Penalty points on a learner permit

Mjolnir

KaneToad wrote: »

I didn't think this was an offence? A cyclist is entitled to cycle anywhere on their carriageway/side of the road. No obligation to keep left beside the verge/kerb...

It's not but a guard mate of mine told me about it happening, I had to laugh apparently old boy was just a well known arse and had a particular hatred for cyclists slowing him down.
Takes all sorts I suppose.

Mjolnir

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

I wonder how a fair judge would see this?

Good question, it would fall to their mood, who they believed on the day and the relationship between the guard and judge. If the judge knew the guard to be particularly harsh could be easily struck out. If they were a the law must be followed to its letter 5 points.

Interestingly there was a case where a guard got an awful dressing down by a judge for asking was his word not good enough for the court that it should be and he shouldn't require evidence.

He said, she said scenario, person was ultimately let off.

Rubberchikken

I think the issue lies with the garda. Sounds like a lady with an attitude. Op you could have done it with anyone garda and nothing more than a chat might have occurred.

Galwayguy35

I'd go to the station first and speak to the Guard but if that fails have a chat with a solicitor and see what they think about going to court.

FR85

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

To be fair the guard I spoke to today was like a little bully, she spoke down to me and wouldnt answer the passenger in my car. She had a really nasty attitude, theres ways of saying things and ways of behaving, if I had spoken to her like that it would have resulted in a confrontation.
To give penalty points and a double fine to learner driver for a mistake who caused no damage and no other laws broken, it is very harsh.

Ive never had any run ins with the guards in my life but today gave me a totally different opinion of them. It really was like they were on a power trip and had nothing better to do with their time.

First off I would go back to the point this all happened and take pictures, of the lack of signage, line in the road, from your perspective and from where the gaurds were when you pulled out approximately and then where they pulled you over in relation to where you pulled out. Have all this for possible court and it will help paint a clearer picture. If you get these pics sooner rather than later as if the council puts up a sing or paints a line in the next few days your argument could be fecked.
ld also try, with the person who was with you to speak to the gaurd in question to see what it was you did and if she could be more lenient as it is a learning curve, we all have to learn and she was also in your shoes once.
If you get no where I would ask to speak to her super again with your licensed driver, reason for this, there is no reason for her not to acknowledge this persons existence and to be quite frank if you did something completely wrong and dangerous it needs to be hammered home to your licenced driver to get you out of this habit, that person was there with you to make sure you keep your good habits and to step in if things get hairy. Therefore to me, the gaurd in question has a responsibility of care to make both of you aware of the situation with regards to what she saw as a danger. No excuse to not include them.

I was stopped some years ago in a fairly big van (still only 3.5t) for doing 105kmph on a motorway. she was insistent that I should have had a tacho and speed limiter fitted because it had twin wheels on the back, I disputed this and went into the station the following day with the van, logbook, DOE cert and insurance, asked for her and her super, they came out and he inspected everything and gave her a mighty bollocking in the carpark of Naas Garda Station for wasting mine and his time.
Going in and above her head got me results but it could backfire on you, I knew I was 100% right or close enough.

I honestly feel though she has a duty to one, clearly inform you of what you did and two, acknowledge your fully licensed driver and also to inform them as they should have more experience and understanding of the situation.

I also think they are out to collect more revenue, the country is losing money and at the minute every pound is a prisoner to them......to serve and collect is the latest slogan.

Mimon

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

I was already driving close to the speed limit by the time they got close enough to pull me over, the main road was wide and straight too so they would of had no problem seeing me ahead of them on the road.

If someone has to slow because of a car pulling out in their path the driver pulling out should have waited.

I used to do it and use acceleration to keep away from the driver approaching but my instructor for the test rightly knocked it out of me.

It's bad driving and very common.

