Garda Traffic on Twitter

Atlantic Dawn

markc1184 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/858986273977114624

"Rider had no helmet"...least of their worries, also not a road legal bike, no insurance and most likely no licence either.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Odelay

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Loads of assumptions.

It's a tweet, only so many characters!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Toyotafanboi

No helmet is obvious from a distance and may have drawn their attention? Then they realised it had no lights or reg plates :pac:

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

pablo128

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's a picture of the bike in the tweet for goodness sake!

With no lights.

Or number plate.

So there's no need for assumptions. If you can dream up a scenario where this bike is road legal, I would love to hear it.

Melodeon

The sort of exuberent youths who ride dirtbikes around the public roads would be well known for their strict adherence to all provisions of the Road Traffic Acts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMAhD9_Shuc

Atlantic Dawn

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/859021947140800512

punisher5112

It is as said above very easy to see it is a scrambler which is for off road use but not to be confused with being allowed to use in any off road form.

It would have to be used on land which the rider has permission to ride on.

We can guess that no licence is held for starters but they may well have but highly doubtful.

We know it has no road legal status and no insurance can be gotten for such.

Bikes from a certain era are not required to have indicators but must have a white light to the front and red at the rear.

Anyone thinks its no harm then they need checking as these fools have no respect for anyone and not even for themselves.

They ride in parks and on footpaths and have no moral's and wouldn't care less if kids are about.

Mr Snow

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/859013039949045760

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

fullstop

neris wrote: »

104 in a 60 zone. The mind boggles

Especially there, always been speed checks in that spot for as long as I can remember.

punisher5112

fullstop wrote: »

Especially there, always been speed checks in that spot for as long as I can remember.

Funny how they usually hide behind or in the bus shelter. They usually have you caught before you come up from under bridge.

fullstop

punisher5112 wrote: »

Funny how they usually hide behind or in the bus shelter. They usually have you caught before you come up from under bridge.

Yeah I noticed that too

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Mr Snow

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/859059764646617089

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

K.Flyer

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Loads of assumptions.

The motorbike in the picture is strictly for off-road use only. As such, no lights, no plates, off-road tyre and usually off-road exhaust (loud), hence no insurance (because it cannot be legally insured for road use) and no road tax.
We cheer when an un-insured car driver has their car taken from them, and rightly so, this is the same thing, except its a bike.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

K.Flyer

Some of them are in exactly the same boat and can be seized by AGS for the same reasons.

fullstop

Fred Swanson wrote: »

That is the benefit of using a laser. You are nabbed long before you ever see them.

The point he's making is that they usually hide behind the shelter there but for the tweet they're in full view before it

bear1

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Take away that /photo1 thing and it will show properly.
https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/859059764646617089

Well that lad is ****ed.

For Forks Sake

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That really is a special form of stupid right there.

ThisRegard

neris wrote: »

104 in a 60 zone. The mind boggles

Maybe the guy just didn't agree with the speed limit at that point?

marno21

ThisRegard wrote: »

Maybe the guy just didn't agree with the speed limit at that point?

Agreement with the speed limit isn't really optional, if he decides to disagree with the speed limit another 3 times he'll have 6 months on his bike to reconsider his views.

ThisRegard

marno21 wrote: »

Agreement with the speed limit isn't really optional, if he decides to disagree with the speed limit another 3 times he'll have 6 months on his bike to reconsider his views.

I was being sarcastic, on the dashcam one there's a vocal poster who said he doesn't agree with some speed limits and doesn't like to obey them.

punisher5112

N11 speed limit is a tad on the low side.

It was 40 mph which is now 37mph approx.

Its a road that could be 70 to 80km/h no problem.

Speed isn't always the issue its the terrible driving and shooting in and out of lanes and just aggressive driving styles.

blackwhite

punisher5112 wrote: »

N11 speed limit is a tad on the low side.

It was 40 mph which is now 37mph approx.

Its a road that could be 70 to 80km/h no problem.

Speed isn't always the issue its the terrible driving and shooting in and out of lanes and just aggressive driving styles.

Not to drag off topic - but given the number of junctions in close proximity to each other, 60kmph isn't unreasonable.

From the UCD flyover, there's a lot of southbound traffic comes down the UCD slip that needs to cross the 2 lanes to get over to the Foster's Ave turn; similarly Northbound there's plenty of UCD traffic cross to get to Nutley lane turn.
For those alone, I'd have said 60 was a reasonable limit.