New Speed Cameras

shaunsweb

Quick question here.

I read that the new speed cameras are being rolled out around the country. Am just wondering what the legal standpoint is with regards to this as the cameras are being operated by a private company.

Are they legally entitled to issue out tickets for speeding? I thought the Garda only had such authority. Could a Judge/magistate not throw such fines out the door as they are not issued by an acting member of the force?

newbie2

"Hello Mr. Garda - we caught this person speeding with our private speed cameras which you employed us to use"

" Thanks - I'll issue the fine ASAP."



problem solved

Our man in Havana

I think the legislation will be challenged robustly once it gets going. I am sure there are people just itching to get it into the courts.

Hooch

Haddockman wrote: »

I think the legislation will be challenged robustly once it gets going. I am sure there are people just itching to get it into the courts.

+1

Who issues FCPS??? More importantly who applies for the summons if the notice is not paid?? Who gives evidence???

There are loads of questions yet to be answered....we'll have to just sit back and watch yet another farce of badly implemented procedures, followed by harshly written legislation allowing just as much loopholes......

ICE HOUSE

I have a feelin this will go like everything else in this country - ARSEWAYS!!!
My prediction is hundreds of thousands will be caught speeding driving over say the next 2 months on these yolks. The government will cash in huge sums for around 2 months. Then the s**t will hit the fan around mid January when people start loosing their licences, getting several tickets in the space of a few days and Joe Duffy gets involved and it all will kick off. Then the government after making millions in the fines so far over the couple of months will come out and "review" the situation. The money will have been made. The whole thing will be proven to be another load of B*LLOX like everything else thats assembled by our government.

Jo King

Haddockman wrote: »

I think the legislation will be challenged robustly once it gets going. I am sure there are people just itching to get it into the courts.

There are very few challenges to the current system despite all of it's faults.The fines are relatively small relative to the costs involved in a challenge.
It seems to be accepted that a large number of prosecutions will fail. What passes for evidence in those cases would never get out of the traps in a murder trial.

Bosco boy

If it reduces road deaths in the long run I wouldnt be too worried about court challenges, nearly every new bit of legislation good or bad is challenged at some stage in this country. It would be nice if it was right from the start but thats up to the legal eagles in the attorney generals office to do when its drawn up, however very often they seem to be found wanting. I think the fact that the cameras will be where there is a documented history of carnage on roads means it may just be catching the right people in the right places at the right times, lets hope!!

coylemj

The prosecution witness doesn't have to be an employee of the state, if I see someone chucking litter out of their car and I report it to the Gardai, they can then issue a summons and call me as their main witness.

Dun Laoghaire Co. Co. have now contracted their parking enforcement out to a private company so if you get an on-the-spot fine (aka parking ticket) in Blackrock or DL for parking it will have been issued by an employee of a private comany.

I don't foresee any legal problems with the speed cameras.

Our man in Havana

I beg to differ. I can see some interesting outings to the high court on the cards.

coylemj

There seems to be a perceived defect in the new system because the people implementing the system are not Gardai but there are thousands of prosecutions taken through the courts every year that don't involve the Gardai such as....

Parking (traffic wardens)
TV Licence
Illegal broadcasting
Fisheries offences

So what's the problem with the new speed traps?

Zambia

Happens in Victoria already.

Private contracters deploy these cars on the side of the roads.

The Camera in the car is not controlled by the driver. He simply parks at the roadside and turns on the camera. If you speed by the camera it goes off, the world turns blue. It takes your piture and the data is sent in real time to the processing centre. I think the info is then processed by Police and they send you a ticket. Sorry I have never sped by one mates have. I do know the letter head for fixed camera speeding tickets are from the police.

You pay it and recive the piont of you licence to boot.

In essence they are just fixed cameras that can be re-deployed around the state.

detective

coylemj wrote: »

There seems to be a perceived defect in the new system because the people implementing the system are not Gardai but there are thousands of prosecutions taken through the courts every year that don't involve the Gardai such as....

Parking (traffic wardens)
TV Licence
Illegal broadcasting
Fisheries offences

So what's the problem with the new speed traps?

The problem is all of the people you mentioned are state employees I would think?

