Gardai traffic delays?

Rickytumtum

I see today that there a large tail backs, particularly around Dublin, because the Gardai have set up checkpoints to monitor Level 3 compliance and have reduced traffic to a single lane.


There are comments in the media stating that hopefully the long traffic jams will deter people from travel.

As this obviously has a huge knock on effect on those who legitimately need to travel (for work etc) I was wondering what legal basis the Gardai have for setting up these checkpoints if the intention (either direction or indirect) is to cause traffic jams? Can the Gardai wilfully obstruct use of the roads like this? It seems to me that this situation is different to where a traffic jam just happens to occur as a result of setting up valid checkpoints. Here, the intention seems to be to cause delays and prevent people from going about their business.

Views or comments welcome.

seamus

There is no legislation restricting the volume or location of Garda checkpoints.

As far as I know they do have to be authorised (i.e. two lads in the car can't just pull over and set up a checkpoint), but outside of that anything goes.

You're right, the intention here is to deter travel. And there will be some delays for those who need to work.

Those people just need to build that into their day. A day or three of this and people will stop travelling and the delays will ease.

shar01

Rickytumtum wrote: »

I see today that there a large tail backs, particularly around Dublin, because the Gardai have set up checkpoints to monitor Level 3 compliance and have reduced traffic to a single lane.


There are comments in the media stating that hopefully the long traffic jams will deter people from travel.

As this obviously has a huge knock on effect on those who legitimately need to travel (for work etc) I was wondering what legal basis the Gardai have for setting up these checkpoints if the intention (either direction or indirect) is to cause traffic jams? Can the Gardai wilfully obstruct use of the roads like this? It seems to me that this situation is different to where a traffic jam just happens to occur as a result of setting up valid checkpoints. Here, the intention seems to be to cause delays and prevent people from going about their business.

Views or comments welcome.

According to the 7am news on today fm, it's a deliberate act on the Guards part to deter those from making unnecessary journeys.

Rickytumtum

seamus wrote: »

There is no legislation restricting the volume or location of Garda checkpoints.

What about the purpose?

seamus

Rickytumtum wrote: »

What about the purpose?

Anything legal afaik.

It is legal for a Garda to request any vehicle to stop. They do not need a specific purpose.

However, persistently pulling over a specific vehicle without purpose can be construed as harrassment.

Nevertheless the statement stands that a Garda checkpoint does not need a specific purpose.

Witcher

seamus wrote: »

There is no legislation restricting the volume or location of Garda checkpoints.

As far as I know they do have to be authorised (i.e. two lads in the car can't just pull over and set up a checkpoint), but outside of that anything goes.

The only checkpoints that have to be authorised are Mandatory Intoxicant Testing checkpoints under Section 10 of the RTA 2010.

Other than that a Garda can set up a checkpoint on any public road.

Rickytumtum

Witcher wrote: »

The only checkpoints that have to be authorised are Mandatory Intoxicant Testing checkpoints under Section 10 of the RTA 2010.

Other than that a Garda can set up a checkpoint on any public road.

Correct, I couldn’t think of any other checkpoints with a statutory basis.

I assume that any other checkpoints are therefore set up under the common law? If so, is the Garda power not limited or tied to the prevention or detection of a crime, as opposed to the intentional disruption of traffic and obstruction of the public highway in order to cause inconvenience? I’m sure that by setting up checkpoints the Gardai may inadvertently stumble upon some people breaking the law, but again my question comes back to the purpose - can the Gardai really prevent (or make more difficult at a minimum) the public from travelling, without statutory basis?

The Gardai’s job is to detect and prevent crime. Not to make life inconvenient for citizens or prevent the public from lawfully moving about.

Strange times we live in.

Peregrinus

What you've got here is Garda checkpoints as an instrument of traffic management.

A policy of temporarily or permamently reducing traffic by measures which discourage it is common and uncontroversial. Traffic-calming measures like speed humps and chicanes are intended to make you avoid this street and prefer that one. Traffic light seqences may be deliberately set to slow down through traffic. Etc, etc. Happens all the time.

The only thing that's novel here is use of checkpoints rather than street architecture. There are public policy reasons which I don't need to elaborate on for discouraging people from making journeys, and trying to reduce the number of journeys that are made. The checkpoints are seen as a way of supporting that policy. I can't see an argument that it's illegal.

