Drunk Cycling

AlfaZen

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/student-pleads-guilty-to-new-drunkcycling-offence-29759579.html

Any thoughts on been prosecuted for drunk cycling?

I think we are getting closer to having a bike license. Personally I think cycling while drunk is stupid but, how much different is it to walking drunk? Any bad outcome to both is going to be the same.

keano25

It's been illegal to cycle drunk for years. As far as a bicycle licence that will never happen.

Next!

Pro Hoc Vice

AlfaZen wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/student-pleads-guilty-to-new-drunkcycling-offence-29759579.html

Any thoughts on been prosecuted for drunk cycling?

I think we are getting closer to having a bike license. Personally I think cycling while drunk is stupid but, how much different is it to walking drunk? Any bad outcome to both is going to be the same.

As pointed out being drunk on a bike is an offence, also being drunk in a public place to such an extent as to be a danger to yourself or others is an offence, covering your very drunk pedestrian.

Victor

There are actually a disproportionate number of people killed in 'single bicycle collisions' late at night, which suggests they have been drinking.

Alek

It's been illegal to cycle drunk for years

It has been illegal to cycle while incapable of controlling the bike due to intoxication. There is no alcohol limit specified, I guess it would take quite a lot of pints for some to fall off the bike.

djburchgrove

I think Cycling drunk is a touchy issue.

1. There is no way the blood alcohol limit level should be anything near as strict as drunk driving limits.

2. In contrast to driving drunk, you're not really a danger to anybody on the road but yourself.

3. As easy as driving a car is, It requires far more skill and know-how to get moving than cycling, hence decision making and reaction times etc. don't really come into the equation.

4. I don't know many cyclists who would be too keen on taking their prized bike (more serious cyclists) out on a session anyway, leaving it locked up somewhere where there is loads of drunk people would scare the life out of me.

Personally, I think there should be some sort of limit, but anyone who tells me I can't have four beers and cycle home is getting laughed at.

Pro Hoc Vice

djburchgrove wrote: »

I think Cycling drunk is a touchy issue.

1. There is no way the blood alcohol limit level should be anything near as strict as drunk driving limits.

2. In contrast to driving drunk, you're not really a danger to anybody on the road but yourself.

3. As easy as driving a car is, It requires far more skill and know-how to get moving than cycling, hence decision making and reaction times etc. don't really come into the equation.

4. I don't know many cyclists who would be too keen on taking their prized bike (more serious cyclists) out on a session anyway, leaving it locked up somewhere where there is loads of drunk people would scare the life out of me.

Personally, I think there should be some sort of limit, but anyone who tells me I can't have four beers and cycle home is getting laughed at.

There is one large misconception about drink driving, while we all know about limits there is also what is called intoxicated driving, for that there must be evidence of an intoxicant (during, drugs illegal or legal) and there must be evidence of not having proper control due to the intoxication. So in relation to your first point there is no limit for a bike, it's simply the evidence of AGS that you are so intoxicated not to have proper control.

In point 2 you are very much a danger to others including pedestrians and other road users, fall flat in front of a car, car avoids bike and crashes into wall.

In point 3 as pointed out its being so intoxicated rather than just over a limit.

If after 4 pints you have proper control of the bike then work away, for some people they would not.

The relevant section http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0025/sec0006.html#sec6

imitation

I'm sorry but drunk cycling is no where near drunk walking. A drunk person on a bike is a hazard to pedestrians, and to drivers who have to try to avoid him. Its also likely the person is not going to have any safety gear, hi viz or lights and its pretty likely when they will be cycling at night when there is reduced visibility and reaction times for everybody is that bit poorer.

Everybody should be held to the same standards,you can't have 4 pints and go onto a building site or a plant floor, why should it be different for a bike which has plenty of risks of its own.

Mr.Fred

AlfaZen wrote: »

how much different is it to walking drunk? Any bad outcome to both is going to be the same.

For one you'd be inclined to walk on the footpath drunk or not obviously there's the odd exception. Where as most would automatically get on their bike and head off on the road with moving traffic.

IMO It's a stupid thing to be doing anyway but I suspect it goes on a fair bit.

Seweryn

Insp Kennedy said yesterday that the prosecution of Mr Akpaku "sends out the message that those who drink and cycle and don't wear reflective gear at night will be prosecuted".

