Endangering Traffic

LLMMLL

I crossed a pedestrian crossing when the pedestrian light was red. A bus came around the corner into the junction. Now it wasn't particularly dangerous (basically I sprinted and the bus slowed down without beeping) but a Garda saw it. Garda says there will be a summons for "endangering traffic". I've looked at what I think is the relevant legislation

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/14/enacted/en/html

I guess it could apply to what I did if you view me as the object but seems a bit of a stretch. Is it possible I'll get a court summons under that legislation?

I also found some bye laws about crossing at pedestrian junctions and zebra crossings etc but no info on their legal status or penalties for breaking them.

Anyone any info?

Victor

Much more relevant: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print

46. (1) A pedestrian shall exercise care and take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians.

(2) A pedestrian facing a traffic light lamp which shows a red light shall not proceed beyond that light.

(3) A pedestrian about to cross a roadway at a place where traffic sign number RPC 003 or RPC 004 [pedestrian lights] has been provided shall do so only when a lamp of the facing pedestrian lights is lit and emits a constant green light.

(4) Subject to sub-article (5), save when crossing the roadway, a pedestrian shall use a footway if one is provided, and if one is not provided, shall keep as near as possible to the right edge of the roadway.

(5) At a road junction where traffic is controlled either by traffic lights or by a member of the Garda Síochána, a pedestrian shall cross the roadway only when traffic going in the direction in which the pedestrian intends to cross is permitted (by the lights or the member) to proceed.

(6) Within a pedestrian crossing complex [traffic sign number RPC 002] a pedestrian shall only cross the roadway at the location of traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing].

(7) On a roadway on which a traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing] has been provided, a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing, except by the crossing.

(8) For the purposes of this article, each carriageway of a dual carriageway shall be deemed to be a separate roadway, and where there is a traffic refuge on a roadway the portion of the roadway on each side of the refuge shall be deemed to be a separate roadway.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/332/made/en/print

Amendment of Principal Regulations

16. The Principal Regulations are amended—

...

(r) in article 46—

(i) by substituting for sub-article (2) the following:

“(2) A pedestrian facing a traffic light lamp which shows a red light shall not proceed to cross the roadway.”,

and

(ii) by substituting for sub-articles (6) and (7) the following:

“(6) On a roadway where traffic sign number RPC 001 (zebra pedestrian crossing) is provided or where that sign is provided in association with traffic sign number RPC 002 (zig-zag pedestrian crossing lines) a pedestrian shall only cross the roadway at the location of traffic sign number RPC 001.

(7) On a roadway on which traffic sign number RPC 001 (zebra pedestrian crossing) has been provided, a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing except by the crossing.”,

and

...

The codes are explained here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/181/made/en/print

punisher5112

Just because driver didn't beep doesn't mean you weren't in danger or the ever so many passengers on board that from him having to brake hard to avoid hitting you could have been injured falling under braking hard or hitting a handrail or seat back.

Its about time they started enforcement as the amount that just step out and run out is getting more and more common.

If he took all your details and is pursuing it you will most likely receive a fpn in the post.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

Much more relevant . . .

What Victor said.

The regs quoted by Victor are made under Road Traffic Act 1994 s. 35. Also relevant, so, is s. 35(5)(a) of that Act:

"A person who contravenes a regulation under this section shall be guilty of an offence."

I don't see a statement of what the penalty on conviction is. Can anybody point to a general penalty for RTA offences for which no specific penalty is provided?

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't see a statement of what the penalty on conviction is. Can anybody point to a general penalty for RTA offences for which no specific penalty is provided?

It will probably be in the Sections of the RTA 1961 that allows regulations. Fines much amended.

Peregrinus

After a bit of digging:

RTA 1994 s. 1(3): The 1994 Act and RTA 1961 are to be construed as one.

RTA 1961 s. 102: Provides a default penalty "where a person is guilty of an offence under any section or subsection of a section of this Act and, apart from this section . . . , no penalty is provided for the offence".

You could argue that an offence under a regulation enabled by RTA 1994 s. 35 is an offence under a section of RTA 1994 and, because RTA 1994 and RTA 1961 are to be construed as one, the default penalty provided in RTA s.102 applies. The default penalty for a first offence is currently a fine not exceeding €1,000.

magicbastarder

interesting that the garda didn't specifically state he was pursuing it because you crossed against a red. was it that you crossed in front of a bus, or that you crossed against a red that he showed more interest in?

