Speeding ticket

Jennymay123

I got stopped by the guards and told I was doing 64 in a 50 zone. Got the ticket and it says I was doing 84 in a 60. Could I get away with it or would I have any options?

Akrasia

Jennymay123 wrote: »

I got stopped by the guards and told I was doing 64 in a 50 zone. Got the ticket and it says I was doing 84 in a 60. Could I get away with it or would I have any options?

You were speeding. Just pay the fine

Jennymay123

Akrasia wrote: »

You were speeding. Just pay the fine

Have no problem paying the fine, just don’t want penalty points as it effects my job.

pablo128

Jennymay123 wrote: »

Have no problem paying the fine, just don’t want penalty points as it effects my job.

Were you doing 64 or 84 at the time? And what's the speed limit on the stretch you were stopped on?

Rubberchikken

Why didn't you think of your job before you decided to speed.
If someone can't follow the very simple instruction that a speed sign is, then they're idiots, in my opinion.

Pay the fine and learn from it.

65535

It depends - did they show you the readout on the speed gun ?
They are supposed to.
They may have just flashed it in front of you without saying anything.

Jennymay123

I was doing 64 and the limit is 60.

No he didn’t show me the speed

biko

Jennymay123 wrote: »

I got stopped by the guards and told I was doing 64 in a 50 zone.

Jennymay123 wrote: »

I was doing 64 and the limit is 60

Which is it?

Just pay the fine and keep an eye on the speedo from now on, particularly if your job depends on it.

silver2020

65535 wrote: »

It depends - did they show you the readout on the speed gun ?
They are supposed to.
They may have just flashed it in front of you without saying anything.

and they are meant to have their hat on too :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

silver2020

Jennymay123 wrote: »

I was doing 64 and the limit is 60.

No he didn’t show me the speed

64 in 60 and there is no way you would have been stopped.

If it was a 60 zone, and you are 99% certain you were 64ish, then I'd write and challenge it.

If you think you may have been doing 84, then not worth it. But there's a fair difference in 84 & 64, so you'd have a good idea yourself of the real speed.

But check the place you were stopped and see if its a 50 or 60 zone and take it from there.

Del2005

Jennymay123 wrote: »

I was doing 64 and the limit is 60.

No he didn’t show me the speed

So you go to court and tell the judge that then see what happens. Because that is the only other option to paying the fine, don't forget you loose the discount for excepting the fine if you get convicted in court.

If your job depends on it talk to a solicitor that practices where you were caught speeding.

Luimneach2018

Jennymay123 wrote: »

I was doing 64 and the limit is 60.

No he didn’t show me the speed

Were you doing 64 in a 50 (as per OP) or a 60 (as per quoted post)?

Examples such as your own used to get thrown out in court but as far as I'm aware that loophole was closed off a few years ago and judges now accept modifications to the FCN/ticket at the request of gardai in court.

So if it was a 50 zone, that's so far over you shouldn't bother wasting your time contesting it and getting yourself 5 points instead of 3.

If it was 64 in a 60 zone, that might be worth contesting? (I'm very much open for correction there, maybe judges don't care whether you were 14 or just 4 over, I don't know, if you have a solicitor it might be worth asking them that question)

Wuff Wuff

Jennymay123 wrote: »

Have no problem paying the fine, just don’t want penalty points as it effects my job.

and yet you were speeding hahahaa

Jennymay123

silver2020 wrote: »

64 in 60 and there is no way you would have been stopped.

If it was a 60 zone, and you are 99% certain you were 64ish, then I'd write and challenge it.

If you think you may have been doing 84, then not worth it. But there's a fair difference in 84 & 64, so you'd have a good idea yourself of the real speed.

But check the place you were stopped and see if its a 50 or 60 zone and take it from there.

It’s a 60 zone. When I was stopped guard said 64 in a 50 zone. Letter says 84 in a 60. So basically I was doing 64 in a 60. Write to who?

