When 80 is 60

sidcon

Hypothetical situation.
If you received notification of speeding and on the letter is says you where doing 85kph in a 60 zone but the road is clearly marked 80 kph would you contest this case.

punisher5112

sidcon wrote: »

Hypothetical situation.
If you received notification of speeding and on the letter is says you where doing 85kph in a 60 zone but the road is clearly marked 80 kph would you contest this case.

Well if you could prove that fact yes.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

biko

Can you link to google maps where this hypothetical 80 sign is showing?

Petyr Baelish

sidcon wrote: »

Hypothetical situation.
If you received notification of speeding and on the letter is says you where doing 85kph in a 60 zone but the road is clearly marked 80 kph would you contest this case.

If you can prove it then go for it. I think the judge might throw it out since the charge would be wrong wouldn't it?

boardsuser1

Isn't the margin of error 10% + 4km/h?

CiniO

Petyr Baelish wrote: »

If you can prove it then go for it. I think the judge might throw it out since the charge would be wrong wouldn't it?

But the problem is that it wouldn't.
According to Irish law there's no difference between speeding by 25km/h vs 5km/h so it's exactly same offence.

colm_mcm

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

Isn't the margin of error 10% + 4km/h?

No.

Gerrup Outta Dat!

CiniO wrote: »

But the problem is that it wouldn't.
According to Irish law there's no difference between speeding by 25km/h vs 5km/h so it's exactly same offence.

You’re right. But I’ve heard of people (anecdotally) getting off fines when their summons arrives at John Smith instead of Jon Smith.

BTW, even if the speed sign had a bin bag over it, aren’t you still responsible for knowing the speed limit yourself?

boardsuser1

colm_mcm wrote: »

No.

What is it?

Del2005

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

What is it?

Zero, people have been done for 51 in a 50 zone. The UK has a tolerance but we don't.

OP it's a gamble going to court and saying that I was doing 85 in an 80 not a 60. The judge could just say that you were still speeding and stick the full points on you. If you do want to fight it you'll need to hire a solicitor, depending on your penalty points status it could be more expensive to get off than except the 3 points.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Absolutely contest it. They allow a 9kmph buffer so you shouldn’t have been ticketed. They are possibly aware of it as people doing 70kmh would be getting notices also but I guess if no one brings it to their attention then they won’t know.

boardsuser1

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

Isn't the margin of error 10% + 4km/h?

colm_mcm wrote: »

No.

Del2005 wrote: »

Zero, people have been done for 51 in a 50 zone. The UK has a tolerance but we don't.

OP it's a gamble going to court and saying that I was doing 85 in an 80 not a 60. The judge could just say that you were still speeding and stick the full points on you. If you do want to fight it you'll need to hire a solicitor, depending on your penalty points status it could be more expensive to get off than except the 3 points.

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Absolutely contest it. They allow a 9kmph buffer so you shouldn’t have been ticketed. They are possibly aware of it as people doing 70kmh would be getting notices also but I guess if no one brings it to their attention then they won’t know.

it appears not to be the case according to the above.

bucketybuck

CiniO wrote: »

But the problem is that it wouldn't.
According to Irish law there's no difference between speeding by 25km/h vs 5km/h so it's exactly same offence.

I am not a lawyer, but...

In Irish law are you not charged with specific offences? As in, the charge in the OP is not just doing 85, it is specifically doing "85 in a 60 zone". If the OP can prove that part of that specific charge is demonstrably false then the charge would be dismissed.

The charge doesn't get changed to something else that better suits a prosecution, it gets dismissed. This is why prosecutors/the state think very carefully about what they want to charge people in various situations, why they might charge a lessor provable offence such as manslaughter when murder could be more appropriate but harder to prove.

So 25 over the limit might be the same offence as 5 over the limit, but "25 over 60" and "5 over 80" are not the same offence, and the OP can only be charged with one of them.

So the hypothetical judge asks, "were you doing 85 in a 60 zone?" and you answer with proof, "no, because it was not a 60 zone". That charge of doing 85 in a 60 zone must be dismissed.

