Garda Speed Camera

brownacid

Whats the story with the cameras, do the gaurds have to pull you over if you get done. I was doing about 90 in an 80 zone this morning and the gaurd was there with the camera on a tripod pretty sure i got caught but there was also the car straight in front of me. Is it true the cameras only get every second car?

L1011

Camera on a tripod is generally a video device and they do not have to pull you over with these. It doesn't "get" only every second car, either.

90 in an 80 may not be worth their while, however... just wait and see what happens.

veetwin

brownacid wrote: »

Whats the story with the cameras, do the gaurds have to pull you over if you get done. I was doing about 90 in an 80 zone this morning and the gaurd was there with the camera on a tripod pretty sure i got caught but there was also the car straight in front of me. Is it true the cameras only get every second car?

Doing an indicated 90 is probably closer to an actual 85 so I'd say there is no problem. It more than likely was a radar speed detector as opposed to a camera anyway meaning you would have to have been stopped there and then.

spartacus93

veetwin wrote: »

Doing an indicated 90 is probably closer to an actual 85 so I'd say there is no problem. It more than likely was a radar speed detector as opposed to a camera anyway meaning you would have to have been stopped there and then.

Generally speaking if it's on a Tripod it records you as MYOB said, not sure if it's a video or a picture, but either way they don't have to stop you.

If it's a handheld device he has to stop you, as this doesn't take any picture of the car, only displays the speed (no evidence).

I wouldn't be too worried about 90 in an 80 zone tbh.

bk1991

spartacus93 wrote: »

Generally speaking if it's on a Tripod it records you as MYOB said, not sure if it's a video or a picture, but either way they don't have to stop you.

If it's a handheld device he has to stop you, as this doesn't take any picture of the car, only displays the speed (no evidence).

I wouldn't be too worried about 90 in an 80 zone tbh.

was done for 55 in 50 :mad:so woulnt be to sure

spartacus93

bk1991 wrote: »

was done for 55 in 50 :mad:so woulnt be to sure

Unlucky!

I always assumed, that they would give you about 10% lee way. (I have a friend in the traffic core that uses this as a guide)

55 in 50, you were 10% over.
Doing 90 indicated, probably only 86 - 87, less that 10% over.

Obviously speeding is speeding, 51 in a 50 zone is speeding. I'm sure most traffic corps guards would give a certain amount of lee way depending on the road, conditions etc.

I would imagine most would turn a blind eye to 86 in an 80 zone. Maybe i'm wrong.

Gary ITR

bk1991 wrote: »

was done for 55 in 50 :mad:so woulnt be to sure

I would find that hard to believe unless it was coupled with other offences tbh. I'm not calling you a liar I'm just saying I would find this difficult to believe

voteforpedro

friend of mine got 2 points for 35 in a 30

bk1991

Onkle wrote: »

I would find that hard to believe unless it was coupled with other offences tbh. I'm not calling you a liar I'm just saying I would find this difficult to believe

tbh i think its who the gaurd is plus the age of driver they love getting us younger male drivers
one example
i was involved in accident earlier this year was mowed of road by jeep in 50km zone while turning right the person in jeep was well over 50km threw my car along rd when she hit me and the gardi called and no words passed i was got 3 weeks later in same place for doing the 55

so i am puzled why the other driver got away with
1 .being over speeding limit
2.injuring me
3.makeing bits of a car

and thank god not killing or injuring others

bk1991

Hooch

bk1991 wrote: »

was done for 55 in 50 :mad:so woulnt be to sure

voteforpedro wrote: »

friend of mine got 2 points for 35 in a 30

I find this totally unbelieveable im afraid. 5kmph over.....I dont think so.

O/P dont worry. As said above some times the tripod supports the GATSO type speed detection gun, but 90% of the time it is the normal Laser gun. If you were only travelling 90 then you'll be grand.

O and someone above stated that normaly laser doesnt take a picture and hense no evidence. This is untrue. We can detect a vehicle using the laser, note the reg and send out the FCPS.....but we dont during the normal course of duties. (I have done it in certain circumstances) The evidence is given in court same as if the member stopped someone speeding and showed them the gun. There is NO requirement for a Garda to show you the speed gun. It is just a practice developed by members.