Mjolnir

FR85 wrote: »

First off I would go back to the point this all happened and take pictures, of the lack of signage, line in the road, from your perspective and from where the gaurds were when you pulled out approximately and then where they pulled you over in relation to where you pulled out. Have all this for possible court and it will help paint a clearer picture. If you get these pics sooner rather than later as if the council puts up a sing or paints a line in the next few days your argument could be fecked.
ld also try, with the person who was with you to speak to the gaurd in question to see what it was you did and if she could be more lenient as it is a learning curve, we all have to learn and she was also in your shoes once.
If you get no where I would ask to speak to her super again with your licensed driver, reason for this, there is no reason for her not to acknowledge this persons existence and to be quite frank if you did something completely wrong and dangerous it needs to be hammered home to your licenced driver to get you out of this habit, that person was there with you to make sure you keep your good habits and to step in if things get hairy. Therefore to me, the gaurd in question has a responsibility of care to make both of you aware of the situation with regards to what she saw as a danger. No excuse to not include them.

I was stopped some years ago in a fairly big van (still only 3.5t) for doing 105kmph on a motorway. she was insistent that I should have had a tacho and speed limiter fitted because it had twin wheels on the back, I disputed this and went into the station the following day with the van, logbook, DOE cert and insurance, asked for her and her super, they came out and he inspected everything and gave her a mighty bollocking in the carpark of Naas Garda Station for wasting mine and his time.
Going in and above her head got me results but it could backfire on you, I knew I was 100% right or close enough.

I honestly feel though she has a duty to one, clearly inform you of what you did and two, acknowledge your fully licensed driver and also to inform them as they should have more experience and understanding of the situation.

I also think they are out to collect more revenue, the country is losing money and at the minute every pound is a prisoner to them......to serve and collect is the latest slogan.

An important question non of us asked, was it a traffic Corp / rpu guard because they have a certain reputation even amongst guards.

Good advice there

micosoft

callaway92 wrote: »

One side of the story and all that.

To play the cynic, of course the OP is going to make it sound like everything they did was roses.

They earlier said there was no yield sign so inconsistencies in their story. TBH this is one of those posts where the story drags out over a series of posts with justification tagged to them. Reality is that a Garda did not wake up this morning wanted to give penalty points out. I suspect the Garda would have a different story here.

Airyfairy12

Mimon wrote: »

If someone has to slow because of a car pulling out in their path the driver pulling out should have waited.

I used to do it and use of acceleration to keep away form the driver approaching but my instructor for the test rightly knocked it out of me.

It's bad driving and very common.

Yes I agree & lesson learned, I wont do it again but as a learner driver who made a mistake, that mistake will be on my license for 3 years, long after im a learner and no damage was caused. If they had to slam on the breaks or I drove out right infront of them id understand as thats dangerous driving but those situations didnt happen.

DriveSkill

Mjolnir wrote: »

We all do it but as I stated that makes little difference by the letter of the law they have right of way and if you can see them you have to yield to them.

This is absolutely not the case. If you were to apply this logic nobody would ever get out of a junction in a city or onto a relatively busy main road. "Yielding" to traffic with the right of way means you cannot take an action that causes them to change their speed or direction - if other words if they have to brake (even a little) or change lane etc because of what you have done then you have not yielded. So it is a judgement call and something that takes practice and better to err on the side of caution particularly when joining a road with a higher speed limit as cars will approach quickly. However on a test you are just as likely to be marked down for "lack of progress" if you sit at a junction and not join the flow of traffic when suitable opportunities arise and that does not mean that there no other cars in sight!

Airyfairy12

Mjolnir wrote: »

An important question non of us asked, was it a traffic Corp / rpu guard because they have a certain reputation even amongst guards.

Good advice there

I dont know? Just a garda

micosoft

KaneToad wrote: »

I didn't think this was an offence? A cyclist is entitled to cycle anywhere on their carriageway/side of the road. No obligation to keep left beside the verge/kerb...

There is not. It's arrant nonsense to suggest so. The reason cyclists ride two abreast is to allow motor vehicles overtake quickly and safely which is not possible if a long single file is maintained. Skimming single file cyclists by millimetres is not the safe alternative.

Mjolnir

micosoft wrote: »

There is not. It's arrant nonsense to suggest so. The reason cyclists ride two abreast is to allow motor vehicles overtake quickly and safely which is not possible if a long single file is maintained. Skimming single file cyclists by millimetres is not the safe alternative.