Get Real

Those that have to travel as a necessity will benefit longer term as it will actually deter people just adding to the traffic by taking a spin.

The guards also have to commute to work themselves don't forget, and are also liable to be stuck in these jams.

So over time, when people who are needlessly out and about, those who need to get to work, can.

kirving

Get Real wrote: »

Those that have to travel as a necessity will benefit longer term as it will actually deter people just adding to the traffic by taking a spin.

No they won't, because the purpose of the checkpoints was twofold. A) to check compliance, and to intentionally cause traffic disruption to a certain level to discourage people from driving.

To maintain that disruption and keep discouraging unnecessary journeys, the Gards then need to hold the people who do need to go to work for the same amount of time as before. So the problem doesn't get fixed.

Anyway, who takes an unnecessary journey during rush hour anyway?

Get Real

Kevin Irving wrote: »

No they won't, because the purpose of the checkpoints was twofold. A) to check compliance, and to intentionally cause traffic disruption to a certain level to discourage people from driving.

To maintain that disruption and keep discouraging unnecessary journeys, the Gards then need to hold the people who do need to go to work for the same amount of time as before. So the problem doesn't get fixed.

Anyway, who takes an unnecessary journey during rush hour anyway?

You say the purpose is to "discourage people from driving" isn't that just another way of saying deter people? Which was my point.

Lots of people take unnecessary journeys during rush hour. Depending on the definition of unnecessary. During lockdown you'll recall there was no traffic during rush hour.

Also, as I said, those that need to make essential journeys, nurses, ambulance staff, shop staff, truck drivers etc, the guards also commute and will be held up by these jams too.

By discouraging people from driving, then there'd be more room and better commutes for essential workers no?

Traffic levels are monitored and are at 80percent of normal. Versus 20percent of normal a few months ago.

I'm sure if non-essential drivers were discouraged then volumes would fall, negating the need for these big checkpoints in the first place. So mid to longer term, easier commutes for those that need to actually travel. If they rose again, bring them back in.

kirving

Get Real wrote: »

Lots of people take unnecessary journeys during rush hour. Depending on the definition of unnecessary. During lockdown you'll recall there was no traffic during rush hour.

First of all, schools were closed then, and they're open now. It was the government that changed that definition. By far, school traffic is what I notice most when commuting.

I just don't see the end game of the checkpoint outside of a PR stunt. There's almost no criteria which can be applied which can deem a journey necessary or not, and on top of that there's no enforcement.

Get Real wrote: »

I'm sure if non-essential drivers were discouraged then volumes would fall, negating the need for these big checkpoints in the first place. So mid to longer term, easier commutes for those that need to actually travel. If they rose again, bring them back in.

But that assumes there was a traffic problem yesterday that prevented essential workers from getting to work on time? There wasn't an issue yesterday, but there was today.

As far as I can work out, conveniently sitting at my desk at home so they don't affect me, it's been a PR disaster because of the explicit intention to create traffic jams which delayed teaches, nurses, doctors, shop workers, among others.

The jams were not as a result of the checkpoint - the entire purpose of the checkpoint was to create a jam. If they want to continue that approach, they they will need to hold fewer and fewer cars for longer and longer periods in order to maintain the efficacy of the checkpoint.

The checkpoints have created plenty of problems regardless if your journey is essential or not, and haven't seemed to solve any.

pockets3d

The state raised the money for and built the roads. Their traffic is under the remit of the state authorities. When you buy the land and build your own roads you can complain about how the gardai conduct themselves on them. I know we all pay taxes towards them, but that makes you a subject not a customer of a service.

bobbyy gee

If you see a helicopter flying above you that's me

Give me a wave

Rickytumtum

pockets3d wrote: »

The state raised the money for and built the roads. Their traffic is under the remit of the state authorities. When you buy the land and build your own roads you can complain about how the gardai conduct themselves on them. I know we all pay taxes towards them, but that makes you a subject not a customer of a service.

This thread wasn’t started to complain about any State authorities.

My query has been in respect of the legal basis for the Gardaí to intentionally cause traffic jams to make travel for citizens more difficult/impossible.