TwoShedsJackson

nice guy always wrote: »

I find this totally unbelieveable im afraid. 5kmph over.....I dont think so.

A friend's father was done for 33 in a 30 zone a couple of years ago. He's in his 70s but is a generally safe driver from what I've seen.

Whether you find it unbelievable or not, it can happen.

The Muppet

bk1991 wrote: »

was done for 55 in 50 :mad:so woulnt be to sure

voteforpedro wrote: »

friend of mine got 2 points for 35 in a 30

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

A friend's father was done for 33 in a 30 zone a couple of years ago. He's in his 70s but is a generally safe driver from what I've seen.

Whether you find it unbelievable or not, it can happen.

All these examples are 10% or more over the speed limit so would be boderline cases give the leway allowed by most Garda.

The op was most likely under the 10% markif you allow for the calibration of his speedo being slighly on the high side.


I was recently watchin one of those traffic cops programmes from the uk and they explained it was policy that they set their gun high , I think it was 4 mph plus 10 % over the limit . So in a 40 zone they only fined people for doing 48 or over.

Maybe some here could tell us the official policy for Irish traffic cops if there is a one.

slimjimmc

bk1991 wrote: »

tbh i think its who the gaurd is plus the age of driver they love getting us younger male drivers
one example
i was involved in accident earlier this year was mowed of road by jeep in 50km zone while turning right the person in jeep was well over 50km threw my car along rd when she hit me and the gardi called and no words passed i was got 3 weeks later in same place for doing the 55

so i am puzled why the other driver got away with
1 .being over speeding limit
2.injuring me
3.makeing bits of a car

and thank god not killing or injuring others

bk1991

1. for a conviction have you more evidence than your opinion or the fact the collision occurred? Were there any skid marks that could only be produced at say 60 or 70kph?

2 & 3. Depends on the circumstances of the collision. If you were entering her road then it's your fault for misjudging her speed and pulling out in front of her. If you were turning off the road and she was coming the other way then it's your fault again unless she was on the wrong side. If you were turning off the road and she hit you from behind then she's likely at fault. (i say likely because we don't know all the details e.g was she was overtaking on a broken line and you didn't check your mirror, etc, etc)


You were done at 55 kph, it seems a bit harsh when you look at absolute figures but it's still 10% over the limit in an area that may be prone to collisions. You had one, perhaps others had too.

lau1247

the above mentioned by few posters all got caught and fined in the lower limit area which likely to mean town etc where chances of people/children walking around would be higher..

At 80 limit, typically these are wider/out of build up area kinda roads so maybe a slightly leniency is considered as there's less chance of harming others on these type of road?

bk1991

slimjimmc wrote: »

1. for a conviction have you more evidence than your opinion or the fact the collision occurred? Were there any skid marks that could only be produced at say 60 or 70kph?

2 & 3. Depends on the circumstances of the collision. If you were entering her road then it's your fault for misjudging her speed and pulling out in front of her. If you were turning off the road and she was coming the other way then it's your fault again unless she was on the wrong side. If you were turning off the road and she hit you from behind then she's likely at fault. (i say likely because we don't know all the details e.g was she was overtaking on a broken line and you didn't check your mirror, etc, etc)


You were done at 55 kph, it seems a bit harsh when you look at absolute figures but it's still 10% over the limit in an area that may be prone to collisions. You had one, perhaps others had too.

full detailes

my self and my mother were going to make a right hand turn on main road in 50 km speed zone my mother indicated and was about to brake when all i rember is a bang and smashing of glass i blacked out for few secs i then rember our car moveing on raod before coming to a halt bout 30 metres from when we were hit the other driver was walking to us and said did i hit ye ...... so we said we were getting garda so we rang and they said theyed be here in 20 mins
we left our car on road as it was not driveable and the point that ur not soposed to move cars after accident she moved her jeep in to side of road
the garda arrived bout 45 mins later and swaped our insurance details and basicaly took what happened
who did what
the other driver claimed it was totaly our fault that we never braked or indicated
he also got our car towed
i went into hosp imidataly and got xrays and mri plus ct scan and was kept in hosp for 7 days nothing broked just muscular or nerve damage is what i am told

