Traffic law question

blahblahbla

I just saw a speeding fine for the first time and I noticed that the photo they send out is just a photo of the registration plate. They also accuse you of speeding at a certain location but dont give you a photo of you or you car at that location.

Is this the case with all speeding fines, surly you cant just fine someone without at least photo evidence of them at the location, is that legal?

Also I did some reading here about the road traffic act and it says that the police dont have to prove that the speedometer was working at the time. This seems very unfair has this ever been taken to a higher court it just seems crazy?

105.—Where the proof of the commission of an offence under this Act involves the proof of the speed at which a person (whether the accused or another person) was driving—

(a) the uncorroborated evidence of one witness stating his opinion as to that speed shall not be accepted as proof of that speed,

(b) the onus of establishing that speed prima facie may be discharged by tendering evidence of indications from which that speed can be inferred which were given by a watch or electronic or other apparatus, and it shall not be necessary to prove that the watch or electronic or other apparatus was accurate or in good working order

delly

They have the full photo, they just send out the reg part initially and use the full one if issues arise.

BrianD

You can request the photo as far as I know. I know one husband and wife who did because the couldn't recall who was driving at the time.

I believe that they just send the reg plate photo to protect your privacy and those in the car. Just in case you had somebody on board that you shouldn't have had!

I presume by 'speedometer' you mean the the device used by the Gardai or GoSafe to detect your speed?

If you pay the fine and take the points you don't need to go to court.

blahblahbla

BrianD wrote: »

I presume by 'speedometer' you mean the the device used by the Gardai or GoSafe to detect your speed?

Ya, I wasnt sure what the technical name for it was, but I just couldn't believe it when I read that in an actual law. To think that the device to prove you broke the law does not need to be working accurately is ridiculous.

I think something should be done about that and I'm wondering has anything been done?

Paulw

blahblahbla wrote: »

Ya, I wasnt sure what the technical name for it was, but I just couldn't believe it when I read that in an actual law. To think that the device to prove you broke the law does not need to be working accurately is ridiculous.

I think something should be done about that and I'm wondering has anything been done?

It is up to you to prove that the device was faulty, in court.

In general, they are tested and calibrated regularly. The change to the law was made to speed up court, since everyone was claiming that the device was not working properly.

BrianD

I's been to court before over the years.

AFAIK all these devices are checked and calibrated before use.

If we were to have a miticulous examination of everything then we would get nowhere. How, do you prove anything was working properly at any point in time?

The question is you need to ask yourself, Did you break the law? If you did pay up and move on.

What speed were you going at and what was the limit?

blahblahbla

I read the charter, I never said I was speeding and I'm not looking for a way to avoid paying a fine, I just saw the letter that gets sent out and thought it was unfair to say someone was doing something and not been allowed to check if the device is in order. If that is the case its something that can be open to a lot of abuse.

If it cant be 100% accurate all the time and their is such heavy penalties associated with it, than maybe its not a good measure to be able to determine if someone speeding, especially if its 2 points when caught and 4 if you challenge it, that you have for 3 years.

Is their a chance of leeway If your going 50-53km in a 50k zone, what if your speedometer reads it at 50km and the gardas unit 53km?

source

blahblahbla wrote: »

I read the charter, I never said I was speeding and I'm not looking for a way to avoid paying a fine, I just saw the letter that gets sent out and thought it was unfair to say someone was doing something and not been allowed to check if the device is in order. If that is the case its something that can be open to a lot of abuse.

If it cant be 100% accurate all the time and their is such heavy penalties associated with it, than maybe its not a good measure to be able to determine if someone speeding, especially if its 2 points when caught and 4 if you challenge it, that you have for 3 years.

Is their a chance of leeway If your going 50-53km in a 50k zone, what if your speedometer reads it at 50km and the gardas unit 53km?

The problem was that every person who got a ticket and decided to contest it, got a solicitor who demanded the equipment was tested, costing the state and wasting the courts time. Because the option was there it was abused, and consistently found that the equipment was working correctly. So legislation was passed to stop people abusing the system.

On your question regarding speedometers, google a thing called speedometer offset, the indicated speed you get on your dashboard is not the speed you're travelling, If your speedo reads 50km/h, you're (depending on car marque) travelling between 5km/h and 8km/hr less than indicated.

So for the Garda's equipment to read 53km/h as in your example, your indicated speed on your cars speedometer would be up around 60km/h.

Also Gardai generally don't stop someone for doing a couple of km/h over the limit, start reaching around 10km/h over the limit and you'll get stopped. The vans however are set to the limit and anyone even slightly over that will be ticketed.

littlemac1980

Does anybody know if the Speed Vans are governed by Legislation, and if so where? I am curious as to the effect of the signage that has been put in the locations within which these speed vans operate.

Guy:Incognito

blahblahbla wrote: »

Is their a chance of leeway If your going 50-53km in a 50k zone, what if your speedometer reads it at 50km and the gardas unit 53km?

I've yet to see anyone get done for a speed like that anyway. Either way, if your speedo is reading 50, then unless you've changed the stock wheels quite a fair bit in size then your still only going about 47-48 max. The car wont be going faster than indicated.