Again, I am not a lawyer and would be interested in hearing a definite answer.

CiniO

bucketybuck wrote: »

I am not a lawyer, but...

In Irish law are you not charged with specific offences? As in, the charge in the OP is not just doing 85, it is specifically doing "85 in a 60 zone". If the OP can prove that part of that specific charge is demonstrably false then the charge would be dismissed.

The charge doesn't get changed to something else that better suits a prosecution, it gets dismissed. This is why prosecutors/the state think very carefully about what they want to charge people in various situations, why they might charge a lessor provable offence such as manslaughter when murder could be more appropriate but harder to prove.

So 25 over the limit might be the same offence as 5 over the limit, but "25 over 60" and "5 over 80" are not the same offence, and the OP can only be charged with one of them.

So the hypothetical judge asks, "were you doing 85 in a 60 zone?" and you answer with proof, "no, because it was not a 60 zone". That charge of doing 85 in a 60 zone must be dismissed.

Again, I am not a lawyer and would be interested in hearing a definite answer.

Interesting point.
Let's wait to see what GM228 thinks about it.

Del2005

Road traffic act 2004 would appear to say the offence is exceeding the limit

1.—The following section is substituted for section 47 of the Principal Act:

“47.—(1) A person shall not drive a mechanically propelled vehicle at a speed exceeding the speed limit—

(a) that applies in respect of that vehicle, or

(b) that applies to the road on which the vehicle is being driven where that speed limit is lower than that applying to that vehicle.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.

(3) In this section “speed limit” means a limit which is—

(a) an ordinary speed limit,

(b) the built-up area speed limit,

(c) the regional and local roads speed limit,

(d) the national roads speed limit,

(e) the motorway speed limit,

(f) a special speed limit, or

(g) a road works speed limit.”.

Road Traffic Act 2010 says limit is set by the sign.

76.— Section 47 (inserted by section 11 of the Act of 2004) of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after subsection (2) the following:

“(2A) In a prosecution for an offence under this section, it is presumed, until the contrary is shown by the defendant, that the speed limit indicated on a traffic sign is the speed limit that has been applied under this Act to the road when the offence is alleged to have been committed.”.

So while the prosecution could have summons for the wrong offence the judge can still convict for speeding. Which is why the OP will need a solicitor to fight this.

whomitconcerns

In the UK the official leeway allowed by the police commissioner is 10%+2mph. You can still be done for 1mph over the limit but would only happen if your taking the piss..

In Ireland the is no official leeway.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

I know a few people who were done on the Ballymun road for 54kph (it's a 50 zone)

exaisle

OP...if the summons quotes a 60kph limit, then the prosecution will fail.

It would be like being charged with murdering John Smith when it was Joan Smith who was murdered.

However, it's open to the Gardai to issue an new, corrected summons and start the process all over again.

StonedRaider

Colleague got done for 52km/h in a 50 zone by go safe van on the N59(Bushypark church) 29th December 2015. I had the notice in my hand with pic of his number plate.
Funny thing is, he drives a s#!+heap 02 punto and that's about the max it'll go

Seth Brundle

Hudson Ugly Tournament wrote: »

I know a few people who were done on the Ballymun road for 54kph (it's a 50 zone)

StonedRaider wrote: »

Colleague got done for 52km/h in a 50 zone by go safe van on the N59(Bushypark church) 29th December 2015. I had the notice in my hand with pic of his number plate.
Funny thing is, he drives a s#!+heap 02 punto and that's about the max it'll go

I don't think the OP is saying that they weren't speeding but that they didn't commit the offence quoted (in a 60 zone)

StonedRaider

kbannon wrote: »

I don't think the OP is saying that they weren't speeding but that they didn't commit the offence quoted (in a 60 zone)

I was referring to those that suggest there was a margin for error and comparing the UK system. There certainly isn't.

