Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Zebra crossings?

2

Comments

  • #32
    Muhammed_1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 267 ✭✭Muhammed_1


    The defence would ask the guard how the guard determined the speed of 50km/h.

    The defence would ask the guard how the distance of 1 meter was determined.

    The defence would ask the guard if revving an engine is an offence.

    Did the pedestrian declare that they felt in fear for their safety?


  • #33
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,314 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    MadDog76 wrote:
    Judge: "Get the f*ck outta here!!!"


    Don't believe he'd say it like that. It's inconsiderate. :)


  • #34
    Veloce150
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79 ✭✭Veloce150


    Muhammed_1 wrote: »
    The defence would ask the guard how the guard determined the speed of 50km/h.

    The defence would ask the guard how the distance of 1 meter was determined.

    The defence would ask the guard if revving an engine is an offence.

    Did the pedestrian declare that they felt in fear for their safety?
    The Garda would describe how he was operating a speed trap in response to complaints from residents and recorded the incident before going to the aid of the visibly upset lady.

    We're straying into fantasy. It is a fact that motorists can be prosecuted for inconsiderate behaviour and there is no onus to prove it was also dangerous.


  • #35
    eeguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭eeguy


    Muhammed_1 wrote: »
    The defence would ask the guard how the guard determined the speed of 50km/h.

    The defence would ask the guard how the distance of 1 meter was determined.

    The defence would ask the guard if revving an engine is an offence.

    Did the pedestrian declare that they felt in fear for their safety?
    They defence usually wouldn't.

    Reasonable doubt is all they need, which they'll get when it's the word of a garda against you.

    His witness testimony is all the proof they need, seeing as the most punishment you'll get is a fine and points.


  • #36
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    Muhammed_1 wrote: »
    The defence would ask the guard how the guard determined the speed of 50km/h.

    The defence would ask the guard how the distance of 1 meter was determined.

    The defence would ask the guard if revving an engine is an offence.

    Did the pedestrian declare that they felt in fear for their safety?

    +1


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    IsaacWunder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 403 ✭✭IsaacWunder


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    Well, as any Garda will tell you, Gardai are very careful when it comes to their own personal opinion when charging an individual with a "crime" ........ there's nothing more embarrassing, both personally and professionally, for a Garda than a Judge viewing their opinion as unreasonable, illogical or pedantic which it most certainly would be in regards the situation you described on a zebra crossing.

    Garda: "Your Honour, I observed the driver driving through the zebra crossing after the pedestrian walked past his car."

    Judge: "And?"

    Garda: "Well, your Honour, it was ....... em ........ eh ........ just kinda rude in my opinion."

    Judge: "Get the f*ck outta here!!!"

    What's next!??!!? Being charged with "bad manners" because a Garda observed me not holding a door open for a lady!!?!!??!!! :D:D:D:D :rolleyes:

    I don't think you have a clue what you're on about. Firstly, nobody with any knowledge of the judicial system would ever refer to a judge as "your honour", particularly not Gardai. Secondly a judge will never fault a garda for being pedantic, particularly in respect of road traffic offences.

    As for the main point, Gardaí can give on the spot fines for driving without reasonable consideration (€80 and two points), so the only reason it would ever come to court is because either the guard decided it was a more serious offence, or the motorist challenged it. In general garda evidence is taken very seriously as Gardaí don't routinely perjuer themselves to get convictions. Unless you, as an accused person, show that the Garda was somehow prejudiced against you you're going to be convicted and fined heavily.


  • #38
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    Veloce150 wrote: »
    "The driver passed, revving the engine, less than 1 metre away at more than 50kph and the elderly pedestrian, using a walking aid, who felt in fear for her safety has been afraid to go to Church since. Would you like to hear her?"

    Well if you want to just make up a scenario to fit your opinion why don't you add in that the driver fired a couple of warning shots at the elderly lady with a 9mm beretta. :rolleyes:


  • #39
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    IsaacWunder wrote: »
    I don't think you have a clue what you're on about. Firstly, nobody with any knowledge of the judicial system would ever refer to a judge as "your honour", particularly not Gardai. Secondly a judge will never fault a garda for being pedantic, particularly in respect of road traffic offences.

    As for the main point, Gardaí can give on the spot fines for driving without reasonable consideration (€80 and two points), so the only reason it would ever come to court is because either the guard decided it was a more serious offence, or the motorist challenged it. In general garda evidence is taken very seriously as Gardaí don't routinely perjuer themselves to get convictions. Unless you, as an accused person, show that the Garda was somehow prejudiced against you you're going to be convicted and fined heavily.