there was no skid marks as she made no efort of brakeing at all our car weighing between 1000kg and 1500kg stoped her
she was driveing a jeep weighing around 2000kg to 3000kg

our car was all pushed up from back up into front back window smashed along with side windows back seats up to front and seat i was in passanger seet the back boke whit impact

how come she wasnt convicted of something eg dangerous driveing ,driveing without due care something

how that explaines it enough
and before ye all start i am not looking for big insurance claim
bk1991




but the point i wana know is how can someone get away with doing that and not getting some sort of conviction

slimjimmc

Thanks. Wow that was some whack, lucky indeed no one was badly hurt.

Since she rear-ended your mother the jeep driver I too would have expected her to face some sort of charge but that's not for this thread.

I'd say the Gardaí were clamping down in that area after your accident and maybe others too which is why you were caught so soon.

Doen anyone know if the Gardaí are using in-car speed detection. I'm not talking about them looking at their speedo, i mean the type where they can measure your speed even if they're driving in the opposite direction?

Bearcat

they were out hiding behind the bridge westbound approaching the spa hotel lucan....fish on barrel stuff.

bk1991

slimjimmc wrote: »

Thanks. Wow that was some whack, lucky indeed no one was badly hurt.

Since she rear-ended your mother the jeep driver I too would have expected her to face some sort of charge but that's not for this thread.

I'd say the Gardaí were clamping down in that area after your accident and maybe others too which is why you were caught so soon.

Doen anyone know if the Gardaí are using in-car speed detection. I'm not talking about them looking at their speedo, i mean the type where they can measure your speed even if they're driving in the opposite direction?

the garda were there before my accident so accident wasnt problem that they were there but i dono why she got away with it .....knowing my luck if i did that i woulnt have gotten away with it shes still not admitting it was her fault so .....


i seen a while back on crime call the new squad cars with the speed dection cameras and the number plate readers like for knowing if ur taxed insured or ncted i dono where these are but i sopose theres some around alright


bk1991

Hooch

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

A friend's father was done for 33 in a 30 zone a couple of years ago. He's in his 70s but is a generally safe driver from what I've seen.

Whether you find it unbelievable or not, it can happen.

Anyone find it funny thats its normally a ''friend'' was caught 3-5kmph over?? Rearly hear "I" was caught. 3 kmph is impossible and shows either he lied to you or your stating porkies. There is a minimum allowance of 5kmph. Tickets CANNOT be give for less:)

The Muppet wrote: »

Maybe some here could tell us the official policy for Irish traffic cops if there is a one.

There is no official policy for Traffic.

TwoShedsJackson

nice guy always wrote: »

Anyone find it funny thats its normally a ''friend'' was caught 3-5kmph over?? Rearly hear "I" was caught. 3 kmph is impossible and shows either he lied to you or your stating porkies. There is a minimum allowance of 5kmph. Tickets CANNOT be give for less:)

First up, it was a friend's father, why in hell am I going to lie about that. I've been done twice for speeding myself and it was by more than 3kph over the limit on those occasions.

Secondly, he got a ticket, so can you can please explain to us how you KNOW that tickets CANNOT be given for less than 5kph over when I KNOW that someone WAS given a ticket for 3kph over?

bikermojo

spartacus93 wrote: »

Generally speaking if it's on a Tripod it records you as MYOB said, not sure if it's a video or a picture, but either way they don't have to stop you.

If it's a handheld device he has to stop you, as this doesn't take any picture of the car, only displays the speed (no evidence).

:mad:I wouldn't be too worried about 90 in an 80 zone tbh.

was done for doin 32 in a 30 zone one winters morin in the rain got fine cos it was b4 the points

johndaman66

bk1991 wrote: »

how that explaines it enough
and before ye all start i am not looking for big insurance claim
bk1991

Well if I were you I would claim as much as possible bk1991. I'd go to town on her seen as she is being such an ignorant bi*ch about it by the sounds of things. It seems your injuries were quite severe plus you have medical bills, unable to work for some time so loss of income and were no doubt traumatised to some extent by the whole event I'd imagine. You would probably be best to get all your medical reports and bills in order plus evidence of work days lost....don't forget anything and then go to a good sloicitor with these.

bk1991 wrote: »

the garda were there before my accident so accident wasnt problem that they were there but i dono why she got away with it .....knowing my luck if i did that i woulnt have gotten away with it shes still not admitting it was her fault so .....

