Traffic Blues - Cork

sdanseo

KevR wrote: »

I think the M50 should have Variable Speed Limits (VSL). 100kmh is too low when there is little traffic, for example the middle of the night (Note: the M50 has street lights and cat's eyes) - in my opinion, the M50 should be 120kmh off-peak.

When traffic on the M50 is exceptionally heavy during some rush hour periods, 100kmh is probably too much. The limit could be reduced to 80kmh to make traffic flow more smoothly.

VSL could be also used to slow traffic if there accident up ahead or if there is very bad weather.

I think 140kmh is too much for the M50:

• The lanes are narrower than other motorways so there is less margin for error.
• Sightlines not good enough in places to travel safely at such a speed (constantly).
• Closely spaced junctions.
• Bad lane discipline (big problem on 3+ lane motorways and dual carriageways).
• The M50 is not going to be totally empty at any stage day or night - you'll always have other people to consider/contend with. It's a lot different to some stretches of rural motorway which are practically empty off-peak.

I did Swords-Maynooth-Swords at about 2-3.30am last night.

I found the M50 stretch, I was sticking religiously to 100km/h as I picked up points (first ever) recently. A good sign, as it has positively affected my driving.

However, I was very held back, I could comfortably have done 130km/h in my car which isn't a banger or rickety etc. There was literally nobody else around for most of the time I was on the motorway - I only overtook one person.

On the N4, the same thing. An 80km/h limit when even with the exits that are there, 100-110 would have been perfectly safe.

Oddly, I found that on the unlit section of the M4 nearer Maynooth, I slowed below the limit. 110km/h was pretty much the fastest I was happy to go as you just can't see too far in front of you without high beams - even with them, you still can't see nearly as far as in streetlights. When I was behind a car doing the limit, I was happy enough to tag along behind at a safe distance, pacing them. I know from experience driving long distances that you get used to this, and would speed up, but my point is that it only reinforces the level of safety of a higher limit on streetlit routes.

My point? Speed limit on 2 lane motorways is just right. A maximum, not a target. The speed limit on the N4/M50 however, was far too low from the conditions and the sooner the gantries that are there in place are fitted with VSL signage, the better.

What does need to be policed is the lane discipline issue. If I see someone pulled over for lane hogging before this series is over, I'll be very happy. I drive the M50 most weeks, and last time I did M1-Dundrum was a few days ago. The whole way, I was slowed down by idiots in the middle lane. If I undertake, I'm breaking the law. If I sit behind them in the middle lane, I'm lane hogging too. If I overtake, I'm speeding to keep up with the pace in that lane, and therefore breaking the law. It causes mayhem and should be punished harshly.

Mister Jingles

CharlieCroker wrote: »

Both have green backlighting. The dashboard was deffo a Volvo.

I know but there was a moment when it showed a Mondeo speedo doing about 180kph, I reckon it was thrown in to emphasize the speed which the patrol car had to reach to catch the bike.

source

ivabiggon wrote: »

"i'm arresting you for the purpose of Dangerous Driving" what sort of caution is that?
http://www.rte.ie/player/#!v=1105011 21 mins 26 sec.
i'm surprised he got any conviction at all, the gaurd fluffed it from the out set. "will we lift him"...my name is "eamon coglan". not even a text book arrest for the cameras. under what act did he arrest him.... sorry the camera nerves got the better of this traffic member. if the driver contested this he would have got off.

No need to quote legislation that people won't understand, He was informed in basic language why he was arrested and was cautioned afterwards, absolutely nothing wrong with that arrest, when questioning him he even reminded him that he was under caution.

If he had said "I'm arresting you now for an offence under Section 53 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, only the member would have known why he was being arrested, because of this there is no requirement to quote legislation, the common term for the offence is sufficient.

ivabiggon

foinse wrote: »

No need to quote legislation that people won't understand, He was informed in basic language why he was arrested and was cautioned afterwards, absolutely nothing wrong with that arrest, when questioning him he even reminded him that he was under caution.

