Garda Tax/Insurance checkpoint on private property?

brownej

I was coming out of the University of Limerick this evening and there was a Garda Tax/Insurance ceckpoint at the gate.
They were inside the entrance on the University grounds. Are any tickets issued here valid given that any vehice stopped would have been on private property and not necessarily on a public road.

I wasn't stopped or anything but I was just curious.

Seanieke

I got stopped before on private grounds, Powerscourt Estate, for being on the phone. Was told by the Guard it's only private grounds if you own it!!

Stheno

Lads, Public roads are classed as any road that the public have free access to.

Sounds like it applies in both your cases, or else the owners of the private roads asked for a checkpoint?

MugMugs

Stheno wrote: »

Lads, Public roads are classed as any road that the public have free access to.

+1

If you can get in from outside then it's fair game.

bazz26

The UL campus is a public place afaik where the public have right of access to and from it. Not the same as private property.

Stheno

bazz26 wrote: »

The UL campus is a public place afaik where the public have right of access to and from it. Not the same as private property.

So is powerscourt.

Trhiggy83

serious amount of checkpoints around limerick these days, i have went trough 3 in the last month. Have lived in dublin for the last 4 years and probably only went through a handful

coylemj

Stheno wrote: »

Lads, Public roads are classed as any road that the public have free access to.

'Access with vehicles' is the key, it doesn't matter whether access is free or if you haver to pay to enter. A car park in a racecourse where people have to pay to park would also be a public place.

Stheno

coylemj wrote: »

'Access with vehicles' is the key, it doesn't matter whether access is free or if you haver to pay to enter. A car park in a racecourse where people have to pay to park would also be a public place.

Didn't know that, thanks

piston

I got read the riot act and threatened with a fixed penalty notice by a jobsworth PSNI officer in a supermarket carpark earlier this year.

I had committed the heinous crime of reversing out of a parking space before putting on my seatbelt. I kindly pointed out to her that it is perfectly legal to reverse a car without a seat belt, something that was confirmed by her colleague. She wasn't very happy.

triple-M

piston wrote: »

I got read the riot act and threatened with a fixed penalty notice by a jobsworth PSNI officer in a supermarket carpark earlier this year.

I had committed the heinous crime of reversing out of a parking space before putting on my seatbelt. I kindly pointed out to her that it is perfectly legal to reverse a car without a seat belt, something that was confirmed by her colleague. She wasn't very happy.

is it the same down south regarding reversing without a seatbelt?just curious

cormie

Was curious about this too? Saw a garda hiding in somebodies garden doing a speed check before. Would they need permission for this? Would they need a warrant? Would it depend on whether they had to open a gate to get there?

piston

triple-M wrote: »

is it the same down south regarding reversing without a seatbelt?just curious

It definitely is. I remember it from doing my test. I am from the south, done my test in the south, but live in a border region and do most of my driving in the north.

Tefral

Under the Road Traffic Act 1961

“public place” means any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge

They can charge for non display of tax and insurance in places such as UL or Petrol Stations etc under this act.

CrowdedHouse

piston wrote: »

It definitely is. I remember it from doing my test. I am from the south, done my test in the south, but live in a border region and do most of my driving in the north.

Think it goes back to the days before inertia reel belts were commonplace.

You had to adjust the belt to fit you,could be quite restrictive if you tried to turn around

mattser

Trhiggy83 wrote: »

serious amount of checkpoints around limerick these days, i have went trough 3 in the last month. Have lived in dublin for the last 4 years and probably only went through a handful

So what you're saying is...........

granturismo

mattser wrote: »

So what you're saying is...........

The incidence of garda checkpoints in the Limerick region seems to be higher than the posters previous experience over the last 4 years in the Dublin region. Simples.

mattser

granturismo wrote: »

The incidence of garda checkpoints in the Limerick region seems to be higher than the posters previous experience over the last 4 years in the Dublin region. Simples.

http://b-static.net/vbulletin/images/icons/icon12.png

SilverBell

CrowdedHouse wrote: »

Think it goes back to the days before inertia reel belts were commonplace.

You had to adjust the belt to fit you,could be quite restrictive if you tried to turn around

That maybe part of it, but the seat belt is only designed to work when going forward.

166man

Quick question, according to the security personnel in UCD, it's private property but seeing as anyone can drive a car though UCD with no implications does that not make it public property?