No where did I suggest it was an offence go back and read the post.

Airyfairy12

micosoft wrote: »

They earlier said there was no yield sign so inconsistencies in their story. TBH this is one of those posts where the story drags out over a series of posts with justification tagged to them. Reality is that a Garda did not wake up this morning wanted to give penalty points out. I suspect the Garda would have a different story here.

Where are the inconsistencies? read the posts again!

km991148

Mimon wrote: »

If someone has to slow because of a car pulling out in their path the driver pulling out should have waited.

I used to do it and use acceleration to keep away from the driver approaching but my instructor for the test rightly knocked it out of me.

It's bad driving and very common.

Sure, but do you whack 3-6 points (doubled) onto a learner?
A professional instructor should rightly stop people making a habit of that sort of behaviour, but unless there was a near accident (and I don't get the impression there was) would you not expect the learner to get a bit of a bye? It likely that mistakes/ poor judgement will happen.

If it was as described I'd definitely be taking the court gamble. Otherwise I'd say it might be quite hard to get insurance when you do pass.

If you can't get it reduced, don't stress over too much op or let it put you off many other hopefully happy miles ahead.. sometimes sh!t happens..

FR85

Mimon wrote: »

If someone has to slow because of a car pulling out in their path the driver pulling out should have waited.

I used to do it and use acceleration to keep away from the driver approaching but my instructor for the test rightly knocked it out of me.

It's bad driving and very common.

While I agree 100%, we have all pulled out, missed a gear, cut out, misjudged ect and then waved, apologising through the window and most people who have been there will acknowledge that it happens and wave you on.

The poor op did most of these things in the build up, cut out, more then likely panicked a bit and then proceeded a bit flustered. it was already a stressful time for the op and this gaurds attitude added to what was already a heated situation. The op not recognising what the gaurd was pointing out to be a situation may have led her the think they were not driving with due care and attention or indeed an element of reckless driving and that's what may have set her off.
As I stated in a previous post, the copper I feel was wrong to not discuss the matter with the more senior and experienced driver on the scene.

Witcher

FR85 wrote: »

While I agree 100%, we have all pulled out, missed a gear, cut out, misjudged ect and then waved, apologising through the window and most people who have been there will acknowledge that it happens and wave you on.

The poor op did most of these things in the build up, cut out, more then likely panicked a bit and then proceeded a bit flustered. it was already a stressful time for the op and this gaurds attitude added to what was already a heated situation. The op not recognising what the gaurd was pointing out to be a situation may have led her the think they were not driving with due care and attention or indeed an element of reckless driving and that's what may have set her off.
As I stated in a previous post, the copper I feel was wrong to not discuss the matter with the more senior and experienced driver on the scene.

callaway92 wrote: »

One side of the story and all that.

To play the cynic, of course the OP is going to make it sound like everything they did was roses.

.

Mjolnir

DriveSkill wrote: »

This is absolutely not the case. If you were to apply this logic nobody would ever get out of a junction in a city or onto a relatively busy main road. "Yielding" to traffic with the right of way means you cannot take an action that causes them to change their speed or direction - if other words if they have to brake (even a little) or change lane etc because of what you have done then you have not yielded. So it is a judgement call and something that takes practice and better to err on the side of caution particularly when joining a road with a higher speed limit as cars will approach quickly. However on a test you are just as likely to be marked down for "lack of progress" if you sit at a junction and not join the flow of traffic when suitable opportunities arise and that does not mean that there no other cars in sight!

Check the road traffic general bye law 1964 s 22
Absaloutly no mention of altering the vechicle with right of way is mentioned just that you must yield right of way.
I've already mentioned the difference I'm traffic from 64 to today however that is the letter of the law not what is practical as I mentioned already

Yes you can be if you can see for 5 miles and the car is 5 miles away drive her on, same examiner can screw you for safely entering the road if they believe you should have waited.

newmember2

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Yes I agree & lesson learned, I wont do it again but as a learner driver who made a mistake, that mistake will be on my license for 3 years, long after im a learner and no damage was caused. If they had to slam on the breaks or I drove out right infront of them id understand as thats dangerous driving but those situations didnt happen.

