contesting speeding fines.

hession.law

Hi all I have no problem with speeding limits but apparently I was doing 69km in a 60km zone at 03:10 they sent my a photo of my reg. I am pretty sure this was at the other side of the town as I was leaving it as I know the area. I definitely didn't see any check point so perhaps this was a speed camera box or this van I heard about. My grip with this is the points 2 of them is there anyway I can contest them I don't mind paying the fine but I should not get any points when drunk drivers are getting off because of wrong humidity levels. any advice appreciated...

MagicSean

Yes you should.

source

An age old saying comes to mind, don't do the crime if you can't do the time......

The law states that you get a fine and 2 penalty points, if you want to contest it and go to court then the judge can impose 4 points on you. 2 points does not affect your insurance.

Paulw

foinse wrote: »

The law states that you get a fine and 2 penalty points, if you want to contest it and go to court then the judge can impose 4 points on you. 2 points does not affect your insurance.

I thought the law was that you get 4 penalty points, but if you don't contest it, you are only awarded 2 points?

So, pay up and get 2 points, or take it to court and if convicted, you get 4 points.

Logic would say that if you were doing 69kph in a 60kph zone, then just pay up and accept it.

source

Paulw wrote: »

I thought the law was that you get 4 penalty points, but if you don't contest it, you are only awarded 2 points?

So, pay up and get 2 points, or take it to court and if convicted, you get 4 points.

Logic would say that if you were doing 69kph in a 60kph zone, then just pay up and accept it.

No it's 2 points and a fine, the increased fine and points afaik is so that people just accept their lumps and don't waste the courts time by contesting something that they really shouldn't.

Zambia

hession.law wrote: »

Hi all I have no problem with speeding limits

Yes it appears they have a problem with you

hession.law wrote: »

but apparently I was doing 69km in a 60km zone at 03:10 they sent my a photo of my reg.

Ok so they have a photo of your vehicle at piont x speeding. Pretty open and shut as you have no evidence you where not.

hession.law wrote: »

I definitely didn't see any check point so perhaps this was a speed camera box or this van I heard about.

Yes could have been

hession.law wrote: »

My grip with this is the points 2 of them is there anyway I can contest them I don't mind paying the fine

And the Garda's gripe is with you speeding and they dont mind you paying it either.

Pionts are the leveler other wise rich people who could afford to pay them could essentially speed all the live long day.

hession.law wrote: »

but I should not get any points when drunk drivers are getting off because of wrong humidity levels.

Ireland has never stuck me as that humid especially at present. Is this happening I dont know.

hession.law wrote: »

any advice appreciated...

Ask yourself "Was I speeding" if yes, which I think you were due to the fact you are prepared to pay the fine.

Then just pay it

hession.law

Zambia232 wrote: »

Yes it appears they have a problem with you


Ok so they have a photo of your vehicle at piont x speeding. Pretty open and shut as you have no evidence you where not.


Yes could have been


And the Garda's gripe is with you speeding and they dont mind you paying it either.

Pionts are the leveler other wise rich people who could afford to pay them could essentially speed all the live long day.




Ireland has never stuck me as that humid especially at present. Is this happening I dont know.



Ask yourself "Was I speeding" if yes, which I think you were due to the fact you are prepared to pay the fine.

Then just pay it

From your several comments above your obviously a person who likes to shoot their mouth off before thinking. Firstly it is irrelevant if they have a problem with my speeding, so I dont know why you felt the need to put that in. Secondly it is highly unlikely that the legislature had rich people in mind when the penalty point system was brought into law and lastly I never said Ireland is a humid country but as I mentioned drink driving, humidity levels have to do with the room in which a urine sample was taken. The case being DPP v Michael Nash

MagicSean

hession.law wrote: »

From your several comments above your obviously a person who likes to shoot their mouth off before thinking. Firstly it is irrelevant if they have a problem with my speeding, so I dont know why you felt the need to put that in. Secondly it is highly unlikely that the legislature had rich people in mind when the penalty point system was brought into law and lastly I never said Ireland is a humid country but as I mentioned drink driving, humidity levels have to do with the room in which a urine sample was taken. The case being DPP v Michael Nash

Your basic idea seems to be that you should not get penalty points for speeding if drunk drivers can get off on a technicality. This will not work as a legal argument in court. Penalty points are mandatory. If you wish to challenge the law in relation to speeding and penalty points you will need to hire a solicitor.