Does that mean that you are OK in a hi-vis at night?

The Ging and I

djburchgrove wrote: »

I think Cycling drunk is a touchy issue.

1. There is no way the blood alcohol limit level should be anything near as strict as drunk driving limits.

2. In contrast to driving drunk, you're not really a danger to anybody on the road but yourself.

3. As easy as driving a car is, It requires far more skill and know-how to get moving than cycling, hence decision making and reaction times etc. don't really come into the equation.

4. I don't know many cyclists who would be too keen on taking their prized bike (more serious cyclists) out on a session anyway, leaving it locked up somewhere where there is loads of drunk people would scare the life out of me.

Personally, I think there should be some sort of limit, but anyone who tells me I can't have four beers and cycle home is getting laughed at.

A real cyclist has a bike for every occasion, hence the need for "A drinking bike".

Seaneh

I cycled home after two beers a few weeks ago and even then, it was dicey, my reaction times were noticeably slower and more than once I felt like I shouldn't be doing this.

Won't be doing it again.

Lumen

Every part of this story annoys me.

The offence itself, the striking out of the offence because the offender is a nicely-intentioned idiot, the dragging in and conflating of hi-vis (which is not a legal requirement) but not lights (which are), even by the defendants own solicitor, the lack of detail in reporting.

This perfectly sums up the quality of our justice system:

Judge: "I don't think I can disqualify him from cycling, can I?"

HOW ABOUT KNOWING THE LAW, YOU CLOWN.

slap/dash

Well said lumen.

This is what single speed bikes are for! It's not a great idea but anyone who has cycled dame st on a weekend night knows that your level of sobriety is pretty much irrelevant unless you're plastered.

slap/dash

Ie: the dangers are from other road users and drunks

Pro Hoc Vice

Lumen wrote: »

Every part of this story annoys me.

The offence itself, the striking out of the offence because the offender is a nicely-intentioned idiot, the dragging in and conflating of hi-vis (which is not a legal requirement) but not lights (which are), even by the defendants own solicitor, the lack of detail in reporting.

This perfectly sums up the quality of our justice system:

Judge: "I don't think I can disqualify him from cycling, can I?"

HOW ABOUT KNOWING THE LAW, YOU CLOWN.

The judge and inspector both stated it was their first case for such an offence. I have done numerous cases related to driving and never for riding a bike. While the law was the 1961 act it was repealed and replaced in 2010.

Judges every day in court ask counsel what is the maximum punishment, I know many who have been barristers and solicitors for years and still need to check the statute book. It's easy for me involved in a case to know the punishment, the judge on the other hand is dealing with hundreds of different cases a day, sometimes he will need to ask what am I allowed to impose. In fact a person asking a question when he does not know the answer is not a clown.

bambergbike

infosys wrote: »

If after 4 pints you have proper control of the bike then work away, for some people they would not.

My guess would be that lots of people still have decent enough bike handling skills after 4 pints, but that their perception of risk could be a bit skewed even after 2.

More skewed even than usual, that is. Even when sober, people can perceive the risks of cycling in strange ways. Some people are unnecessarily fearful and afraid to ever cycle on roads at all, some people fetishize safety gear, and a handful of people seem blithely confident that nothing bad will ever happen to them even if they ignore every element of good cycling practice every day. You don't have to be drunk to be a Darwin awards candidate, we see them during the day as well.

But if you are a Darwin awards candidate even when sober, and then you go out for a session, and then you get on your bike and feel invincible and fly down a steep hill with a sharp corner at the bottom and a concrete wall to slam into if you don't take it correctly...your bike-handling skills might be more or less intact, but you could easily push beyond their limits.

I'm thinking of a particular location where at least one drunk cyclist has been killed. It's not a hazard during the day when the wall is clearly visible and traffic is too heavy for cyclists to get up enough speed to need advanced cornering skills, but it's dangerous at night when visibility is reduced and cyclists get a clear run down the hill. It's also very good fun at night when the road is quiet, particularly after a few confidence-boosting pints in one of the pubs or beer gardens that dull the vibration from bouncing over the cobblestones.