    Fine ........... examples of drivers being prosecuted for driving through a zebra crossing after a pedestrian has walked past his/her car based on a Garda's testimony here in Ireland?


  • #40
    eeguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭eeguy


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    Fine ........... examples of drivers being prosecuted for driving through a zebra crossing after a pedestrian has walked past his/her car based on a Garda's testimony here in Ireland?

    Why don't you throw up some examples of a similar case being thrown out because the judge didn't believe the Garda?

    There's plenty of court appearances for dangerous and inconsiderate driving up and down the country where the only evidence is that it was witnessed by the Gardai.


  • #41
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    eeguy wrote: »
    Why don't you throw up some examples of a similar case being thrown out because the judge didn't believe the Garda?

    There's plenty of court appearances for dangerous and inconsiderate driving up and down the country where the only evidence is that it was witnessed by the Gardai.

    I can't find any cases at all of a Garda bringing a driver to Court for driving through a zebra crossing after a pedestrian has walked past his/her car ......... can you?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    eeguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭eeguy


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    I can't find any cases at all of a Garda bringing a driver to Court for driving through a zebra crossing after a pedestrian has walked past his/her car ......... can you?

    I'm not going to bother looking.

    The section
    "51A.— (1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place without reasonable consideration for other persons using the place."
    is a catch all term, so if a Garda forms the opinion that you're being inconsiderate in this hypothetical scenario s/he can call you out on it, with fines penalty points etc.

    You could plead your case that it's not explicitly said that you can't proceed over a zebra crossing, once your side is clear, but the law can't be explicit for every eventuality.

    Besides, the judge will nearly always side with the Garda over you. Such is life.


  • #43
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    eeguy wrote: »
    I'm not going to bother looking.

    The section is a catch all term, so if a Garda forms the opinion that you're being inconsiderate in this hypothetical scenario s/he can call you out on it, with fines penalty points etc.

    You could plead your case that it's not explicitly said that you can't proceed over a zebra crossing, once your side is clear, but the law can't be explicit for every eventuality.

    Besides, the judge will nearly always side with the Garda over you. Such is life.

    Don't bother looking, they don't exist .......... making the rest of your post, along with the point you're attempting to make, redundant regarding zebra crossings which, in case you missed it, is the topic for discussion in this thread.


  • #44
    IsaacWunder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 403 ✭✭IsaacWunder


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    Fine ........... examples of drivers being prosecuted for driving through a zebra crossing after a pedestrian has walked past his/her car based on a Garda's testimony here in Ireland?

    As other posters have pointed out the Gardaí have a retinue of offences with which to prosecute someone in the circumstances as outlined. Only an idiot would engage with your weak straw man argument.


  • #45
    eeguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭eeguy


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    Don't bother looking, they don't exist .......... making the rest of your post, along with the point you're attempting to make, redundant regarding zebra crossings which, in case you missed it, is the topic for discussion in this thread.

    I never said they existed.

    All I said was that if a Garda thought you were being inconsiderate for crossing while a ped was only halfway across the road, you could get points for it, in the same way you can get points for being inconsiderate in any other number of scenarios.

    There's nothing that says you are in the right, and nothing that says you are explicitly wrong, which leaves it to the judgement of the Garda, or a district court judge, should you wish to pursue it.
    And in that eventuality, the judge would more than likely side with the Garda.

    Just because you can't find a specific example, and I can't be arsed, doesn't mean that it can't and won't ever happen.


  • #46
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    eeguy wrote: »
    I never said they existed.

    All I said was that if a Garda thought you were being inconsiderate for crossing while a ped was only halfway across the road, you could get points for it, in the same way you can get points for being inconsiderate in any other number of scenarios.

    There's nothing that says you are in the right, and nothing that says you are explicitly wrong, which leaves it to the judgement of the Garda, or a district court judge, should you wish to pursue it.
    And in that eventuality, the judge would more than likely side with the Garda.

    Just because you can't find a specific example, and I can't be arsed, doesn't mean that it can't and won't ever happen.

    The fact that it never has happened holds a lot more weight than your simple opinion on "what if's" ........


  • #47
    eeguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭eeguy


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    The fact that it never has happened holds a lot more weight than your simple opinion on "what if's" ........

    Who said it never happened?
    You just can't find a report of it.