Hypothetically...the OP(or his mate) was doing 85 in what he thought was an 80 zone, so still 5km/h over:):)

Voodoomelon

I was charged for exceeding a certain speed limit yonks ago, on a road in a specific area, an area that is about a kilometer away from where this road is. So whilst I did commit the offence on the correctly specified road, the area printed was not the correct location.

Upon contesting via email, I got a nice signed cheque back from the local super and official removal of the points.

I also made a personal vow to never, ever speed again.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

I should have clarified, I don't believe there is any 'tolerance' in Ireland.

Edit: StonedRaider gone in before me.

kbannon wrote: »

I don't think the OP is saying that they weren't speeding but that they didn't commit the offence quoted (in a 60 zone)

RiseToMe

Any tolerance for margin of error for the cameras etc is already built into the speed detection findings.

So for example they know they can detect speeds to an accuracy of +/-5kph, you are driving at 90 in an 80, with the margin of error they know the minimum speed you were travelling at is 85kph allowing for margin of error. Hence people get done for 51 in a 50 etc.

Tiercel Dave

RiseToMe wrote: »

........people get done for 51 in a 50 etc.

But does that mean that they were doing anything between 46 to 56........

RiseToMe

Tiercel Dave wrote: »

But does that mean that they were doing anything between 46 to 56........

Its made of several factors not just that alone you've got the +/-5kph or whatever calibration allowance they have, plus any "grace".

So taking whole numbers for ease, you're going 100 in an 80 zone, you're going anywhere from 95-105, minus say 10% grace gives the end read. They'll always go on the lower value as they need to ensure that they are not creating false positives. So the absolute minimum provable speed you were travelling at was for example 51, hence the ticket, as you were likely closer to 60.

grogi

exaisle wrote: »

However, it's open to the Gardai to issue an new, corrected summons and start the process all over again.

What about double jeopardy?!

GM228

CiniO wrote: »

Let's wait to see what GM228 thinks about it.

We should start a dear GM228 thread....

Perhaps some day I'll bet around to an information thread about these sorts of things.

sidcon wrote: »

Hypothetical situation.
If you received notification of speeding and on the letter is says you where doing 85kph in a 60 zone but the road is clearly marked 80 kph would you contest this case.

If you receive a FCPN for such you can request that it be cancelled for such, there is no guarantee it will be though, and a new corrected one could be issued. When it comes to the summons stage it's not so simple, a charge can still proceed with "defects" in a summons despite what others often claim.

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

You’re right. But I’ve heard of people (anecdotally) getting off fines when their summons arrives at John Smith instead of Jon Smith.

That unfortunately is a myth, a DC judge can amend any summons and proceed to trial as long as the accused is not prejudiced by the amendment. Only fundamental defects which remove jurisdiction from a court to hear a trial can lead to a case of no jurisdiction to hear the charge, technical defects are capable of being remedied and do not invalidate any charge, in many cases simply showing up in court remedies the defects.

bucketybuck wrote: »

The charge doesn't get changed to something else that better suits a prosecution, it gets dismissed. This is why prosecutors/the state think very carefully about what they want to charge people in various situations, why they might charge a lessor provable offence such as manslaughter when murder could be more appropriate but harder to prove.

It's not really that simple and comparisons to say manslaughter/murder to speeding (i.e indictable vs summary) are not a valid comparison, the charge is simple exceeding the speed limit - in such a case the charge is not being changed - just a technical defect in the summons, also worth noting that once you attend court a summons actually ceases to be of any significance. There is an entire body of case law in this area.

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There is none.

exaisle wrote: »

OP...if the summons quotes a 60kph limit, then the prosecution will fail.

It would be like being charged with murdering John Smith when it was Joan Smith who was murdered.

This is not true, judges have great powers to amend the details of a summons. And again comparing an indictable charge to a summary charge is wrong - in most cases simply attending court cures any defects in a summons.

grogi wrote: »

exaisle wrote: »

However, it's open to the Gardai to issue an new, corrected summons and start the process all over again.

What about double jeopardy?!

When a case is struck out double jeopardy does not apply.



It is worth noting that speed limits are not set by signs, rather they are set by law. This thread is worth reading.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.