If he had said "I'm arresting you now for an offence under Section 53 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, only the member would have known why he was being arrested, because of this there is no requirement to quote legislation, the common term for the offence is sufficient.

i think your missing the point here, he said "for the purpose off" instead of "the offence off" purpose is the wrong word, and could lead to misunderstanding. "purpose means "so that you can" and my point is if he had contested it he may have got off in court on a technicality.

source

ivabiggon wrote: »

i think your missing the point here, he said "for the purpose off" instead of "the offence off" purpose is the wrong word, and could lead to misunderstanding. "purpose means "so that you can" and my point is if he had contested it he may have got off in court on a technicality.

I get what you're saying, but this case would not fall on the use of 1 word, given the video evidence from the cars camera of the speeds and manner of driving. The evidence provided would far outweigh the use of 1 word. I would imagine that the case was contested as with dangerous driving losing your driving licence is a possibility. We don't know what happened in court, this very point could have been argued.

Also when it comes to prosecutions all relevant evidence must be disclosed to the defence as per DPP V Braddish. So the defence would have had access to the footage we saw last night before the case, including the video shot by the cameraman. This means that the defence solicitor would have seen this, and if it really was an issue would have used it in court. The driver was convicted so it stands to reason that the case did not fall on the use of "purpose" instead of "the offence of".

flazio

I think the film crew and AGS have an agreement in place where the footage obtained by the film crew cannot be used in any legal proceedings. Like the case from series 1 where Dundalk Gardai had a red Seat drive off on them deliberately and they lost them, we all thought 'Go back to the film crew and get the reg.' But it's likely the case that they have to 'pretend we're not here'. Same I would say would apply to the suspects.

ivabiggon

foinse wrote: »

I get what you're saying, but this case would not fall on the use of 1 word, given the video evidence from the cars camera of the speeds and manner of driving. The evidence provided would far outweigh the use of 1 word. I would imagine that the case was contested as with dangerous driving losing your driving licence is a possibility. We don't know what happened in court, this very point could have been argued.

Also when it comes to prosecutions all relevant evidence must be disclosed to the defence as per DPP V Braddish. So the defence would have had access to the footage we saw last night before the case, including the video shot by the cameraman. This means that the defence solicitor would have seen this, and if it really was an issue would have used it in court. The driver was convicted so it stands to reason that the case did not fall on the use of "purpose" instead of "the offence of".

so what your telling me that on a different level, and one of the most contested charges, eg: say a drink driving case, with video evidence would not fall on the misuse of one word when a member is giving evidence in court. sorry i find that hard to believe, now having said that looking back on the show the bike driver did only get convicted of careless driving and two point, which to me as a non legal professional and a lay person is rather mild, so maybe this was the reason the conviction was lower.

on another point, does a member not have to at least mention the act under which they are arresting someone, and then explain in layman's terms what it means? sorry i'm not trying to be a smart arse here but, we all know the law can be very exact some times and as a result be an ass along with it because of it. i'm just trying to ascertain if there are different types of leniency with different cases for example an extradition case would hinge on every word, were as a road traffic offence wouldn't.

source

ivabiggon wrote: »

so what your telling me that on a different level, and one of the most contested charges, eg: say a drink driving case, with video evidence would not fall on the misuse of one word when a member is giving evidence in court. sorry i find that hard to believe, now having said that looking back on the show the bike driver did only get convicted of careless driving and two point, which to me as a non legal professional and a lay person is rather mild, so maybe this was the reason the conviction was lower.

on another point, does a member not have to at least mention the act under which they are arresting someone, and then explain in layman's terms what it means? sorry i'm not trying to be a smart arse here but, we all know the law can be very exact some times and as a result be an ass along with it because of it. i'm just trying to ascertain if there are different types of leniency with different cases for example an extradition case would hinge on every word, were as a road traffic offence wouldn't.

Drink driving and extradition are very different to dangerous driving. Due to how drink driving cases are defended, rules and regulations have arisen around the prosecution of those cases that are unique to drink driving cases. In the case of drink driving, you will find that members will quote the title of 4 subsections of Section 49, as if they don't and just quote one they are limiting themselves to the kind of test that can be done back in the station.