Zambia

What is irrelevant is what happens in a Drink driving case when you are being charged with speeding.

I apologise if I came across as flippant but the piont still stands.

If the fines for speeding was working so well why bring in pionts?

Thanks for the link
http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/Limerick-man-escapes-drink-driving.6558351.jp

Ok well that was failed prosecution but I still fail to see how you can say you should not get pionts when he would have lost his licence if convicted.

Maybe you should hire his lawyer

Mr Smithers

What does one expect from a nation of potato eaters not fit to govern themeselves.

The Muppet

Mr Smithers wrote: »

What does one expect from a nation of potato eaters not fit to govern themeselves.

It's the humidity that has us in the state we are.

McCrack

hession.law wrote: »

Hi all I have no problem with speeding limits but apparently I was doing 69km in a 60km zone at 03:10 they sent my a photo of my reg. I am pretty sure this was at the other side of the town as I was leaving it as I know the area. I definitely didn't see any check point so perhaps this was a speed camera box or this van I heard about. My grip with this is the points 2 of them is there anyway I can contest them I don't mind paying the fine but I should not get any points when drunk drivers are getting off because of wrong humidity levels. any advice appreciated...

Firstly it's not a fine but a Fixed Penalty Notice. Only a court can impose fines.

You can contest by not paying the FPN and wait for a summons. Then you appear in the District Court and state your case.

Good luck.

musings

I would encourage the OP to fight the bastards in whatever way they can.
I suggest you ask for a calibration certificate for the speed camera and see what happens.

Judging from what I've seen so far, they'll have pretty much every motorist in the country caught by march.

These vans do not save lives, as proven by stats worldwide, however they are very good at raising money.

MagicSean

musings wrote: »

These vans do not save lives,

Beg to differ. In my district they have been placed at blackspots and have lowered the overall speeds in those areas. Despite what people might believe it is speeders, not drink drivers, that are the more dangerous drivers.

musings

k_mac wrote: »

Beg to differ. In my district they have been placed at blackspots and have lowered the overall speeds in those areas. Despite what people might believe it is speeders, not drink drivers, that are the more dangerous drivers.

I firmly believe in doing all we can to make roads safer, but even the gardai in the propaganda they spewed out at the launch of the vans could only point to a 3% decrease in collisions.....which I regard as a margin of error rather than hard evidence.

Also, wouldn't it make more sense to fix the road at a known blackspot rather than waiting for another accident/fatality?

MagicSean

musings wrote: »

I firmly believe in doing all we can to make roads safer, but even the gardai in the propaganda they spewed out at the launch of the vans could only point to a 3% decrease in collisions.....which I regard as a margin of error rather than hard evidence.

Also, wouldn't it make more sense to fix the road at a known blackspot rather than waiting for another accident/fatality?

Fix the road in what way? So you say that collisions have gone down by 3% but road deaths are at a record low. Collisions at slower speeds result in less deaths.

musings

k_mac wrote: »

Fix the road in what way? So you say that collisions have gone down by 3% but road deaths are at a record low. Collisions at slower speeds result in less deaths.

Re-engineer the road in whatever way necessary, straighten the road, put in speed humps, that kind of thing.

Bad road design is the cause of a blackspot.

MagicSean

musings wrote: »

Re-engineer the road in whatever way necessary, straighten the road, put in speed humps, that kind of thing.

Bad road design is the cause of a blackspot.

It may contribute to it but at the end of the day it is nearly always driver error that causes a crash.

Paulw

musings wrote: »

I firmly believe in doing all we can to make roads safer, but even the gardai in the propaganda they spewed out at the launch of the vans could only point to a 3% decrease in collisions.

Just curious ... how many lives are saved by this 3%? Is it not worth doing if even only a single life is saved??

musings wrote: »

Bad road design is the cause of a blackspot.

