Do DART tickets inspectors have power to get you to call someone to...

Stanivlasky

verify your address,I was at a dart station,booking office closed,just enough for single to my destination,but machine kept spitting back out a few of my coins,so i just paid for a under 16 single.
of course on the dart i was caught and asked for id,only had a visa card to show,then told them my adress ,but was told we cant verify this as it could be any address,well i dont carry an esb or upc bill or stuff like that i told them,so what can i do?
They said i would have to ring someone that knows me to confirm my address by telling it to the inspector,at first i was "what!!!??? im not ringing anyone up" then i got the "well we are calling the police and you can confirm it to them".
So i had to ring a relative and he told them my address but he only knows the street name,not the exact number,they wouldnt accept this so i had to ring again to get him to confirm my original address. All extremely embarrassing.
Anyway im thinking i should have just let them call the police,i mean how am i even supposed to confirm my address even to them,get me to drive me to my flat and show them in?? Im sure the cops would love to do all that.
I offered to pay the difference aswell,they just went all nazi-we vant to see your papers! i mean i dont carry a passport or esb bills when im on the bloody DART.
Do they really have the power to get you to ring people up,isnt that just the power a garda would have,not a ticket inspector?

DWCommuter

I can't wait to hear the responses to this one!:D

And they're off!

L1011

Firstly: No. The bye laws state that you must give them your address, and give them ZERO powers to verify it. S35, SI 109/1984. A civilian does not have powers to detain someone or force them to verify their ID unless otherwise specifically granted.

Secondly: You were under no obligation to buy a ticket if the ticket office was closed - the bye laws only state you must use a manned ticket office (S4, SI 109/1984) and a vending machine is not this; but I suspect you've screwed up this angle of attack by buying the wrong kind.


Before anyone tries to quote the "conditions of carriage" on IEs website, they are IEs rather wrong interpretation of the byelaws, which are solely contained in SI 109/1984.

CIE

This looks like a real circus. Conductors on trains seem like not such a bad idea now...?

Back when I was a youth, the only station on the DART line that I recall not to have been manned (out of the ones that I ever used) was Howth Junction. There may have been others, but I recall Howth being manned, Sandymount as well, Raheny, Harmonstown, Bray and Dun Laoghaire all the time, and of course the city centre stations. Off the DART, I recall Ashtown was not manned especially during evenings, but Leixlip (Louisa Bridge) always was.

I'm no lover of ticket machines. I find them to be inconvenient, unperfectable slabs of bad technology that just cannot replace a human being; at best they can only supplement a ticket agent, and that during rush hours.

AlekSmart

[QUOTE=Stanivlasky;71672085]At first i was "what!!!??? im not ringing anyone up" then i got the "well we are calling the police and you can confirm it to them".
So i had to ring a relative and he told them my address but he only knows the street name,not the exact number,they wouldnt accept this so i had to ring again to get him to confirm my original address. All extremely embarrassing.
Anyway im thinking i should have just let them call the police,i mean how am i even supposed to confirm my address even to them,get me to drive me to my flat and show them in?? Im sure the cops would love to do all that.
I offered to pay the difference aswell,they just went all nazi-we vant to see your papers! i mean i dont carry a passport or esb bills when im on the bloody DART.
Do they really have the power to get you to ring people up,isnt that just the power a garda would have,not a ticket inspector?[/QUOTE]

Presumably the RPU folks did'nt actually press the mobile-phone keys themselves,you did that voluntarily,if reluctantly ?

You were given the option of involving the Gardai,which you declined ?

So many personal choices-outcomes involved in life these day's ?

Well Stanislavisky,comrade,here's a golden opportunity for you to strike a blow for the oppressed proleteriat and get a definitive on it........To the Four Courts !.......this could be a defining moment in Irish commuting history

sdanseo

Normally I'd say that if you don't pay a fare then you deserve the mess you get if found out; however if the TVM was genuinely out of order then they have to respect that and at the very least allow you to pay at your destination. Why did you not use the Visa card you showed the RPU man to pay for the ticket? Also, what coins were you using? TVMs only accept 10c and higher IIRC.