Del2005

Jennymay123 wrote: »

It’s a 60 zone. When I was stopped guard said 64 in a 50 zone. Letter says 84 in a 60. So basically I was doing 64 in a 60. Write to who?

You need to talk to a solicitor. If my job depends on not getting penalty points after getting caught speeding, you have admitted to it our law does not care by how much, then I would be paying a professional rather than random people on the Internet.

silver2020

Jennymay123 wrote: »

It’s a 60 zone. When I was stopped guard said 64 in a 50 zone. Letter says 84 in a 60. So basically I was doing 64 in a 60. Write to who?

The details should be on the fine. But are you certain the garda said 64 in a 50?

Are you certain you were not doing 84 ina 60?

Was the garda ina fixed spot speed checking all motorists or was he/she in a car that stopped you. If in a car the place of the offence could have been 1km away.

They are not immune from making mistakes

Del2005

silver2020 wrote: »

The details should be on the fine. But are you certain the garda said 64 in a 50?

Are you certain you were not doing 84 ina 60?

Was the garda ina fixed spot speed checking all motorists or was he/she in a car that stopped you. If in a car the place of the offence could have been 1km away.

They are not immune from making mistakes

With our laws it doesn't matter what speed the OP was doing. The Garda just says that they observed the person speeding and that's all the proof that they need to supply to the judge, the camera or gun don't even have to be working, which is why the OP needs to talk to a solicitor especially since no matter what the actual speed limit was they were exceeding it by their own admission.

Bruthal

Rubberchikken wrote: »

If someone can't follow the very simple instruction that a speed sign is, then they're idiots, in my opinion.

A genius opinion, no doubt.

65535

Del2005 wrote: »

With our laws it doesn't matter what speed the OP was doing. The Garda just says that they observed the person speeding and that's all the proof that they need to supply to the judge, the camera or gun don't even have to be working, which is why the OP needs to talk to a solicitor especially since no matter what the actual speed limit was they were exceeding it by their own admission.

They have to actually show you the readout of the 'gun'.


I would go to court if there are any anomalies

You are entitled to a fair hearing.
However, if it goes against you the points are greater.

65535

Furthermore, if I may add.

Get a cruise control fitted or use the one in your car if there is already one.
Use Google Maps or equivalent to determine your actual speed.
Your actual speed will be different from the speedometer.

My car shows 53 Kph when I am actually (GPS) doing 50.
Also car shows 107 when I am actually doing 100.

If you use both those things you will in future avoid the hassle of getting stopped & fines/points etc.

Seth Brundle

65535 wrote: »

They have to actually show you the readout of the 'gun'.

Is that written in law?

65535

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Is that written in law?

Yes, I was stopped many years ago on the newly built Youghal bypass.
I was actually heading for Waterford Regional to see a dying relative and I was speeding.
When it got to court in Youghal I was told by the Judge that the case could not proceed because I was not shown the readout of the speed gun.
And all cases prior to that were 'thrown out'.
Now the Guard came out and shook my hand afterwards but it put me in a dark place at that time but that's another story.


Last week I was (co-incidentally) heading for Tralee Gen Hospital going through Glenflesk - A Petrol Station, A Church and a few houses.
It was always 100 Kph there but it is 60 now.
The cop caught up with me (he got a van that was in front of me first)
and he shows me the readout of the gun.

SteM

65535 wrote: »

Furthermore, if I may add.

Get a cruise control fitted or use the one in your car if there is already one.
Use Google Maps or equivalent to determine your actual speed.
Your actual speed will be different from the speedometer.

My car shows 53 Kph when I am actually (GPS) doing 50.
Also car shows 107 when I am actually doing 100.

If you use both those things you will in future avoid the hassle of getting stopped & fines/points etc.

65535 wrote: »

Last week I was (co-incidentally) heading for Tralee Gen Hospital going through Glenflesk - A Petrol Station, A Church and a few houses.
It was always 100 Kph there but it is 60 now.
The cop caught up with me (he got a van that was in front of me first)
and he shows me the readout of the gun.

Google maps obviously works well for you.

65535

SteM wrote: »

Google maps obviously works well for you.