Drink driving is a minefield when it comes to prosecution, and is completely of topic in relation to the footage we're discussing.

On the whole, there is no requirement to quote chapter and verse to a person when arresting. The caution must be delivered word for word and the person told why they're being arrested, but it does not have to be done in legalese which most people don't understand, plain English is sufficient.

flazio wrote:

I think the film crew and AGS have an agreement in place where the footage obtained by the film crew cannot be used in any legal proceedings. Like the case from series 1 where Dundalk Gardai had a red Seat drive off on them deliberately and they lost them, we all thought 'Go back to the film crew and get the reg.' But it's likely the case that they have to 'pretend we're not here'. Same I would say would apply to the suspects.

AGS don't have the right to make that kind of agreement, in fact I would imagine it would be the other way around, As I already outlined AGS have an obligation under DPP V Braddish to obtain all evidence and make it available to the defence on request.

If an agreement was made not to use this footage in criminal proceedings then that would be in breach of the accused's rights.

The footage taken by the cameraman is evidence and can be used to both convict a person or prove their innocence.

muppet01

Kevin Irving wrote: »

The guy who braked heavily in the Jack Lynch tunnel is a complete dope. The second car had nowhere to go and was hit by the Ambulance!

That may be true but the ambulance driver was careless to say the least, his speed so close to both vehicles was crazy, as was shown by the state of the boot of the car

POGAN

CharlieCroker wrote: »

Both have green backlighting. The dashboard was deffo a Volvo.

its a volvo 2.4 diesel grand car to go

kub

POGAN wrote: »

its a volvo 2.4 diesel grand car to go

Just wondering here guys, in the good old days the TC had some decent unmarked cars. I mean the ones that can move when deemed necessary.

I imagine it must be fustrating now having to go back again to the family saloons

Hooch

kub wrote: »

Just wondering here guys, in the good old days the TC had some decent unmarked cars. I mean the ones that can move when deemed necessary.

I imagine it must be fustrating now having to go back again to the family saloons

TC still has marked and unmarked 2.5 and 3.0 ltr petrol cars

kub

NGA wrote: »

TC still has marked and unmarked 2.5 and 3.0 ltr petrol cars

I am delighted to learn that, just thought with all the toyotas around now and the cut backs that the ol accountants would have gotten the better of ye.

mikemac

The quality of the street cameras is unreal.
The gardaí in the control room have an incredible view of the different areas

I see when they arrested the biker he was asked if he understood and he just nodded.
I wondered was they enough, seems you don't have to state you understand, a nod is sufficient

POGAN

kub wrote: »

I am delighted to learn that, just thought with all the toyotas around now and the cut backs that the ol accountants would have gotten the better of ye.

Yes there is new traffic cars but there some great cars out there for police work still, all members of the ags will still do the same great job they have being doing for years even with not the same resources as before...just wait and see

kub

POGAN wrote: »

Yes there is new traffic cars but there some great cars out there for police work still, all members of the ags will still do the same great job they have being doing for years even with not the same resources as before...just wait and see

I never ever doubt AGS ability and commitment to their careers and communities. I always want them to have the best of equipment to deal with the boy racers, hot rods and arrogant idiots.

Just looking at one of those UK Road War Docs earlier, in fairness I think that the likes of the BMWs', both jeeps and cars, Subarus etc which the forces have in The UK have as marked vehicles certainly provide an excellent detterent to the clowns as I mentioned earlier. Much better than the very high percentage of standard type vehicles which AGS have.

Also i think as well now with, at long last might i add, a motorway network in this country then the traffic lads should really have impressive looking marked vehicles, a side from the souped up Mondeos etc. I don't think in fairness that they would complain if say they had to take out a 5 series instead of a Mondeo on a shift.

Then on a final note, we all know now especially in recent times how easy it is to spot a branch/ unmarked traffic car. It still surprises me though the amount of people out there who think that AGS do not use these vehicles or that detectives drive around in their own cars etc. So what would be the harm in taking the masks off some of these beauties and showing them off?

