"TRAFFIC BLUES"

JohnnyCrash

Was watching a bit of this programme on the box last night,reality programme on the Garda Traffic Corps. In one scene,they clocked a biker doing 194kph IN THE DARK:eek:,pulled him,arrested him,and in the upshot,he got 2 penalty points and a €250 fine. .Was this a just penalty or did it warrant a ban? Opinions please!!

vinniemac

He got off lightly IMHO

scorn

Feck sakes - I saw that too and was blown away by the light treatment he got. I wondered if that was filmed recently or was very old footage?

All I can say is that I hope that the RTE cameras are rolling if I ever get pulled over so that the Gardai can give me a light rap on the knuckles so that they look like the nice guys!

gipi

It was filmed in Aug 2010 - at least that's the date I think was on the garda video machine.

Sids Not

The guy was wearing a lid..and a Dainese gortex type jacket...No protective gear..????

He may have gotten off lightly all right..BUT..if it had have been a skag in a Civic we would have been up in arms ,saying if it'd been a biker he'd have been locked up ....;)

I couldnt believe that the c**t in the blue van wasnt taken out the yoke and beaten severly (off camera ) for the abuse he gave that Guard......

prunudo

gipi wrote: »

It was filmed in Aug 2010 - at least that's the date I think was on the garda video machine.

I noticed that too. Not 100% sure but I think the narrator said the Garda finished in the Dublin camera monitoring office and then went straight out to the ' chase' with the biker. The funny thing is the date on the screens said sept 2010. Didn't realize we had time traveling police:cool:
Makes you wonder how much creative editing is going on:rolleyes:

Mister Jingles

jvan wrote: »

Makes you wonder how much creative editing is going on:rolleyes:

To the extent that when they were catching up to the bike they added in the speedometer of a Mondeo doing 180kph when the car they were in was a Volvo S60

goldie fish

His tyres looked fine to me, typical sportsbike tyres. If they were worn below depth, why didn't they prosecute him for it too? They commented that the chain was poorly maintained too, I never knew that was illegal.

CharlieCroker

I think the comment on the chain was just an opinion. A lot of traffic members are motorbike trained as well as having their own private bikes so would know the ins and outs.

They were dead right to arrest him for D/drive (S.53, RTA). When it goes before the court, the judge has the discretion to convict on a lower charge of either 51a- driving without reasonable consideration or S.52- careless driving. This decision is out of the guards hands, all they can do is present the facts.

The lad was wearing protective gear but I think the lack of any sort of reflective clothing was the point being made.

As for the lad in the blue van, you get that from time to time. People want to see the law enforced as long as it's not them that gets caught. That driver wasn't actually committing an offence by ****ing the guard out of it but you can be sure he won't be forgotten in a hurry if stopped in the future.

Odysseus

My own opinion was it should have been dealt with on the roadside, no need to lift him. They made that decision before they ever spoke to him, you could hear them discussing it as they got out of the car. I'm not saying he should no have been stopped and done, however, I think the decision to actually lift him was OTT, and maybe for the cameras, or they where pissed off with his offense on a personal level.

One of the members stated that the 197kph was the highest they had ever seen, I'm not condoning speeding but I see both cars and bikes doing that and over regularly. I would like a closer look but the points metioned about the condition of the bike didn't seem correct to me either.

CharlieCroker

Problem with taking his details and summonsing him later is that a summons may not be served and if it is, it could be 6 months before it comes before the court whereas if he's arrested and charged, he's then released on bail to appear on a certain date. It comes before the court quicker (approx 1 month) and if he doesn't show up, he gets a bench warrant. IMO, arrest and charge is always a better and more efficient way of bringing someone before the court.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Odysseus wrote: »

One of the members stated that the 197kph was the highest they had ever seen, I'm not condoning speeding but I see both cars and bikes doing that and over regularly. I would like a closer look but the points metioned about the condition of the bike didn't seem correct to me either.