MYOB wrote: »

Firstly: No. The bye laws state that you must give them your address, and give them ZERO powers to verify it. S35, SI 109/1984. A civilian does not have powers to detain someone or force them to verify their ID unless otherwise specifically granted.

Secondly: You were under no obligation to buy a ticket if the ticket office was closed - the bye laws only state you must use a manned ticket office (S4, SI 109/1984) and a vending machine is not this; but I suspect you've screwed up this angle of attack by buying the wrong kind.


Before anyone tries to quote the "conditions of carriage" on IEs website, they are IEs rather wrong interpretation of the byelaws, which are solely contained in SI 109/1984.

In theory, a failure to pay a fare is theft and liable to a citizen's arrest and therefore the person in question could in fact be detained until the soonest possible juncture at which the Gardaí could be called. I've never seen or hard of that happening; but it's exactly the same as security in a shop holding onto you if you're nicking clothes. By offering to have you verify your address over the phone the RPU guy was probably just saving everyone concerned a load of hassle.

The conditions of carriage do say that a TVM must be used if available MYOB, surely they wouldn't put that in there if it wasn't legally grounded somewhere else?

Lastly, just to be a gross pedant, we don't have police, we have Gardaí.

foggy_lad

sdonn wrote: »

The conditions of carriage do say that a TVM must be used if available MYOB, surely they wouldn't put that in there if it wasn't legally grounded somewhere else?

Lastly, just to be a gross pedant, we don't have police, we have Gardaí.

Surely indeed, just like stores tell customers seeking redress that they are only entitled to seek it from the manufacturer etc. Irish rail's interpretation of the bylaws is always going to be biased in their favour!

goingnowhere

1. You must give name, address where you boarded and where you are going to
2. You must use the ticket machine if available.
3. There is no obligation for you give any information beyond the above
4. Bear in mind giving false information is itself an offense

Since you had a ticket (but the wrong one) the ticket machine wasn't working line won't work and you can be sure and audit trail will be rolled out to prove transactions before and after you. You had a credit card on you which you could have used to pay if your coins were a problem

Traveling on a child ticket as an adult is considered a serious offense

L1011

sdonn wrote: »

In theory, a failure to pay a fare is theft

Due to the existance of the byelaws, its a breach of those not theft.

sdonn wrote: »

The conditions of carriage do say that a TVM must be used if available MYOB, surely they wouldn't put that in there if it wasn't legally grounded somewhere else?

There's no legal basis to require you to use a TVM at all. We've already had members here get fines overturned by pointing this out and people parroting out the bits of the CoC (see the post above) won't change that fact.

Losty Dublin

MYOB wrote: »

There's no legal basis to require you to use a TVM at all. We've already had members here get fines overturned by pointing this out and people parroting out the bits of the CoC (see the post above) won't change that fact.

But this is a case of a person who was traveling with a ticket that didn't cover the trip so TVM being obligatory is bluff. I can't speak for OP but my experience of vending machines is littered with seemingly perfect coins being rejected so to say the machine's faulty is far fetched, especially when it was able to issue the ticket that he used to travel.

And to get back to the point on ID, it's perfectly reasonable for them to ascertain your address as being correct and if it takes a phone call, then so be it. Not being smart here but why should you be taken at word, especially when OP was nabbed for pretending to begin with

the groutch

sdonn wrote: »

The conditions of carriage do say that a TVM must be used if available MYOB, surely they wouldn't put that in there if it wasn't legally grounded somewhere else?

false

taken from SI 109/1984

"Where the Board gives notice that a station is unattended or the booking office is closed, or where any person is instructed by an authorised person to board a train at a station without purchasing a ticket at the booking office so as not to delay the departure of the train from the station, any person not in possession of a valid ticket entitling him or her to travel may enter a vehicle at that station for the purpose of travelling but that person must obtain a ticket or other authority from an authorised person on the train as soon as practicable after entering any vehicle or from an authorised person on arrival at the station to which such person is travelling by the train"


a machine is not a booking office

markpb

goingnowhere wrote: »

2. You must use the ticket machine if available.

This is untrue. The SI says you must use a ticket office.