Zambia

Nods are fine

-Corkie-

NGA wrote: »

TC still has marked and unmarked 2.5 and 3.0 ltr petrol cars

I thought all the TC were 3.0 in the Mondeos. The mate has one with the full leather and all the toys like S/R etc...

msg11

-Corkie- wrote: »

I thought all the TC were 3.0 in the Mondeos. The mate has one with the full leather and all the toys like S/R etc...

3.0 Litre with a shocking BHP figure of 202 detuned and 211 tuned, and a power to weight ratio with a big v6 up front it's far from a power house

In comparasion to a cheaper production car be it a Jap

Lancer Evolution IX MR 2.0 Flat 4, BHP 280 (stock) up too 410 tuned, and with a excellent power to weight ratio.

So, just because it boasts a big 3.0 V6 doesn't mean it's fast in fact if anything it would be a car with bags of torque and let down by the weight of the whole car and maybe hard to handle at high speeds.

savagecabbages

For traffic policing a 3.0 Mondeo is much more suitable than a pimped up Mitsubishi Carisma. Theres much more to life than 0-60 and bhp...

msg11

savagecabbages wrote: »

For traffic policing a 3.0 Mondeo is much more suitable than a pimped up Mitsubishi Carisma. Theres much more to life than 0-60 and bhp...

Are you for real ? A 3.0 V6 is more suited to police work than a 2.0 Flat four that is producing a better MPG and BHP. I my friend think it's a little more than a suped up Carisma and in fact the Lancer was in production before the Carisma.

Actually , I disagree when there someone's life on the line, 0-60 and BHP have alot to play with it. A car than can handle itself very well at high speeds a good MPG and BHP.

As I said it's not all about, the litre of the car.

I have driven both the 2007 1.25 Ford Fiesta and the 2001 2.0 TDI Mondeo and the 2007 Fiesta is much better than the Mondeo. Both have handling issues , the Fiesta oversteers on bends and the Mondeo understeers. But the Fiesta is alot quicker and seems alot more stable when driving it around, the owl Mondeo seems to have an ABS problem when your driving around which I found quite frighting at first.

Turner

msg11 wrote: »

Are you for real ? A 3.0 V6 is more suited to police work than a 2.0 Flat four that is producing a better MPG and BHP. I my friend think it's a little more than a suped up Carisma and in fact the Lancer was in production before the Carisma.

Actually , I disagree when there someone's life on the line, 0-60 and BHP have alot to play with it. A car than can handle itself very well at high speeds a good MPG and BHP.

As I said it's not all about, the litre of the car.

I have driven both the 2007 1.25 Ford Fiesta and the 2001 2.0 TDI Mondeo and the 2007 Fiesta is much better than the Mondeo. Both have handling issues , the Fiesta oversteers on bends and the Mondeo understeers. But the Fiesta is alot quicker and seems alot more stable when driving it around, the owl Mondeo seems to have an ABS problem when your driving around which I found quite frighting at first.

The Mondeo and Volvo you see in the tv show are both 2.5L and perfect as unmarked cars.

There are a few 3.0L Mondeo's dotted around the country as marked Traffic Cars.

msg11 wrote: »

Both have handling issues , the Fiesta oversteers on bends and the Mondeo understeers.

The way the Gardai are trained to drive under steer and over steer will never come in to it. The right speed is attained before every bend using the limit points available. So there will be no loss of control of the car.

Turner

The Donegal traffic pursuit is now on youtube... For those who have not seen it.

Pity the others from the other episodes are not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6URg9mssOlo

msg11

Chief--- wrote: »

The way the Gardai are trained to drive under steer and over steer will never come in to it. The right speed is attained before every bend using the limit points available. So there will be no loss of control of the car.

I have to disagree with you there, you can be trained to prevent it and if it happens to get you out of it, you can't be trained to it as it varys with every car and every bend. As with the speed varying from corner to corner.

Some cars have systems built into them to also assist in preventing it, AYC , ESP etc...