There seems to be consensus that the Gardaí can do what they like, and that the State can do what it wants, because they own or police the roads. Are there any counter arguments to this? For example, if traffic jams were intentionally being caused in people’s housing estates, would that be different to traffic jams on main roads? I don’t want to go into constitutional torts too much, but there must be some limit or constraint on the ability of the State to make domestic travel difficult. Using the same logic, can the Gardai set up a road block on every road in the country and just stop people from travelling, without a clear legal basis?

Rickytumtum

Rickytumtum wrote: »

This thread wasn’t started to complain about any State authorities.

My query has been in respect of the legal basis for the Gardaí to intentionally cause traffic jams to make travel for citizens more difficult/impossible.

There seems to be consensus that the Gardaí can do what they like, and that the State can do what it wants, because they own or police the roads. Are there any counter arguments to this? For example, if traffic jams were intentionally being caused in people’s housing estates, would that be different to traffic jams on main roads? I don’t want to go into constitutional torts too much, but there must be some limit or constraint on the ability of the State to make domestic travel difficult. Using the same logic, can the Gardai set up a road block on every road in the country and just stop people from travelling, without a clear legal basis?

Well for starters, a good question well asked. I have wondered this myself since this all started.

Gardai have a power under the road traffic act to stop, direct traffic and question the driver's for the purpose of crime prevention, detection and the control of traffic.

The high court have held that Gardai need not form an opinion or reasonable suspicion of a crime bring committed before enacting this power.

The judges rules state that a Garda may ask any person any question but there isn't an automatic requirement to answer. (I would think that sexual harassment, professional conduct comes into play though).

So in effect, Gardai can pull in any car, setup a checkpoint and stop any car and speak with the driver for these purposes.

Are the current checkpoints acting within that remit? If the purpose is to restrict traffic flow for the proper management of traffic, yes.

If the checkpoints are purely to deter people from performing what is a legal act, then I say no.

If the checkpoints only purpose is to issue medical advice, I think it's also a no.

But theres unique aspects at play.

The courts have found in the past and in relation to covid that a government act in the national health interests can outweigh the interests of the one under certain conditions.

Second, we have a novel situation concerning non penal laws. Laws that carry no penalty. They are laws, they are forbidding certain actions but no sanction for breaking them. The Garda rights as defined by the high court, don't specify that checkpoints can only be used for enforcement through penalties. It states 'prevention and detection'.

It's a very interesting question again and I'm torn in it. I think it can fall both ways but if I was a betting man I would go with 'legal' but probable for the high court to decide. Gemma may well decide to take up the challenge but your average motorist probable won't.

Peregrinus

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

. . . . So in effect, Gardai can pull in any car, setup a checkpoint and stop any car and speak with the driver for these purposes.

Are the current checkpoints acting within that remit? If the purpose is to restrict traffic flow for the proper management of traffic, yes.

If the checkpoints are purely to deter people from performing what is a legal act, then I say no.

Let me just pick you up on that. I think you may be making a false distinction there; couldn't the guards seek to deter people from performing what is a lawful act, for the purpose of restricting traffic flow for the proper management of traffic.

A large part of traffic management consists of detering people from doing thing that are in fact perfectly lawful. It's perfectly lawful for me to drive though a network of quiet residential streets to make a journey accross the city; measures are taken to deter me from doing this and to encourage me to use arterial routes instead. Or measures might be taken to deter people from travelling at rush-hour, and encourage them to stagger their journeys. Or whatever.

I think the purpose of the checkpoints is to deter less-than-necessary journeys. They do that in a number of ways - by making journeys slower/more inconvenient they deter people who are less motivated to make the journey in the first place; they create interactions in which people have to account for their journeys which (a) makes them think about whether the journey is necessary, and (b) adds an embarrasment factor if the journey is unnecessary and they make it anyway. And no doubt we could think of other ways.