Did the Gardai make any comments in this regard after all parties had given statements? I would imagine that if she is not admitting liability it will go to court. Probably would be wise for your mother to go to the Guard who took the statement first, clarify what she gave in her statement and ask for their support if it went to court.

Like she really needed a heavy jeep too I'm sure cos she ploughs through mucky fields on a regular basis. Or else of course the other excuse, its safer with the kids. Safer for who though when she almost kills two people stone cold.

bk1991

johndaman66 wrote: »

Well if I were you I would claim as much as possible bk1991. I'd go to town on her seen as she is being such an ignorant bi*ch about it by the sounds of things. It seems your injuries were quite severe plus you have medical bills, unable to work for some time so loss of income and were no doubt traumatised to some extent by the whole event I'd imagine. You would probably be best to get all your medical reports and bills in order plus evidence of work days lost....don't forget anything and then go to a good sloicitor with these.



Did the Gardai make any comments in this regard after all parties had given statements? I would imagine that if she is not admitting liability it will go to court. Probably would be wise for your mother to go to the Guard who took the statement first, clarify what she gave in her statement and ask for their support if it went to court.

Like she really needed a heavy jeep too I'm sure cos she ploughs through mucky fields on a regular basis. Or else of course the other excuse, its safer with the kids. Safer for who though when she almost kills two people stone cold.

i am getting my injurioes sorted
i am from farming background and we dont even have a jeep when the celtic tigar was roaring all that was being driven on irish roads was brand new deisel guzlers and the bigger the better

tbh she dident accep liability at the secene there was brief statement given at secene like who done what how did it happen but that was it basicaly once we wernt killed the gard diednet care toomuch i am not sure but i think there was liabilility admited after when they heard that i was in hospital

but the point in her being able to walk away with some slight damage to her jeep no injuries and leaveing us with a complete wreck of car leaveing me in hosp for week .leaveing college ,no work etc ......
I AM NOT LOOKING FOR LEGAL ADVICE IN THIS JUST OPINIONS BEFORE I AM KICKED OFF

_Kaiser_

nice guy always wrote: »

There is no official policy for Traffic.

I think this is part of the problem though, and why these threads always come up - ie: the "it depends who you get on the day" approach to enforcement.

Don't get me wrong, your (and other TC/Garda members) posts on this forum are usually very informative and show that you apply a bit of "common sense" when going about your duties, but (and I'm sure you know colleagues like this), it's the Gardai who DON'T do this, or will prosecute someone for a relatively minor offence, that tarnish the rest of the force - in fact I remember seeing a thread only recently that claimed many of the regular Gardai have an active diskile of their TC brethern for this reason.

I also think an official policy would make your lives easier too, insofar as your average motorist will be aware that there's a bit of leeway (10% sounds fair to me), but that if they take the piss then they really have no grounds for complaint.

Tefral

My cousin was done for doing 54km/hr in a 50km/hr. Guard pulled him over. Im pretty sure i can get proof of it too actually.

Saying that he was about 19 driving a modified car and the guard in question is known in limerick for being an ***hole

daveharnett

bk1991 wrote: »

tbh she dident accep liability at the secene there was brief statement given at secene like who done what how did it happen but that was it basicaly once we wernt killed the gard diednet care toomuch i am not sure but i think there was liabilility admited after when they heard that i was in hospital

Hate to say it, but she was right not to accept liability at the scene. Your insurance policy will tell you not to admit liability, and breaking this can invalidate your insurance.

