

No, sounds like he was driving like a tit and got stopped.

Henry Ford III

voxpop wrote: »

Sounds like they only pulled him when he went across 3 lanes.So for driving in the left most lane and not undertaking a guy cruising in the middle lane, he gets nicked.

He was speeding dude, and lane hopping. In front of a T.C. car. Not too clever imho.

BnA

tossy wrote: »

oh no here we go again!

i was speeding
i got caught.
what gives them the right to catch me!

take the points like a man!

Well said that man...!!!!

voxpop

ok yeah - he was speeding, but they didnt pull him until the lane change


Btw - not saying it was clever in any way

stealthyspeeder

From reading the original post, as far as I can see

a) He was speeding
b) The guard cant prove he was speeding
c) So he has threatened prosecution of a more dangerous offence (which is wrong and shows conduct unbecoming of a guard; as if he could prosecute for a more serious offfence then it would be in the publics best interest to see this charge prosecuted for, rather than a lesser charge.)
d) According to the highway code, with regard to the lane changes described, there has been no offence.

My opinion, the guard has used unproffesional behavouir to give the ticket which he believes rightly should be given. Our poster has used common sense driving (not undertaking, yes ok he was doing 120 in a 100, but come on catch a grip, its hardly as dangerous as cars in the wrong lanes doing lower speeds forcing other cars to do unnecessary overtaking manouvers) and for this he has been given a ticket by a guard.

I dont think the grand scheme of Karma is too much out of balance here!

I wont even pass out a mondeo and/or break the speed around one without making sure its not an unmarked car(I find them very easy to spot). What possessed you op, right in front of a marked patrol car.

DublinDilbert

ottostreet wrote: »

holding my speed at maybe 120 (100 zone) ....

lane changing like a madman with "flashfloods" all over the place.

So you were doing 120kmph in 100kmph zone while the road was wet (last night there was very heavy showers) and your wondering why you got pulled? :eek:

metricspaces

AudiChris wrote: »

1)they really just wanted to do you for speeding (but knew they couldn't definitively prove it) and are hoping you'll be smart enough to admit the offence and move on.

More like they were hoping you'd be ignorant enough of the law and intimidated enough that you'd admit to speeding and accept to pay a fine.

metricspaces

At the end of the day, peoples opinions on the OP's driving manner don't really matter, the question is:

Can you be legally charged with speeding if there is no evidence for you speeding other than the Gardas word i.e. would there be enough evidence to convict you in a court of law for speeding?

On the face of it, it would seem that the OP could challange this fine, as there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he was speeding other than the word of the Garda. Unless of course the word of the Garda (based on his speedometer) is sufficient evidence for a conviction.

TheNog

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

b) The guard cant prove he was speeding

No physical evidence is needed in court, only oral. In this case an approximate speed could be needed. Some judges will run with it, others wont.

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

c) So he has threatened prosecution of a more dangerous offence (which is wrong and shows conduct unbecoming of a guard; as if he could prosecute for a more serious offfence then it would be in the publics best interest to see this charge prosecuted for, rather than a lesser charge.)

The OP wasnt threatened with prosecution of dangerous driving by the guard at all. Here is an exract from the OP

ottostreet wrote: »

TC car flies up behind me and pulls me over. says i was speeding (which i was), but says nothing else really.

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

My opinion, the guard has used unproffesional behavouir to give the ticket which he believes rightly should be given. Our poster has used common sense driving (not undertaking, yes ok he was doing 120 in a 100, but come on catch a grip, its hardly as dangerous as cars in the wrong lanes doing lower speeds forcing other cars to do unnecessary overtaking manouvers) and for this he has been given a ticket by a guard.

Its all about pros and cons with this one. We all agree the OP drove his car with little common sense and some may say a little erratically. I would say its either a case of speeding (which OP freely admits to) or careless driving (speeding, 2 x lane changing etc).

So the question is: Would it better if the OP was done for speeding or careless driving? I think to give the OP a chance to learn from his mistakes and not to go completely overboard is to issue a fine for speeding.

smash

you switched lanes what... 7 times or something, while speeding, in the rain.... man cut your losses and keep your mouth closed. If I was you I wouldn't have even started this thread, you're looking for trouble!

TheNog

TheNog wrote: »

No physical evidence is needed in court, only oral. In this case an approximate speed could be needed. Some judges will run with it, others wont.

Was there not something brought in a while back though that said there had to be evidence to prove someone was speeding and were some cases thrown out as there was no photographic evidence?

I cant remember so I might be getting this all wrong.

TheNog

Marjorie Slow Hashish wrote: »

Was there not something brought in a while back though that said there had to be evidence to prove someone was speeding and were some cases thrown out as there was no photographic evidence?

I cant remember so I might be getting this all wrong.

That may have been from a Gatso but is not the case of a hand held laser speed detector. A few years ago there was a question raised where a person or solicitor said a receipt should be issued but that was knocked on the head.

stifz

Black and white..
You were speeding. Under oath a Garda will state he matched your speed. End of...

Take the points

metricspaces

stifz wrote: »

Black and white..
You were speeding. Under oath a Garda will state he matched your speed. End of...

Take the points

I don't think it's black and white. Speedometers aren't accurate. So at which point can a Garda say someone is passing him at the a speed above the speed limit?

When they pass the Garda at 1KPH faster?
When they pass the Garda at 2KPH faster?
etc.

-Chris-

OP says (and freely admits) he was 20kmph above the limit, and therefore presumably 20kmph faster than the Gardai. I don't see the grey area - OP was 20% over the limit.
Even allowing for speedo miscalibration, an indicated 120KMPH is still 108-110KMPH road speed (still over the limit).
Add to that the fact that the OP overtook a Traffic Corps car at 20% above the speed limit in the rain and I fail to understand where the debate is here!

