Zebra crossings?

Muhammed_1

eeguy wrote: »

...

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

Can they?

If a guard cannot explain why he feels a particular way then he cannot rule out that he feels that way because of a personal bias.

Therefore, if he acts on a feeling which he cannot explain he risks acting recklessly.

He is being reckless as to whether or not he is acting due to a real suspicion, or merely because of a bias. He could be biased and be unaware of it.

Therefore, Guards should always have a reason for their actions, beyond mere feelings which they cannot explain.

Or do Gardai have spidey senses which must be allowed for? Hunches if you prefer.

MadDog76

eeguy wrote: »

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:


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?

That whole statement is an oxymoron.

You seem to believe that every Garda is Judge Dredd!! "I am the Law!!" ......... get real.

They are just as answerable, if not more so, for their actions as you and I ........ they can't just decide for themselves what their Law is on any particular day.

eeguy

MadDog76 wrote: »

You seem to believe that every Garda is Judge Dredd!! "I am the Law!!" ......... get real.

They are just as answerable, if not more so, for their actions as you and I ........ they can't just decide for themselves what their Law is on any particular day.

Funny, that's exactly what you've been doing throughout this thread. All law is open to interpretation.

At the end of the day a Garda's interpretation will nearly always trump yours.

MadDog76

eeguy wrote: »

[/B]

Funny, that's exactly what you've been doing throughout this thread. All law is open to interpretation.

At the end of the day a Garda's interpretation will nearly always trump yours.

And your interpretation of a Garda's powers is waaaay over estimated .......... in your world a Garda could stop, and charge me, for walking down the road because said Garda "felt I was walking in a threatening manner" and the Judge would blindly agree ....... laughable at best.

GM228

eeguy wrote: »

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

But, any power exercised by Gardaí must be bona fide and not in a capricious or arbitrary manner as per common law.

By the way there is no common law duty for Gardaí to act, your quote from the 2004 Fagan case is inaccurate, where did you quote that from?

GM228

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

The law was here.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1994/act/2/section/5/enacted/en/html




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

It's not just "unreasonable behaviour" that comes into play, more importantly is the part "having regard to all the circumstances" that will weight up any possible charge.

GM228

brian_t wrote: »

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.

The amount of DC cases heard every day around the country vs what is reported = rarely reported.

eeguy

MadDog76 wrote: »

And your interpretation of a Garda's powers is waaaay over estimated .......... in your world a Garda could stop, and charge me, for walking down the road because said Garda "felt I was walking in a threatening manner" and the Judge would blindly agree ....... laughable at best.

If he could make a case out of it, then yes, he could.
That's why we have such a variation in punishments around the country.

On the one hand we have people not getting charged for crimes because of their background, parents etc.
There was a recent case of university students caught with drugs and simply released, where someone else would have gotten charged.

On the other, we have people "getting made an example of" and getting incredibly harsh punishments for innocuous crimes.

uck51js9zml2yt

OP , good job you're not in Slovakia. Zebra crossings are a sign to the driver to drive faster. God help you if you're crossing!

ohnonotgmail

eeguy wrote: »

If he could make a case out of it, then yes, he could.
That's why we have such a variation in punishments around the country.

On the one hand we have people not getting charged for crimes because of their background, parents etc.
There was a recent case of university students caught with drugs and simply released, where someone else would have gotten charged.

On the other, we have people "getting made an example of" and getting incredibly harsh punishments for innocuous crimes.

Punishments are decided by judges not by gardai. the same holds true for guilt. A guard may have discretion on wether to bring a charge or not but that does not mean their interpretation of the law trumps yours. the interpretation of the judge trumps all others.

MadDog76

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Punishments are decided by judges not by gardai. the same holds true for guilt. A guard may have discretion on wether to bring a charge or not but that does not mean their interpretation of the law trumps yours. the interpretation of the judge trumps all others.

And the Gardai know that better than anyone .......... which is why no Garda would ever risk being professionally embarrassed in Court by attempting to charge a driver because he/she proceeded through a zebra crossing after a pedestrian has walked past his/her car no matter how "offended" said Garda and/or pedestrian feels.

my3cents

MadDog76 wrote: »

And the Gardai know that better than anyone .......... which is why no Garda would ever risk being professionally embarrassed in Court by attempting to charge a driver because he/she proceeded through a zebra crossing after a pedestrian has walked past his/her car no matter how "offended" said Garda and/or pedestrian feels.

I was stopped for a "misunderstanding" where it was assumed I'd beeped at kids crossing on a zebra crossing (actually was beeping at a parked driver about to pull out and hit the kids, the driver couldn't have be looking at me and the kids on the crossing while forcing her way out into the traffic) anyway I'm quite sure the Garda couldn't be bothered to make a case either way but if there was any defect in the car, tax, insurance, NCT etc I'm sure I'd have got a ticket.

Veloce150

MadDog76 wrote: »

And the Gardai know that better than anyone .......... which is why no Garda would ever risk being professionally embarrassed in Court by attempting to charge a driver because he/she proceeded through a zebra crossing after a pedestrian has walked past his/her car no matter how "offended" said Garda and/or pedestrian feels.

In summary, inconsiderate driving is illegal but it's difficult to prove and the victim will not be believed.

