Pulled over for speeding by a static guard.

Kop On

sidcon wrote: »

The fact that he says I admitted to speeding even though I didn't is wrong though, I never admit liability in my line of business it can land you in a lot of trouble and I always practice it.

You might need to practice it a bit harder, in your first post you admitted you said to the Garda that you "might have been going fast while overtaking (dual carriage way)". If that isn't an admission of speeding then I don't know what is.

You're just gonna have to suck this one up I think. In future when the Garda asks you do you know why I pulled over your response is "No, Garda, I have no idea?".

Tefral

From the road traffic act

Evidence of speed.

105.—Where the proof of the commission of an offence under this Act involves the proof of the speed at which a person (whether the accused or another person) was driving—

(a) the uncorroborated evidence of one witness stating his opinion as to that speed shall not be accepted as proof of that speed,

(b) the onus of establishing that speed prima facie may be discharged by tendering evidence of indications from which that speed can be inferred which were given by a watch or electronic or other apparatus, and it shall not be necessary to prove that the watch or electronic or other apparatus was accurate or in good working order.

Arbiter of Good Taste

thehouses wrote: »

Get a dash cam - they not only record your driving and speed if you get the right one but they also can record conversations and it would not be one word against the other then. Too late now though.

But the OP was speeding - in fact considerably so in a 100kph zone with 3 lanes of traffic. So dash cam isn't going to be much use to him

ironclaw

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

But the OP was speeding - in fact considerably so in a 100kph zone with 3 lanes of traffic. So dash cam isn't going to be much use to him

Dash cam is also inadmissible in court.

Shady Tady

sidcon wrote: »

I'm not playing the victim, I was trying to get off on a technicality but now that the guard has said I admitted to speeding there is nothing I can do.
The fact that he says I admitted to speeding even though I didn't is wrong though, I never admit liability in my line of business it can land you in a lot of trouble and I always practice it.

I love giving tickets to the likes of you!

Kop On

ironclaw wrote: »

Dash cam is also inadmissible in court.

You sure of that? I can understand how an audio recording from it might be inadmissable but how would video footage of a dash cam differ from say for example CCTV footage from a garage forecourt in a court case?

Tenger

Mary63 wrote: »

Is there anyone you could talk to to get the points wiped,seemingly some lucky beans have had their points wiped up to eight times and for doing the speed he said you were doing...............

Is that you Ivor?

Bang_Bang

ironclaw wrote: »

Dash cam is also inadmissible in court.

Why is this? Surely it's proof?. I'd love to know why lie detectors are not admissible either?

h2005

Ask to see the reading next time. When I was caught the guard offered to show it to me.

EunanMac

infacteh wrote: »

Best practice would dictate the Guard should show you the speed on the gun. He can't prosecute you without a calibrated instrument to determine speed, however he could prosecute you for careless/dangerous driving based on his opinion of your speed.

Most likely, he pinged your speed from a few hundred metres back before you were even aware of him, had put the speed gun in the pannier of the bike, and was putting his helmet on to go after you. He should have showed you the gun, but the fact he didn't wouldn't negate a prosecution on its own.

You could go to court and argue this, and risk 6 points and a fine, or pay the fine, as you were most likely caught fair and square!

This. If you can't handle the fine, don't do the crime.
A lawless free for all on the roads is the alternative.
Why do some people think speed limits and penalties only apply to other people and not to them ?
This country is just full of chancers and moochers.

endacl

Bang_Bang wrote: »

Why is this? Surely it's proof?. I'd love to know why lie detectors are not admissible either?

Neither are verifiably calibrated and/or standardised. Failing a lie detector test doesn't mean you lied. It just means you failed the test. Or stupidly agreed to go on the Jeremy Kyle show.

Bang_Bang

endacl wrote: »

Neither are verifiably calibrated and/or standardised. Failing a lie detector test doesn't mean you lied. It just means you failed the test. Or stupidly agreed to go on the Jeremy Kyle show.

Ok so they are not calibrated to ISO standards or something similar, that makes sense, but why do they use them in the states?

FreudianSlippers

I don't necessarily buy that a recording wouldn't be admissible in court. You have the right to present evidence to support your case and the Guard could be cross-examined regarding the contents of the recording. At the end of the day if the Guard denies that is him/her at the time in question it is for the court to determine whether they believe that testimony. The Guard is not the ultimate arbiter of the case, the court is.

Peppa Pig

You may want to consciously slow down. At least the third time you've been caught ....

sidcon wrote: »

was doing 120-130 on n7 in the second overtaking lane.

sidcon wrote: »

he comes back and says you've been stopped here before

sidcon wrote:

Got stopped for speeding doing 165 on the M1 by a unmarked jeep, not paying attention to the clock silly me

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71237091&postcount=1

Never mind

sidcon wrote:

I was in court the other day for being drunk and disorderly, failing to obey a Garda's orders and assaulting a Garda, none of this could be proven and the court Sargent said that CCTV backed up my claim. However I was still ordered to pay €200.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82189680&postcount=1

You are quite the rebel

endacl

Bang_Bang wrote: »

Ok so they are not calibrated to ISO standards or something similar, that makes sense, but why do they use them in the states?

I think you mean 'but why do they use them on the telly'. Many states don't allow them to be admissible. Some do, but only under certain limited circumstances and only with strict stipulations, agreed by both parties. Apart from the questionable accuracy of the machine itself, individual somatic responses to questioning, and the machine operator's interpretation of what they think they are looking at, are just to variable.

ironclaw

Bang_Bang wrote: »

Ok so they are not calibrated to ISO standards or something similar, that makes sense, but why do they use them in the states?