It does work fine for me, what also works are GPS's which use satellites for showing accurate speed.


Updated Google Maps (maybe you have to be in the Beta Testers) now have the ability to show your actual speed.

65535

silver2020 wrote: »

and they are meant to have their hat on too :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I find it very odd as a motorist to see someone who would just take the word of a Guard as to what speed I was doing.
Suppose, just suppose a Guard comes up to you and says you were doing 70 in a 50 zone yet you know you were not, how would he prove it ?


Well he shows you the readout of the calibrated speed detector, that's how.

SteM

65535 wrote: »

It does work fine for me, what also works are GPS's which use satellites for showing accurate speed.


Updated Google Maps (maybe you have to be in the Beta Testers) now have the ability to show your actual speed.

So how did you get stopped speeding last week? You had the info there in front of you. It was showing you the speed limit, it was showing you your speed but you still got stopped and you're suggesting that the OP use this method?

65535

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Is that written in law?

It is interpreted in the court that the 'gun' has to be shown with the detected speed on it, here is the extract.


15.—Section 21 of the Act of 2002 is amended—

(a) by substituting for subsection (1) the following:

“(1) The onus of establishing prima facie proof of a constituent of an offence
(including the speed at which a person, whether the accused or another person, was driving)
under section 47, 52, 53, 55, 91, 92, 93 or 94 of the Principal Act or section 35 of the Act of 1994 may be discharged
by tendering evidence from which that constituent can be inferred of measurements or other indications which were given by—

(a) electronic or other apparatus (including a camera) capable of providing a permanent record (including a permanent visual record)
and are contained in such a record produced by it, or
(b) electronic or other apparatus (including a radar gun) which is not capable of producing a permanent record.

65535

SteM wrote: »

So how did you get stopped speeding last week? You had the info there in front of you. It was showing you the speed limit, it was showing you your speed but you still got stopped and you're suggesting that the OP use this method?

Well as a human being....

I was following a van, the roads were understandably quiet.
It was a few years since I had driven that road and when I did the limit was 100.
The van slowed to about 85 as I did behind him but I was exceeding the speed limit which was shown on new speed limit signs which I did not see in time.
The road curves around and when you see the Garage on the left you only then also see the speed limit signs.

_Kaiser_

65535 wrote: »

It is interpreted in the court that the 'gun' has to be shown with the detected speed on it, here is the extract.


15.—Section 21 of the Act of 2002 is amended—

(a) by substituting for subsection (1) the following:

“(1) The onus of establishing prima facie proof of a constituent of an offence
(including the speed at which a person, whether the accused or another person, was driving)
under section 47, 52, 53, 55, 91, 92, 93 or 94 of the Principal Act or section 35 of the Act of 1994 may be discharged
by tendering evidence from which that constituent can be inferred of measurements or other indications which were given by—

(a) electronic or other apparatus (including a camera) capable of providing a permanent record (including a permanent visual record)
and are contained in such a record produced by it, or
(b) electronic or other apparatus (including a radar gun) which is not capable of producing a permanent record.

I don't know about that... I was stopped a few years ago after passing a car that came after me and he didn't show me the speed gun.

Still got the fine and points though.

Del2005

65535 wrote: »

It is interpreted in the court that the 'gun' has to be shown with the detected speed on it, here is the extract.


15.—Section 21 of the Act of 2002 is amended—

(a) by substituting for subsection (1) the following:

“(1) The onus of establishing prima facie proof of a constituent of an offence
(including the speed at which a person, whether the accused or another person, was driving)
under section 47, 52, 53, 55, 91, 92, 93 or 94 of the Principal Act or section 35 of the Act of 1994 may be discharged
by tendering evidence from which that constituent can be inferred of measurements or other indications which were given by—

(a) electronic or other apparatus (including a camera) capable of providing a permanent record (including a permanent visual record)
and are contained in such a record produced by it, or
(b) electronic or other apparatus (including a radar gun) which is not capable of producing a permanent record.