Tell me how

Veloce150 wrote: »

In summary, inconsiderate driving is illegal but it's difficult to prove and the victim will not be believed.

That's the crux of the matter. Some people see it as the "victim" more as the "perpetrator".

The Garda will have the discretion, the judge the ultimate arbitrator but if it's even being discussed, the likelihood is someone was at least being inconsiderate or not driving with due care and attention.

MadDog76

Veloce150 wrote: »

In summary, inconsiderate driving is illegal but it's difficult to prove and the victim will not be believed.

In summary, what you may consider inconsiderate driving others, including Gardai, may just consider driving.

Veloce150

MadDog76 wrote: »

In summary, what you may consider inconsiderate driving others, including Gardai, may just consider driving.

Or not. It's a risk one takes when one cuts the margin too close. A day in court is an expensive affair, even if you can afford a good solicitor who gets you off.

MadDog76

Veloce150 wrote: »

Or not. It's a risk one takes when one cuts the margin too close. A day in court is an expensive affair, even if you can afford a good solicitor who gets you off.

Nah ......... you're clutching at straws, there's zero risk.

Veloce150

MadDog76 wrote: »

Nah ......... you're clutching at straws, there's zero risk.

While the risk of being caught is nearly zero, the risk of legal liability is not.

Driving so close to somebody that they are placed in fear of their lives is comparable to pointing a gun at them, unloaded. There may be no safety risk, due to the absence of bullets but weight would be given to the effect of the incident on the victim.

Driving with due consideration does not just mean abstaining from killing or injuring people, it involves empathy for the effects of your actions on them.

MadDog76

Veloce150 wrote: »

While the risk of being caught is nearly zero, the risk of legal liability is not.

Driving so close to somebody that they are placed in fear of their lives is comparable to pointing a gun at them, unloaded. There may be no safety risk, due to the absence of bullets but weight would be given to the effect of the incident on the victim.

Driving with due consideration does not just mean abstaining from killing or injuring people, it involves empathy for the effects of your actions on them.

You've just made up a scenario to fit your opinion ......... nobody, certainly not myself, ever mentioned "driving so close to somebody that they are placed in fear of their lives" ......... you'll have to do better than that I'm afraid if you want to attempt to validate your point.

troll_a_roll

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?

eeguy wrote: »

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.

Quote:
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.



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.



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.

How are posts quoted on this website? It just doesn't seem to work for me.


This link
http://www.thejournal.ie/tesco-pedestrian-crossing-safety-3245087-Feb2017/

appears to be a case where protesters were doing exactly as Muhammed says above. They were crossing and re-crossing the zebra crossing and preventing access to Tesco as a result.

Tesco didn't call the police, instead they simply painted over the zebra crossing.


So, what can be done if people cross and re-cross a zebra crossing?
Can the police be called?

I suspect the protesters were using different people at different times. In other words, large groups of people could conspire together to prevent access, by continuously using the zebra crossing.

How could that be dealt with?

Little CuChulainn

troll_a_roll wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?





How are posts quoted on this website? It just doesn't seem to work for me.


This link
http://www.thejournal.ie/tesco-pedestrian-crossing-safety-3245087-Feb2017/

appears to be a case where protesters were doing exactly as Muhammed says above. They were crossing and re-crossing the zebra crossing and preventing access to Tesco as a result.

Tesco didn't call the police, instead they simply painted over the zebra crossing.


So, what can be done if people cross and re-cross a zebra crossing?
Can the police be called?

I suspect the protesters were using different people at different times. In other words, large groups of people could conspire together to prevent access, by continuously using the zebra crossing.

How could that be dealt with?

The Garda can assume point duty and require pedestrians only cross on his say. There is also an offence for obstructing traffic. Tesco could be looking at criminal damage or even endangerment charges.

troll_a_roll

I disagree that you can be charged with obstructing traffic if you cross a zebra crossing on a single occasion.
You have a right to cross the zebra crossing and that right is not qualified in the legislation that gives you the right. Therefore, you can assert your right to cross the crossing.


If you cross on two occasions 15 minutes apart can you be charged?
There is no time limit in the legislation. The legislation grants you a positive right to use the crossing, and the legislation states that cars must yield to pedestrians.
What difference does it make how often you cross?



If you appear to be part of a larger grouping which is conspiring together to prevent access what can be done?

Must it be proved that you were acting in concert with others?
I would suggest that it would have to be proved, if you are to be charged with a criminal offence. For example, an innocent bystander could be mistaken as being part of the group, and that person has the right to have the case proven against him.




I'm raising this issue as it seems to be a legal way of causing upset.

You cannot simply surround a car and prevent it from moving. That's kidnapping as we all know from the Joan Burton scandal.

But, if a car is trapped between two zebra crossings, I believe it could be prevented from moving if sufficient people continuously used the crossings.



Finally, if a large group of different people, such as the crowd exiting a stadium like Croke Park, were to cross a zebra crossing cars have to stop. If the people keep coming for 30 minutes the cars have to wait.
Nothing can be done here except to remove the zebra crossing.



The difference with this annoying behaviour and with other annoying behaviour is that you are granted a positive right under law to use the crossing, and that right is not qualified.