I don't think it's criminally irresponsible to cycle down that hill after a few pints, or that people should walk or get taxis or avoid drinking completely if they are cycling home. I throw a few soft drinks and dinner into drinking sessions, and I check my brakes and lights before setting off and remind myself that my confidence is chemically induced (and misplaced!) and that I should feather my brakes in good time rather than braking hard at the last minute. I also keep my bike in a generally road-worthy state to minimize my chances of having to react to a blowout or a snapped chain in an awkward spot.

A limit for cyclists is probably a good idea, but I think it should be much lower than the limit for motorists. If cyclists are unable to cycle in a straight line, I would have no problems with a garda letting the air out of their tyres to make sure they get a bus or taxi home or walk. If they are too incapacitated for any of those options, a night in the cells might be in their own best interest.

humbert

The garda, inspector and solicitor all mention reflective gear as if not having it is on a par with cycling so drunk you can't speak.

The judge making jokes about the case seems very unprofessional but consistent with the stories you hear from district counts.

invaderzimirl

i think the idea of bike license, is a great idea.

people should be punished for a whole slew of offences that are committed.

cycling drunk or even slightly intoxicated, should not be allowed as its the other people on the road that are endangered even when you pass a cyclist normally you have to leave room for them to wobble and or avoid things once you add drink you dont even know what could happen. and have no way of knowing it.

also bicycles are meant to obey the rules of the road when on the road not go through red lights because "ah it ok im on a bike" again add drink the ability to correctly judge distances/speeds is effected.

mondeo

I did cycle after a few glasses of wine on an occasion or two. I was abit wobbly no doubt but don't plan doing it again.

Bike license will never happen, a voluntary urban cycling class would be handy though.

Days 298

I don't think drink was the big issue for the gards. It was the whole erratic cycling in the middle of the road at night time with no lighting.

Can't see the gards ever having an issue with cycling after a drink if you are lit up, slowly cycling and keep in. Not like they'll be setting up checkpoints for it.

Lumen

infosys wrote: »

The judge and inspector both stated it was their first case for such an offence. I have done numerous cases related to driving and never for riding a bike. While the law was the 1961 act it was repealed and replaced in 2010.

Judges every day in court ask counsel what is the maximum punishment, I know many who have been barristers and solicitors for years and still need to check the statute book. It's easy for me involved in a case to know the punishment, the judge on the other hand is dealing with hundreds of different cases a day, sometimes he will need to ask what am I allowed to impose. In fact a person asking a question when he does not know the answer is not a clown.

The problem is not the admission of ignorance, it's the ignorance itself. I expect judges to know the law.

Pro Hoc Vice

Lumen wrote: »

The problem is not the admission of ignorance, it's the ignorance itself. I expect judges to know the law.

It would be impossible for any person to have an complete knowledge of all criminal statutes. To collect all criminal statutes in one place with amendments would run to several volumes. I would bet that without looking only a handful of lawyers and judges would know the punishment for this crime.

The regular stuff they will know well they deal with it every day, but I practice as a barrister, there is still lots of stuff I come across and have to look it up, for the penalty I have to confirm all amendments and if necessary the Fines Act.

To me with 8 years study and 10 years practice, I find it incredulous that a person would believe it possible for one person to know all criminal law statutes off the top of his head.

Jawgap

Seweryn wrote: »

Insp Kennedy said yesterday that the prosecution of Mr Akpaku "sends out the message that those who drink and cycle and don't wear reflective gear at night will be prosecuted".

........

......but not fined :rolleyes:

Lumen wrote: »

Every part of this story annoys me.

The offence itself, the striking out of the offence because the offender is a nicely-intentioned idiot, the dragging in and conflating of hi-vis (which is not a legal requirement) but not lights (which are), even by the defendants own solicitor, the lack of detail in reporting.

This perfectly sums up the quality of our justice system:

Judge: "I don't think I can disqualify him from cycling, can I?"

HOW ABOUT KNOWING THE LAW, YOU CLOWN.

In fairness to the judge there's all kinds of everything come through the District Court and they can be hearing a traffic case one minute, a customs one five minutes later and an environmental protection one a few minutes after that. It's not that unusual for them to ask the prosecuting authority (Guards, Customs and Excise, EPA etc) about sentencing options.

Saying that......if the judge didn't want to blemish the character of this impressive youth (who gets pi$$ed drinking cider, ffs) he could have given him the Probation Act and required him to make a hefty, preferably eye-watering, contribution to the Court Poor Box.