    Considering most newspaper reports usually just say "So and so was convicted of inconsiderate driving. He was fined X amount" I'm not surprised you can't find one.
    I'm sure if you had access to PULSE you'd have more luck.

    I just said that if a Garda wanted to fine you for it s/he could. Which is true.


  • #48
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    eeguy wrote: »
    Who said it never happened?
    You just can't find a report of it.

    Considering most newspaper reports usually just say "So and so was convicted of inconsiderate driving. He was fined X amount" I'm not surprised you can't find one.
    I'm sure if you had access to PULSE you'd have more luck.

    I just said that if a Garda wanted to fine you for it s/he could. Which is true.

    No way of knowing if that's true unless it's ever actually happened ........ and it hasn't happened.


  • #49
    eeguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭eeguy


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    No way of knowing if that's true unless it's ever actually happened ........ and it hasn't happened.

    My only statement in this matter is that if a Garda thinks you're being an inconsiderate driver s/he can fine you. That is true and that is law.

    Whether or not this applies to this particular scenario would depend on the Garda and their impression of the event.

    By all means give it a go and report back.


  • #50
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,919 ✭✭✭GM228


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    No way of knowing if that's true unless it's ever actually happened ........ and it hasn't happened.

    Seeing as how DC offences are rarely reported how could you know it hasn't happened?

    Section 51A offences though not the more common offence do happen and there is no tick box list of what it can or can't apply to, it can apply to anything which a Guard chooses to apply to, generally they use it for a driver who is basically being a nuisance. If someone is acting the maggot at a Zebra crossing the Gardaí can use it if they wish.


  • #51
    Muhammed_1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 267 ✭✭Muhammed_1


    What can the Guard do about a pedestrian who is acting the maggot?

    Nothing, I'd suggest.

    What happens if a pedestrian keeps on crossing, and recrossing, the zebra crossing?

    What offence could they be charged with?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    IsaacWunder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 403 ✭✭IsaacWunder


    Muhammed_1 wrote: »
    What can the Guard do about a pedestrian who is acting the maggot?

    Nothing, I'd suggest.

    What happens if a pedestrian keeps on crossing, and recrossing, the zebra crossing?

    What offence could they be charged with?

    They could be charged with willful obstruction (section 9 of the Public Order Act 1994) if they were doing it to delay people. They could be also be charged with disorderly conduct (S. 5 Public Order Act) if they continued crossing back and forth after a guard told them to stop.


  • #53
    eeguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭eeguy


    Muhammed_1 wrote: »
    What can the Guard do about a pedestrian who is acting the maggot?

    Nothing, I'd suggest.

    What happens if a pedestrian keeps on crossing, and recrossing, the zebra crossing?

    What offence could they be charged with?

    They'd probably tell you to stop acting the maggot. If you kept doing it they'd pull you up on a public order offence.
    5.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to engage in offensive conduct—

    (a) between the hours of 12 o'clock midnight and 7 o'clock in the morning next following, or

    (b) at any other time, after having been requested by a member of the Garda Síochána to desist.

    (2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.

    (3) In this section “offensive conduct” means any unreasonable behaviour which, having regard to all the circumstances, is likely to cause serious offence or serious annoyance to any person who is, or might reasonably be expected to be, aware of such behaviour.

    Again, these are catch all terms. Nothing specific to what you might be doing, but it's easy for a Garda to justify arresting you. You might be charged and fined, or just left in a cell for a few hours to cool your heels.


  • #54
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    GM228 wrote: »
    Seeing as how DC offences are rarely reported how could you know it hasn't happened?

    Section 51A offences though not the more common offence do happen and there is no tick box list of what it can or can't apply to, it can apply to anything which a Guard chooses to apply to, generally they use it for a driver who is basically being a nuisance. If someone is acting the maggot at a Zebra crossing the Gardaí can it if they wish.

    Would proceeding through a zebra crossing after a pedestrian has walked past your car, ie. when safe to do so, be perceived as acting the maggot? I don't think so.


  • #55
    Muhammed_1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 267 ✭✭Muhammed_1


    IsaacWunder wrote: »
    They could be charged with willful obstruction (section 9 of the Public Order Act 1994) if they were doing it to delay people. They could be also be charged with disorderly conduct (S. 5 Public Order Act) if they continued crossing back and forth after a guard told them to stop.


    On what grounds can a person be forced to give their motivation in carrying out a particular act?

