Traffic Blues - RTE1 - May 31st

Our man in Havana

It was not cancelled at all. They now are with Devon and Cornwall police.

Whitewater-AGS

Calverton wrote: »

Yeah, that is my opinion. Those targets have to be met if promotion is to be an option......






A lot of people watch shows because they dislike the topic concerned.




I agree. However from what I seen on the show itself, how much adrenaline is needed to pull over an ordinary "speeder"?




My oul fella. Coming out of the port tunnel, just where the speed limit drops for no reason outside the tunnel. This is a popular spot for the gardai. So much so that it was on the Joe Duffy show on the day after he was given 3 penalty points and a fine for going a crazy 5kmph over the limit.




An emergency, I have no problem. Chasing like lunatics to catch someone marginaly over the speed limit is what I mainly encounter.



Well, I have seen cops pull cars over to positions semi on the kerb/road to issue tickets to mothers with a car load of children. Strikes me as defeating the purpose of the stop.





I like to go about my daily activities without any dealings with the police.

We really shouldn't be feeding these lads, Thankfully he was given a weeks holiday.

Hooch

Calverton wrote: »

I agree. However from what I seen on the show itself, how much adrenaline is needed to pull over an ordinary "speeder"?




My oul fella. Coming out of the port tunnel, just where the speed limit drops for no reason outside the tunnel. This is a popular spot for the gardai. So much so that it was on the Joe Duffy show on the day after he was given 3 penalty points and a fine for going a crazy 5kmph over the limit.

Firsty adrenaine is needed to drive an ES vehicle under lights and sirens. Stupid things happen when people see blues. You need to be able to react. Also what is an ordinary speeder?? Is there a difference between an ordinary one and an extra ordinary one?? Is speeding not speeding?? Do they not have to be stopped as quickly and safely as possible??


Secondly, you say your father was stopped for 5kmph over the limit and got 3 points??? Jesus I always thought it was 2 for FCPS or 4 for court appearance........think someone is trolling, but thats not my place to say. Im not a mod.

Hooch

Whitewater-AGS wrote: »

We really shouldn't be feeding these lads, Thankfully he was given a weeks holiday.

Opps only saw this now:o. My rant above is in vain!! And here I was all proud of myself!!:pac:

ScubaDave

Bond-007 wrote: »

It was not cancelled at all. They now are with Devon and Cornwall police.

The reason it changed was not because it had caused any problems for officers but the Thames Valley Chief Constables thought that the PC's were coming off badly in the programme.

Ill try and find the link!

ste88m

ScubaDave wrote: »

The reason it changed was not because it had caused any problems for officers but the Thames Valley Chief Constables thought that the PC's were coming off badly in the programme.

Ill try and find the link!

Here's the link ScubaDave is looking for -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/19/police-television-sky-road-wars

donvito99

Road Wars followed 14 members of the Thames Valley police road crime unit, known as the 'Tango Vultures'

...Were they not known as Tango Victors?

Our man in Havana

That was their callsign.

TheNog

donvito99 wrote: »

...Were they not known as Tango Victors?

I dont know about the Tango Vultures, maybe thats their official title but TV or Tango Victor is radio speak

SV

TheNog wrote: »

I dont know about the Tango Vultures, maybe thats their official title but TV or Tango Victor is radio speak

Here's something..

known within the force as "Tango Vulture" - taken from their callsign prefix TV (Tango Victor) and the joke that they swoop to steal arrests from other officers) while they carried out their duties.

Source.

Yes I realise it's wikipedia but I couldn't find anything else :P

jpfahy

jpfahy wrote: »

Disappointing to see a member on the ad accusing some motorist of having a smell of 'drink' off him. I presume she was about to breathalise and/or arrest him. 'Drink' isn't mentioned in legislation - it's 'alcohol' or 'intoxicating liquor'. (everything from water to coffee etc is 'drink') Properly argued, that would get him off in court. Obviously the footage didn't have to be approved by Garda legal people before being shown........

JP, what is your legal/policing background to come out with that statement? That just sounds like she was forming her opinion before arresting the person. As long as she tells the person in legal terms and plain english why they are being arrested and then cautions the person it won't be getting thrown out of court for saying that.

King Ludvig

Two of the Gaurds from the show were on Radio One yesterday (thursday):
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/player_av.html?0,null,200,http://dynamic.rte.ie/quickaxs/209-rte-todaywithpatkenny-Thursday.smil

Starts at approx 26min 30sec.

Dissapointing really, only about two questions asked about the show itself the rest was people txting in about stuff this garda did and that garda did. :rolleyes:

shakin

the ads look good i cant wait,ill have to sky+ that one,its only feckin 6 episodes though!

donvito99

King Ludvig wrote: »

Two of the Gaurds from the show were on Radio One yesterday (thursday):
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/player_av.html?0,null,200,http://dynamic.rte.ie/quickaxs/209-rte-todaywithpatkenny-Thursday.smil

Starts at approx 26min 30sec.