Letting him off and dismissing the charge sends out the wrong message to cyclists and to the Guards. What Garda is going to arsed taking a case now if he thinks the work he puts into it will just be turfed out?

ford2600

I've passed a couple of Garda check points on bike with 4/5 pints on board.
lit up like a Xmas tree, in control of bike never had a bother with them

Lumen

infosys wrote: »

To me with 8 years study and 10 years practice, I find it incredulous that a person would believe it possible for one person to know all criminal law statutes off the top of his head.

This doesn't surprise me at all.

Beasty

ford2600 wrote: »

I've passed a couple of Garda check points on bike with 4/5 pints on board.
lit up like a Xmas tree, in control of bike never had a bother with them

Presumably if they had stopped you it could have been a whole different story. We all tend to think we're in control after a few ...

Jawgap

Just on the judge knowing the statutes thing - in the UK, the magistrates know feck all (even less than a district judge here) - and even the stipendiary magistrates (the paid magistrates) struggle once you go anywhere beyond fairly mainstream stuff.

A lot of the training in the UK given to the magistrates is basically to make them less bonkers.

ford2600

Beasty wrote: »

Presumably if they had stopped you it could have been a whole different story. We all tend to think we're in control after a few ...

I stopped and spoke to them on two occasions. Told them exactly where I was and what I had drank. They made no issue of it.

I'm not suggesting my reflexes were as good as if I was sober just making the point that AGS that I've met didn't have an issue

HivemindXX

Just to note, I don't think anyone who has cycled through town late on a Friday night will buy the idea that drunk pedestrians don't impinge on traffic more than sober ones.

tomasrojo

I think a lot of the gardaí (and, I guess, judges) think that "reflective clothing" (to use the RSA-speak) is a legal requirement.

CatFromHue

HivemindXX wrote: »

Just to note, I don't think anyone who has cycled through town late on a Friday night will buy the idea that drunk pedestrians don't impinge on traffic more than sober ones.

That doesn't make any difference to drunk cycling, or even drink driving.

For me what ever the rules are for a car should be the same for a bike. If you're drunk on a bike it's not you who could be the only person to go tits up i.e. if you veer into the middle of the road unexpectedly or fall off on the road you could cause an accident or car to swerve and hit another car.

I'd say the people who've cycled and had a few beers and said they were ok on here if put in a car with the same amount of booze and asked afterwards what they thought they'd prob say they were ok too.

ford2600

I'd say the people who've cycled and had a few beers and said they were ok on here if put in a car with the same amount of booze and asked afterwards what they thought they'd prob say they were ok too.[/quote]

You might say, but you would be wrong

begod

The first person to be prosecuted in Ireland for drunk cycling and he's not from Ireland, what's the odds of that!

Pro Hoc Vice

begod wrote: »

The first person to be prosecuted in Ireland for drunk cycling and he's not from Ireland, what's the odds of that!

Not strictly correct, the 2010 act replaced the 1961 act there have been others convicted in the past but very few.

monument

Seweryn wrote: »

Insp Kennedy said yesterday that the prosecution of Mr Akpaku "sends out the message that those who drink and cycle and don't wear reflective gear at night will be prosecuted".

Does that mean that you are OK in a hi-vis at night?

A. Everybody without high-vis will be prosecuted

B. Only those who are drunk and not wearing it will be prosecuted

C. High-vis is a replacement for lights.

Victor wrote: »

There are actually a disproportionate number of people killed in 'single bicycle collisions' late at night, which suggests they have been drinking.

In Ireland?

imitation wrote: »

I'm sorry but drunk cycling is no where near drunk walking. A drunk person on a bike is a hazard to pedestrians, and to drivers who have to try to avoid him. Its also likely the person is not going to have any safety gear, hi viz or lights and its pretty likely when they will be cycling at night when there is reduced visibility and reaction times for everybody is that bit poorer.

Everybody should be held to the same standards,you can't have 4 pints and go onto a building site or a plant floor, why should it be different for a bike which has plenty of risks of its own.

I'm sorry but drunk walking is no where near drunk cycling. A drunk person walking is a hazard to cyclists, and to drivers who have to try to avoid him/her. Its also likely the person is not going to have any safety gear, hi viz or lights and its pretty likely when they will be walking at night when there is reduced visibility and reaction times for everybody is that bit poorer.

