Cops & Cars, the topless Bars

Gatster

This has probably been widely discussed here before, but can anyone tell me what the Garda actually do, or are supposed to do?

Yesterday on the Stillorgan Road about 1630 a VW Polo drove into the back of a van (quite badly mangling the Polo), which in turn hit a Saab 95. The whole thing was a mess, dazed looking Polo driver on a mobile, confused looking van driver etc. This scene was straddling the two outside lanes, glass pretty much across the road.

Who sails past on the inside lane, but our friendly efficient Garda. Did they stop, or enquire as to the wellbeing of the citizens they are supposed to be protecting/helping?

NO, obviously.

Far to busy reading the Sun and playing Z-Cars on the radio eating free sarnies from the Esso. Now I may be misguided here, but aren't cops meant to stop at the scene of an accident - this was wasn't just a minor shunt?

garthv

Maybe they had more important things to do no?Like go hassle young people?
Thats all I ever see them do. Oh that and stop people doin 32 in 30 zones

fletch

GaRtH_V wrote:

Thats all I ever see them do. Oh that and stop people doin 32 in 30 zones

MANIACS :eek:

Interceptor

They were 'on a break'...

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children.....

mike65

Gatster wrote:

This has probably been widely discussed here before, but can anyone tell me what the Garda actually do, or are supposed to do?

Yesterday on the Stillorgan Road about 1630 a VW Polo drove into the back of a van/

The time of day may well be the key to this, they were on they're way back to the station to knock off or they had just gone on patrol since the shift started (16.00 hrs) so they could'nt arsed to start/end the day with a tonne of paperwork.

Mike.

LegacyUser

Gatster wrote:

dazed looking Polo driver on a mobile

With arséholes like this on the road breaking the law, is it any wonder that the Gardaí are pissed off! I agree that there are timewasters in every job, and these guys should definitely have stopped, but lets say this goes to court: IMO the chap in the Polo should have his license revoked because

a - he was the one who caused the accident, by not staying a sufficient distance behind the vehicle in front

b - driving while on the phone!

Dades

bruachain wrote:

IMO the chap in the Polo should have his license revoked because

a - he was the one who caused the accident, by not staying a sufficient distance behind the vehicle in front

b - driving while on the phone!

So you think somebody that causes a minor accident while being on the phone should lose their license?

The only reason ANYONE ever drives into the back of someone is because they didn't leave enough space and pay enough attention. It's irrelevant whether they were on the phone or tuning the radio. So that includes any driver who's ever bumped someone from behind.

Well it might be a way to alleviate congestion.

Perspective, man, perspective.

kenmc

was he not on the phone after the accident - hence why he was a dazed polo driver?

LegacyUser

The Atheist wrote:

The only reason ANYONE ever drives into the back of someone is because they didn't leave enough space and pay enough attention. It's irrelevant whether they were on the phone or tuning the radio. So that includes any driver who's ever bumped someone from behind.

Point taken....

Tuning the radio, fair enough, it takes 10 seconds max, and you can pick and choose when you do it (i.e. when you're not in heavy traffic) by using a bit of cop on.

There is a section of drivers who show blatant disregard for the mobile phone law and will have 10/15 minute conversations whilst driving around the city.

Dades

bruachain wrote:

There is a section of drivers who show blatant disregard for the mobile phone law and will have 10/15 minute conversations whilst driving around the city.

Absolutely - I used to do it myself. Now I have earphone thingies I wear, and refuse to talk till I have them on.

Obviously the talk of banning hands free kits is daft IMO.

coolhandluke

There is such a thing as a queue and RTA's material damage come right at the bottom of it.Most accidents are civil matters to be fought out by insurance companies.

causal

The Atheist wrote:

The only reason ANYONE ever drives into the back of someone is because they didn't leave enough space and pay enough attention.

If someone pulls in front of you (within your reaction distance assuming equal braking on both vehicles etc.) and hits their anchors - you'll hit them. That's not because you didn't leave enough space and pay enough attention is it? There was such a case in the last year or so in the UK where this happened and the guy that cut-in (road rage of course) was convicted for deliberately causing the accident.

It's irrelevant whether they were on the phone or tuning the radio.