The FCPS system is a joke. Whose idea was it to stop handing motorists tickets and instead send them tickets via normal post... any four year old would have seen that this had a major legal loophole in it. Plus it was actually more expensive than handing it to them.

As for the new speed cameras :eek:

source

detective wrote: »

The problem is all of the people you mentioned are state employees I would think?

The FCPS system is a joke. Whose idea was it to stop handing motorists tickets and instead send them tickets via normal post... any four year old would have seen that this had a major legal loophole in it. Plus it was actually more expensive than handing it to them.

As for the new speed cameras :eek:

It was done in order for the fines to be payable in post offices. When the fine is issued there is a giro at the bottom of the fine which is scanned in the post office, when the fine is paid it automatically transmits back that the fine is paid and the account is closed.

It saves a lot of time for Gardai and also means that Gardai don't have to handle cash which can be a major headache.

If there was some way of combining, a ticket which could be handed to the offender and have it payable through An Post then I'd be all for it.

Our man in Havana

If there was some way of combining, a ticket which could be handed to the offender and have it payable through An Post then I'd be all for it.

They already have those in New Zealand. All roadside tickets have an unique barcode. The offender has to pay in a post office.

CandleLight

I wonder what will the Freemen think of these cameras;)

Jo King

CandleLight wrote: »

I wonder what will the Freemen think of these cameras;)

They have a site of their own. Why don't you ask them?

CandleLight

Jo King wrote: »

They have a site of their own. Why don't you ask them?

don't want to hear the nonsense replies i would get. They think they can get off with parking tickets by sending them back lol

dermot_sheehan

s. 14 RTA 2002 and s. 43 of the RTA 2010 allow outsourcing of certain functions.

The issue of outsourcing is being litigated in relation to drug driving. The Medical Bureau of Road Safety has a statutory power to generate a certificate that a person's blood or urine sample has a certain amount of alcohol in it and this certificate is admissible in evidence in drink or drug driving prosecutions.

The RTA 1994 also allows them to certify that a blood sample contains certain drugs (e.g. the bureau can certify that a sample contains THC for a driver being prosecuted for driving under the influence of cannabis).

The regulations governing the Medical Bureau of Road Safety allow them to contract with any outside organisation to carry out its functions.

The Bureau has contracted with a private laboratory in the United Kingdom for analysis of samples from suspected drug drivers. The bureau receives the results from this lab and then certifies the sample as containing for example THC, this cert is evidence in court without any further proof.

The legal difficulty is part of the reason the Supreme Court has upheld the certification regime for drink driving is a defendant can apply to court for an order of inspection of the laboratory and process used to analyse his sample. There would be difficulty in doing so if the analysis of the sample is outsourced to a private body outside the state.

shaunsweb

Well I drove up the N11 this morning expecting to trip over speed cameras. How many did I see. None. Perhaps they were all away getting breakfast this morning. Then the 2 thoughts occurred to me that I would like to throw out here.

1. The company overseeing this is getting paid something like 65 million for this. And given the Garda have the locations of these on their websites; would it not have made more economic sense to install fixed cameras at these locations that could wireless download the images at the end of each day?

2. How are these cameras supposed to be calibrated and how often. For instance, if I know I am driving at 100km and they snap my car driving at 110km, would I have a legal leg to stand on?

Thanks for reading

CandleLight

shaunsweb wrote: »

Well I drove up the N11 this morning expecting to trip over speed cameras. How many did I see. None. Perhaps they were all away getting breakfast this morning. Then the 2 thoughts occurred to me that I would like to throw out here.

1. The company overseeing this is getting paid something like 65 million for this. And given the Garda have the locations of these on their websites; would it not have made more economic sense to install fixed cameras at these locations that could wireless download the images at the end of each day?

2. How are these cameras supposed to be calibrated and how often. For instance, if I know I am driving at 100km and they snap my car driving at 110km, would I have a legal leg to stand on?

Thanks for reading

could you sue your car manufacturer if speedo give a false reading and get you in trouble

Jo King

CandleLight wrote: »

don't want to hear the nonsense replies i would get. They think they can get off with parking tickets by sending them back lol

So, you already know what they think. Why are you asking here?

Bosco boy

shaunsweb wrote: »

Well I drove up the N11 this morning expecting to trip over speed cameras. How many did I see. None. Perhaps they were all away getting breakfast this morning. Then the 2 thoughts occurred to me that I would like to throw out here.