I thought it that comment strange too.

I used to regularly do that speed and then some more, but I'm older & wiser now.

Arresting him was IMO the right thing to do.

goldie fish

CharlieCroker wrote: »

Problem with taking his details and summonsing him later is that a summons may not be served and if it is, it could be 6 months before it comes before the court whereas if he's arrested and charged, he's then released on bail to appear on a certain date. It comes before the court quicker (approx 1 month) and if he doesn't show up, he gets a bench warrant. IMO, arrest and charge is always a better and more efficient way of bringing someone before the court.

In my experience charge to next sitting-remand on own bail untill next round of district court sittings. No difference time wise. It was a grudge arrest and no more.

goldie fish

CharlieCroker wrote: »

I think the comment on the chain was just an opinion. A lot of traffic members are motorbike trained as well as having their own private bikes so would know the ins and outs.

An uninformed one. All the garda motorcyclists I know drive shafties. Wouldnt know one end of a chain from another, the few that do have scottoilers because they were never trained how to adjust and maintain a motorcycle chain on the garda shaft drive fleet. If either the tyre or chain was dangerously defective, it would have been included in the prosecution.

CharlieCroker wrote: »

The lad was wearing protective gear but I think the lack of any sort of reflective clothing was the point being made.

There is no law requiring the wearing of same. Not wearing this does not make your driving suddenly dangerous. You wear it because cage drivers are blind, and distracted by the mobile phone/dvd player/ipod/satnav, and as garda motorcyclists will tell you, even when you have reflective clothing, and flashing lights, they still won't see you.
At the end of the day it is a matter of personal choice, but its good to know your choice of clothing may get you arrested.

JohnnyCrash

JohnnyCrash wrote: »

Was watching a bit of this programme on the box last night,reality programme on the Garda Traffic Corps. In one scene,they clocked a biker doing 194kph IN THE DARK:eek:,pulled him,arrested him,and in the upshot,he got 2 penalty points and a €250 fine. As far as I could gather,he wasnt wearing any protective gear other than a helmet,and the bike looked pretty neglected also.Was this a just penalty or did it warrant a ban? Opinions please!!

goldie fish wrote: »

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but its good to know your choice of clothing may get you arrested.

The Gardai made no comment whatsoever regarding the lack of reflective gear, it's only on thread here that is being mentioned

goldie fish

RoverJames wrote: »

The Gardai made no comment whatsoever regarding the lack of reflective gear, it's only on thread here that is being mentioned

True, just protective. (again, apart from helmet, a matter of personal choice)

CharlieCroker

goldie fish wrote: »

In my experience charge to next sitting-remand on own bail untill next round of district court sittings. No difference time wise. It was a grudge arrest and no more.

And how do you charge to the next sitting of the court without arresting him and bringing him to the station????

goldie fish wrote: »

An uninformed one. All the garda motorcyclists I know drive shafties. Wouldnt know one end of a chain from another, the few that do have scottoilers because they were never trained how to adjust and maintain a motorcycle chain on the garda shaft drive fleet. If either the tyre or chain was dangerously defective, it would have been included in the prosecution.


There is no law requiring the wearing of same. Not wearing this does not make your driving suddenly dangerous. You wear it because cage drivers are blind, and distracted by the mobile phone/dvd player/ipod/satnav, and as garda motorcyclists will tell you, even when you have reflective clothing, and flashing lights, they still won't see you.
At the end of the day it is a matter of personal choice, but its good to know your choice of clothing may get you arrested.

I never mentioned the clothing being illegal, it was another poster who said he was wearing none! I stated he was, just nothing hi-viz. Again, not illegal but not safe either. You need all the help you can get on a bike.

As for guards personal bikes, I only know 2 with shaft driven private bikes. (not that this point really matters) and they would be well up on maintainence etc. Obviously, some know more than others. The lads on the video were giving their opinions, nothing more.