I doubt the DPP and Judges see it that way. It makes a great case for a Careless Driving conviction; in addition to any reckless or dangerous driving charges that are brought.

causal

DubTony

This started as a complaint against Gardai and carried on as a "talking on phone while driving" thread. Getting back on topic.

The cops didn't stop because they didn't want to. It's all about attitude and training. How many times have we (collectively) been shouted at by cops when we were stopped for speeding, making illegal turns etc? Meanwhile, scumbag criminals get treated with great respect by cops who are on first name terms with them.

It seems that some Gardai see drivers as "a nuisance to be dealt with", or not. This is a perfect example of their "couldn't care less attitude". Dealing with motoring incidents is not why most of these guys signed up in the first place.

In any other country, Police coming upon the scene of an accident will ensure that the car occupants are ok and then direct traffic / move the obstructing vehicles to ensure there is as little delay as possible. British and American cops are criticised for being too diligent when dealing with motorists, but at least they're generally polite and respectful when they pull someone over. The Gardai hierarchy need to look at training and behaviour if we're ever going to have a force that is respected by the people.

Mike, don't they start work at 14:00? I know that their night shift starts at 10 p.m. A 4p.m. start would have them finish at midnight.

Tony

Squirrel

How do you know that they weren't on their way somewhere? After a break in I doubt they'd need to use the sirens to get to the house, so can't break the law. You never know the circumstances that cause anybody to do anything in cars

unkel

DubTony wrote:

Mike, don't they start work at 14:00? I know that their night shift starts at 10 p.m. A 4p.m. start would have them finish at midnight

Yup, 2200 to 0600, 0600 to 1400 and 1400 to 2200 are the standard shifts

causal wrote:

If someone pulls in front of you (within your reaction distance assuming equal braking on both vehicles etc.) and hits their anchors - you'll hit them. That's not because you didn't leave enough space and pay enough attention is it? There was such a case in the last year or so in the UK where this happened and the guy that cut-in (road rage of course) was convicted for deliberately causing the accident

Happened to me a few weeks ago. Second closest I ever came to a crash (and there was at least 2 meters left)

Driving citybound on the N4 approaching the M50 roundabout in the left lane intending to take a left towards the tollbridge with no car in front of me and the traffic light just changing from green, I took the amber gambler approach and put the foot down

At the same time, this woman driving a Honda Civic in the middle lane, braked sharply and without indicating, moved right into my path in the left lane and came to a halt. I jammed on the brakes and I'm very grateful for those totally superior uprated BMW brakes. Closest I ever came to an insurance claim, although you're point obviously is that she would have been at fault

causal

unkel wrote:

Closest I ever came to an insurance claim, although you're point obviously is that she would have been at fault

She should yield to traffic already in the lane she is intending to change into; she also failied to indicate. It might mitigate against you if you were speeding; and as for the amber lights...
... well the fact is if you approach red lights fast enough they will turn amber, and if you approach even faster they will turn green. I haven't had to use that explanation in court yet, but if I do then I'm calling it 'The Doppler Defence'

causal

Hotblack Desiato

causal wrote:

If someone pulls in front of you (within your reaction distance assuming equal braking on both vehicles etc.) and hits their anchors - you'll hit them. That's not because you didn't leave enough space and pay enough attention is it?

But there is something you could have done about it.
The gap in front of you is your survival space, quite simply.
If anyone or anything even threatens to enter it, you must assume the worst - that they will - and adjust your speed accordingly so that you will always maintain your survival space ahead of you.

There was such a case in the last year or so in the UK where this happened and the guy that cut-in (road rage of course) was convicted for deliberately causing the accident.

Just by cutting in and braking? Happens all the time when road rage isn't on the menu.
Now if he'd reversed towards the other car...

causal

ninja900 wrote:

But there is something you could have done about it.
The gap in front of you is your survival space, quite simply.
If anyone or anything even threatens to enter it, you must assume the worst - that they will - and adjust your speed accordingly so that you will always maintain your survival space ahead of you.

I'm guessing you did some advanced training or maybe read roadcraft etc. But you surely realise that in practice you can't always keep a survival space.

Just by cutting in and braking? Happens all the time when road rage isn't on the menu.
Now if he'd reversed towards the other car...