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

After a bit of digging:

RTA 1994 s. 1(3): The 1994 Act and RTA 1961 are to be construed as one.

RTA 1961 s. 102: Provides a default penalty "where a person is guilty of an offence under any section or subsection of a section of this Act and, apart from this section . . . , no penalty is provided for the offence".

You could argue that an offence under a regulation enabled by RTA 1994 s. 35 is an offence under a section of RTA 1994 and, because RTA 1994 and RTA 1961 are to be construed as one, the default penalty provided in RTA s.102 applies. The default penalty for a first offence is currently a fine not exceeding €1,000.

Well spotted with S102, as amended it includes the 1994 Act so no need to construe.

102.—Where a person is guilty of an offence under any section or subsection of a section of the Road Traffic Acts, 1961 to 1994 and, apart from this section and disregarding any disqualification that may be capable of being imposed, no penalty is provided for the offence, such person shall be liable on summary conviction—

(a) in the case of a first offence under that section or subsection—to a fine not exceeding €1,000,

(b) in the case of a second offence under that section or subsection, or of a third or subsequent such offence other than an offence referred to in the next paragraph—to a fine not exceeding €2,000, and

(c) in the case of a third or subsequent offence under that section or subsection which is the third or subsequent such offence in any period of twelve consecutive months—to a fine not exceeding €2,000 or, at the discre-tion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

Peregrinus

Well, there's still the argument that an offence under a reg. enable by s. 35 is not "an offence under a section" of RTA 1961-94. Remember, as a provision imposing a penalty s. 102 should be restrictively construed.

In a Jurisdiction With Which I Am Familiar there's a statutory provision (in the Interpretation Act) that any reference to anything done under an Act or a provision of an Act includes a reference to things done under secondary legislation made under that Act/provision, but the Interpretation Act 2005 doesn't seem to cover that.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, there's still the argument that an offence under a reg. enable by s. 35 is not "an offence under a section" of RTA 1961-94. Remember, as a provision imposing a penalty s. 102 should be restrictively construed.

In a Jurisdiction With Which I Am Familiar there's a statutory provision (in the Interpretation Act) that any reference to anything done under an Act or a provision of an Act includes a reference to things done under secondary legislation made under that Act/provision, but the Interpretation Act 2005 doesn't seem to cover that.

All offences under the Traffic and Parking Regulations 1997 are prosecuted as offences under S 35(5), if you are charged for an offence contrary to a provision of the regulations the offence is as per S 35(5) of the 1994 Act, so S102 of the 1961 Act would apply.

Peregrinus

Yes. Although the obligation not to cross against the red light is in the regs, the offence-creating provision is in s. 35, so it is an offence under s. 35.

Sleeper12

punisher5112 wrote:

Its about time they started enforcement as the amount that just step out and run out is getting more and more common.

Dublin city centre is horrible for this. In the 30kpm stretch it actually encourages more people to do this.
As you say we need enforcement

punisher5112

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Dublin city centre is horrible for this. In the 30kpm stretch it actually encourages more people to do this.
As you say we need enforcement

Exactly what I saw and felt when it was done 1st.

So many risks taken but no responsibility put on the one in the wrong.
It seems to always go against the motorist.

Don't get me wrong I don't believe a vehicle should be doing 50k or 30km/h if there are circumstances where one should drive with care and go easy but its beyond a joke.

LLMMLL

magicbastarder wrote: »

interesting that the garda didn't specifically state he was pursuing it because you crossed against a red. was it that you crossed in front of a bus, or that you crossed against a red that he showed more interest in?

Neither. The issue of a summons only came up when I refused to give my occupation. I'm not sure they were aware what they could actually summons me for at the time but presumably they can clarify that for themselves at the station.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

After a bit of digging:

RTA 1994 s. 1(3): The 1994 Act and RTA 1961 are to be construed as one.

RTA 1961 s. 102: Provides a default penalty "where a person is guilty of an offence under any section or subsection of a section of this Act and, apart from this section . . . , no penalty is provided for the offence".

You could argue that an offence under a regulation enabled by RTA 1994 s. 35 is an offence under a section of RTA 1994 and, because RTA 1994 and RTA 1961 are to be construed as one, the default penalty provided in RTA s.102 applies. The default penalty for a first offence is currently a fine not exceeding €1,000.