My grip with this is, if the ES are going to be rushing around the place, in family saloon cars that cost alot more than a car which is build with the sole purpose of preforming under pressure and with properly trained driver, it would be such an asset.

Turner

msg11 wrote: »

I have to disagree with you there, you can be trained to prevent it and if it happens to get you out of it, you can't be trained to it as it varys with every car and every bend. As with the speed varying from corner to corner.

Some cars have systems built into them to also assist in preventing it, AYC , ESP etc...

My grip with this is, if the ES are going to be rushing around the place, in family saloon cars that cost alot more than a car which is build with the sole purpose of preforming under pressure and with properly trained driver, it would be such an asset.

I dont think you get me.

As you approach any bend you can judge by the limit point (where the two opposite ditches eventually meet and how this opens or closes) of the bend as to the correct speed required so that no loss of traction on any wheel occurs.

That is the way the Gardai are trained to drive.

If they launch into a bend too fast and the front or back slides out... then all that can be said is that they were going too fast into it.

The same principle works on any Garda vehicle, car, van, fiesta or 3.0l mondeo.

savagecabbages

msg11 wrote: »

I have to disagree with you there, you can be trained to prevent it and if it happens to get you out of it, you can't be trained to it as it varys with every car and every bend. As with the speed varying from corner to corner.

Some cars have systems built into them to also assist in preventing it, AYC , ESP etc...

My grip with this is, if the ES are going to be rushing around the place, in family saloon cars that cost alot more than a car which is build with the sole purpose of preforming under pressure and with properly trained driver, it would be such an asset.

Maybe Caterhams would be more suitable with that logic?
What I meant about 0-60 and bhp was that there are other requirements for a Garda TC vehicle than outright speed. Load capacity, stability, comfort, size etc.

msg11

Chief--- wrote: »

I dont think you get me.

As you approach any bend you can judge by the limit point (where the two opposite ditches eventually meet and how this opens or closes) of the bend as to the correct speed required so that no loss of traction on any wheel occurs.

That is the way the Gardai are trained to drive.

If they launch into a bend too fast and the front or back slides out... then all that can be said is that they were going too fast into it.

The same principle works on any Garda vehicle, car, van, fiesta or 3.0l mondeo.

I miss read the first post, I though you were saying that all corners are the same once you launch into them and once you are trained you are never going to have understeer or oversteer.

savagecabbages, I have no problem with the Mondeo. The problem I have is there is better value to be had with money. And a Jap family saloon car is cheaper and if you get the performance model it is on pair with the Mondeo in terms of comfort etc.. I'm not talking about replacing the whole fleet, just having the traffic going around in decent cars that would make there job more effective. Sure havent they changed the fleet too Toyota.. There better value to be had is what I want to say and also fancy terms like v6 and 3.0 etc are just that fancy terms and are useless if the car is not designed with performance in mind.

maximum payne

As for some people inviting cameramen into their long journeys, do what i did, buy on ebay a carcam.. mine sits on the windscreen and is on to record everytime im on the road.. nothing interesting on it just yet but i will be editing a video of some of corks most stupid drivers when i get enough of them..

its a shame i missed the twat in a corolla who managed to get his 94 corolla wedged up on the side crash barrier on the entrance to dunkettle interchange from waterford direction 2 weeks ago on sat morning about 8am..
anybody else see this ???

Sterling Archer

Very Good Series, Does anyone think the Garda talking about giving people the news of loved ones being killed in an rta, would make a good Safety ad, it didn't seem "forced" like some ads do..

Mister Jingles

Shane_ef wrote: »

Very Good Series, Does anyone think the Garda talking about giving people the news of loved ones being killed in an rta, would make a good Safety ad, it didn't seem "forced" like some ads do..

Yeah I found the Inspector's emphasis on the matter quite believable and sad (upsetting) at the same. You could tell while he was talking about it that he hated doing it but who else would do it.

In all it was a good series but very short. Hope there is a third one soon.

What really did p1ss me off in the final show was the car that got over the boarder and the fact the guards couldn't do much about it.