What's you point exactly metricspaces? What outcome are you looking for by questioning the events/Garda accusation?

Anan1

I don't think metricspaces is questioning the events/Garda accusation, rather the ability of the Gardai to turn that accusation into a conviction in court.

yogi16

Regardless of accuracy or inaccuracy or the presence of evidence or not, why would you bother chancing it? Are you trying to prove a point? Get 'one over on the Gardai'???? me thinks you're not so clever.......

stifz

AudiChris wrote: »

OP says (and freely admits) he was 20kmph above the limit, and therefore presumably 20kmph faster than the Gardai. I don't see the grey area - OP was 20% over the limit.

+1

Anan1

I don't know about anyone else but, like the OP, i'd be interested in learning more about the legal situation here.

-Chris-

TheNog's covered that though, and he'd know...

stifz

I agree Anan1. The trouble is the Gardai make it very difficult to answer back in court.. 4 points rather than the original 2. I think everyone looks for a loop hole or a clause when they get points.. me included. The least stressing and easiest way to consider it is.. What speed was i doing and what was on the sign. If your above it then take the fine and points and walk away and hope that you've learnt something from it.

Don't over take a Garda car 20km above the speed limit:rolleyes:

My gripe would be the place in which the position speed traps. 90% of the time its in easy catchment area's i.e above the limit by 10km etc and no history of an accidents.. They should be in accident black spots. Which leads me to think its stats they're making up.

Anan1

You're right of course, the best thing for the OP would probably be to just pay the fine. I'm still curious as to what would happen if the OP did fight it, though (although not curious enough to risk the 4 points myself!).

Stark

BigCon wrote: »

1. Driver acts like a Muppet (speeding, 20% over the limit, and changing multiple lanes in one maneuver, in plain view of the Guards, (I think, hard to read).

To play devil's advocate for the moment; they should really be pulling the people who cruise along in the middle lane at 70-80km/hr as they're the ones who are causing people to have to do 4 lane changes in one manoeuvre every time they encounter one. (car driving in lane 1 as required by law, encounters slower vehicle in lane2, must move into lane 2, then lane 3, then lane 2, then lane 1 in order to overtake legally). It significantly increases the chance of a crash on 3 lane roads imo. Especially on somewhere like the M50 when you add muppets swinging from the overtaking lane across 4 lanes in order to make their exit to the mix.

Agreed on everything else though, he was a fool to be blatantly speeding in front of the Gardaí. He could have held back at 100km/hr for a while until they were out of sight and then he'd have had no worry about being pulled over. Sounds like he got what he was asking for.

stealthyspeeder

In response to The Nogs reply to my message (apologies, i havent got the hang of using the quotes system yet!)

No physical evidence is needed in court, only oral. In this case an approximate speed could be needed. Some judges will run with it, others wont.

If the guards only evidence of the speeding infringment is his word that he saw the car overtake him while he stayed at the limit, and the defendant contests this, says he was at the limit and the guard was below the limit, case dismissed everytime. Approximate speed is not a viable prosecution in the black and white eyes of the law.


The OP wasnt threatened with prosecution of dangerous driving by the guard at all. Here is an exract from the OP

Here is the quote from the OP which threatens prosecution on the grounds of dangerous driving if he does not admit to speeding by paying the fine.

"heads back to the car and sits there for a while. comes back, says ill get a letter for speeding. pay it and take the two points. if i bring it to court, hell tell the judge i was swerving dangerously all over the road, lane changing like a madman with "flashfloods" all over the place"


Its all about pros and cons with this one. We all agree the OP drove his car with little common sense and some may say a little erratically. I would say its either a case of speeding (which OP freely admits to) or careless driving (speeding, 2 x lane changing etc).

If the lane changes are done individually and correctly with appropriate checks of mirrors and indication, there is nothing illegal happening, and no grounds for the prosecution of dangerous driving. Therefore speeding is the only offence (bear in mind this cannot be proved)

So the question is: Would it better if the OP was done for speeding or careless driving? I think to give the OP a chance to learn from his mistakes and not to go completely overboard is to issue a fine for speeding

I would disagree, if somebody was actually driving dangerously, say handbraking round roundabouts, undertaking and tailgaing (all of which I saw on Swords roundabout within 2 minutes last week fom one highly enthusiastic Golf GTI driver) then I think that it would be in the publics interest to prosecute them for dangerous driving as opposed to speeding! Or should we give him a chance to learn from his mistakes?

At the end of the day, he was speeding, he got done for speeding but not in a proffesional manner.

Omcd

Possibly the TC car was VASCAR equipped ?

I remember reading something in the ROTR (maybe UK version) a long time ago that changing across two lanes at one time was deemed to be dangerous driving. But, as stealthyspeeder says, as two seperate manouvers, it' ok. My reading of OPs post suggests to me that at least on one occasion he went across two lanes in one go.

daveharnett

Berty wrote: »

Always drive like an Angel around TC. Its their job, they have no other job.

Exactly. To be honest OP, take it as 2 points for "failure to demonstrate common sense".

DomShelley

Haha your were caught, your were speeding, YOU got penalty points for it knowing thats what happen when you speed, And then you do it onfront of a patrol car. Not the brightest thing to do.

I have 6 penalty points at the age of 23, i consider them to be harshly given but you got to just take them and learn from it on your first time and not make the mistake like i did and learned only after i had 6.

2 is an easy lesson, 6 is criminal !!!!