OP...the main points of importance to your case which you haven't answered is what is the speed limit of the main road and how far away was the unmarked Garda car when you went to pull out?

You've already said that when you initially attempted the manoeuvre, you stalled the car, and then restarted. Did you then just pull straight out continuing with the manoeuvre or did you start again from the beginning - assessing the approaching traffic on the main road?

If you can honestly say that the unmarked garda car was a long way away from you and that you - completing your manoeuvre, had no effect on the driver of the garda car - having to slow/adjust speed or brake the car they were driving in any reasonable world, then you may have a reasonable case and as said above, you need to get all the relevant points of argument together and get a solicitor to argue them in court. The Garda may have been acting unreasonably.

micosoft

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Yes I agree & lesson learned, I wont do it again but as a learner driver who made a mistake, that mistake will be on my license for 3 years, long after im a learner and no damage was caused. If they had to slam on the breaks or I drove out right infront of them id understand as thats dangerous driving but those situations didnt happen.

Do you not get it? That the point is to stop damage being done in the first place? That increased enforcement of the rules is how road accidents have been reduced so dramatically over the last decades from 472 in 97 to 148 last year? That specifically targeting learner drivers who disproportionality caused deaths or were killed in the lax culture we had was a huge part of this?

You don't know for a fact what the Gardai in the car behind you had to do because you simply don't have the experience. Moreover they may consider other scenarios - less attentive drivers on a main road not expecting a car to emerge from a junction. Thats why the rules are there. Even more important for learners who lack judgement or experience. You seem unwilling to learn this lesson which actually demonstrates the need for the Gardai not to let people off because the pervasive attitude in this country of absolute entitlement. If you had been left off you'd probably continue. The double penalty points (a deliberate decision to increase road safety) is punitive because as a learner you should follow the rules exactly as I suspect you will now.

newmember2

micosoft wrote: »

Do you not get it? That the point is to stop damage being done in the first place? That increased enforcement of the rules is how road accidents have been reduced so dramatically over the last decades from 472 in 97 to 148 last year? That specifically targeting learner drivers who disproportionality caused deaths or were killed in the lax culture we had was a huge part of this?

You don't know for a fact what the Gardai in the car behind you had to do because you simply don't have the experience. Moreover they may consider other scenarios - less attentive drivers on a main road not expecting a car to emerge from a junction. Thats why the rules are there. Even more important for learners who lack judgement or experience. You seem unwilling to learn this lesson which actually demonstrates the need for the Gardai not to let people off because the pervasive attitude in this country of absolute entitlement. If you had been left off you'd probably continue. The double penalty points (a deliberate decision to increase road safety) is punitive because as a learner you should follow the rules exactly as I suspect you will now.

To be fair, the OP is a learner and was under the supervision and direction of a qualified driver. The garda should have informed the qualified driver as to the nature of the offence. As said above, if the garda was being an ass, then go to court and prove it.

Airyfairy12

micosoft wrote: »

Do you not get it? That the point is to stop damage being done in the first place? That increased enforcement of the rules is how road accidents have been reduced so dramatically over the last decades from 472 in 97 to 148 last year? That specifically targeting learner drivers who disproportionality caused deaths or were killed in the lax culture we had was a huge part of this?

You don't know for a fact what the Gardai in the car behind you had to do because you simply don't have the experience. Moreover they may consider other scenarios - less attentive drivers on a main road not expecting a car to emerge from a junction. Thats why the rules are there. Even more important for learners who lack judgement or experience. You seem unwilling to learn this lesson which actually demonstrates the need for the Gardai not to let people off because the pervasive attitude in this country of absolute entitlement. If you had been left off you'd probably continue. The double penalty points (a deliberate decision to increase road safety) is punitive because as a learner you should follow the rules exactly as I suspect you will now.