No, bad driving is the cause of accidents and blackspots - speed, drink driving, tired drivers, drivers not paying attention, etc. The road doesn't cause the accident, drivers do. You can have an accident on a straight road just as easy as on a road with lots of turns.

Irrespective of why the vans are there (or why the blacksports are there), they are there to enforce the speed limit set. Those going faster than the set limit will be sent fixed penalty notices.

So, pay the penalty and take the 2 points, or contest it in court and face 4 points plus an increased fine if convicted.

MagicSean

Paulw wrote: »

Just curious ... how many lives are saved by this 3%? Is it not worth doing if even only a single life is saved??

I think it was 26 lives. About a 10% reduction.

slimjimmc

musings wrote: »

I would encourage the OP to fight the bastards in whatever way they can.
I suggest you ask for a calibration certificate for the speed camera and see what happens.

Judging from what I've seen so far, they'll have pretty much every motorist in the country caught by march.

These vans do not save lives, as proven by stats worldwide, however they are very good at raising money.

You can ask but you'll probably be told that under Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act there is no obligation to provide a calibration certificate.

It is not necessary to prove that the electronic or other apparatus was accurate or in good working order.

Our man in Havana

That would likely to be unconstitutional and certainly actionable in Europe. It denies the accused access to vital evidence that is relevant to a defence being prepared.

KylieWyley

hession.law wrote: »

From your several comments above your obviously a person who likes to shoot their mouth off before thinking. Firstly it is irrelevant if they have a problem with my speeding, so I dont know why you felt the need to put that in. Secondly it is highly unlikely that the legislature had rich people in mind when the penalty point system was brought into law and lastly I never said Ireland is a humid country but as I mentioned drink driving, humidity levels have to do with the room in which a urine sample was taken. The case being DPP v Michael Nash

Ok, so you've obviously studied a bit of law and want to put it into practice. I think you'd be better to hold off until there's a more worthy cause to champion. You were doing 69 in a 60 zone. Therefore, you were speeding.

Quit your whinging and take the punishment.

Our man in Havana

Quit your whinging and take the punishment.

That is what is wrong with this country. People have the right to challenge charges laid against them. I am sure the powers that be would love everyone to pay up meekly with no challenges to how the evidence if any is gathered. It is a system of checks and balances.

If for instance a Garda is using an instrument that may have no calibration certificate that certainly needs to be addressed in a court of law. It is that right of the accused to challenge the evidence being presented against him.

KylieWyley

So you're suggesting a judicial review of the speed gun apparatus?

Let me know how that goes for you

Our man in Havana

It probably wouldn't work here but the European courts would take notice.

MrPudding

foinse wrote: »

No it's 2 points and a fine, the increased fine and points afaik is so that people just accept their lumps and don't waste the courts time by contesting something that they really shouldn't.

No, I think that is the wrong way round... It is 4 points and a fine for the offence, you get a discount for accepting the fixed penalty.

You do not get penalised for having the cheek to challenge the points and fine and failing, you just don't get the discount available to those that don't.

MrP

shaneybaby

Haddockman wrote: »

That would likely to be unconstitutional and certainly actionable in Europe. It denies the accused access to vital evidence that is relevant to a defence being prepared.

The wording of that section implies that there is a presumption that the calibration gun is accurate unless you're able to prove it isn't, it's not a denial of access to evidence.

Because of the section the onus falls on the defendant to prove the gun was not calibrated not up to the prosecution that it was. One could argue that it is within the peculiar knowledge of the prosecution (kinda Hanrahan v Merck Shrpe and dohm) and impossible for the defence to prove but you can't just chuck it out there that the speeding gun wasn't calibrated unless you've a reason to.

Our man in Havana

impossible for the defence to prove

That is my entire point.

I wonder would a Gary Doyle order cover the calibration cert if so challenged?

Zambia

With all due respect the OP has not really stated he/she knew they where not speeding.

Even if the calibration was an issue normally there is a margin for error. Example if clocked at 69 you are done for 65.

shaneybaby

Haddockman wrote: »

That is my entire point.

I wonder would a Gary Doyle order cover the calibration cert if so challenged?