Everybody should be held to the same standards,you can't have 4 pints and go onto a building site or a plant floor, why should it be different for a walking which has plenty of risks of its own.

invaderzimirl wrote: »

i think the idea of bike license, is a great idea.

people should be punished for a whole slew of offences that are committed.

cycling drunk or even slightly intoxicated, should not be allowed as its the other people on the road that are endangered even when you pass a cyclist normally you have to leave room for them to wobble and or avoid things once you add drink you dont even know what could happen. and have no way of knowing it.

also bicycles are meant to obey the rules of the road when on the road not go through red lights because "ah it ok im on a bike" again add drink the ability to correctly judge distances/speeds is effected.

I think the idea of public walking (and even more so a running) license, is a great idea.

People should be punished for a whole slew of offences that are committed.

Walking drunk or even walking slightly intoxicated, should not be allowed as its the other people on the road that are endangered even when you pass a person walking normally you have to leave room for them to wobble and or avoid things once you add drink you dont even know what could happen. and have no way of knowing it.

Also pedestrians are meant to obey the rules of the road when on the road not go through red lights because "ah, it ok, I'm running across" again add drink the ability to correctly judge distances/speeds is effected.

CatFromHue wrote: »

That doesn't make any difference to drunk cycling, or even drink driving.

For me what ever the rules are for a car should be the same for a bike. If you're drunk on a bike it's not you who could be the only person to go tits up i.e. if you veer into the middle of the road unexpectedly or fall off on the road you could cause an accident or car to swerve and hit another car.

For me what ever the rules are for a car should be the same for walking. If you're drunk while walking it's not you who could be the only person to go tits up i.e. if you fall into the middle of the road unexpectedly or fall off on the road you could cause an accident or bike or car to swerve and hit another car.

CatFromHue wrote: »

I'd say the people who've cycled and had a few beers and said they were ok on here if put in a car with the same amount of booze and asked afterwards what they thought they'd prob say they were ok too.

I have in the past cycled with a few, but I'd never drive with a few.

DaithiMC

djburchgrove wrote: »

I think Cycling drunk is a touchy issue.

1. There is no way the blood alcohol limit level should be anything near as strict as drunk driving limits.

Don't agree - the limits for driving have been set with reference to the loss in control or reaction speeds that alcohol endows - it should be no different for any vehicle\contraption using shared public roads.

2. In contrast to driving drunk, you're not really a danger to anybody on the road but yourself.

Not correct - I have personal experience of a drunken cyclist knocked down while swerving into traffic - the psychological effect of knocking anyone down should be considered no less a trauma than the death or injury of the person knocked down.

3. As easy as driving a car is, It requires far more skill and know-how to get moving than cycling, hence decision making and reaction times etc. don't really come into the equation.

I agree with the complexity bit of your argument and perhaps the speed at which both vehicles travel means that the time that reactions take to have an effect are different but within the time domain of something serious happening you are talking seconds and IMO no difference should be made on this basis.

4. I don't know many cyclists who would be too keen on taking their prized bike (more serious cyclists) out on a session anyway, leaving it locked up somewhere where there is loads of drunk people would scare the life out of me.

Agreed but many people who drink and cycle are also cycling beaters or clankers to get to/from college or work so the value of the bike doesn't usually come in to it. In general I think great progress has been made in terms of curbing drunk driving and I think it has, to younger generations become more of a taboo than for older middle-aged or older people. I know my own parents take many more chances still than I ever would and the really young are probably cereberally challenged but once they have some responsibilities I think they tend to toe the line better than previous generations.

Personally, I think there should be some sort of limit, but anyone who tells me I can't have four beers and cycle home is getting laughed at.

Yeah - its all fun and games until someone loses an eye eh?

what_traffic

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/student-drunk-cycling-could-have-caused-terrible-accident-1.1596779

This is fishy.

Looks like it was an AA (NOT Alcoholics Anonymous) PR story into the papers. Handy they also had different quotes from Conor Faughnan lined up for the respective papers. Why Cycling Ireland or Cyclist.ie not asked for a comment?

Beasty

I really cannot imagine CI providing comments even if asked...