As to the lack of investigation, unless the injuries sustained require an ambulance, the guards generally don't seem to investigate. A bit galling, but I imagine useful evidence could be thin on the ground. I do think that AT LEAST alcohol and drug testing should be required in these circumstances.

daveharnett

nice guy always wrote: »

There is a minimum allowance of 5kmph. Tickets CANNOT be give for less:)

[citation needed]

bk1991

daveharnett wrote: »

Hate to say it, but she was right not to accept liability at the scene. Your insurance policy will tell you not to admit liability, and breaking this can invalidate your insurance.

As to the lack of investigation, unless the injuries sustained require an ambulance, the guards generally don't seem to investigate. A bit galling, but I imagine useful evidence could be thin on the ground. I do think that AT LEAST alcohol and drug testing should be required in these circumstances.

yea hard to believe if no one serious injuried they do nothing
i had a feeling she was useing phone but no proof but then how can u stop a large jep going fast in split secont not possable

Anan1

bk1991 wrote: »

yea hard to believe if no one serious injuried they do nothing
i had a feeling she was useing phone but no proof but then how can u stop a large jep going fast in split secont not possable

From what you've said, it sounds as though the other driver had right of way. How come your mother turned across her path?

bk1991

Anan1 wrote: »

From what you've said, it sounds as though the other driver had right of way. How come your mother turned across her path?

we were driveing along and were going to turn right the drived behind would have had to stop if there was oncometing traffic cause theres is no room on left hand side to pass we dident have a chance to see if there was oncomeing traffic we were brakeing to slow down and she banged ito us she never seen the brake or indicator llights

Fighting Irish

bk1991 wrote: »

was done for 55 in 50 :mad:so woulnt be to sure

55 in a 50 is a bit different than 90 in an 80, considering most 50s are in areas where there's more pedestrians

bk1991

Fighting Irish wrote: »

55 in a 50 is a bit different than 90 in an 80, considering most 50s are in areas where there's more pedestrians

the speed limits are ****ed up anyway

the n6 horsleep to moate or athlone is 80km straight road well capable of 100km then theres the kilbeggan tullamore road same road and its 100km
i like on a narrow country road and the speed limit is 80km

Solitaire

daveharnett wrote:

As to the lack of investigation, unless the injuries sustained require an ambulance, the guards generally don't seem to investigate. A bit galling, but I imagine useful evidence could be thin on the ground.

AFAIK there's no technical examination unless there are corpses involved.

I was in an oilslick-induced crash just a couple of weeks back. Nice to know that because I controlled my vehicle and went out of my way to mitigate harm to others I get to carry the can. If I'd just panicked, swerved and got a whole load of peeps dead then there would have been an examination and a certain petrol station would be in a whole load of trouble with almost everyone imaginable.

Is it me or is almost every legal and insurance law regarding motoring completely ****ing backwards?! :mad:

bk1991

Solitaire wrote: »

Is it me or is almost every legal and insurance law regarding motoring completely ****ing backwards?! :mad:

no not just u it is backwards

Anan1

bk1991 wrote: »

we were driveing along and were going to turn right the drived behind would have had to stop if there was oncometing traffic cause theres is no room on left hand side to pass we dident have a chance to see if there was oncomeing traffic we were brakeing to slow down and she banged ito us she never seen the brake or indicator llights

But didn't she have right of way? As far as I can see based on what you've said your mother shouldn't have made the turn until she could see that her way was clear?

Hooch

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Secondly, he got a ticket, so can you can please explain to us how you KNOW that tickets CANNOT be given for less than 5kph over when I KNOW that someone WAS given a ticket for 3kph over?

Because I issued them daily.......

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I also think an official policy would make your lives easier too, insofar as your average motorist will be aware that there's a bit of leeway (10% sounds fair to me), but that if they take the piss then they really have no grounds for complaint.

Simple reason why there is no official lee way......why tell the public there is a leeway when the speed limit is set!

Is it the Gardaí fault the Co Co set the speeds they do?? We only enforce the law.....we dont make it up.

daveharnett wrote: »

[citation needed]

Citation cannot be given as it is an internal document with is not in the public domain.

johndaman66

Anan1 wrote: »

But didn't she have right of way? As far as I can see based on what you've said your mother shouldn't have made the turn until she could see that her way was clear?