1. The company overseeing this is getting paid something like 65 million for this. And given the Garda have the locations of these on their websites; would it not have made more economic sense to install fixed cameras at these locations that could wireless download the images at the end of each day?

2. How are these cameras supposed to be calibrated and how often. For instance, if I know I am driving at 100km and they snap my car driving at 110km, would I have a legal leg to stand on?




1. No, this way no one knows when or where they will be for sure and its probally just as effective, the fixed cameras in the UK have come into contact with angle grinders in some cases and this can a be a problem if they are fixed in remote locations. They have learned the hard way with speed cameras.

2. The cameras will be of an international standard and subject to such calibration as gatso cameras are already, they are not the first cameras to appear on our road and this is not a problem. I think in the example you gave the company would have more expertise in proving there calibration of your speed than you could in court, they would have a photo with the data on it!!

PCPhoto

Bosco boy wrote: »

shaunsweb wrote: »

Well I drove up the N11 this morning expecting to trip over speed cameras. How many did I see. None. Perhaps they were all away getting breakfast this morning. Then the 2 thoughts occurred to me that I would like to throw out here.

1. The company overseeing this is getting paid something like 65 million for this. And given the Garda have the locations of these on their websites; would it not have made more economic sense to install fixed cameras at these locations that could wireless download the images at the end of each day?

2. How are these cameras supposed to be calibrated and how often. For instance, if I know I am driving at 100km and they snap my car driving at 110km, would I have a legal leg to stand on?


1. No, this way no one knows when or where they will be for sure and its probally just as effective, the fixed cameras in the UK have come into contact with angle grinders in some cases and this can a be a problem if they are fixed in remote locations. They have learned the hard way with speed cameras.

2. The cameras will be of an international standard and subject to such calibration as gatso cameras are already, they are not the first cameras to appear on our road and this is not a problem. I think in the example you gave the company would have more expertise in proving there calibration of your speed than you could in court, they would have a photo with the data on it!!

- would it not be prudent of someone with access to photo manipulation software (its available for free) .... to get a copy of the image taken and manipulate it - changing the car colour or registration and present that in court as evidence.... thus providing the court with an alternative image which means the driver can claim its easy to create such an image - raising doubt in the mind as to the validity of the image.

- that was my understanding of why the fixed speed cameras were stopped in the past.

CandleLight

Jo King wrote: »

So, you already know what they think. Why are you asking here?

don't make such a big deal about it, I was asking what people here thought their response migh be pft

Jo King

CandleLight wrote: »

don't make such a big deal about it, I was asking what people here thought their response migh be pft

You already know what their response might be. Why ask other people who know less about them to guess?.

BoB_BoT

PCPhoto wrote: »

Bosco boy wrote: »

- would it not be prudent of someone with access to photo manipulation software (its available for free) .... to get a copy of the image taken and manipulate it - changing the car colour or registration and present that in court as evidence.... thus providing the court with an alternative image which means the driver can claim its easy to create such an image - raising doubt in the mind as to the validity of the image.

- that was my understanding of why the fixed speed cameras were stopped in the past.

But is a company really going to go out of its way to doctor readings and/or car colours to pin an 80euro fine (no idea what the actual fine is) on you? You out of x-amount of cars they'd have snapped a day/week. If proof was being submitted by said company and it turned out to be doctored, it would be suicide for the company and it's securing of any further contracts.

shaunsweb

Bosco boy wrote: »

shaunsweb wrote: »

Well I drove up the N11 this morning expecting to trip over speed cameras. How many did I see. None. Perhaps they were all away getting breakfast this morning. Then the 2 thoughts occurred to me that I would like to throw out here.

1. The company overseeing this is getting paid something like 65 million for this. And given the Garda have the locations of these on their websites; would it not have made more economic sense to install fixed cameras at these locations that could wireless download the images at the end of each day?

2. How are these cameras supposed to be calibrated and how often. For instance, if I know I am driving at 100km and they snap my car driving at 110km, would I have a legal leg to stand on?




1. No, this way no one knows when or where they will be for sure and its probally just as effective, the fixed cameras in the UK have come into contact with angle grinders in some cases and this can a be a problem if they are fixed in remote locations. They have learned the hard way with speed cameras.