Dissapointing really, only about two questions asked about the show itself the rest was people txting in about stuff this garda did and that garda did. :rolleyes:

You got a sense that the guards featured in the interview were very tentative answering the questions, particularly about the GATSO van. They know what theyre there for, yet they only pointed to the Garda website for the collsion prone areas. Seems to me that they are puppets for the G Management.

djtechnics1210

Same as this show. its a promotion stunt for some member of AGS management.

johnnyskeleton

jpfahy wrote: »

Disappointing to see a member on the ad accusing some motorist of having a smell of 'drink' off him. I presume she was about to breathalise and/or arrest him. 'Drink' isn't mentioned in legislation - it's 'alcohol' or 'intoxicating liquor'. (everything from water to coffee etc is 'drink') Properly argued, that would get him off in court. Obviously the footage didn't have to be approved by Garda legal people before being shown........

No, because gardai are required to inform someone in technical legal language when they are exercising their statutory powers, but they are also required to inform someone in ordinary language of what they are doing and why.

So to arrest they would say "I am arresting you for an offence under s.49 (1), (2), (3) or (4) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (they rarely say as amended though)" and then say "because you were swerving around and when I spoke to you your speech was slurred and I could smell drink".

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No, because gardai are required to inform someone in technical legal language when they are exercising their statutory powers, but they are also required to inform someone in ordinary language of what they are doing and why.

So to arrest they would say "I am arresting you for an offence under s.49 (1), (2), (3) or (4) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (they rarely say as amended though)" and then say "because you were swerving around and when I spoke to you your speech was slurred and I could smell drink".

Sorry johnny, we finish with "in other words i'm arresting you for drink / drug driving".

Our man in Havana

I don't think the "as amended" is critical though.

FGR

I know it's a little OT but has anyone observed/made an arrest using simply the simplicitor and not going down the road of testing?

djtechnics1210

Ya and convicted them.

johnnyskeleton

foreign wrote: »

Sorry johnny, we finish with "in other words i'm arresting you for drink / drug driving".

On suspicion. There's many a slip between the street and court.

Bond-007 wrote: »

I don't think the "as amended" is critical though.

No, but it would be nice if they referred to the law as it stands.

johnnyskeleton

djtechnics1210 wrote: »

Ya and convicted them.

It was the judge that convicted them, and you really shouldn't be proud that someone was convicted if they shouldn't have been (unless you're referring to a s.49(1), it's not clear from the other post).

Hooch

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No, because gardai are required to inform someone in technical legal language when they are exercising their statutory powers, but they are also required to inform someone in ordinary language of what they are doing and why.

So to arrest they would say "I am arresting you for an offence under s.49 (1), (2), (3) or (4) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (they rarely say as amended though)" and then say "because you were swerving around and when I spoke to you your speech was slurred and I could smell drink".

We always said it and now must.

Bond-007 wrote: »

I don't think the "as amended" is critical though.

It is now Bond due to a recent court decision. We always said it in my area of work but the regular lads left it out. As amended or the correct wording of the road traffic and transport act must now be said and given in evidence in court. But as amended is the prefered wording as it covers everything......''Amended by what Garda?'' Amended by every act that came after it judge:)

Irish_polizei

djtechnics1210 wrote: »

Im gonna be the first one to say that this programme will be completely edited and show nothing like what happens in real life with the traffic corps.

It will be all checkpoints/speed checks, giving out tickets and driving up and down motorways and maybe a fatal road traffic accident put in aswell to give the "shock" factor to the programme.

I bet their not going show the traffic units going to proper calls like they usually do, fights, robberies, public order, chases

I hope im proved wrong

Thats funny what i was just sayin that to meself when i was reading down through it and lads up ther ...yous aren't half veering of the subject!! lol

djtechnics1210

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It was the judge that convicted them, and you really shouldn't be proud that someone was convicted if they shouldn't have been (unless you're referring to a s.49(1), it's not clear from the other post).

It was the judge that convicted them

Well it was my evidence that led to the successful conviction, (and convicted is the term that most members say when their case is successful).

you really shouldn't be proud that someone was convicted if they shouldn't have been

Im proud of doing my job everyday and im proud that iv never been involved in the conviction of a person that shouldn't have been.

Never once in my years of going to court and my countless court cases have i ever had a case against a person that wasn't before the court lawfully.

Every person on a charge sheet or summons from me was before the court for a reason.
Since the judges convicted and sentenced the cases i brought before them, then obviously the so called innocent that were convicted, were not in fact
"convicted if they shouldn't have been".

unless you're referring to a s.49(1), it's not clear from the other post

I was referring to 49(1) as i presume that is what foregone was implying/

Are you a member johnny????

kerry4sam

Well I am certainly looking forward to watching this show in under an hour now. It does look promising in the adverts/clipets on RTE but like everything else, anything can look good in short clips but having it on for 25mins could be another story entirely.

Here's hoping it is good though.


tick tock ...

ste88m

Just started! all good so far!:D

Our man in Havana

JLO for driving a crock. Oh dear.

kerry4sam

Patience is a Virue and be God do you need plenty being a Guard!

ste88m

Bond-007 wrote: »

JLO for driving a crock. Oh dear.

I was hoping for something more serious myself!! Can the car be siezed if not roadworthy?