I didnt cause an accident or any damage and they could clearly see me. They just as easily could have pulled me over and gave me a warning or a fine. Penalty points on top of a double fine is overly harsh. Im not a dangerous driver, I made a mistake as all learner drivers do. I purposely practice driving on quiet rural roads to avoid disrupting other drivers.

Airyfairy12

newmember? wrote: »

To be fair, the OP is a learner and was under the supervision and direction of a qualified driver. The garda should have informed the qualified driver as to the nature of the offence. As said above, if the garda was being an ass, then go to court and prove it.

I dont want to go to court and drag this out over months & as I said I have an anxiety disorder that im medicated for, going to court is not something id feel capable of doing.

Airyfairy12

Just to add, the garda said its a double fine for learner drivers but I cant find that information anywhere. Ive checked my rules of the road book & the RSA website but no where does it say that learner drivers get double fines or double penalty points?

FrankC21

This why i am considering getting a dash cam installed, front, side, up down and back, can't take any chances. A lot of road bullies nowadays, it was very unfortunate that this happen to you, but like most the replies here, it is your words against the gards, without proper evidence, unless the gards have dash cam footage of what happened, let it be a lesson - an expensive lesson indeed.

Edit: or what google use 360 cam

SCOOP 64

micosoft wrote: »

Do you not get it? That the point is to stop damage being done in the first place? That increased enforcement of the rules is how road accidents have been reduced so dramatically over the last decades from 472 in 97 to 148 last year? That specifically targeting learner drivers who disproportionality caused deaths or were killed in the lax culture we had was a huge part of this?

You don't know for a fact what the Gardai in the car behind you had to do because you simply don't have the experience. Moreover they may consider other scenarios - less attentive drivers on a main road not expecting a car to emerge from a junction. Thats why the rules are there. Even more important for learners who lack judgement or experience. You seem unwilling to learn this lesson which actually demonstrates the need for the Gardai not to let people off because the pervasive attitude in this country of absolute entitlement. If you had been left off you'd probably continue. The double penalty points (a deliberate decision to increase road safety) is punitive because as a learner you should follow the rules exactly as I suspect you will now.

He made a mistake as learner driver as you say through lack of judgement or experience but yet you say still must be punished and id say he would still learn from the mistake if it was just a warning from the guards, but to get points and a fine before he can even gains experience seems harsh in this case.

diceyreilly

Worked in insurance for years. Once you have inder 5 you are fine.
Do not get anymore.

Airyfairy12

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

He made a mistake as learner driver as you say through lack of judgement or experience but yet you say still must be punished and id say he would still learn from the mistake if it was just a warning from the guards, but to get points and a fine before he can even gains experience seems harsh in this case.

I badly need a car for work but this has put me off driving as im so scared now that if I make any mistake while practicing I could get more points & lose my license. Im already a nervous driver and it has already cost me all my savings trying to get a car on the road, this has added so much stress to my life.

FrankC21

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

I badly need a car for work but this has put me off driving as im so scared now that if I make any mistake while practicing I could get more points & lose my license. Im already a nervous driver and it has already cost me all my savings trying to get a car on the road, this has added so much stress to my life.

Come on, do not put your self down like that, everyone here driving have made mistakes in their life not once but plenty, it is part of life, I assume you're young still more life ahead of you. Just take this event as a motivation to really workout the area of driving you are mak9ng mistakes. What does not kill you makes you stronger.

km991148

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

I badly need a car for work but this has put me off driving as im so scared now that if I make any mistake while practicing I could get more points & lose my license. Im already a nervous driver and it has already cost me all my savings trying to get a car on the road, this has added so much stress to my life.

Everyone makes mistakes. Please look at it that way.
I'd also consider the court route as if you get a lot of points your insurance may make it uneconomical to drive at all. I know this is not the news you want to hear and it might increase the anxiety, but the alternative (just paying the fine) might be worse.

Put it out your head until you get the letter through and post back. Once you get all the info through you (and us here lol) will be in a better position to make a decision.

Seriously regarding the driving: it's one of these things that happen (mistakes and police!). Try not to stress.