2. The cameras will be of an international standard and subject to such calibration as gatso cameras are already, they are not the first cameras to appear on our road and this is not a problem. I think in the example you gave the company would have more expertise in proving there calibration of your speed than you could in court, they would have a photo with the data on it!!

I would agree with you but if I could also prove my speed, then there is doubt (for example if I have a tacograph fitted) or I downloaded from the vehicles ECU, or even perhaps from a GPS system (this one may not be fully accurate but then it could be presented as a case for doubt)

I still would believe that fixed cameras would be a more effective way and cheaper way of doing this. If you know they are there all the time (especially at night time when a lot of accidents do occur), you are going to slow down. In terms of angle grinders. Well i am sure there are ways around that too.

Jo King

It would costs thousands of euro to mount an effective challenge to a prosecution in a case like this. Unless some wealthy individual is going to lose their driving licence it is unlikely that there will be a serious challenge.
Photographs are supposed to be proven in court in order to have the status of evidence. The prosecuting member is supposed to be able to describe the entire method of detecting speed. In the District Court where these cases will be tried it will depend on the judge what way these cases will go.

MagicSean

Jo King wrote: »

It would costs thousands of euro to mount an effective challenge to a prosecution in a case like this. Unless some wealthy individual is going to lose their driving licence it is unlikely that there will be a serious challenge.
Photographs are supposed to be proven in court in order to have the status of evidence. The prosecuting member is supposed to be able to describe the entire method of detecting speed. In the District Court where these cases will be tried it will depend on the judge what way these cases will go.

Who will be the prosecutor if it goes to court?

Our man in Havana

k_mac wrote: »

Who will be the prosecutor if it goes to court?

Some designated Garda or Supt from the traffic corps?

CandleLight

Jo King wrote: »

You already know what their response might be. Why ask other people who know less about them to guess?.

i did not ask you did i. give it up, you do not know if people here know less than me about them or not unless you speak for all members of boards. not getting involved in this anymore too busy

Victor

shaunsweb wrote: »

2. How are these cameras supposed to be calibrated and how often. For instance, if I know I am driving at 100km and they snap my car driving at 110km, would I have a legal leg to stand on?

Its a matter of who the judge believes.

PCPhoto wrote: »

- would it not be prudent

???

of someone with access to photo manipulation software (its available for free) .... to get a copy of the image taken and manipulate it - changing the car colour or registration and present that in court as evidence.... thus providing the court with an alternative image which means the driver can claim its easy to create such an image - raising doubt in the mind as to the validity of the image.

But the camera operator and Garda will swear that the images are true and haven't been manipulated.

There tend to be lots of tell tales in manipulated photos, its quite easy to show a photo is a fake. I can't see anyone making fake images to get more fine income.

devotional1993

So if you do 33mph in a 30 zone you will carry that for 3years then? As somebody who has driven 275k since Jan 07 its impossible to keep to the limit every single time. Do you ever slow down to that speed and then get pushed off the road by the local property developer wanker in his jeep. Should be fun. o points to 12 in a year for me.

finbarrk

Jo King wrote: »

There are very few challenges to the current system despite all of it's faults.The fines are relatively small relative to the costs involved in a challenge.
It seems to be accepted that a large number of prosecutions will fail. What passes for evidence in those cases would never get out of the traps in a murder trial.

Good to hear someone that knows what they are talking about.

MagicSean

Haddockman wrote: »

Some designated Garda or Supt from the traffic corps?

But what evidence can they give?

CandleLight wrote: »

i did not ask you did i. give it up, you do not know if people here know less than me about them or not unless you speak for all members of boards. not getting involved in this anymore too busy

I think the point is that there is no need to mention them in any kind of serious discussion

Personally I have already seen a problem with the speed vans. I encountered one yesterday aproximately 100 meters away from a speed limit sign. In the space of about 500 meters the speed limit changed from 50 to 60 to 50 to 80. This confusion is obviously not the fault of the operator but it seems to me to be an exploitation of the bad planning to place a speed trap there.

CandleLight

k_mac wrote: »

I think the point is that there is no need to mention them in any kind of serious discussion
.

not for you to tell me what to mention. if you don't like it ignore it, was not aimed at you

shaunsweb

Well drove down the N11 last night (the whole way down to Wexford) and back up again this morning. Speedvans on road => Zero. Perhaps someone has decided to pocket the 65million and pretend these vans are out on patrol.