Theres a difference between an eBay DVR and a proper blackbox system that is forensically sound. If you had such a device in your car, then you could probably admit it as evidence. But then again, and I'm not read in law, I'd imagine you'd need to follow the chain of evidence procedure. I doubt you can just turn up on the day with your laptop

daveohdave

ironclaw wrote: »

Dash cam is also inadmissible in court.

That's simply not true, dashcam footage was used in court only recently. As far as I can remember it was used as video evidence for a non-traffic offence, but once it's in its in.

The dashcam data doesn't need to be used for speed if calibration if the GPS unit is in question. We still have physics and maths for that. Even the Gardai still using pencils can do that.

FreudianSlippers

endacl wrote: »

I think you mean 'but why do they use them on the telly'. Many states don't allow them to be admissible. Some do, but only under certain limited circumstances and only with strict stipulations, agreed by both parties. Apart from the questionable accuracy of the machine itself, individual somatic responses to questioning, and the machine operator's interpretation of what they think they are looking at, are just to variable.

I'd actually disagree with you flat out on this but I don't have an opportunity to pull out individual legislation from the US at the moment.

Police use both audio (recorded on their person) and video (recorded via dashcam) as evidence in something like 42 States at present.

Individuals may use video recorded via the dashcam in most states and can use the audio once the person in question being recorded is informed that they are being so recorded and give consent. If an officer refused to consent to recording and they are in uniform, if the person continues to record audio they are frequently threatened pursuant to the state's wiretapping or eavesdropping lawys, however, approximately 12 state courts have ruled that "a police officer at a traffic stop has no expectation of privacy" and that the recording is both lawful and admissible.

AlekSmart

sidcon wrote: »

Cheers for answering my question, was doing 120-130 on n7 in the second overtaking lane. He was pulled in at the weighbridge before Rathcoole, was defiantly his helmet he was putting on.
Guess I just have to suck it up and take it on the chin.

Just to clarify this,what is the 2nd Overtaking lane at this point...is it the Outer Lane or a different one ?

Export

What's a static guard?

Arbiter of Good Taste

Export wrote: »

What's a static guard?

And how was he defiantly putting on his helmet? The rogue!:p

EunanMac

Export wrote: »

What's a static guard?

They prevent static build up

Paulownia

I was stopped by a guard for passing out at a crossroads about five weeks ago and he told me I would get a fine in the post andtwo penalty points. So far I've heard nothing, my worry is that it got lost in the post. How long is the interval normally between being stopped and getting the letter?

JustAddWater

Export wrote: »

What's a static guard?

when your going as fast as the OP, sure everything looks static

NUTLEY BOY

Before allowing the OP to incriminate himself should the Garda not have cautioned him first ?

I don't like speeding motorists because I have seen the consequences of what they do. If you are a serial speeder OP you should be given a slap

However, you cannot stand over a dud or lazy prosecution if you cannot present the prosecution case with the required evidence at the required standard. To do otherwise brings court practice in to the realms of Judge Judy. Could you imagine her sitting in your local District Court for one week doing traffic cases ??

BTW why would evidence from a dashcam be inadmissible ? If it is not excluded or excludable can it not be put before the DJ to render a decision on it's merits ?

endacl

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'd actually disagree with you flat out on this but I don't have an opportunity to pull out individual legislation from the US at the moment.

Police use both audio (recorded on their person) and video (recorded via dashcam) as evidence in something like 42 States at present.

Individuals may use video recorded via the dashcam in most states and can use the audio once the person in question being recorded is informed that they are being so recorded and give consent. If an officer refused to consent to recording and they are in uniform, if the person continues to record audio they are frequently threatened pursuant to the state's wiretapping or eavesdropping lawys, however, approximately 12 state courts have ruled that "a police officer at a traffic stop has no expectation of privacy" and that the recording is both lawful and admissible.

Just for clarity, I was referring to polygraph tests, not dashcam footage.

Bepolite

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

To do otherwise brings court practice in to the realms of Judge Judy. Could you imagine her sitting in your local District Court for one week doing traffic cases ??

I imagine there would be a lot less muppets driving around.

FreudianSlippers

sidcon wrote: »

was doing 120-130 on n7 in the second overtaking lane.

Wait a tick, just realised something - isn't the N7 60kph at the moment increasing to 100kph due to roadworks?

FreudianSlippers

endacl wrote: »

Just for clarity, I was referring to polygraph tests, not dashcam footage.

I misread your post - you're right, clearly you were talking about polygraphs, apologies :embarrassed:

ladyeaston

hi i was coming home from b and q with wood, and the boot was open but tied down not much sticking out the back, i was coming around the celbridge round about going to leixlip i drove very slow because i did not want anything to fall out, at easton roundabout a guard stopped me as he was there with the car and camera, he yelled at me told me i was speeding and that i was only slowed down and could have caused a crash , i was doing 60 in the 60 zone, i was very nice to him, but he shouted that i only was doing a slow speed because other cars had flashed me to let me know the camera was there , ''do you hear me '' ! he said, i said but i have wood and the boot open so i was going slow, he looked in the back saw it, his face dropped but he still was so angry, he could not say sorry he knew he made a mistake, my respect for these young guards is gone to be attacked like i was, lets hope the new ones going into templemore might learn social studies and how to deal with people, i always was thought respect for the police but time have changed and now after this happened trust is gone and i have seen what other have been saying all along.