Caught speeding with garda in car camera

paddyl72

Hi,
can you be convicted of speeding with garda car camera footage?i.e. no indication of speed,just that vehicle was going faster than the garda car and his speed determined by GPS

MagicMarker

You weren't caught speeding.

paddyl72

I was pulled over,shown footage and told a speeding fine would be issued

MagicMarker

paddyl72 wrote: »

I was pulled over,shown footage and told a speeding fine would be issued

And what's unclear about that?

paddyl72

I was under the impression that my speed would have to be known.

rebel.ranter

That in-car system has a speed connected to it normally, no?

Chimaera

If it was a traffic car, then you're done. They have speed measuring equipment built into the cars that the normal squad cars don't have.

paddyl72

It shows the speed of the Garda car as determined by GPS.Is this a sufficient legal standard in an Irish court

paddyl72

An unmarked Garda car,not traffic corps,he was unable to tell me what speed I was going

bmstuff

You can be convicted of excessive and or dangerous driving yes sure, no need for recorded speed.
If on camera you can be seen driving very quick you can be convicted. Even without a camera recording. If the Guarda says you were well over the speed limit you can be convicted in court. Guards words have more weight in court that yours. They do fail to prove facts sometimes and charges are dropped, but in general, convictions are given all day long based on their words only.

Yawns

1: wait for fine to see what it says or even arrives.

2: Get a solicitor and let it go to court. In court the solicitor will ask for the proof of speeding.

The above based on unmarked garda car. If it was road corps car then your fecked.

Burdock

So you were CAUGHT speeding ?!

Where's the problem ??

Yawns

bmstuff wrote: »

You can be convicted of excessive and or dangerous driving yes sure, no need for recorded speed.
If on camera you can be seen driving very quick you can be convicted. Even without a camera recording. If the Guarda says you were well over the speed limit you can be convicted in court. Guards words have more weight in court that yours. They do fail to prove facts sometimes and charges are dropped, but in general, convictions are given all day long based on their words only.

Nah they can be done for stuff like dangerous driving or driving without due care etc. If speeding they would need to be able to show what speed the OP was doing. Lack of evidence will have it thrown out.

If it was a road corps car they have equipment in the car which can detect other drivers speed while driving. I don't think unmarked cars have this equipment so would reply on the handheld devices while stopped.

Chimaera

Even basic satnavs are pretty accurate for speed (iirc +- 2 km/h) so a Garda one will be enough to accurately show the speed of the Garda car. If the video shows a relatively constant distance between you and the Garda car, then both cars are matched for speed and that might be enough in court particularly if you're substantially above the limit. If it's only a few km/h it might be worth fighting it, though as others have said, they could still bring charges of careless or dangerous driving.

afatbollix

And in court a Gardai's word is good enough to say that a car was speeding the judge will ask the Gardai and will then just fine you.

paddyl72

I agree that sat navs are accurate,but that does not make them admissable in court

TouchingVirus

paddyl72 wrote: »

I agree that sat navs are accurate,but that does not make them admissable in court

Then take a chance and bring it to court and find out.

paddyl72

Burdock wrote: »

So you were CAUGHT speeding ?!

Where's the problem ??

No problem,you tell me what determines that someone is speeding?

Chimaera

Someone with authority having a reliable measurement of your speed would be a good start. The Garda's GPS is an objective measurement of that car's speed, and coupled with video of it pursuing your car it's enough to convince a judge IMO. Unless you were only marginally over the limit, I don't think you'll win here.

seamus

"I was travelling behind the accused and the speedometer on my vehicle read 120km/h"

A Garda's word is taken quite strongly in court. The onus would be on you to cast doubt on the reliability of the GPS measurement on the video.

Yawns

A decent solicitor would have it thrown out if it was based on just his GPS. GPS speeds can vary from 1 device to another much like speedometers. The solicitor can ask when the gps was last calibrated as well as ask in court can the gps in one car be safely assumed to record the speed of another vehicle. The op is innocent until proven guilty and as such I doubt he will be done for speeding due to lack of sufficient reliable evidence.

This is why guards have vans with cameras in them. If it were so easy to catch people with a gps then why would AGS need vans? They could just throw in a video and a gps into a squad car and drive around. The reason is because it's not sufficient evidence and as such a decent solicitor would have it thrown out.

It will cost more for the solicitor than the fine tho so choose which ever method you want. Hell you could try argue the case yourself if you were pushed. You could of course just accept it and move on.

paddyl72

Yawns wrote: »

A decent solicitor would have it thrown out if it was based on just his GPS. GPS speeds can vary from 1 device to another much like speedometers. The solicitor can ask when the gps was last calibrated as well as ask in court can the gps in one car be safely assumed to record the speed of another vehicle. The op is innocent until proven guilty and as such I doubt he will be done for speeding due to lack of sufficient reliable evidence.