You had a credit card on you which you could have used to pay if your coins were a problem

Unless they've changed recently, the ticket machines won't take credit card for amounts under €5.

goingnowhere

markpb wrote: »

This is untrue. The SI says you must use a ticket office.

But this case is one of travel on a child ticket by an adult. Thats clear cut

You can argue about technicalities but are you willing to take the 1000 euro fine when you lose?

Unless they've changed recently, the ticket machines won't take credit card for amounts under €5.

Its 0.99 euro and has been for a year and the option is clearly displayed

HivemindXX

Please direct your thanks to the many people who just give a false name and address when caught without a valid ticket. The many, many times this has been brought up as a 'loophole' when some fare evader posts here has made me think that european style compulsory ID cards are a good idea.

This has the side benefit that it would make it easier for you to indulge in the little fantasy where you are a freedom fighter struggling against the oppressive forces of the nazi ticket inspectors. :rolleyes:

howiya

Didn't want to start a new thread yesterday as I'm sure there are many similar threads already but I was on a bus yesterday and three inspectors boarded. They were very pleasant and mannerly when dealing with passengers with tickets (myself included).

However in the course of there inspection, they came across a woman who presumably didn't have a valid ticket as they were issuing her a standard fare. They were very rude and aggressive towards her. She provided her name and address. Like the OP she did not have any utility bills on her person to prove this. They asked her who owned the house. What business of theirs is it who owns the house?

A minute later they were able to inform the woman that the address she provided was false and were repeatedly rude and aggressive towards her. They said they would call the Gardai and that she would be prosecuted as it was an offence to hold up a bus. Is there such an offence?

Anyway the point which bothered me most was that at the next stop the bus pulled in and didn't continue it's journey and a car pulled up with a fourth inspector who was presumably following the bus. Why should Dublin Bus inconvenience the rest of it's passengers like this? Could they not have asked the woman to leave the bus and perform their duties on the path using citizen arrest powers that other posters have referred to? Or since they were issuing a standard fare does that not give the woman the right to continue her journey?

I don't know how long the bus remained stationary as I got pissed off with waiting and disembarked as we were pretty close to town at this stage. While revenue protection is a vital task that public transport operators must perform it is not hard to see why these people attract references like nazis etc

markpb

howiya wrote: »

Anyway the point which bothered me most was that at the next stop the bus pulled in and didn't continue it's journey and a car pulled up with a fourth inspector who was presumably following the bus. Why should Dublin Bus inconvenience the rest of it's passengers like this? Could they not have asked the woman to leave the bus and perform their duties on the path using citizen arrest powers that other posters have referred to?

That's really unacceptable - there's no reason for stopping a bus for fare inspection. Sometimes I don't think DB realise that they're operating a city bus service.

AlekSmart

Howiya:They were very pleasant and mannerly when dealing with passengers with tickets (myself included).

However in the course of there inspection, they came across a woman who presumably didn't have a valid ticket as they were issuing her a standard fare. They were very rude and aggressive towards her. She provided her name and address. Like the OP she did not have any utility bills on her person to prove this. They asked her who owned the house. What business of theirs is it who owns the house?

A minute later they were able to inform the woman that the address she provided was false and were repeatedly rude and aggressive towards her. They said they would call the Gardai and that she would be prosecuted as it was an offence to hold up a bus. Is there such an offence?

Anyway the point which bothered me most was that at the next stop the bus pulled in and didn't continue it's journey and a car pulled up with a fourth inspector who was presumably following the bus. Why should Dublin Bus inconvenience the rest of it's passengers like this? Could they not have asked the woman to leave the bus and perform their duties on the path using citizen arrest powers that other posters have referred to? Or since they were issuing a standard fare does that not give the woman the right to continue her journey?

I don't know how long the bus remained stationary as I got pissed off with waiting and disembarked as we were pretty close to town at this stage. While revenue protection is a vital task that public transport operators must perform it is not hard to see why these people attract references like nazis etc

On the face of it the RCU`s procedures in this case sound heavy-handed,however I`m always mindful of observed situations sometimes having a bit more going on than may be apparent.