Presumably it is offence to breach regulations.

GM228

Victor wrote: »

Presumably it is offence to breach regulations.

Indeed.

35 (5) (a) A person who contravenes a regulation under this section shall be guilty of an offence.

Strictly speaking in this case the offence is for contravening a regulation rather than something more specific like endangering traffic for example.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

Presumably it is offence to breach regulations.

It's an offence to breach these regulations because, as GM228 points out, there's a provision which says so in the Act which allows these regulations to be made.

But there's no general rule that any breach of regulations is an offence. (For that matter, there's no general rule that any breach of a statute is an offence.)
In every case you need to point to an existing common law offence that has been committed, or a specific legislative provision creating an offence that has been committed.

Esel

LLMMLL wrote: »

Neither. The issue of a summons only came up when I refused to give my occupation. I'm not sure they were aware what they could actually summons me for at the time but presumably they can clarify that for themselves at the station.

What legal basis would the Garda have for demanding the OP's occupation, or for threatening a summons when it was not given?

GM228

Esel wrote: »

What legal basis would the Garda have for demanding the OP's occupation

There's none.

Esel wrote: »

or for threatening a summons when it was not given?

The threat of summons is for the offence, not for failing to answer a question.

LLMMLL

Yeah though summons was clearly given on the basis of her thinking me cheeky for politely refusing to not give my occupation I wouldn't be stupid enough to argue that in court.

AndrewJRenko

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yeah though summons was clearly given on the basis of her thinking me cheeky for politely refusing to not give my occupation I wouldn't be stupid enough to argue that in court.

I reported the Gardai to the Data Protection Commissioner many years ago for asking for 'Occupation' on their witness statement form. Data Protection law requires that you only ask for the information you need, and there is no case for asking for the occupation of a witness to a traffic offence, for example.

The Data Protection Commissioner ruled that the Gardai had to remove this detail from the witness form at the next printing. Gardai ignored it.

SwD

LLMMLL wrote: »

Neither. The issue of a summons only came up when I refused to give my occupation. I'm not sure they were aware what they could actually summons me for at the time but presumably they can clarify that for themselves at the station.

"when I refused to give my occupation"

One of my friends works with An Garda Siochana, and informed me that if i ever encounter a Garda on patrol, having done something wrong, to be as nice as pie and apologise profusely. I believe that there is a certain amount of discretion involved in their jobs but when faced with any sense of hostility or opposition they will ensure you are held accountable for your actions.

SwD

Esel wrote: »

What legal basis would the Garda have for demanding the OP's occupation, or for threatening a summons when it was not given?

Presumably if you were a doctor, in a rush to an emergency, they might have more sympathy.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

LLMMLL

SwD wrote: »

"when I refused to give my occupation"

One of my friends works with An Garda Siochana, and informed me that if i ever encounter a Garda on patrol, having done something wrong, to be as nice as pie and apologise profusely. I believe that there is a certain amount of discretion involved in their jobs but when faced with any sense of hostility or opposition they will ensure you are held accountable for your actions.

Yeah I realise that's the way to go about it and was set to apologise but she was shouting and super aggressive so I found it hard to be apologetic.

GM228

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I reported the Gardai to the Data Protection Commissioner many years ago for asking for 'Occupation' on their witness statement form. Data Protection law requires that you only ask for the information you need, and there is no case for asking for the occupation of a witness to a traffic offence, for example.

The Data Protection Commissioner ruled that the Gardai had to remove this detail from the witness form at the next printing. Gardai ignored it.

To clarify DP law does not prevent anyone (not even a Garda) from verbally asking any questions, there is a difference between asking a question verbally and asking a question on a form which is to be filed or put into a computer system.

The laws relating to relevant data only apply to data "kept" by the Gardaí in a "relevant filing system".

Even a Gardas little black notebook is not regarded as a filing system for the purposes of DP.

AndrewJRenko

GM228 wrote: »

To clarify DP law does not prevent anyone (not even a Garda) from verbally asking any questions, there is a difference between asking a question verbally and asking a question on a form which is to be filed or put into a computer system.

The laws relating to relevant data only apply to data "kept" by the Gardaí in a "relevant filing system".

Even a Gardas little black notebook is not regarded as a filing system for the purposes of DP.

Yes, the basis of my complaint was that asking the question as a matter of course to ALL witnesses and filing that information is against the DP law.