The gun doesn't have to be working so they can show you any speed they want

Isambard

lacks credibility I'm afraid.

silver2020

65535 wrote: »

It is interpreted in the court that the 'gun' has to be shown with the detected speed on it, here is the extract.


15.—Section 21 of the Act of 2002 is amended—

(a) by substituting for subsection (1) the following:

“(1) The onus of establishing prima facie proof of a constituent of an offence
(including the speed at which a person, whether the accused or another person, was driving)
under section 47, 52, 53, 55, 91, 92, 93 or 94 of the Principal Act or section 35 of the Act of 1994 may be discharged
by tendering evidence from which that constituent can be inferred of measurements or other indications which were given by—

(a) electronic or other apparatus (including a camera) capable of providing a permanent record (including a permanent visual record)
and are contained in such a record produced by it, or
(b) electronic or other apparatus (including a radar gun) which is not capable of producing a permanent record.

Can you show where in that extract it states that the garda must legally show the motorist the laser reading?

I for sure can't see it.

What it does say that if a garda shows the reading or if the person requests to see the reading and is show it and accepts it, then no further evidence is required to prove the speed.

It does not in any way whatsoever say that a garda must legally show the laser reading for the fine to be imposed.

65535

silver2020 wrote: »

Can you show where in that extract it states that the garda must legally show the motorist the laser reading?

I for sure can't see it.

What it does say that if a garda shows the reading or if the person requests to see the reading and is show it and accepts it, then no further evidence is required to prove the speed.

It does not in any way whatsoever say that a garda must legally show the laser reading for the fine to be imposed.

As stated:
It is interpreted in the court that the 'gun' has to be shown with the detected speed on it, here is the extract.


I have been through this twice - once in 2014 and another in 2020.


Maybe you could consider looking this up yourself, I already understand the position.
Next time you meet someone who has been stopped for going faster than the limit you could ask them, or indeed if it is such an important thing please go and ask a Traffic Guard, I'm sure they will assist you in your endeavors.

mikeecho

65535 wrote: »

They have to actually show you the readout of the 'gun'.


....

Excuse my ignorance, but where in law does it state that there is an obligation for a member of AGS or other person to show the reading on the gun to the driver.

I'll save you the trouble of looking.. it's right next to the bit about wearing a hat.

65535

mikeecho wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance, but where in law does it state that there is an obligation for a member of AGS or other person to show the reading on the gun to the driver.

I'll save you the trouble of looking.. it's right next to the bit about wearing a hat.

I'm not sure about your fixation with Police Hats ???


It's nothing to me - when you get a chance put away the cop's hat and ask around.

mikeecho

65535 wrote: »

I'm not sure about your fixation with Police Hats ???


It's nothing to me - when you get a chance put away the cop's hat and ask around.

You still can't show where it states that the reading has to be shown.

65535

mikeecho wrote: »

You still can't show where it states that the reading has to be shown.

I don't need to, for two reasons.
Firstly I have had experience of this in the courthouse in Youghal.
Secondly I have witnessed this in action.
First time I was even asked by the Garda if I could see the readout.
If you have ever been speeding you might know yourself.


Anyhow I have given enough here, My words were to assist the Original Poster.
If you need more info please go ahead, just go and speed, you will soon find out. You could even ask the Guard !

mikeecho

65535 wrote: »

I don't need to, for two reasons.
Firstly I have had experience of this in the courthouse in Youghal.
Secondly I have witnessed this in action.
First time I was even asked by the Garda if I could see the readout.
If you have ever been speeding you might know yourself.


Anyhow I have given enough here, My words were to assist the Original Poster.
If you need more info please go ahead, just go and speed, you will soon find out. You could even ask the Guard !

*Insert barstool

Jay Dee

Hi,

What is the actual speed limit at the spot you were "gunned". ?
What did the Garda actually say . ?

Jay

Jennymay123

Jay Dee wrote: »

Hi,

What is the actual speed limit at the spot you were "gunned". ?
What did the Garda actually say . ?