I don't think it does. I'm not sure the Gardaí include calibration records at all in their files for speeding convictions. The thing is though while it may be impossible to prove for the defendant, the whole point the presumption is there is to ensure that the courts don't get clogged up with people fishing for all sorts of technicalities with no reason other than they want to get off.

For example if clocked by a garda instead of a van how could you prove the garda wasn't drunk? Maybe he's not even a garda! Presumptions are there because otherwise the system would turn into a farce. Far from denying justice such sections ensure the efficient administration of cases within the courts.

hession.law

Zambia232 wrote: »

With all due respect the OP has not really stated he/she knew they where not speeding.

I have not admitted I was speeding, but I can not I say with any degree of certainty what speed I was doing. I got the letter four weeks after the incident and as I am a safe driver and know the area so I would have been obeying the limit on any given.

once again I would appreciate posters reading my post giving the words their plain English meaning before commenting on them...

Shield

hession.law wrote: »

I would appreciate posters reading my post giving the words their plain English meaning before commenting on them...

I have done so.

I have read your original post and all the posts that followed, however, in order to hopefully answer your question, I will address your original post only:

You stated that "apparently" you were doing 69 in a 60 zone. Whether you did or didn't see the detection device is irrelevant - I think we'd both agree on that.

You stated that your question (or gripe) is with the points, and queried whether it was possible to contest them. You stated that you didn't mind paying the fine, and then finished off the sentence by adducing a technicality previously used in a different offence. I suspect that you were probably just using it as an example of people getting off on technicalities, as opposed to seeking suggestions of possible technicalities to rely on.

I don't understand why you "don't mind" paying the FPN if you have a gripe with the points. Are you admitting you did 69kmph? Are you arguing the the penalty is disproportionate to the offence? Are you suggesting that the fine alone should be enough?

We don't give legal advice on this forum, but on the basis of just your original post, I personally would pay the FPN and take the 2 points, because I know that judges take a dim view of people contesting such offences without proof that you weren't speeding. Going into a courtroom with just the suggestion that the detection camera may not have been calibrated will not do you any favours.

I note that a number of people have suggested that you just pay the fine and take the points. That is what I would do, and I think you should strongly consider these comments before you consider mounting a legal challenge. You would have to swallow the costs of such a challenge (initially at least), and if unsuccessful, you could be responsible for the costs of the other side as well as your own - and we're talking thousands of Euros per side.

Good luck!

Zambia

I do feel for you because at least here if you speed by the cameras or cars a blue flash tells you have been done. This lets you check your speed.

shaneybaby

Zambia232 wrote: »

I do feel for you because at least here if you speed by the cameras or cars a blue flash tells you have been done. This lets you check your speed.

The vans flash here, no idea about the new boxes though.

meathstevie

If you were clocked at 69 km/h the speedometer in your car quite like was indicating something close to 80 km/h as in nearly every car the speedometer cheats. It tends to display a speed significantly higher than your real road speed.

Our man in Havana

Not always strictly true.

source

meathstevie wrote: »

If you were clocked at 69 km/h the speedometer in your car quite like was indicating something close to 80 km/h as in nearly every car the speedometer cheats. It tends to display a speed significantly higher than your real road speed.

It varies from car to car, in my car the margin is only 8kph. so if my speedo reads 60kph in reality i'm doing 52kph. Whereas a mates car is only 5kph.

slimjimmc

foinse wrote: »

It varies from car to car, in my car the margin is only 8kph. so if my speedo reads 60kph in reality i'm doing 52kph. Whereas a mates car is only 5kph.

Here's the formula governing speedometer accuracy, measured at 40, 80 and 120 km/h.

Our man in Havana

Mine is spot on when compared to the sat nav.

Zambia

Haddockman wrote: »

Mine is spot on when compared to the sat nav.

Mine is 3 Kmph behind the sat nav

And 3 Under what the speed camera tester states.

Thats at 100Kmph.

If the vans flash than the OP would surely have noticed the Flash?

MagicSean

Sat navs are based on average speed over a distance not on current speed.

nuac

re speed I disagree with Musings and agree with K-MAc.

Speed causes accidents - the faster, the more serious the injury.