There is no problem with a Garda asking for occupation where this is relevant to the issue, but it shouldn't be a default question for all witnesses. It raises the scenario that a statement from a barrister will be treated differently to a statement from a binman, for no good reason.

But are you sure about the Garda notebooks? Has there been a ruling on this?

Victor

GM228 wrote: »

The laws relating to relevant data only apply to data "kept" by the Gardaí in a "relevant filing system".

I'm not so sure. Collection of data is part of processing of data.

GM228

I have had a lot of corresponde ce with the DPC whilst researching DP in general and the Gardaí is a specifc subject which arose.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But are you sure about the Garda notebooks? Has there been a ruling on this?

No ruling, but it is the position held by the DPC.

From an e-mail I got from the DPCs Information & Assessment unit regarding the issue:-

This Office would not consider that nformation kept in the notebook could be considered a relevant filing system. However, if that information was subsequently uploaded onto a database that information could then be considered to be contained in a relevant filing system.

Obviously if someone made such a complaint and the DPC informed them of such they can appeal that to the Circuit Court.

Victor wrote: »

GM228 wrote: »

The laws relating to relevant data only apply to data "kept" by the Gardaí in a "relevant filing system".

I'm not so sure. Collection of data is part of processing of data.

Yes collection of data is part of the processing of data, however it isn't just gathering of data that enables the rights of data protection in itself, it's processing of data and the retention in a relevant filing system. As per my original post the requirement to obtaining data for a relevant purpose strictly only applies to data which is kept in a relevant filing system, otherwise the only general rule to obtaining data (without keeping it in a relevant filing system) is to collect it fairly and lawfully, there is certainly nothing unlawful about asking a question.

Once again the DPCs position was that this was that the "relevant" provision was in relation to retention of data as it falls under S2 of the Data Protection Act 1988 (as amended):-

2. - A data controller shall, as respects personal data kept by him or her, comply with the following provisions:

(a) the data or, as the case may be, the information constituting the data shall have been obtained, and the data shall be processed, fairly,

(b) the data shall be accurate and complete and, where necessary, kept up todate,

(c) the data—

(i) shall have been obtained only for one or more specified, explicit and legitimate purposes,

(ii) shall not be further processed in a manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes,

(iii) shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they were collected or are further processed, and

(iv) shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes,

(d) appropriate security measures shall be taken against unauthorised access to, or unauthorised alteration, disclosure or destruction of, the data, in particular where the processing involves the transmission of data over a network, and against all other unlawful forms of processing.

DP does not apply unless data is both collected and retained in a "relevant filing system".

https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/A-guide-to-your-rights-Plain-English-Version/r/858.htm

When do these rights apply?

You have the right to data protection when your details are:

• held on a computer
  
• held on paper or other manual form as part of a filing system and
  
• made up of photographs or video recordings of your image or recordings of your voice.

AndrewJRenko

Very interesting, thanks. DPC seems to be taking the narrowest possible interpretation of their role and duties in recent years. I understand that they are constrained by resources, but these decisions have serious long-term impacts leaving citizens exposed.

GM228

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Very interesting, thanks. DPC seems to be taking the narrowest possible interpretation of their role and duties in recent years. I understand that they are constrained by resources, but these decisions have serious long-term impacts leaving citizens exposed.

It isn't just an interpretation of their role, but an interpretation of the law which defines when they have a role and the legislation is very clear when DP applies, the DPC can't for example afford the protections of DP law outside the scope provided for in the legislation. Only our legislators can do that.

In any case the new GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) comes into force next May and we will have revised DP laws then - to note though is like current DP law it will not apply to the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences.

AndrewJRenko

GM228 wrote: »

It isn't just an interpretation of their role, but an interpretation of the law which defines when they have a role and the legislation is very clear when DP applies, the DPC can't for example afford the protections of DP law outside the scope provided for in the legislation. Only our legislators can do that.

No, I'm referring specifically to interpreting their role. They have declined responsibility for an online service because it doesn't have a legal entity here, despite the fact that a) it has a parent company here b) it sells ads through the parent company here for this particular online service c) it has a data centre here d) it has a CEO on record as saying the Irish data centre is at the hear of the operation for this online service e) it has plenty of staff here.

This is the narrowest possible interpretation of current legislation here. One of their staff let slip during a conversation that it was clear that the resource issue was a major concern to them.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.