JohnnyCrash

I just edited my original post,had a look at the clip again.
@ CharlieCroker-you were correct.Guy was wearing gear,and Garda commented on lack of reflective gear
@ GoldieFish-I know its not a legal requirement to wear protective or reflective gear other than a helmet,but i dont think thats what got him arrested for dangerous driving,do you? It might have been the small matter of him doing 194 kph had something to do with it.
All other points made were observations i.e Tyre on its last legs,dry chain etc...While the tyre might have been legal,it looked to me barely so.Imagine having to stop in a hurry at that speed. Imagine a poorly maintained chain snapping at that speed.The Guards were simply pointing these things out in an advisory way imo

goldie fish

Excessive speed is not in itself dangerous driving. Remember this is just under 120mph in old money. Excessive yes, but S47, not
Nowhere was the driver asked for his licence to see if he was even qualified to drive that bike.
53.—(1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be therein) is dangerous to the public.

It was a motorway where 70mph is the legal speed limit, and he was doing a speed within the design parameters of the vehicle he was driving. What public were in danger?
Also note:
S53(6) Where a member of the Garda Síochána is of opinion that a person has committed an offence under this section and that the contravention has caused death or serious bodily harm to another person, he may arrest the first-mentioned person without warrant.

Who died?

As for tyres, "barely legal" is still legal. You cannot be prosecuted for almost breaking the law. Or so I thought. They pointed it out after they had arrested the driver. That isn't advice. Advice is something you give as a warning. It struck me as something they used to trump up their reasons for arresting a man who had not committed the offence they had arrested him for.

oleras

I only got around to watching this tonight, they never mentioned his busted left indicator either...lol

As for the programe, where people were convicted of whatever crime they were guilty of, why didnt they show their faces, like they do on the UK cop shows ?

JohnnyCrash

goldie fish wrote: »

Excessive speed is not in itself dangerous driving. Remember this is just under 120mph in old money. Excessive yes, but S47, not
Nowhere was the driver asked for his licence to see if he was even qualified to drive that bike.
53.—(1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be therein) is dangerous to the public.

It was a motorway where 70mph is the legal speed limit, and he was doing a speed within the design parameters of the vehicle he was driving. What public were in danger?
Also note:
S53(6) Where a member of the Garda Síochána is of opinion that a person has committed an offence under this section and that the contravention has caused death or serious bodily harm to another person, he may arrest the first-mentioned person without warrant.

Who died?

As for tyres, "barely legal" is still legal. You cannot be prosecuted for almost breaking the law. Or so I thought. They pointed it out after they had arrested the driver. That isn't advice. Advice is something you give as a warning. It struck me as something they used to trump up their reasons for arresting a man who had not committed the offence they had arrested him for.

Overly excessive speed is in itself danderous driving.As you put it"Remember this is just under 120mph in old money"
In OLD MONEY,another 20mph and he would have been double the limit!!
And who cares that he was driving within the design parameters of his vehicle? He wasnt driving within the parameters of the speed limit,was he?
As to what public were in danger-The other road users,thats who.A small lapse in concentration at those speeds,on BARELY LEGAL tyres,IN THE DARK,could have been a different story.
And yes,no one died,THIS TIME.You dont have to kill someone to be a dangerous driver!
Also,he wasnt prosecuted for his tyres,they were merely pointed out

goldie fish

JohnnyCrash wrote: »

Overly excessive speed is in itself danderous driving.As you put it"Remember this is just under 120mph in old money"
In OLD MONEY,another 20mph and he would have been double the limit!!
And who cares that he was driving within the design parameters of his vehicle? He wasnt driving within the parameters of the speed limit,was he?
As to what public were in danger-The other road users,thats who.A small lapse in concentration at those speeds,on BARELY LEGAL tyres,IN THE DARK,could have been a different story.
And yes,no one died,THIS TIME.You dont have to kill someone to be a dangerous driver!
Also,he wasnt prosecuted for his tyres,they were merely pointed out

I'm not arguing about the speed. He wad exceeding the speed limit. But does that warrant being arrested in itself? The law doesnt say so unless he killed or injured someone.