As Howiya points out,the presumption is the woman concerned did not have a valid ticket,but there may well be other issues known to the Inspectors concerned.

Again this woman provided a name and address which turned out to be false,and which could well have been another innocent parties details,a practice which can and does cause significant upset to those innocent parties.

It`s reasonable to suspect that if a person offers a false address that there is then a question over their true identity which then ratchets up the situation a notch or two.

Some options are available to the RCU from the Bye-Laws as outlined here....

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/About-Us/Dublin-Bus-Bye-Laws/Enforcement-Procedures/

(c) Where any such person refuses or fails to comply with a request under paragraph (a) or (b) of this Bye-Law or following such request such person gives a name and address which the authorised person has reasonable grounds for believing is false or misleading, such person may be detained by the authorised person until the arrival of a member of the Garda Síochána.

Perhaps in this case the RCU were "detaining" the woman pending the arrrival of the Gardai ?

Whilst it may be an option to remove the offender from the bus,that in itself may allow the situation to spiral somewhat out of control and in turn cause far more of a Public Order situation.

I`d be happy enough that in this case the RCU had good grounds for this particular course of action.

It`s equally interesting to see the Nazification of the Revenue Control Personnel,whilst the individual actually responsible for the situation and it`s repercussions is allowed to slip past with a mere finger-wag.

I have been up close and personal with Revenue Protection situations in London,Paris,Nice and Berlin.

In the first three cities the Revenue Teams numbered at least six,with in the case of London,an accompanying Metropolitan Police Van containing four constables....

In Nice (France) a team of six boarded the articulated bus through each of the 3 doors and with no particular display of finesse embarked on a check which turned up two students who were thoroughly grilled before being relieved of some €40 on-the-spot.

Similarly,in Berlin the plain clothes team I witnessed were matter-of-fact and efficient with everybody,but very much In-your-face with the offender they did corner.

I`m rather afraid that like an omlette,this task involves breaking eggs and it cannot be achieved without some element of unpleasantness,which of course,should be minimized.

Markpb:That's really unacceptable - there's no reason for stopping a bus for fare inspection. Sometimes I don't think DB realise that they're operating a city bus service.

The jury`s out on this for me markpb,the most unacceptable aspect,for me,is the decision of the woman concerned to thumb her nose at those of her fellow passengers who had paid their fare,and who'se actions display her disregard for the city bus service availed of and paid for by them.

L1011

Losty Dublin wrote: »

But this is a case of a person who was traveling with a ticket that didn't cover the trip so TVM being obligatory is bluff.

I did say this in my first reply, him buying an incorrect ticket from the TVM stops this angle being usable.

howiya

AlekSmart wrote: »

the most unacceptable aspect,for me,is the decision of the woman concerned to thumb her nose at those of her fellow passengers who had paid their fare,and who'se actions display her disregard for the city bus service availed of and paid for by them.

For the record I agree entirely with this. However I think DB can do their job better and equally thumbed its nose to its paying customers by inconveniencing them with delaying the bus

Stanivlasky

So what happens now if i appeal with the reasons I posted and quote those bye laws that MYOB quoted? If they reject my reasons I still just get the 100e fine or I could I end up doing hard time for this serious offence!

Seannew1

Be jaysus......by the sounds of this thread and others on this forum,ticket inspections seem to be a regular occurence on the Dart, I'm using Iarnród Eireann for over a year now and have been asked to show my ticket just once before i think.

DWCommuter

Stanivlasky wrote: »

So what happens now if i appeal with the reasons I posted and quote those bye laws that MYOB quoted? If they reject my reasons I still just get the 100e fine or I could I end up doing hard time for this serious offence!

Your case is pretty much done and dusted. You had a child ticket on you. Own up. Had you no ticket you may have been able to argue the bye law point, but you purchased a child ticket and tried to justify it. Not even I could defend that one.:D

Stanivlasky

im not denying i had a child ticket,i woulda had an adult ticket if the machine worked,so there were extenuating circumstances.

Stanivlasky

if i had no ticket it would have meant i had jumped over the turnstile!
isnt that worse,at least i paid something,that bye says you pay at end of journey if you dont have a valid ticket,well i had an invalid one which is the same as not having a valid one.