This is why guards have vans with cameras in them. If it were so easy to catch people with a gps then why would AGS need vans? They could just throw in a video and a gps into a squad car and drive around. The reason is because it's not sufficient evidence and as such a decent solicitor would have it thrown out.

It will cost more for the solicitor than the fine tho so choose which ever method you want. Hell you could try argue the case yourself if you were pushed. You could of course just accept it and move on.

Most likely will accept it.I was just curious as to the legality of the camera "evidence"or a Garda's "word"

Savman

It's a minefield really, if it's the OP's first 2 penalty points and €80 fine it may not be worth a day in court especially when you consider solicitor fees etc.

That said, if there is a doubt then you are entitled to it. There is no real way of knowing the outcome without some kind of crystal ball, even still there is a lot of variables to consider. I'll skip to the worst one: the judge's 'mood' on the day. Unpredictable and could go either way.

Yawns

paddyl72 wrote: »

Most likely will accept it.I was just curious as to the legality of the camera "evidence"or a Garda's "word"

Well a guard's word carries a lot of weight in court however I don't believe that would be enough to cover the doubt. Obviously we haven't seen the footage and are just going on your word. It would be a different story if the guard was doing say95 - 100 in a 100 zone and you blast by him doing 120 - 130. But he wouldn't even try to do you for speeding I reckon dangerous driving or some such.

Bohrio

afatbollix wrote: »

And in court a Gardai's word is good enough to say that a car was speeding the judge will ask the Gardai and will then just fine you.

I dont think that the Gardas opinion will stand in court unless he can prove that the driver was speeding. I know that the Garda's word has more weigth but I believe that the reason why radars were placed is to avoid this, is not that the judge doesnt trust that the garda believes he/she was speeding what he cannot trust is his judgement, othewise it will be bed on intuition.

Otherwise you could have a garda standing in the side of the road with pen and paper going, I think this one is going over the limit by, at least, 20 kmh, write down the license place and giving him a ticket.

It might be different if the Garda was in a car doing 120 on a 120 kmh zone and then you overtake him doing 180 kmh. But even then I am not 100% sure how he would proceed...

I could be wrong though, I know it works like this in my country, not sure about here.

Mr Simpson

I'd imagine if an unmarked car followed you for say a kilometer, and his speed didnt drop below the speed limit, then it would be very hard for the judge to dismiss this in court. I wouldn't say callibration would make much of a difference if you were 20km/h (just an example) over the speed limit.

Chimaera

This is why guards have vans with cameras in them. If it were so easy to catch people with a gps then why would AGS need vans? They could just throw in a video and a gps into a squad car and drive around. The reason is because it's not sufficient evidence and as such a decent solicitor would have it thrown out.

They use vans because it's a more efficient use of time and resources to put one or two Gardaí in a van and have them catch lots of people rather than have them catch one at a time chasing them down in a car.

Damien360

Can the OP not accept they were in the wrong, pay the fine, take the points, learn a lesson and move on ?

AugustusMinimus

I'd be stunned if a Garda (just one Garda) could go to court without a shred of evidence and have a speeding fine upheld.

The system is wrong IMO if this is the case.

IMO, all Garda cars should have the speed detecting system that's in Traffic Corps cars to avoid the situation arising.

Yawns

Chimaera wrote: »

They use vans because it's a more efficient use of time and resources to put one or two Gardaí in a van and have them catch lots of people rather than have them catch one at a time chasing them down in a car.

No they use the vans because they couldn't possibly use a gps and video to determine every speeding offence on a road. It's more reliable and efficient to use speed detectors such as vans and guns on tripods etc.

Think about it for a second. If GPS and camera in car was reliable then they really wouldn't use vans. The gps and camera would be cheaper and more efficient than a van in every way.

1: Car simply drives around as a rolling speed check instead of in just one location at a time. Nobody jamming on the brakes coming to one location, they have to do the speed limit or under all the way along with the car. As it is ppl jam on, pass the van and speed up.

2: Because of the ability to drive and record you can catch just as many by simply not pulling them over. Have a software that will pull the reg of speeding cars automatically.

3: The guards get paid the same as they would in the van except they now patrol around instead of being stuck in a single location whilst operating the van.

Of course gps and camera are not reliable and thus we have vans along with handhelds and tripod mounted cameras. Think of how much was spent getting this equipment in and the training. This alone will tell you why camera and gps is not enough proof. Unless the OP was bombing it past the squad car I'd imagine they'd have a hard time prosecuting him.