Also, if it was private could you technically drive through it without tax/insurance/NCT and be fine to do so? I should point out that I'm fully taxed/insured etc but merely curious....

Paulw

166man wrote: »

Quick question, according to the security personnel in UCD, it's private property but seeing as anyone can drive a car though UCD with no implications does that not make it public property?

Also, if it was private could you technically drive through it without tax/insurance/NCT and be fine to do so? I should point out that I'm fully taxed/insured etc but merely curious....

UCD is private property, however, the roads are open to the public, therefore, the requirement for tax/insurance/NCT exists and you can be prosecuted on UCD grounds by AGS for not having/displaying tax/insurance/NCT.

Simple really.

166man

Paulw wrote: »

UCD is private property, however, the roads are open to the public, therefore, the requirement for tax/insurance/NCT exists and you can be prosecuted on UCD grounds by AGS for not having/displaying tax/insurance/NCT.

Simple really.

Cheers I had a feeling that's what it was, are the car-parks public or private then seeing as anyone can drive in and park with no implications?

awec

This post has been deleted.

166man

awec wrote: »

Public.

If you can freely access it it's public.

Private is things like your own driveway, or your own garage.

I thought that too but according to NCPS folk it's a private car-park as I was clamped there a few weeks ago. Any idea?

awec

This post has been deleted.

langdang

awec wrote: »

Public.

If you can freely access it it's public.

Private is things like your own driveway, or your own garage.

Pretty much except to add the need for the distinction between "property" and "space" - ie it would seem private property can be a public space. EG if you were driving through UL and the road disintegrated into a chasm underneath you, I'm pretty sure you would be claiming off UL as it is their private property, their responsibility. But as it is a public space freely accessible, the Gardai are perfectly entitled to operate there.
I am not a lawyer BTW... just my attempt at common sense
EDIT -err the whole carpark thing seems a bit of grey area, I'm sure the Gardai are perfectly entitled to operate there, but from the clamping perspective,on entering you are agreeing to NCPS (or whoever) rules for that carpark.

djimi

Could one argue that because a carpark is controlled by NCPS it means that UCD are not technically giving permission to the public to use it freely (you have to pay for the "invite" so to speak), and therefore it is not public property?

langdang

I think cronin_j wrapped up a lot of these type of questions quite efficiently in post14.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Seanieke

OK, to rightly throw a spanner in the works.. Say you ARE the landowner of the place that the public have access to... Is it your private place but the public have access??

dilallio

I was asking a Garda about this a few years ago. His understanding was, any place that a member of the public can drive can be used for checkpoints.
Apartment car parks are also open to them where the apartment complex is not gated. Gated apartment complexes are deemed private even if the gates are open.

coylemj

Seanieke wrote: »

OK, to rightly throw a spanner in the works.. Say you ARE the landowner of the place that the public have access to... Is it your private place but the public have access??

Yes, the two are not incompatible. In this thread the term 'public place' only refers to the definition for the purposes of road traffic laws.

Say you own a field next to a school. The school tells you they are having a sports days and ask you to operate the field as a car park and charge no more than €2 a go, you agree. On the day the field remains your private property but for the purposes of the road traffic laws it is a public place even though you own the field and people have to pay to enter.

As someone has quoted the RTA 1961 definition of a public place, let me point out that that definition was always the one used for driving licence, insurance, dangerous driving etc. but display of tax disc used to be confined to a 'public road'. If the local authority had the responsibility to maintain the road then it was a public road but this meant that technically you couldn't be done for non-display of a tax disc in a shopping centre or any privately owned car park.

Recent legislation has merged the definitions so nowadays you must display a tax disc when in any public place regardless of whether it's privately owned or not.

For Forks Sake

piston wrote: »

I got read the riot act and threatened with a fixed penalty notice by a jobsworth PSNI officer in a supermarket carpark earlier this ye

She'd have been even less amused had you pointed out that she'd quoted the completely wrong Act as well ..unless you had 11 people in the car with you.

Proclamation of riotous assembly

The Act created a mechanism for certain local officials to make a proclamation ordering the dispersal of any group of more than twelve people who were "unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled together". If the group failed to disperse within one hour, then anyone remaining gathered was guilty of a felony without benefit of clergy, punishable by death.