Getting caught Speeding

silenoz

Hey,
Just wondering has someone got an opinion on this?
I was driving down the M6 the other day at a speed of around 120kph. At one point I was overtaking a car and sped upto 130kph. I went back into the left lane at the same speed. It was at that point I seen a Garda van driving on the opposite side of the motorway. I was going above the speed limit in the left lane of the motorway so now I'm wondering if the Garda van on the opposite side could have noticied me and clocked me going by over the speed limit.
Is this possible or does the van have to be stationary (i.e. Like a Gatso van) to catch you?

cormie

So the van was driving the opposite direction of you? Not a hope you were clocked :cool: (Well I'm sure you could have been but there's too many variables for it to stand up in court). You have nothing to worry about and there's a good chance you were probably just doing around 120kmph anyway due to speed inaccuracy.

Gumbo

i think its safe to say you'll be ok based on the explanation of the situation you described above.

Del2005

cormie wrote: »

So the van was driving the opposite direction of you? Not a hope you were clocked :cool: (Well I'm sure you could have been but there's too many variables for it to stand up in court). You have nothing to worry about and there's a good chance you were probably just doing around 120kmph anyway due to speed inaccuracy.

2 Gardai only have to say you where speeding to get convicted, they don't need any proof. But the OP is unlikely to get done for all the above reasons.

Hooch

silenoz wrote: »

Hey,
Just wondering has someone got an opinion on this?
I was driving down the M6 the other day at a speed of around 120kph. At one point I was overtaking a car and sped upto 130kph. I went back into the left lane at the same speed. It was at that point I seen a Garda van driving on the opposite side of the motorway. I was going above the speed limit in the left lane of the motorway so now I'm wondering if the Garda van on the opposite side could have noticied me and clocked me going by over the speed limit.
Is this possible or does the van have to be stationary (i.e. Like a Gatso van) to catch you?

So if you were on the other side of a motorway......with concrete K rails dividing the lanes.......how could the Gatso van see you reg??;)

While it is possible to do so if the number plate was in view (there are no variables....your caught or your not)....however on a motorway it would only be detecting its own lanes.

Del2005 wrote: »

2 Gardai only have to say you where speeding to get convicted, they don't need any proof. But the OP is unlikely to get done for all the above reasons.

One Garda.....only the one.

Esel

Yeah, the 2nd one is hardly going to contradict the 1st......

Del2005

nice guy always wrote: »

One Garda.....only the one.

I know it's 1 but a decent lawyer may be able to get you off. If 2 say you where speeding you've little chance of not being convicted.

hunter164

Sorry to hijack but they don't have to stop you on those tripod cameras do they? And what does it mean if they're winding it?

bongi69

hunter164 wrote: »

Sorry to hijack but they don't have to stop you on those tripod cameras do they? And what does it mean if they're winding it?

Old time movie camera????

I'm open to correction, but AFAIK the radar guns don't need to be wound up in any way. They could have been doing something completely different , or adjusting the height on the tripod, similar to a video camera tripod.

I have been hit with the radar once, and was pulled over promptly. Got off with a ticking off, twas only a few kmh over. Dunno if the guns read a reg to issue a notice later.

sdanseo

Would Gardaí even issue a fine for 130km while overtaking? Seems fair enough to accelerate a bit rather than take a km to overtake someone. NGA? I know on Traffic blues I saw them letting people at 141km/h off with a warning.

A tad paranoid OP, you'll be grand

I.S.T.

Nothing to worry about OP.

djimi

Del2005 wrote: »

2 Gardai only have to say you where speeding to get convicted, they don't need any proof. But the OP is unlikely to get done for all the above reasons.

What you mean they dont need proof?!! Is that true? Surely if it goes to court they need to have some evidence to back them up?

Del2005

djimi wrote: »

What you mean they dont need proof?!! Is that true? Surely if it goes to court they need to have some evidence to back them up?

A Garda can get a conviction if they say you where speeding, no proof required. They only have to saw they saw you speeding.

When it goes to court it'll be your word against a Garda's, who do you think the judge will believe? If 2 Gardaí say they saw you speeding you will most definitely get done.

Even if they get you with a gun/gatso, there isn't a need for this equipment to be calibrated or tested in anyway as it's always assumed to be working correctly:eek::eek:

djimi

Del2005 wrote: »

A Garda can get a conviction if they say you where speeding, no proof required. They only have to saw they saw you speeding.

When it goes to court it'll be your word against a Garda's, who do you think the judge will believe? If 2 Gardaí say they saw you speeding you will most definitely get done.

Even if they get you with a gun/gatso, there isn't a need for this equipment to be calibrated or tested in anyway as it's always assumed to be working correctly:eek::eek:

Its not about who they believe, its about proving it. Surely they have to have some kind of evidence to back it up, even its just a video of them recording their speedo on their car with the speeder in question visibly driving faster? If it were to actually go to court would "I saw him driving over the speed limit" without any proof to back it up actually hold, or would a judge throw it out?