    What right does a Guard have to tell you not to use a public right of way?


    edited to add:
    I suppose the serious annoyance law does seem to work.

    But motorists themselves can take no action.

    A person could continue to act the maggot until the police arrived, and if anyone attempted to interfere with the person they would be committing a crime!

    Traffic madness!


  • #56
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #57
    eeguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭eeguy


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    Would proceeding through a zebra crossing after a pedestrian has walked past your car, ie. when safe to do so, be perceived as acting the maggot? I don't think so.

    It's not about what you think. Its about what the Garda thinks.
    Also your definition of "safe to do so" may differ from the Garda. In that case they are right and you a wrong.
    Muhammed_1 wrote: »
    On what grounds can a person be forced to give their motivation in carrying out a particular act?
    What right does a Guard have to tell you not to use a public right of way?
    edited to add:
    I suppose the serious annoyance law does seem to work.
    But motorists themselves can take no action.

    A person could continue to act the maggot until the police arrived, and if anyone attempted to interfere with the person they would be committing a crime!

    Traffic madness!

    Pretty much. You can be a d*ckhead to anyone and there's not a lot they can do about it, so long as it doesn't come to blows. Fortunately most people have enough cop on.


  • #58
    Muhammed_1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 267 ✭✭Muhammed_1


    The law was here.
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1994/act/2/section/5/enacted/en/html
    statute book wrote:
    5.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to engage in offensive conduct—

    (a) between the hours of 12 o'clock midnight and 7 o'clock in the morning next following, or

    (b) at any other time, after having been requested by a member of the Garda Síochána to desist.


    (2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.

    (3) In this section “offensive conduct” means any unreasonable behaviour which, having regard to all the circumstances, is likely to cause serious offence or serious annoyance to any person who is, or might reasonably be expected to be, aware of such behaviour.


    I've noted the phrase 'unreasonable behaviour'.
    The reason I've done so is because some people would say that seeing two same sex partners holding hands is offensive to them. Seriously offensive, or seriously annoying.

    Therefore, such people might seek to have same sex hand holders prosecuted under this law.

    The prosecution would most likely be refused as holding hands in public is not 'unreasonable behaviour'.


    The law says
    is likely to cause serious offence or serious annoyance to ANY PERSON

    not
    is likely to cause serious offence or serious annoyance to A REASONABLE PERSON


    My point is, if the behaviour is only annoying or offensive to an unreasonable bigot can that behaviour still be prosecuted under this law?


    Can same sex hand holders in public be prosecuted under this law on the basis that some unreasonable bigot finds their behaviour offensive or annoying?



    Finally,
    Crossing a zebra crossing is not unreasonable.

    Is doing it twice worse?


  • #59
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    eeguy wrote: »
    It's not about what you think. Its about what the Garda thinks.
    Also your definition of "safe to do so" may differ from the Garda. In that case they are right and you a wrong.

    The situation I described is very clear-cut black & white ......... there is no interpretation needed and certainly not by some random Garda whom you seem to believe have more rights (say so) than the rest of us ........ you're wrong and (wait for it) Gardai can also be wrong, they don't get to inflict their own personal opinion when enforcing the Law unless said opinion is reasonable and logical.


  • #60
    eeguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭eeguy


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    The situation I described is very clear-cut black & white ......... there is no interpretation needed and certainly not by some random Garda whom you seem to believe have more rights (say so) than the rest of us ........ you're wrong and (wait for it) Gardai can also be wrong, they don't get to inflict their own personal opinion when enforcing the Law unless said opinion is reasonable and logical.

    Gardaí DO have more say so than the rest of us.

    The power to arrest, the power to search premises, the power to search and seize. The fact that their word is better than yours in a court.

    Also:
    In the case of D.P.P. (Stratford) v Fagan 2 ILRM 349, it was held that the gardaí are under a common law duty to detect and prevent crime. Consequently, if they find it necessary to require motorists to stop in order adequately to detect and prevent crime, they have full power to do at common law.

    So a Garda can pull you over just because he feels like you might be up to no good.

    Also what does this even mean?
    they don't get to inflict their own personal opinion when enforcing the Law unless said opinion is reasonable and logical.
    That whole statement is an oxymoron.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    brian_t
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,914 ✭✭✭brian_t


    GM228 wrote: »
    Seeing as how DC offences are rarely reported how could you know it hasn't happened?

    Some local papers fill up 3 or 4 pages with them with details (Liffey Champion in Kildare being one) but they don't end up on the Internet.


Advertisement