I might be reading it totally incorrectly but the way I take it from bk1991's explanation the lady in the jeep ran into the back of the car in which he was an occupant. From the explanation given it would appear that she was travelling behind bk1991's vehicle and the driver of bk1991's vehicle was making a right turn and was pulling up at which point the driver of the jeep rear ended them. Assuming the driver of bk1991's veihcle signalled correctly and everything it would appear to be totally the fault of the driver in the jeep. If it was not safe/ not possible for her to overtake on her left hand side she would need to pull up and wait until driver of bk1991's vehicle had taken the turn....unless of course I am interprting bk1991's explanation totally incorrectly?

Anan1

johndaman66 wrote: »

I might be reading it totally incorrectly but the way I take it from bk1991's explanation the lady in the jeep ran into the back of the car in which he was an occupant. From the explanation given it would appear that she was travelling behind bk1991's vehicle and the driver of bk1991's vehicle was making a right turn and was pulling up at which point the driver of the jeep rear ended them. Assuming the driver of bk1991's veihcle signalled correctly and everything it would appear to be totally the fault of the driver in the jeep. If it was not safe/ not possible for her to overtake on her left hand side she would need to pull up and wait until driver of bk1991's vehicle had taken the turn....unless of course I am interprting bk1991's explanation totally incorrectly?

I've just reread the whole thing, and I think - although it's a bit unclear - that you may be right?

rebel.ranter

nice guy always wrote: »

Simple reason why there is no official lee way......why tell the public there is a leeway when the speed limit is set!

This makes complete sense, a limit is a limit. OK I'll be the first to admit setting my cruise control 5-10kph over the limit ("N" route-Motorway) hoping for leeway/advance view of speed trap.
(I have also compared my speedos to GPS so I'm probably on the limit in most cases anyway)

ALS

Anybody got any idea how long it takes to recieve a fine? I was stopped on the 6th of May for speeding at 5:30 in the morning, I apologised and explained I was running late for work ( no excuse I know but it was the truth )I was asked to produce my licence and insurance to my local Garda station which I did that night and that was the last I heard of it , is this long wait for a fine and penalty points normal ? . . . .
Cheers

bk1991

Anan1 wrote: »

But didn't she have right of way? As far as I can see based on what you've said your mother shouldn't have made the turn until she could see that her way was clear?

ok we were driveing along road going to turn right into gateway when seh hit the back of us
what right of way had she

Hooch

rebel.ranter wrote: »

This makes complete sense, a limit is a limit. OK I'll be the first to admit setting my cruise control 5-10kph over the limit ("N" route-Motorway) hoping for leeway/advance view of speed trap.
(I have also compared my speedos to GPS so I'm probably on the limit in most cases anyway)

Depending on your car the speedo have an inbuilt de - calibration...although I have found that mercedes are nearly always spot on the rest are about 6kmph under at 100kmph.

On a motorway 10kmph over is fine. Anything more and you'll see alternating headlights and blues!!!

ALS wrote: »

Anybody got any idea how long it takes to recieve a fine? I was stopped on the 6th of May for speeding at 5:30 in the morning, I apologised and explained I was running late for work ( no excuse I know but it was the truth )I was asked to produce my licence and insurance to my local Garda station which I did that night and that was the last I heard of it , is this long wait for a fine and penalty points normal ? . . . .
Cheers

No an FCPS can be issued up to 56 days before the 6 months statuatory period to allow the offender the 56 days in total to pay. So in theory it could be up to 4 months before you recieve it. Normally it is issued and recieved within the month thought (thats Traffics policy normally.....but sick leave etc can delay it)
Best of luck with it

cyclopath2001

nice guy always wrote: »

Depending on your car the speedo have an inbuilt de - calibration...although I have found that mercedes are nearly always spot on the rest are about 6kmph under at 100kmph.

My Ford Focus speed reading matches compares accurately with my GPS. I think that people should believe their speedometer readings assuming their car is standard stock.

nice guy always wrote: »

On a motorway 10kmph over is fine. Anything more and you'll see alternating headlights and blues!!!