Dermot Illogical

OK. I've had a few. Where's me bike?

jimmycrackcorm

imitation wrote: »

I'm sorry but drunk cycling is no where near drunk walking. A drunk person on a bike is a hazard to pedestrians, and to drivers who have to try to avoid him. Its also likely the person is not going to have any safety gear, hi viz or lights and its pretty likely when they will be cycling at night when there is reduced visibility and reaction times for everybody is that bit poorer.

Everybody should be held to the same standards,you can't have 4 pints and go onto a building site or a plant floor, why should it be different for a bike which has plenty of risks of its own.

I think this is rubbish. Drunk cycling is of no danger to pedestrians at all as the cycling is on the road and in fact is on a par with drunk pedestrians who can and do fall on the road.

As for applying the same standards then you might as well suggest that every pedestrian walking out of a pub should be held to the same on a footpath. I.e. not allowed to walk when drunk

Jawgap

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

OK. I've had a few. Where's me bike?

Have you got your hi-viz and your helmet on?

Plastik

Just don't go near the Sally Gap. I hear it's dark up there at night.

imitation

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I think this is rubbish. Drunk cycling is of no danger to pedestrians at all as the cycling is on the road and in fact is on a par with drunk pedestrians who can and do fall on the road.

As for applying the same standards then you might as well suggest that every pedestrian walking out of a pub should be held to the same on a footpath. I.e. not allowed to walk when drunk

The rest of my opinion is invalid because you don't like the pedestrian bit ? Nit pick all you like but there is a difference between getting on a bike and walking to a taxi after going to the pub, your reactions will be notably slower if a car pulls out, your more likely to be out in the middle of the road on that windy country lane etc.

Disagree all you like, but in my eyes the attitude is no different to the "ah shure til be grand" attitude people used to ( and still have ) about having 4-5 pints and jumping into the car.

GreyEagle

I agree with the poster who said we need a different bike for every activity.

For the trip to the pub what you need is a purpose built Tricycle, with lights front and back and reflective strips on all surfaces. Oh yes, and an upright bottle cage designed to hold a pint glass.

Enjoy your night out! It may be your last

No Pants

Since the case was struck out, does any of this actually mean anything?

monument

imitation wrote: »

The rest of my opinion is invalid because you don't like the pedestrian bit ? Nit pick all you like but there is a difference between getting on a bike and walking to a taxi after going to the pub, your reactions will be notably slower if a car pulls out, your more likely to be out in the middle of the road on that windy country lane etc.

Disagree all you like, but in my eyes the attitude is no different to the "ah shure til be grand" attitude people used to ( and still have ) about having 4-5 pints and jumping into the car.

Right back at you: I say walking is just as bad or worse than cycling drunk. And I can then also say: Disagree all you like, but in my eyes your attitude is no different to the "ah shure til be grand" attitude people used to ( and still have ) about having 4-5 pints and jumping into the car.

We can make generalised sweeping statements about there being no difference between a car and a bicycle, but it's simply not true. There's major differences in acceleration, speed, mass, and the fact 4-6 of your mates can't jam in.

While there's always the risk of a drunk person -- walking or cycling -- causing an collision in which others are harmed, the reality is that drunk drivers directly have caused massive amounts of death and injury which will never compare to the amount of cyclist-caused deaths.

imitation

monument wrote: »

We can make generalised sweeping statements about there being no difference between a car and a bicycle, but it's simply not true. There's major differences in acceleration, speed, mass, and the fact 4-6 of your mates can't jam in.

Did I make a statement saying there is no difference ? Your just inferring what you want. My point is, you are at more risk cycling drunk, to your self and to motorists who might have to avoid you.

Rovi

Don't forget about the motorist who hits the drunken cyclist!
Even if they are entirely blameless, they have to live with their memories and emotions for the rest of their lives.

jive

So what is the actual law? You can cycle after a few so long as you are not all over the place and a general threat to other road users?

Pro Hoc Vice

jive wrote: »

So what is the actual law? You can cycle after a few so long as you are not all over the place and a general threat to other road users?

The law in relation to bikes and horse and carts, http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0025/sec0006.html#sec6

The law in relation to being intoxicated in public, http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0004.html#sec4

To the best of my knowledge section 12 of the following Act is still in place http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1872/94/pdfs/ukpga_18720094_en.pdf