There have been serious accidents caused by speed on perfectly good well built roads.

I agree that accidents are also caused by drunken drivers, tired or distracted drivers, unsound cares, bad road construction etc etc - but do the maths re kinetic injury - if two vehicles collide doing 70 mph each, there will be few survivors from either.

I think points for speeding is a good idea. Otherwise those who could afford it would just pay the fine, and continue to speed.

MrPudding

nuac wrote: »

Speed causes accidents - the faster, the more serious the injury.

There have been serious accidents caused by speed on perfectly good well built roads.

Inappropriate speed causes accidents. There are plenty of accidents were the vehicles were travelling below the speed limit, but the speed was inappropriate for the conditions, be that the road the weather or the skill of the driver.

MrP

source

k_mac wrote: »

Sat navs are based on average speed over a distance not on current speed.

I've passed a few signs like below which seem to agree with the whole sat nav thing.

Reloc8

k_mac wrote: »

Sat navs are based on average speed over a distance not on current speed.

That's only of any relevance if the distance over which speed is measured is unduly lengthy. My satnav responds more or less immediately to changes in speed leading me to believe that whatever distance applies, taking your comment at face value, is not significant for the purposes of this discussion.

For what its worth it reads about 3 kph lower than the speedo at all speeds.

PCPhoto

k_mac wrote: »

Sat navs are based on average speed over a distance not on current speed.

so are speed guns, static speed cameras and other speed monitoring apparatus/apparatuses.

truth of the matter is its a combination of speed, driver error, road conditions and weather conditions which cause accidents.....the main cause in my opinion being the driver ...not necessarily driver error...just the driver.

In this country (Ireland) we do not have a proper structure/system to get people on the roads..... the system is set up so drivers get the basic amount of training and its expected that more experience on the roads after they get their licence will make them better drivers.

Has anyone ever done a driving test at night? Were there any tests done during the recent snow? how many people get tested if its raining heavily? .... the tests are done under optimum conditions and its expected that drivers will cope given different conditions.

Continuous assessment and random tests might be a way forward.

Sorry going slightly off topic there .... anyway one more point - if the Gardai/NRA want to do anything about stopping road deaths ...they need to adjust the rules of the road and then strictly enforce them.

MagicSean

PCPhoto wrote: »

so are speed guns, static speed cameras and other speed monitoring apparatus/apparatuses.

truth of the matter is its a combination of speed, driver error, road conditions and weather conditions which cause accidents.....the main cause in my opinion being the driver ...not necessarily driver error...just the driver.

In this country (Ireland) we do not have a proper structure/system to get people on the roads..... the system is set up so drivers get the basic amount of training and its expected that more experience on the roads after they get their licence will make them better drivers.

Has anyone ever done a driving test at night? Were there any tests done during the recent snow? how many people get tested if its raining heavily? .... the tests are done under optimum conditions and its expected that drivers will cope given different conditions.

Continuous assessment and random tests might be a way forward.

Sorry going slightly off topic there .... anyway one more point - if the Gardai/NRA want to do anything about stopping road deaths ...they need to adjust the rules of the road and then strictly enforce them.

Are speed guns not based on the doppler effect as opposed to a distance/time calculation?

Paulw

PCPhoto wrote: »

In this country (Ireland) we do not have a proper structure/system to get people on the roads.

how many people get tested if its raining heavily? .... the tests are done under optimum conditions and its expected that drivers will cope given different conditions.

My test was done in very very heavy rain. It was so wet that he only did the very basic car check (visual), just to check break lights and indicators. Never did the engine check, fluid checks. The test was very quick and short. I could barely see a car length in front, because the rain was so heavy.

But, I do get your point, that in general, we teach/test and drive in optimal conditions.

Paulw

k_mac wrote: »

Are speed guns not based on the doppler effect as opposed to a distance/time calculation?

But, speed = distance/time. It's maths. You can't have a speed calculation, without distance and time.

MagicSean

Paulw wrote: »

But, speed = distance/time. It's maths. You can't have a speed calculation, without distance and time.

Yes you can. It's called the Doppler effect. it uses wavelength calculations. It's physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_radar