AlekSmart

Stanivlasky wrote: »

im not denying i had a child ticket,i woulda had an adult ticket if the machine worked,so there were extenuating circumstances.

Yup Stanislavisky,your point is valid in a daily life sorta,kinda way....really only can be definitively adjudicated upon in a court....however,that also entails a risk and as you point out earlier,that risk is somewhat on a higher plane.

A brave person would say "Bring on that Judge,Baby!"...a prudent one might swallow and shell-out the readies....;)

Losty Dublin

Stanivlasky wrote: »

im not denying i had a child ticket,i woulda had an adult ticket if the machine worked,so there were extenuating circumstances.

But the machine gave you a ticket so you can't argue that it wasn't working.

schemingbohemia

Stanivlasky wrote: »

im not denying i had a child ticket,i woulda had an adult ticket if the machine worked,so there were extenuating circumstances.

was it not the case that your coins weren't working rather than the machine? as you point out the machine worked, it just didn't like your coins, not quite the same thing. you still haven't answered why you didn't use your credit card/laser card?

the fact is that you had options, chose not to use them and instead purchased a ticket that you knew was not valid for your use.

Next!

snickerpuss

howiya wrote: »

A minute later they were able to inform the woman that the address she provided was false and were repeatedly rude and aggressive towards her.

How exactly can they tell if an address is false? It's not like we have a national registration system.

I live with my boyfriend, however he was living there already so his name is on bills/lease etc. Therefore, I have nothing official with my name on it. This does not negate or falsify the fact that I live there. How odd.

L1011

snickerpuss wrote: »

How exactly can they tell if an address is false? It's not like we have a national registration system. .

They check in Thoms, which clearly isn't 100% accurate.

Carawaystick

The OP should just invoice for telecommunications consulting, and get the person who answered to do the same

As has been pointed out on other threads, the Byelaws state if the booking office is closed, then you don't have to buy a ticket at a machine.

Secondly, the OP has stated the machine was faulty by not accepting all the coins presented. There has been no evidence to suggest the coins weren't valid euros coins.

Thirdly as has been quoted here the inspectors can detain you if they have reasonable suspicion to believe you gave a false address. The op didn't say what their reasons were for suspecting she gave a false address was, I'd imagine they didn't give one. As the OP has no bills or lease in her name, they are probably not in Thoms, but not being in some private sector directory is hardly reason to deprive someone of their liberty.

BrianD

the groutch wrote: »

a machine is not a booking office

Says who? If the booking office is open and contains a working vending machine surely the booking office is open and functioning. There's nothing to say that a human interaction is required.

However, I'm surprised that given the vending machines are standard issue now, I'm surprised that IR haven't copper fastened their bye laws by now.

Also don't IR conductors have the power to detain you or is that just the LUAS staff?

NuMarvel

BrianD wrote: »

Says who? If the booking office is open and contains a working vending machine surely the booking office is open and functioning. There's nothing to say that a human interaction is required.
However, I'm surprised that given the vending machines are standard issue now, I'm surprised that IR haven't copper fastened their bye laws by now.

Also don't IR conductors have the power to detain you or is that just the LUAS staff?

The OP in another thread successfully appealed a fine where the ticket office was unmanned. He boarded the train with the intention of paying at the destination, and appealed to IE on this basis.

That's different to the circumstances of this thread though, as the OP here bought the wrong ticket, instead of having no ticket.

The bye-laws do need to be tightened up though. The ticket machines can now take debit/credit card payments for fares of 99 cent or more, so if there's a functioning machine or an open ticket office there's no reason not to have a ticket. What's required to amend the bye-laws? Does it need to go through the Minister for Transport or can CIE amend them?

Another thing IE should do is make it very clear on posters in all stations that a valid ticket is required before boarding a train AND put these posters close to the validation gates. I usually use Sydney Parade and Tara Street stations and I don't recall seeing posters like these. I saw one at Lansdowne Road the other day, but this was on an information board actually ON Lansdowne Road, instead of being in the station.

snickerpuss

MYOB wrote: »

They check in Thoms, which clearly isn't 100% accurate.