I don't think you could say that this is illegal because it aims to deter lawful behaviour; as pointed out, deterring lawful behaviour is a staple tool of traffic management. I think if you want to attack this you would need to do so on the basis of a proportionality test; the extent to which lawful behaviour is interfered with is disproportionate to the public health aims. But of course the instinct of the courts is to defer to the executive on proportionality tests of this kind; in the first instance its for the executive authorities to decide what is a proportionate response to the problem, and the courts will be slow to override their judgment except in egregious cases.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Let me just pick you up on that. I think you may be making a false distinction there; couldn't the guards seek to deter people from performing what is a lawful act, for the purpose of restricting traffic flow for the proper management of traffic.

A large part of traffic management consists of detering people from doing thing that are in fact perfectly lawful. It's perfectly lawful for me to drive though a network of quiet residential streets to make a journey accross the city; measures are taken to deter me from doing this and to encourage me to use arterial routes instead. Or measures might be taken to deter people from travelling at rush-hour, and encourage them to stagger their journeys. Or whatever.

I think the purpose of the checkpoints is to deter less-than-necessary journeys. They do that in a number of ways - by making journeys slower/more inconvenient they deter people who are less motivated to make the journey in the first place; they create interactions in which people have to account for their journeys which (a) makes them think about whether the journey is necessary, and (b) adds an embarrasment factor if the journey is unnecessary and they make it anyway. And no doubt we could think of other ways.

I don't think you could say that this is illegal because it aims to deter lawful behaviour; as pointed out, deterring lawful behaviour is a staple tool of traffic management. I think if you want to attack this you would need to do so on the basis of a proportionality test; the extent to which lawful behaviour is interfered with is disproportionate to the public health aims. But of course the instinct of the courts is to defer to the executive on proportionality tests of this kind; in the first instance its for the executive authorities to decide what is a proportionate response to the problem, and the courts will be slow to override their judgment except in egregious cases.

Good point. I would agree with your clarification regarding traffic management.

Im not convinced that it's still on solid ground when Gardai are performing a checkpoint purely to delay and embarrass driver's. As has been said before, health advise is yours to ignore be it covid, smoking, weight.

That's why I think the national interest could play a role. I would imagine Gardai performing a checkpoint purely to tell any overweight drivers that they should get their fat asses on the bike would be shot down.

Rickytumtum

Peregrinus wrote: »

Let me just pick you up on that. I think you may be making a false distinction there; couldn't the guards seek to deter people from performing what is a lawful act, for the purpose of restricting traffic flow for the proper management of traffic.

A large part of traffic management consists of detering people from doing thing that are in fact perfectly lawful. It's perfectly lawful for me to drive though a network of quiet residential streets to make a journey accross the city; measures are taken to deter me from doing this and to encourage me to use arterial routes instead. Or measures might be taken to deter people from travelling at rush-hour, and encourage them to stagger their journeys. Or whatever.

I think the purpose of the checkpoints is to deter less-than-necessary journeys. They do that in a number of ways - by making journeys slower/more inconvenient they deter people who are less motivated to make the journey in the first place; they create interactions in which people have to account for their journeys which (a) makes them think about whether the journey is necessary, and (b) adds an embarrasment factor if the journey is unnecessary and they make it anyway. And no doubt we could think of other ways.

I don't think you could say that this is illegal because it aims to deter lawful behaviour; as pointed out, deterring lawful behaviour is a staple tool of traffic management. I think if you want to attack this you would need to do so on the basis of a proportionality test; the extent to which lawful behaviour is interfered with is disproportionate to the public health aims. But of course the instinct of the courts is to defer to the executive on proportionality tests of this kind; in the first instance its for the executive authorities to decide what is a proportionate response to the problem, and the courts will be slow to override their judgment except in egregious cases.

I agree. It would take a very brave person to try to actually challenge.

In respect of your comments relating to traffic management, I can see a distinction between the current circumstances and the examples you gave. Traffic management measures are generally put in place to help IMPROVE traffic and to accommodate the movement of the public - pedestrianisation of a street may be an inconvenience to drivers but would serve to improve conditions for other members of the public using the area on foot.

In contrast, these current measures are less traffic management and more traffic mis-management. They don’t serve to improve access or movement for anyone. They can probably be explained away on the basis that the benefit to society is that reducing travel may reduce the risk of covid spreading, so I still don’t think there’s much in it, but it’s still interesting to consider - I think the legal basis isn’t as clear as it’s made out to be.

Ger Roe

When is a checkpoint, not a checkpoint?