Henry Ford III

I'd imagine a judge might be more inclined to believe evidence of a cop tbh. Even without any evidential backup.

Why else would they have brought the charges?

j1mboj0nes

AFAIK they can do you for talking on your mobile phone without any evidence beyond "I saw him do it"

djimi

Its not as black and white as say getting caught driving while on your phone. Say they catch you on a motorway; they say it looked you were going over the speed limit, you say you were in fact going 118kmph, they have nothing to prove otherwise to the court, so how can they convict?

Del2005

djimi wrote: »

Its not about who they believe, its about proving it. Surely they have to have some kind of evidence to back it up, even its just a video of them recording their speedo on their car with the speeder in question visibly driving faster? If it were to actually go to court would "I saw him driving over the speed limit" without any proof to back it up actually hold, or would a judge throw it out?

It all depends on how good a lawyer you have. But yeah they can say they saw you speeding and it's up to you to prove otherwise. Driving isn't a right it's a privilege so innocent till proven guilty doesn't fully apply.

MagicSean

djimi wrote: »

Its not as black and white as say getting caught driving while on your phone. Say they catch you on a motorway; they say it looked you were going over the speed limit, you say you were in fact going 118kmph, they have nothing to prove otherwise to the court, so how can they convict?

They follow you for a certain distance while maintaining a constant distance from your vehicle and look at their own speed. It would never be used for speeds that close to the limit though. I've only ever seen it used as part of proof towards dangerous driving i.e. "I followed him at speeds exceeding 160 kmph."

dirtydiesel

nice guy always wrote: »

one Garda.....only the one.[/QUOTE
What a fcuked up country we live in if the word of a guard is enough to convict, that is crazy , why have laws if you guys can put on a uniform and form an opinion thats enough to convict someone without evidence.

MagicSean

dirtydiesel wrote: »

What a fcuked up country we live in if the word of a guard is enough to convict, that is crazy , why have laws if you guys can put on a uniform and form an opinion thats enough to convict someone without evidence.

Why have gardaí if you dont trust them to enforce the law?

dirtydiesel

k_mac wrote: »

Why have gardaí if you dont trust them to enforce the law?

Enforcing the law and forming an opinion that leads to a conviction are two totally different issues.

milltown

silenoz wrote: »

Hey,
Just wondering has someone got an opinion on this?

You're not from around here, are you?

kwalshe

k_mac wrote: »

They follow you for a certain distance while maintaining a constant distance from your vehicle and look at their own speed. It would never be used for speeds that close to the limit though. I've only ever seen it used as part of proof towards dangerous driving i.e. "I followed him at speeds exceeding 160 kmph."

This would be pretty impressive considering the OP was travelling in opposite direction. I smell BS!

silenoz

Hopefully I am just being paranoid.
If I do hear anything about this I'll post again.

pippins

Could use some advice please! Was pulled over by a Garda today, he told me I was doing 85 in 60 zone, he didn't show me any reading on a camera, speedometer etc. He took my details, cautioned me under an Act and told me that I may be prosecuted in the future and off he went. He did not give me a ticket or mention points/fine.

I am wondering if I will have to appear in court (as he gave me no paperwork (fine/points on spot) or will I get the points/fine in a letter in the post?

Thanks in advance......

MagicSean

pippins wrote: »

Could use some advice please! Was pulled over by a Garda today, he told me I was doing 85 in 60 zone, he didn't show me any reading on a camera, speedometer etc. He took my details, cautioned me under an Act and told me that I may be prosecuted in the future and off he went. He did not give me a ticket or mention points/fine.

I am wondering if I will have to appear in court (as he gave me no paperwork (fine/points on spot) or will I get the points/fine in a letter in the post?

Thanks in advance......

A fine comes in the post. You don't get anything at the side of the road. Most gardaí will show you the reading however it isn't essential.

jock101

Here's a sample from the UK of whats to come in October, and they wont be marked in bright yellow. Oh no, not here hidden in a ditch! LOL Cheers to ANPR

Matt Simis

sdonn wrote: »

Would Gardaí even issue a fine for 130km while overtaking? Seems fair enough to accelerate a bit rather than take a km to overtake someone. NGA? I know on Traffic blues I saw them letting people at 141km/h off with a warning.

A tad paranoid OP, you'll be grand

God bless the naiveté of the OP, 130kph lol.

If they let people off at 141kph clocked that means they were likely doing 150kph on their Speedo due to built in inaccuracy. The OP on the other hand was barely even at the speed limit yet thinks he is going to be hunted down for it. Do you not drive on motorways often? I see most people doing 140 every day, you would be the exception.

pippins

K Mac, thanks for taking time to post, am worried sick that it'll be a court appearance, as he never mentioned 'fixed point penalty notice' to me or a fine at the time. Thanks again for your reply......