Mind you with the 13 km tailback on the N11 this morning from Kilmacanoge, there would have been no need for speed cameras. No-one was going anywhere

Has anyone seen these cameras yet and if so where


thanks for your input in this thread folks

kbell

Here's a question, if i were to pass a Garda speed check/check point, and decided to warn other on coming motorists (flash lights etc..) of its presence, i could wind up in serious trouble if caught.
If i were to pass one of the new vans on the opposite side, and decided to warn oncoming motorists of its presence, what kind of trouble or repercussions, if any, could i face?
I might as well be warning them of an ice cream van or strawberry sales person, as they are both privately owned/ run businesses.

Reloc8

kbell wrote: »

Here's a question, if i were to pass a Garda speed check/check point, and decided to warn other on coming motorists (flash lights etc..) of its presence, i could wind up in serious trouble if caught.
If i were to pass one of the new vans on the opposite side, and decided to warn oncoming motorists of its presence, what kind of trouble or repercussions, if any, could i face?
I might as well be warning them of an ice cream van or strawberry sales person, as they are both privately owned/ run businesses.

Top of my head can't recall the section but yes, this is an offence and carries the general penalty under the RTA's (fine of €800 for a first offence, higher fines & jail for subsequent offences).

Presuming the prosecution evidence was that there was a speed check in place and that you were seen flashing oncoming motorists you would have to give evidence to the effect that your flashing really meant 'careful - strawberries ahead' as opposed to 'watch out plods about'.

Hooch

kbell wrote: »

Here's a question, if i were to pass a Garda speed check/check point, and decided to warn other on coming motorists (flash lights etc..) of its presence, i could wind up in serious trouble if caught.
If i were to pass one of the new vans on the opposite side, and decided to warn oncoming motorists of its presence, what kind of trouble or repercussions, if any, could i face?
I might as well be warning them of an ice cream van or strawberry sales person, as they are both privately owned/ run businesses.

Section 19 Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 - Obstruction of a peace officer.

And then there is the relevant RTA summons for flashing lights etc.

shaunsweb

But would it necessarily be an offence in the case of the ahmmm. safety cameras?

They have after all posted the locations where these things are supposed to be located and surely the whole aim is to slow drivers down so drivers warning others is not necessarily obstructing a peace officer (especially as these vans are being operated by a private company)

Reloc8

I don't know that S. 19 would be a well-founded charge but nice guy could well be right.

There is however a specific section in the RTA's which deals with this kind of thing which I will try and locate when I get a mo. Good point re private operators - not sure if it is limited to police activities.

source

shaunsweb wrote: »

But would it necessarily be an offence in the case of the ahmmm. safety cameras?

They have after all posted the locations where these things are supposed to be located and surely the whole aim is to slow drivers down so drivers warning others is not necessarily obstructing a peace officer (especially as these vans are being operated by a private company)

A peace officer is a member of An Garda Siochana, Ambulance Service, Fire Service, Prison Service, Defence Forces or any person assisting these.

So this private company's employees are peace officers.

Victor

Jo King wrote: »

There are very few challenges to the current system despite all of it's faults.The fines are relatively small relative to the costs involved in a challenge.
It seems to be accepted that a large number of prosecutions will fail. What passes for evidence in those cases would never get out of the traps in a murder trial.

But as you say, small fines, not a life sentence.

Jo King

CandleLight wrote: »

i did not ask you did i. give it up, you do not know if people here know less than me about them or not unless you speak for all members of boards. not getting involved in this anymore too busy

You asked anybody who might read your post. I simply asked you why you did not ask the people who might answer it. You then said that you knew what the answer would be in the first place, which made asking the question pointless.

Hooch

Reloc8 wrote: »

I don't know that S. 19 would be a well-founded charge but nice guy could well be right.

There is however a specific section in the RTA's which deals with this kind of thing which I will try and locate when I get a mo. Good point re private operators - not sure if it is limited to police activities.