No Garda would say that as it's an an offence for a Garda to make unauthorised public statement disclosing confidential operational matters. I suggest that nobody should claim in a thread to be a member of the Garda.

I urge posters here stick to the posted speed limit or a lower speed if that is what is appropriate.

Shield

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

No Garda would say that as it's an an offence for a Garda to make unauthorised public statement disclosing confidential operational matters. I suggest that nobody should claim in a thread to be a member of the Garda.

Yeah, but he's not speaking as a Garda. He's speaking as someone who happens to work as a Garda, is off duty, and is not speaking on behalf of AGS.

Oh and he most certainly IS a Garda. His credentials have been verified and they do check out.

cyclopath2001

psni wrote: »

Yeah, but he's not speaking as a Garda. He's speaking as someone who happens to work as a Garda, is off duty, and is not speaking on behalf of AGS.

Isn't this forbidden by Garda regulations?

psni wrote: »

Oh and he most certainly IS a Garda. His credentials have been verified and they do check out.

You miss the point. First that a poster here claiming to be a Garda is in double jeopardy. Either for unauthorised statements or for pretending to be a Garda.

Since identities can't be verified here, there is nothing to stop people coming on here encouraging others to break the law and claiming that Garda practice is that they won't be prosecuted.

TwoShedsJackson

nice guy always wrote: »

Because I issued them daily.......

So you personally have never issued a ticket for 5kph or less over, other cops have.

Shield

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Isn't this forbidden by Garda regulations?

Which one?

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You miss the point. First that a poster here claiming to be a Garda is in double jeopardy. Either for unauthorised statements or for pretending to be a Garda.

It's not an unauthorised statement because he's not speaking in the capacity of a Garda. I know personally that he is a Garda. Walter Mitty characters are very soon outed by serving Gardaí on boards.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Since identities can't be verified here, there is nothing to stop people coming on here encouraging others to break the law and claiming that Garda practice is that they won't be prosecuted.

To be fair, I don't think he encouraged anyone to break the law. All he did was state fact. It's the same up here on motorways. It's not a secret that there is a fault tolerance on the equipment we use, and just like AGS, we have guidelines to tell us what the tolerance is.

You're dead right. Identities can't be verified here, but there's a group of around 20 Gardaí on here that have verified their credentials offline to each other. I happen to know that nice guy always is most definitely a serving Garda.

Good points of discussion raised there.

Anan1

bk1991 wrote: »

ok we were driveing along road going to turn right into gateway when seh hit the back of us
what right of way had she

None, she was completely in the wrong. Sorry, I misunderstood - I thought your mother was turning right and she was coming the other way and hit your mother's car.

brownacid

Anan1 wrote: »

None, she was completely in the wrong. Sorry, I misunderstood - I thought your mother was turning right and she was coming the other way and hit your mother's car.

I also thought that!



Whats the story with driving up north, can us southies get pointsif we were caught speeding or have they introduced that system yet? |I remember hearing about it a while ago but that was about a year ago and nothing else.

bk1991

Anan1 wrote: »

None, she was completely in the wrong. Sorry, I misunderstood - I thought your mother was turning right and she was coming the other way and hit your mother's car.

i might not have clearly described it but i still think she should have got some conviction

Hooch

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

My Ford Focus speed reading matches compares accurately with my GPS. I think that people should believe their speedometer readings assuming their car is standard stock.

No Garda would say that as it's an an offence for a Garda to make unauthorised public statement disclosing confidential operational matters. I suggest that nobody should claim in a thread to be a member of the Garda.

I urge posters here stick to the posted speed limit or a lower speed if that is what is appropriate.

To be honest I really dont care whether you think I am or are not a member of AGS. I really do not care if anyone here believes it, I wont loose sleep over it!! Have I ever given anyone on boards bad advice (you should see my pm inbox)??

Believe it or not some members post here to educate people and try to assist people in their troubles. And of course we try to fix the negative view left by a small % of members on the public.

We'll stay out of here if ye want.....

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

So you personally have never issued a ticket for 5kph or less over, other cops have.

Good point, I cannot speak for 15,000 people to be fair. My point really is they shouldnt be nor shouldnt have issued for less that 5kmph.