JohnnyCrash

goldie fish wrote: »

I'm not arguing about the speed. He wad exceeding the speed limit. But does that warrant being arrested in itself? The law doesnt say so unless he killed or injured someone.

Its all back to the old'how the laws interpreted' thing,i guess. Im pretty sure they were within their rights to arrest him for what they formed an opinion of, was dangerous driving.(Just because you were arrested for an offence,doesnt mean you committed one).In the wind up,it was reduced to careless driving,couple of points,€250 fine.Thats what you'd normally get 20 or 30mph over the limit.He was dead lucky he didnt receive a ban,he would,ve deserved one.

JohnnyCrash

Odysseus wrote: »

My own opinion was it should have been dealt with on the roadside, no need to lift him. They made that decision before they ever spoke to him, you could hear them discussing it as they got out of the car. I'm not saying he should no have been stopped and done, however, I think the decision to actually lift him was OTT, and maybe for the cameras, or they where pissed off with his offense on a personal level.

One of the members stated that the 197kph was the highest they had ever seen, I'm not condoning speeding but I see both cars and bikes doing that and over regularly. I would like a closer look but the points metioned about the condition of the bike didn't seem correct to me either.

Jeffery Deep Dancer wrote: »

I thought it that comment strange too.

I used to regularly do that speed and then some more, but I'm older & wiser now.

Arresting him was IMO the right thing to do.

Id say what the guards were talking about here was on a personal level,not that it was the highest ever seen

Paparazzo

I'm sure anyone with a litre bike has hit that speed at one point. Safe enough on an empty motorway. Personally I wouldn't do it at night. You could hit debris on the road.

Odysseus

JohnnyCrash wrote: »

Id say what the guards were talking about here was on a personal level,not that it was the highest ever seen

I agree, it would suggest to me not a lot of personal experience with what some people including some Guards call "hi-powered" bikes, and the speed they are capable of. Or maybe they where playing it up for the cameras, I'm still trying to decide.

If he was hitting the 300kph mark and they said that I would buy it. I have a very long commute and leaving the morality out of it, I would see regularly cars and bikes doing that 197khp+ and more. Now I would expect a traffic member to have experienced much more than me.

As to the lads just stating their opinion on the chain etc, stating it as a member on our national station would maybe be seen as fact by Joe Soap who knows nothing about bikes, it would have be better if they had kept quite and just stayed with the facts of the offense.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Paparazzo wrote: »

Personally I wouldn't do it at night.

Try it without lights, at night - stealth mode

Paparazzo

Jeffery Deep Dancer wrote: »

Try it without lights, at night - stealth mode

I close my eyes to simulate the night

Tigger

JohnnyCrash wrote: »

Was watching a bit of this programme on the box last night,reality programme on the Garda Traffic Corps. In one scene,they clocked a biker doing 194kph IN THE DARK:eek:,pulled him,arrested him,and in the upshot,he got 2 penalty points and a €250 fine. .Was this a just penalty or did it warrant a ban? Opinions please!!

should have let him off

how did they catch him?

he slowed when it warranted slowing

were the garda not also being dangerous doing the same speed with no blues on?


the lad in the van should have been charghed with abusing a garda and if the offence dosent exist it should be introduced

Alkers

JohnnyCrash wrote: »

250 fine.Thats what you'd normally get 20 or 30mph over the limit.

Not true.

The penalty for speeding is 2 points and an €80 fine if you don't appeal, double if you go to court. There is no tiered system here like there is in the UK/US. It is up to the Garda issuing the fixed penalty to report you for another offence such as in this case if they believe the speed to be so excessive that it warrants a seperate charge.