I'd say he would find it a bit hard to go from maybe 50mph into reverse gear!

causal

samo

A couple of years ago I was right behind a really nasty crash just by Butte bridge near the IFSC, basically a Micra tried to squeeze up on the inside of a lorry and literally got squashed between the lorry and a lampost as they went around the corner. I was driving past as it happened and saw a female Garda just near Gardiner street - went over and told her as it wasnt in her line of sight, she said thanks and turned and walked the opposite way!

I really was kinda stunned as she had no way of knowing was anyone hurt and it did just seem like she high tailed it out of there....not very comforted by the prescence of the gardai that day!

DubTony

Squirrel wrote:

How do you know that they weren't on their way somewhere? After a break in I doubt they'd need to use the sirens to get to the house, so can't break the law. You never know the circumstances that cause anybody to do anything in cars

They were probably on their way to get a cup of tea somewhere. If they were in a regular patrol car and had no lights or sirens on, then it can be assumed they were regular Gardai in no hurry to get anywhere.

A crash on a busy road will always take precedence over whatever they weren't in a hurry to get to. It's like if you call 999. Response to these calls are dealt with in order of urgency, and not in order of who called first.

There's no excuse for their behaviour. They should have stopped. They should have checked that all occupants were physically ok. They should have directed traffic. They should have had the vehicles removed to the left hand side of the road to allow traffic to proceed without obstruction.

Tony

Dades

DubTony wrote:

British and American cops are criticised for being too diligent when dealing with motorists, but at least they're generally polite and respectful when they pull someone over. The Gardai hierarchy need to look at training and behaviour if we're ever going to have a force that is respected by the people.

I've been stopped twice in the last two weeks (separate issues). The cops were courteous and reasonable both times.

If you haven't done anything wrong then neither of you will have a problem.

prospect

The Atheist wrote:

I've been stopped twice in the last two weeks (separate issues). The cops were courteous and reasonable both times.

If you haven't done anything wrong then neither of you will have a problem.

Yep, I've been stopped several times over the years, twice for speeding , otherwise just checks, and have never had any trouble with their manner.
Cept once, when an unmarked squad acted the boll1x, but i can't hold that against all of them.

Automan

I was crashed into on the M50 roundabout (Heading to Tallaght coming from Spawell direction) myself and the other car stopped and pulled in, both of us rang the gards, after waiting for half an hour a gard car coming off the M50 was coming towards us I started to try and wave him to stop but he just pointed behind him and kept going within half an hour four other gard cars past us by and they all done the same thing (pointing behind them) after waiting an hour and a half we drove down to the Tallaght police station to give a statment, one of the gards that drove by me was coming out of the police station with an Extra vision tape saying to the other gard that he was bring it back to the video shop. That was more important to him than clearing an accident on the M50 roundabout.

edmund_f

in my opinion, the typical attitude to the cops is 'well they are not all bad', 'we can't tar them all with the same brush' etc. In the same breath agreeing that there are some complete useless a**holes out there.

I think all cops are idiots, either directly or by association. I do agree that due simply by the law of numbers there must be one or two nice, compentent freindly professional ones, although i personally have never met either of them.

If they do exist, then why do they work with these idiots that most people meet day to day?. Why do they not do something about it?.

Imagine transposing the situation to, say, doctors or similar. Imagine going to a hospital knowing that there are incompetent doctors out there, dealing with the general public day to day, with their peers turning a blind eye to it. I doubt it would be tolerated for long, either by other doctors or the general public

Knowing that this is not the case with the medical service (up to a point) is there anything that can be done about our 'jobs for the boys' law enforcement?

We depend on these guys to keep our country safe day to day, to enforce the laws justly equally and without predjudice. I doubt those words can be used positively in a sentence refering to the cops today?

as is the fashon

-rant over-

Dades

Those of you in work - look about you.

I bet you can pick out one or two co-workers that aren't worth the electricity they use.

That is all.

freewing

up to recently i have not had any reason to complain about the cops in fact i have been very happy with my dealings with them , however two situations have arisen which cause me concern
(1) i know and my neighbours know AND the local gards know that there are drugs being sold on my street and the dealer( also known ) has not been charged
(2) i was recently assaulted in an unprovoked attack. :mad: i dont blame the gards for this but they led me to believe i would be better off sorting the guy out myself because the legal system is so slow and i may not get a result anyway