Jay

Speed limit is 60 where I was gunned. Garda said i was doing 64 in a 50 when he pulled me in. Ticket says 84 in a 60.

pablo128

Jennymay123 wrote: »

Speed limit is 60 where I was gunned. Garda said i was doing 64 in a 50 when he pulled me in. Ticket says 84 in a 60.

So even if you were doing 64 in a 60, you were still speeding. Do you think you should get off on a technicality? Really at this stage the person you will be dealing with is a judge, if you don't accept your fine and points. So you have to ask yourself how can I convince a judge not to give me points after you admit to speeding.

newmember2

Jennymay123 wrote: »

Speed limit is 60 where I was gunned. Garda said i was doing 64 in a 50 when he pulled me in. Ticket says 84 in a 60.

I would get a solicitor to argue the point that the Garda hasn't a clue what he's doing is incompetent.

Jennymay123

65535 wrote: »

As stated:
It is interpreted in the court that the 'gun' has to be shown with the detected speed on it, here is the extract.


I have been through this twice - once in 2014 and another in 2020.


Maybe you could consider looking this up yourself, I already understand the position.
Next time you meet someone who has been stopped for going faster than the limit you could ask them, or indeed if it is such an important thing please go and ask a Traffic Guard, I'm sure they will assist you in your endeavors.

Do you think I should try sending in an FCN cancellation form and saying I wasn’t shown the gun and that the speed is different to what he told me I was doing?

Jennymay123

pablo128 wrote: »

So even if you were doing 64 in a 60, you were still speeding. Do you think you should get off on a technicality? Really at this stage the person you will be dealing with is a judge, if you don't accept your fine and points. So you have to ask yourself how can I convince a judge not to give me points after you admit to speeding.

I’d be hoping to get of on some sort of technicality. Yes I was speeding but just slightly over, and I wouldn’t mind paying the fine, I just really don’t want the points.

SteM

Your word against his, no way you're getting out of this imo.

TheBoyConor

silver2020 wrote: »

and they are meant to have their hat on too :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You could have gotten away with it if you told him you needed a dump and then he'd have to have given you his hat to shíte in and then he'd have no hat so he had no power to do you for speed any more so you'd have been away with it.

TheBoyConor

Jennymay123 wrote: »

I’d be hoping to get of on some sort of technicality. Yes I was speeding but just slightly over, and I wouldn’t mind paying the fine, I just really don’t want the points.

Yep, go in and tell that to the judge. "I was speeding but only slightly"


Jesus like, the sense of entitlement is unreal.

Judge, I admit I murdered the victim, but I only shot him once, no big deal like cos I didn't shoot him ten times and chop his head off so you should let me off with it.

Jennymay123

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Yep, go in and tell that to the judge. "I was speeding but only slightly"


Jesus like, the sense of entitlement is unreal.

Judge, I admit I murdered the victim, but I only shot him once, no big deal like cos I didn't shoot him ten times and chop his head off so you should let me off with it.

Where are you getting murder from, I think your on the wrong thread.. hop along now

silver2020

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Yep, go in and tell that to the judge. "I was speeding but only slightly"


Jesus like, the sense of entitlement is unreal.

Judge, I admit I murdered the victim, but I only shot him once, no big deal like cos I didn't shoot him ten times and chop his head off so you should let me off with it.

This type of stupid comment is laughable.

Judges are human. If indeed the OP was doing 64 in a 60, you'd need to get a judge on a very very very bad day and have the attitude of an assh*le to get a conviction.

If the OP is certain they were not doing 84 and is certain it is a 60 zone and that the garda said 64, then the ticket is wrong in terms of the speed limit applying and therefore the location may also be wrong and on top of that the speed stated is wrong.

Whatever about a spelling error in a name or address or the speed beng claimed is a few km out but in both cases substantially above the limit and therefore the offence is still correct and can be corrected by the court clerk, three glaring and substantial errors can not

TheW1zard

Go to court, say youre sorry!

The Royal Scam

New Device take Video and Picture , just so you are aware.


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin//showthread.php?t=2058050566