Traffic was held up on the N11 last night, just outside Bray, southbound, to past 9pm with a 10km tailback. Anecdotal reports of the checkpoint not being manned since 5pm.

The restrictions were still in place, cones and signs, but no members present. A call to the managing garda division HQ said that the cones took too long to set up and so would not be removed while the checkpoint is inactive.

That to me, is just pure disruption, for the sake of it. Not in the spirit of fair policing by consent. One member of my household is an essential worker and was coming home last night after a 12 hour shift - held up for an extra hour and a half going through the cone slalom.

Peregrinus

Rickytumtum wrote: »

I agree. It would take a very brave person to try to actually challenge.

In respect of your comments relating to traffic management, I can see a distinction between the current circumstances and the examples you gave. Traffic management measures are generally put in place to help IMPROVE traffic and to accommodate the movement of the public - pedestrianisation of a street may be an inconvenience to drivers but would serve to improve conditions for other members of the public using the area on foot.

In contrast, these current measures are less traffic management and more traffic mis-management. They don’t serve to improve access or movement for anyone. They can probably be explained away on the basis that the benefit to society is that reducing travel may reduce the risk of covid spreading, so I still don’t think there’s much in it, but it’s still interesting to consider - I think the legal basis isn’t as clear as it’s made out to be.

Fair point. But, two thoughts.

Even now, not all traffic management is aimed at benefitting, or ensuring fairness between, road users. Traffic calming measures might be intended to benefit the occupiers/users of adjacent properties, for example, so that there isn't noisy traffic impeding your enjoyment of your front room or your garden.

Secondly, if we're not there already, we'll very soon be at the point where we'll be seeking to manage traffic with a view to securing environmental benefit for the whole community which, again, will not be a matter of balancing the competing claims of different road users. In fact, that probably has a lot in common with managing traffic to secure a public health benefit.

I think what's particularly in-your-face in the present case is that the traffic management technique is a pretty "lets make travelling miserable" one rather than, e.g. urban planning or changed work patters designed to make frequent journey less necessary. But, obviously, where you're looking for a rapidly-deployable but temporary measure, your options are limited. I think the questions we should ask about this measure are (a) does in fact reduce the number of journeys made and the consequent interpersonal encounters? and (b) can we think of other measures that would have secured the same (or a better) outcome but with less adverse side effects on those having to make unavoidable journeys?

Rickytumtum

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fair point. But, two thoughts.

Even now, not all traffic management is aimed at benefitting, or ensuring fairness between, road users. Traffic calming measures might be intended to benefit the occupiers/users of adjacent properties, for example, so that there isn't noisy traffic impeding your enjoyment of your front room or your garden.

Secondly, if we're not there already, we'll very soon be at the point where we'll be seeking to manage traffic with a view to securing environmental benefit for the whole community which, again, will not be a matter of balancing the competing claims of different road users. In fact, that probably has a lot in common with managing traffic to secure a public health benefit.

I think what's particularly in-your-face in the present case is that the traffic management technique is a pretty "lets make travelling miserable" one rather than, e.g. urban planning or changed work patters designed to make frequent journey less necessary. But, obviously, where you're looking for a rapidly-deployable but temporary measure, your options are limited. I think the questions we should ask about this measure are (a) does in fact reduce the number of journeys made and the consequent interpersonal encounters? and (b) can we think of other measures that would have secured the same (or a better) outcome but with less adverse side effects on those having to make unavoidable journeys?

I’m not advocating for it, but If the gardaí had stronger legal powers to stop people from travelling, that would be an option. It seems to be that by designing what is effectively a blockade, the gardaí and government can side step that as an option - you don’t need to fine or arrest someone for crossing county borders if they got so fed up they turn around and go home after two hours in traffic. I have to admit, it’s a smart way around a difficult question. I’m just surprised this can be done without an explicit (or clearer at the very minimum) legal power and even more surprised that no one is at least asking the question. If the Gardaí decided to close every street in Dublin, it would be a different story. And presumably the Gardaí would be relying on the exact same legal basis.

I won’t flog this any further, everyone’s contributions are appreciated.

Although if anyone identifies any sneaky common law powers which curtail the ability to impose a slowdown/blockade, let me know!