MagicSean

jock101 wrote: »

Here's a sample from the UK of whats to come in October, and they wont be marked in bright yellow. Oh no, not here hidden in a ditch! LOL Cheers to ANPR

No they won't. They've already named all the stretches of roads they will be placed on.

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=5590&Lang=1

MagicSean

kwalshe wrote: »

This would be pretty impressive considering the OP was travelling in opposite direction. I smell BS!

Then how was he stopped? If it was on a motorway surely they must have been behind him.

guil

k_mac wrote: »

Then how was he stopped? If it was on a motorway surely they must have been behind him.

the op wasnt stopped, he said he was overtaking on a motorway and a garda van was travelling in the other direction

cormie

k_mac wrote: »

No they won't. They've already named all the stretches of roads they will be placed on.

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=5590&Lang=1

Sheesh, that's some list! So it looks like it's going to be like London, speed cameras every few meters :eek:

Think a map is needed :P

Hooch

k_mac wrote: »

No they won't. They've already named all the stretches of roads they will be placed on.

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=5590&Lang=1

That is no longer an up to date list of locations. Locations can be added at the request of the divisional traffic sergeant. The Internet list hasn't been updated since 2008.....but they are doing so in the next month. That said locations can be added again and may not appear.

cormie

You'll tell us though, right?

Gary ITR

nice guy always wrote: »

That is no longer an up to date list of locations. Locations can be added at the request of the divisional traffic sergeant. The Internet list hasn't been updated since 2008.....but they are doing so in the next month. That said locations can be added again and may not appear.

Do you reckon 'but that road wasn't on the list' would get me off a speeding fine?

Hooch

Onkle wrote: »

Do you reckon 'but that road wasn't on the list' would get me off a speeding fine?

Try it next time.....we'll see what happens!!:D:pac:

Gary ITR

nice guy always wrote: »

Try it next time.....we'll see what happens!!:D:pac:

Well which would be better? That or this 'Sorry Judge, Vtec kicked in'

jock101

k_mac wrote: »

No they won't. They've already named all the stretches of roads they will be placed on.

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=5590&Lang=1

They are Garda patrolled zones, not the company being licensed to catch you!:rolleyes: As far as I know they will have a feel to roam charter.

I.S.T.

djimi wrote: »

Its not about who they believe, its about proving it. Surely they have to have some kind of evidence to back it up, even its just a video of them recording their speedo on their car with the speeder in question visibly driving faster? If it were to actually go to court would "I saw him driving over the speed limit" without any proof to back it up actually hold, or would a judge throw it out?

The Guards don't need proof. How do you think they get people done for dangerous driving. The judge will usually take the Guarda's word for it.

I.S.T.

Del2005 wrote: »

Driving isn't a right it's a privilege so innocent till proven guilty doesn't fully apply.

Interested in how you come to that conclusion.

-Chris-

Onkle wrote: »

Well which would be better? That or this 'Sorry Judge, Vtec kicked in yo'

FYP

pa990

jock101 wrote: »

Here's a sample from the UK of whats to come in October, and they wont be marked in bright yellow. Oh no, not here hidden in a ditch! LOL Cheers to ANPR

what sort of cam is that .. radar /laser ??

Hooch

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Interested in how you come to that conclusion.

Because you need to be licenced to drive. Its not a right. You must pass the tests. If it was a right you would be issued straight away with no theory, leaners permit and test.

Joe 90

jock101 wrote: »

Here's a sample from the UK of whats to come in October, and they wont be marked in bright yellow. Oh no, not here hidden in a ditch! LOL Cheers to ANPR

Heres one being fixed
This burning Gatso is on the A223 near Bexley. Setting light to a petrol filled tyre is the favoured method of destroying them.

Burning Gatso

-Chris-

But of course no one would ever advocate or encourage such behavious on boards.ie...

Joe 90

nice guy always wrote: »

Because you need to be licenced to drive. Its not a right. You must pass the tests. If it was a right you would be issued straight away with no theory, leaners permit and test.

Would that mean that someone a few years older than me would be driveing as right and not a privelage. Before the test was introduced you just filled in the form and sent it off to the council to get your licence. I did the test in 1967 which was not long, a couple of years maybe, after it was introduced so can we assume that anyone over say 63 or so has a right to drive?:)

Joe 90

-Chris- wrote: »

But of course no one would ever advocate or encourage such behavious on boards.ie...

All that smoke, not good for the environment. A 12 bore loaded with 00 shot from 30 yards or a 243 from a couple of houndred yards might be a greener method.

Del2005

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Interested in how you come to that conclusion.

Several motorists in the UK took their FCPN's, due to the fact that you have to self incriminate yourself which is against the law, to the European Court of Justice and that was the result.

Anan1

Joe 90 wrote: »

All that smoke, not good for the environment. A 12 bore loaded with 00 shot from 30 yards or a 243 from a couple of houndred yards might be a greener method.

You might have a read of the charter and drop that, thanks.