Ha! I know for a fact my home address isn't in that either. I would look dodgey. Best continue to correctly pay my fare so!

foggy_lad

On the face of it the RCU`s procedures in this case sound heavy-handed,however I`m always mindful of observed situations sometimes having a bit more going on than may be apparent.

As Howiya points out,the presumption is the woman concerned did not have a valid ticket,but there may well be other issues known to the Inspectors concerned.

I recently observed luas staff detain a woman and take her off at red cow. They had her surrounded and seemed to be badgering her for id and proof of address and appeared a bit heavy handed, but I then overheard how they had been following her routes on the trams all day and she had got off at several stops to check the ticket machines for change or cards left behind then boarded the next tram and had been doing this for several hours without any ticket.

Ghost Train

wonder how many under 16 year olds carry a visa card

Stanivlasky

Stanivlasky wrote: »

im not denying i had a child ticket,i woulda had an adult ticket if the machine worked,so there were extenuating circumstances.

People always use the term "extenuating circumstances". First of all, every time I use one of these machines I get valid coins rejected, and every time it's because I put them in too fast. Maybe your machine had artificial intelligence and decided to reject perfectly good coins, or maybe the fault was your own for not proceeding to insert them correctly, and not trying enough times to put them in again. Secondly, if you had a medical emergency and the only way to the hospital was the dart, that would be extenuating circumstances, or if one of the staff at the station said you could go ahead, or if a zombie horde was chasing you. Having a tiff with the machine isn't an extenuating circumstance.

Carawaystick wrote: »

hardly reason to deprive someone of their liberty.

No one was deprived of their liberty. The OP was never claimed to have been touched, never mind physically detained. OP chose to get on a dart without a valid ticket, and when found without a valid ticket was asked his name and address. When he failed to confirm the name and address he gave, the inspectors said he was free to do so, but they would have to call the gardai. This is not being deprived of liberty, unless liberty is the freedom to use a service you haven't paid for.

Few people seem to acknowledge the fact that no one is forced to get the dart. If you can't pay for a ticket, don't get on. Regardless of bye-laws or loopholes that you think you can use to get around getting caught, the fact remains that you shouldn't have done it in the first place. That's not the law, it's common (honest) sense imo.

L1011

BrianD wrote: »

Says who? If the booking office is open and contains a working vending machine surely the booking office is open and functioning. There's nothing to say that a human interaction is required.
?

Says common sense, Brian. A vending machine is not an office; and additionally they are often *not even in the booking office* . Additionally not all tickets are available on a TVM.


Vending machines had existed on parts of the DART and nascent Commuter network for some years prior to the byelaws, CIE knew what they were.

Victor

I think a judge would give very little benefit of the doubt to someone travelling with a child ticket in such circumstances. OP buy yourself a Smartcard - its cheaper than paying cash / penalty fares.

The RPA have secured some recent convictions for €1,000.

BrianD wrote: »

the groutch wrote: »

a machine is not a booking office

Says who?

Says Irish Rail. I have it in writing. However, one would be ill advised to not use a ticket machine where one is available and a suitable ticket can be purchased.

Also don't IR conductors have the power to detain you or is that just the LUAS staff?

I think its both, but it is only authorised officers. It is for the railway undertaking to appoint such officers (they might not make the station cleaner an authorised officers). the legislatiopn has changed over time and I'd need to look at it in detail.

monument

Can't see anything in the CIE rail bylaws or the light rail bylaws which allows for arrest or detainment (other than kicking people off trains or the railways). Below is what can be used for shop lifters etc, not sure if it's used or can be used on railways or light railways for fare evasion.

In any case, anybody trying to use this or any other law which restricts somebodies freedom would want to be careful and know what they are doing.


Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001

Making off without payment

8.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods obtained or any service done is required or expected, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with the intention of avoiding payment on the spot is guilty of an offence.

(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply where the supply of the goods or the doing of the service is contrary to law or where the service done is such that payment is not legally enforceable.

(3) Subject to subsections (5) and (6), any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects to be in the act of committing an offence under this section.

