dangerous driving

wayne riley

Hi all, i was stopped on way home today and was told by the garda i was getting done for dangerous driving. He said i drove over the chevrons and he will see me in court. Basically i went trough the roundabout and the road goes from two lanes into one about 100 yards after roundabout. the garda was on the inside lane and i over took him doing the correct speed limit and pulled in front of him as the two lanes became one. about 200 yards further down the road he pulled me over and asked me was i having a fcukn laugh and said i was driving dangerously. He took my licence and went back to his car and when he came back he asked why i drove over the chevron to which i replied i didn't to which he said tell it to the judge.
Maybe the drivers side might and i say might have drove over the chevrons, but how is this classed as dangerous if i did?
I am wondering what my points and fine are going to be?
I will not be pleading guilty to this charge as i don't believe i was driving dangerously.
What are your opinions on this matter.......

coylemj

Far worse than what you've described has been downgraded to careless driving in court. In the absence of a crash, a body or a movie showing multiple lunatic overtaking manoeuvres on a series of dangerous bends, there isn't a hope in hell that you'll be convicted of dangerous driving.

My tuppence worth anyway.

FWIW my mother was knocked down (actually tossed in the air and broke her ankle) on a zebra crossing by a drunk driver, it was reduced to careless driving when it went to court.

nuac

Roundabout incident is careless driving at most.

Coylem's relatives incident was DD imho.

Years ago some judge described DD as driving that would alarm a reasonable front seat passenger

intospace

coylemj wrote: »

Far worse than what you've described has been downgraded to careless driving in court. In the absence of a crash, a body or a movie showing multiple lunatic overtaking manoeuvres on a series of dangerous bends, there isn't a hope in hell that you'll be convicted of dangerous driving.

My tuppence worth anyway.

FWIW my mother was knocked down (actually tossed in the air and broke her ankle) on a zebra crossing by a drunk driver, it was reduced to careless driving when it went to court.

Corroborative evidence of speed is an almost impossible proof to meet in DD cases where there is no admission, speed gun, calculation by forensic collision investigators or police pursuit involved in the incident. I think the 2010 Act introduced CD causing death or serious bodily harm.

Wheelnut

Do we conclude that the Garda was on a motor bike if you were able to pass him by just putting one wheel on the chevrons?

If there was no obstruction and you were able to pass him easily while keeping the speed limit, could it be argued that he was baiting you and induced you to overtake him?

If he was using language like "havin' a fcuken laugh" you might have grounds for a complaint.

coylemj

intospace wrote: »

Corroborative evidence of speed is an almost impossible proof to meet in DD cases where there is no admission, speed gun, calculation by forensic collision investigators or police pursuit involved in the incident.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make but speed alone won't get you convicted of DD and it's not even an issue in this case - Garda said nothing to the OP about speed.

Turner

This is what the Garda has to prove to the Judge for a conviction for dangerous driving.

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.

wayne riley

Wheelnut wrote: »

Do we conclude that the Garda was on a motor bike if you were able to pass him by just putting one wheel on the chevrons?

If there was no obstruction and you were able to pass him easily while keeping the speed limit, could it be argued that he was baiting you and induced you to overtake him?

If he was using language like "havin' a fcuken laugh" you might have grounds for a complaint.

no the garda was in plain clothes and unmarked car. as i said we came off the roundabout with him slightly ahead of me, the road has a 60km limit and i passed him about halfway between roundabout and were the road goes form 2 lanes into 1. when he pulled me over he never showed a badge or said his name. he never said why he pulled me over just said he was doing me for dangerous driving. when he can back from his car after taking my details he asked why i crossed the chevrons and told me to tell the judge. as i say i might have gone over the chevrons on the drivers side, but how is that dangerous driving.

coylemj

wayne riley wrote: »

no the garda was in plain clothes and unmarked car. as i said we came off the roundabout with him slightly ahead of me, the road has a 60km limit and i passed him about halfway between roundabout and were the road goes form 2 lanes into 1. when he pulled me over he never showed a badge or said his name. he never said why he pulled me over just said he was doing me for dangerous driving. when he can back from his car after taking my details he asked why i crossed the chevrons and told me to tell the judge. as i say i might have gone over the chevrons on the drivers side, but how is that dangerous driving.

If he's a detective, he won't lower himself to prosecuting you for an RTA offence, he probably wouldn't know how to take out a summons anyway.

There's also the risk that if it does get to court, the judge would take the view that the Garda's wounded pride was the bigger deal than your driving and would throw out the case.

Hooch

coylemj wrote: »

If he's a detective, he won't lower himself to prosecuting you for an RTA offence, he probably wouldn't know how to take out a summons anyway.

Excuse me???? Can you expand on this wholly ignorant comment?

mcgarrett

Hooch wrote: »

Excuse me???? Can you expand on this wholly ignorant comment?

I think the comment was accurate, detectives are there for crime investigation not as revenue collectors in leather suits.

Wheelnut

mcgarrett wrote: »

I think the comment was accurate, detectives are there for crime investigation not as revenue collectors in leather suits.

PSSST.... Look at Hooch's avatar, you may need to check that the light on your bike is working!

CiniO

I was just reading through the thread.
And what got me thinging - OP said:

no the garda was in plain clothes and unmarked car.

OP - How did he pull you over?
Had the car blue signals and sirens?
Or was it his private car?

wayne riley

CiniO wrote: »

I was just reading through the thread.
And what got me thinging - OP said:


OP - How did he pull you over?
Had the car blue signals and sirens?
Or was it his private car?

Sorry for late reply.
Yeah it had the lights and siren.
Just a question, if my driving was dangerous why would he not pull me over straight away rather than waiting till i got out of the 60km zone approx 200 yards after the alleged incident. Was he looking for me to break the limit too????

knotknowbody

I was of the belief that the if being done for dangerous driving you would be arrested at the time of the incident, perhaps Hooch can verify if it would be normal for a member to let someone they intend to prosecute for dangerous driving continue on their journey having spoken to them or, would they normally be arrested at the scene of the incident.

schemingbohemia

To be honest, if he was ahead of you exiting the roundabout and you then overtook him knowing the road was merging into one, I'd regard it as rude (at least) and possibly dangerous.