Please do find it......I have never seen it....

kbell

Ok, RTA point taken.
Let's say under same circumstances, I spot van and then decide to warn the oncoming motorists, by standing in a field (with permission) holding a sign saying something like "private company taking pictures ahead" accompanied with a picture of a speed camera.
What laws if any would I be breaking?

Our man in Havana

None.

shaunsweb

foinse wrote: »

A peace officer is a member of An Garda Siochana, Ambulance Service, Fire Service, Prison Service, Defence Forces or any person assisting these.

So this private company's employees are peace officers.

So if I happen to pull in to assist a member of the Garda (whose vehicle has broken down and offer him a lift back to the station, I am regarded as a peace officer? I would be very surprised if I was

Here is another point: These are termed 'Safety Cameras' not 'speed cameras'. Why should 'safety cameras' be revenue generators? They are speed cameras but i'm unsure what the legal standing would be if one passed a 'safety camera' at speed. Could it be argued that they are there for the safety of road users only and not as an enforcement by the very nature of their term?

I just looked up the Oxford dictionary online for the term safety and here is what I got
1. the quality of being safe
2. freedom from danger or risk of injury
3. a contrivance or device designed to prevent injury

No-where does it say that you get fined if you do not fulfill any of the criteria above.

source

shaunsweb wrote: »

So if I happen to pull in to assist a member of the Garda (whose vehicle has broken down and offer him a lift back to the station, I am regarded as a peace officer? I would be very surprised if I was

Here is another point: These are termed 'Safety Cameras' not 'speed cameras'. Why should 'safety cameras' be revenue generators? They are speed cameras but i'm unsure what the legal standing would be if one passed a 'safety camera' at speed. Could it be argued that they are there for the safety of road users only and not as an enforcement by the very nature of their term?

I just looked up the Oxford dictionary online for the term safety and here is what I got
1. the quality of being safe
2. freedom from danger or risk of injury
3. a contrivance or device designed to prevent injury

No-where does it say that you get fined if you do not fulfill any of the criteria above.

If you stop and assist a member of An Garda Siochana in executing their duties you are considered a peace officer. For example, you see a Garda involved in an arrest where they are outnumbered and are calling for assistance, if you jump in to help the member then you are a peace officer as per the definition. See 19(3) below. The oxford dictionary is not the place to be looking for information on fines. try http://www.irishstatutebook.ie

19.—(1) Any person who—
[GA]

( a ) assaults a peace officer acting in the execution of the peace officer's duty, knowing that he is, or being reckless as to whether he is, a peace officer acting in the execution of his duty, or
[GA]

( b ) assaults any other person acting in the aid of a peace officer, or
[GA]

( c ) assaults any other person with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detention of himself or any other person for any offence,
[GA]

shall be guilty of an offence.
[GA]

(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable—
[GA]

( a ) having elected for summary disposal of the offence, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both,
[GA]

( b ) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.
[GA]

(3) Any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a peace officer acting in the execution of his duty or a person assisting a peace officer in the execution of his duty, knowing that he is or being reckless as to whether he is, a peace officer acting in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence.
[GA]

(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.
[GA]

(5) The provisions of this section are in addition to and not in substitution of any provision in any other enactment relating to assault or obstruction of a peace officer.
[GA]

(6) In this section—
[GA]

"peace officer" means a member of the Garda Síochána, a prison officer or a member of the Defence Forces;
[GA]

"prison" means any place for which rules or regulations may be made under the Prisons Acts, 1826 to 1980, section 7 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act, 1940 , section 233 of the Defence Act, 1954 , section 2 of the Prisoners of War and Enemy Aliens Act, 1956 , or section 13 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1960 ;
[GA]

"prison officer" includes any member of the staff of a prison and any person having the custody of, or having duties in relation to the custody of, a person detained in prison.

shaunsweb

foinse wrote: »

If you stop and assist a member of An Garda Siochana in executing their duties you are considered a peace officer. For example, you see a Garda involved in an arrest where they are outnumbered and are calling for assistance, if you jump in to help the member then you are a peace officer as per the definition. See 19(3) below. The oxford dictionary is not the place to be looking for information on fines. try http://www.irishstatutebook.ie

Thanks for the definition Fionse. I was merely looking for the proper definition of the word safety an not the legal term for it. In looking at your definition though: peace officer is not defined explicitly as anybody. It merely indicates Emergency service personnel. Or have I misread it?