(4) Where a member of the Garda Síochána, with reasonable cause, suspects that an offence under this section has been committed, he or she may arrest without warrant any person whom the member, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.

(5) An arrest other than by a member of the Garda Síochána may be effected by a person under subsection (3) only where the person, with reasonable cause, suspects that the person to be arrested by him or her would otherwise attempt to avoid, or is avoiding, arrest by a member of the Garda Síochána.

(6) A person who is arrested pursuant to this section by a person other than a member of the Garda Síochána shall be transferred by that person into the custody of the Garda Síochána as soon as practicable.

(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding £3,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or both.

BTW the general "citizen's arrest" in Irish law can only be made for "arrestable offences", which are offences which carries a possible sentence of five or more years in prison.

dermot_sheehan

s. 66B of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2005/en/act/pub/0031/sec0134.html#sec134

66B.—(1) If an authorised officer reasonably suspects that a person—

(a) is contravening or has contravened or is failing or has failed to comply with a bye-law made under section 66,

(b) is committing or has committed on a railway an offence under section 64 or 65,

(c) is assaulting or has assaulted or is causing or has caused deliberate harm to another on a railway,

(d) is causing or has caused wanton or deliberate damage to railway infrastructure,

(e) has contravened section 118 or 132 of the Railway Safety Act 2005,

(f) is obstructing or has obstructed or is impeding or has impeded an authorised officer in the exercise of his or her duties under this section, section 66A, 66C, or under any bye-law made under section 66,

(g) on any railway is intoxicated or is committing or has committed an offence under section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 , or

(h) if requested by an authorised officer to cease such contravention or action or to so comply, fails to comply with the request,

he or she may—

(i) using such reasonable force as the circumstances require, remove or escort the person from the railway or any part of it,

(ii) in circumstances where the authorised officer considers it to be justified, arrest the person without warrant, or

(iii) require the person to give his or her name and address and, if the person fails or refuses to do so or gives a name that the authorised officer reasonably suspects is false or misleading, arrest that person without warrant,

and, if he or she is not a member of the Garda Síochána, deliver, as soon as practicable, the person, if arrested, into the custody of a member of the Garda Síochána to be dealt with according to law.

(2) A person who fails or refuses to give his or her name or address when required under subsection (1), or gives a name or address which is false or misleading, is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €1,000.

(3) The Agency, or a railway undertaking with the consent of the Agency, may appoint such and so many persons as it considers necessary to be authorised officers for the purposes of this section, section 66A, 66C or any bye-law made under section 66.

(4) An authorised officer, who is not a member of the Garda Síochána, is not entitled to exercise a power under this section unless he or she has received training and instruction, which, in the opinion of the Agency is such as will provide guidance to him or her in the exercise of the power.

(5) The Agency or a railway undertaking, as the case may be, shall endorse on the warrant it furnishes to an authorised officer under subsection (6) a statement to the effect that the officer has received the training and instruction referred to in subsection (4).

(6) An authorised officer, who is not a member of the Garda Síochána, shall, on his or her appointment under this section, be furnished by the Agency or a railway undertaking, as the case may be, with a warrant of his or her appointment as an authorised officer.

(7) An authorised officer, who is not a member of the Garda Síochána, when exercising a power under this section shall be in uniform provided or authorised—

(a) where he or she is appointed by the Agency, by the Agency, or

(b) where he or she is appointed by a railway undertaking, by the railway undertaking.

(8) The arrest of a person under this section does not prejudice the re-arrest of the person by a member of the Garda Síochána.

(9) An authorised officer, who is not a member of the Garda Síochána, may be referred to—

(a) where he or she is appointed by the Agency, by the Agency, or

(b) where he or she is appointed by a railway undertaking, by the railway undertaking,

by such title as it decides.

(10) In this section a reference to the committal of an offence or an act includes a reference to an attempt to commit the offence or the act.

(11) In this section ‘authorised officer’ means a person appointed under this section or a member of the Garda Síochána whose attendance is requested by an authorised officer or by the Agency or a railway undertaking.

CIE

Those bye-laws are enough to make someone prefer driving.