The Gards unit would have to be overreadign by more than 10%. That would be a fairly big error.

BrianD

blahblahbla wrote: »

I read the charter, I never said I was speeding and I'm not looking for a way to avoid paying a fine, I just saw the letter that gets sent out and thought it was unfair to say someone was doing something and not been allowed to check if the device is in order. If that is the case its something that can be open to a lot of abuse.

If it cant be 100% accurate all the time and their is such heavy penalties associated with it, than maybe its not a good measure to be able to determine if someone speeding, especially if its 2 points when caught and 4 if you challenge it, that you have for 3 years.

Is their a chance of leeway If your going 50-53km in a 50k zone, what if your speedometer reads it at 50km and the gardas unit 53km?

if you're to follow that logic nothing would be down or capable of being proven. If the device is calibrated and tested then it is working.

Look at it in reverse, do you trust your speedo? When was the last time it was calibrated?

I believe there is a percentage leeway that they use to allow for people who might drift momentarily over the set limit.

The penalties aren't that heavy in the grand scheme of things - 2 points and a fine. There's no jail time.

source

BrianD wrote: »

if you're to follow that logic nothing would be down or capable of being proven. If the device is calibrated and tested then it is working.

Look at it in reverse, do you trust your speedo? When was the last time it was calibrated?

I believe there is a percentage leeway that they use to allow for people who might drift momentarily over the set limit.

Agreed, People who trust their own uncalibrated speedo's blindly, but insist that the calibrated measuring devices must be wrong really do astound me.

BrianD wrote: »

The penalties aren't that heavy in the grand scheme of things - 2 points and a fine. There's no jail time.

I was watching an Aussie cop show the other night, and saw a woman getting a fine of $600, I thought that can't be right, so I looked it up and found this. Their penalties are graduated depending on how far over the limit the driver goes. The highest penalty is in Austrailian Capital Territory, where if you're going over 45km/hr over the limit the fine is $1,811. :eek: Plus "demerit" points as they call them. It would appear France have a similar setup, with the added bonus of being arrested and the fine to be paid there and then.

In the grand scheme of things €80 and 2 points aint all that bad.

Thoie

Paulw wrote: »

It is up to you to prove that the device was faulty, in court.

How would you do that? If you were contesting it, would the gardaí give you access to servicing/calibration records or the device itself?

Paulw

Thoie wrote: »

How would you do that? If you were contesting it, would the gardaí give you access to servicing/calibration records or the device itself?

Someone else can confirm, but I believe you can get access to the calibration record/cert for the device, if you go to court.

slimjimmc

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Does anybody know if the Speed Vans are governed by Legislation, and if so where? I am curious as to the effect of the signage that has been put in the locations within which these speed vans operate.

I think the amendment in Sect 17 of the 2006 Road Traffic Act covers that aspect.

(7) (a) The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform may by an agreement in writing entered into with any person, upon such terms and conditions as may be specified in the agreement, which shall include a condition to the effect that the determination of the locations where equipment is to be operated shall be a function of a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of superintendent, provide for the authorisation of that or other persons for the purposes of subsection (2), and the performance by those authorised persons of any function, which shall be specified in the agreement, relating to the establishing of prima facie proof of a constituent of an offence including the provision, maintenance and operation of equipment and the development, production and viewing of records produced by that equipment and the production of measurements or other indications from which a constituent of an offence can be inferred.

(b) An agreement referred to in paragraph (a) may apply to the performance of all or any of the functions specified in that agreement.

(c) Section 14(2), (3) and (4) of the Act of 2002 applies to any agreement entered into by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform under this subsection.

blahblahbla

I can understand a lot of what people are saying, sure if people have abused the system measures have to be put in place to stop that; however, I don't agree that proving that the unit is accurate or in good working order is not necessary. What I think is that who ever decided to put that in was just been lazy, uncreative and in no way suitable to be doing that kind of job if that's the best solution they can come up with.

I feel it steps over the rights of someone to properly defend themselves in court and I think if it has to it should be brought to the attention of the EU.

kopfan77

blahblahbla wrote: »

I can understand a lot of what people are saying, sure if people have abused the system measures have to be put in place to stop that; however, I don't agree that proving that the unit is accurate or in good working order is not necessary. What I think is that who ever decided to put that in was just been lazy, uncreative and in no way suitable to be doing that kind of job if that's the best solution they can come up with.

I feel it steps over the rights of someone to properly defend themselves in court and I think if it has to it should be brought to the attention of the EU.

As mentioned by a few posters already, the units are regularly serviced/calibrated and I have to believe that certs of such service/calibration are stored to negate the question you are asking

blahblahbla

kopfan77 wrote: »

As mentioned by a few posters already, the units are regularly serviced/calibrated and I have to believe that certs of such service/calibration are stored to negate the question you are asking

but my point is it still the law that its not needed to even do that.

kopfan77

blahblahbla wrote: »

but my point is it still the law that its not needed to even do that.

true