For all we know he was going 140 in a 100 zone. Wouldn't take much to convince the judge then of course that he was an idiot.

Yawns

Damien360 wrote: »

Can the OP not accept they were in the wrong, pay the fine, take the points, learn a lesson and move on ?

I think he has accepted it. He's just curious as to whether the actual evidence would hold up in court. He has said a couple of times that he will most likely be paying the fine when it arrives, just that the officer made a remark that he will be getting points and a fine based on a gps device and a separate camera device.

Some guards show little knowledge of some of the rules they are trying to enforce. Like a few weeks ago I along with others were told we'd be arrested unless a clamp was placed back onto a car and I would be arrested for taking photographs even tho it was a civil matter and the pics being taken was in a public place. Had that particular guard arrested us, he'd have had a bit of embarrassment on his hands.

Our man in Havana

Damien360 wrote: »

Can the OP not accept they were in the wrong, pay the fine, take the points, learn a lesson and move on ?

The state must make its case. The OP is entitled to put them to proof on each element of their case.

slimjimmc

paddyl72 wrote: »

I was pulled over,shown footage and told a speeding fine would be issued

Shown footage? I strongly suspect it was an unmarked Traffic Corp car that got ya. There are plenty of them about. If so they probably have your speed clocked too.

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I'd be stunned if a Garda (just one Garda) could go to court without a shred of evidence and have a speeding fine upheld.

The system is wrong IMO if this is the case.

IMO, all Garda cars should have the speed detecting system that's in Traffic Corps cars to avoid the situation arising.

Many offences simply require the opinion of a Garda. The Garda is sworn to uphold the law and is therefore considered to be a reliable and trusted witness of behalf of the State. The Garda's testimony is considered evidence in such cases.

Veloce

slimjimmc wrote: »

paddyl72 wrote: »

I was pulled over,shown footage and told a speeding fine would be issued

Shown footage? I strongly suspect it was an unmarked Traffic Corp car that got ya. There are plenty of them about. If so they probably have your speed clocked too.

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I'd be stunned if a Garda (just one Garda) could go to court without a shred of evidence and have a speeding fine upheld.

The system is wrong IMO if this is the case.

IMO, all Garda cars should have the speed detecting system that's in Traffic Corps cars to avoid the situation arising.

Many offences simply require the opinion of a Garda. The Garda is sworn to uphold the law and is therefore considered to be a reliable and trusted witness of behalf of the State. The Garda's testimony is considered evidence in such cases.

The OP said that the Garda was unable to give the speed recorded that was over the limit.

The Garda is sworn to uphold the law but this normally have to be verified with fact such as a speed reading from a laser or radar gun. if it was only a few KMs over the limit then chance your arm in court. If it was excessive don't waste your time. I'm sure you know yourself roughly what speed your doing.

Jimbob 83

So a speeder is compaining that a Garda's word is court means more than his while trying to avoid a fine and points even though you were speeding, makes sense

Senna

I got caught speeding by a unmarked car years ago, it had a monitor on the dash which had my top and average speed marked on it. That was 10 years ago, so i'm sure their new camera systems would have all this information too.

When the fine comes in the post, if its for speeding it will have a speed marked on it, or it maybe for "reckless driving" etc, which does not need to have a speed indicated.

Yawns

I'd imagine it was a road corps car of some sort and he's done for. The fact that he seems to accept that he will receive and pay the fine would suggest he wasn't just a tad over the limit but quite a bit.

On a side note, I believe they can't add points from multiple offences in the same incident but can they add the fines.

In an eg if he gets done for speeding and reckless driving would he receive 2 points for speeding alone but 2 fines, 1 for each offence. Or am I thinking complete horse **** here? Is it simply a case of they can only do him for the one thing mainly and hit him with whichever is the more sever of the offences.

Mr Simpson

AFAIK only Traffic Corps cars have video, so if they showed him footage I would imagine they were Traffic Corp. Also, those cars display their own speed on the video, this could be used in the event of a prosecution, so its not just the Garda's word. I don't think Gardai have any built in speed detection equipment, only speed guns.

audidiesel

twill depend on the district court judge if they will accept it or not. the majority would.

the questions you would have to ask are how over the limit were you and how long was the unmarked following you?

if you were only a few km/h over the limit and if the unmarked wasnt behind you for more than a few hundred meters then it may be worth challenging. but beware that if you loose there is a higher penalty etc.

if they werent traffic and they pulled you, then id say you were lifting it as generally speaking we wouldnt stop someone like that unless they were going pretty quickly.

without knowing the answers to the two questions asked above, nobody on this can give you an accurate answer im afraid.