GM228 wrote: » It is worth noting that speed limits are not set by signs, rather they are set by law. This thread is worth reading.
Del2005 wrote: » Does the link I posted from the 2010 Statute not contradict this?
GM228 wrote: » We should start a dear GM228 thread.... Perhaps some day I'll bet around to an information thread about these sorts of things. If you receive a FCPN for such you can request that it be cancelled for such, there is no guarantee it will be though, and a new corrected one could be issued. When it comes to the summons stage it's not so simple, a charge can still proceed with "defects" in a summons despite what others often claim. That unfortunately is a myth, a DC judge can amend any summons and proceed to trial as long as the accused is not prejudiced by the amendment. Only fundamental defects which remove jurisdiction from a court to hear a trial can lead to a case of no jurisdiction to hear the charge, technical defects are capable of being remedied and do not invalidate any charge, in many cases simply showing up in court remedies the defects. It's not really that simple and comparisons to say manslaughter/murder to speeding (i.e indictable vs summary) are not a valid comparison, the charge is simple exceeding the speed limit - in such a case the charge is not being changed - just a technical defect in the summons, also worth noting that once you attend court a summons actually ceases to be of any significance. There is an entire body of case law in this area. There is none. This is not true, judges have great powers to amend the details of a summons. And again comparing an indictable charge to a summary charge is wrong - in most cases simply attending court cures any defects in a summons. When a case is struck out double jeopardy does not apply. It is worth noting that speed limits are not set by signs, rather they are set by law. This thread is worth reading.
grogi wrote: » What about double jeopardy?!
sidcon wrote: » Thanks GM228, where would one find put what the speed limit is for a particular road, it's my father who has the speeding fine but his dash cam shows where he was pulled in a sign saying 80(the Garda was standing at this point on the road with his hairdryer no chase given he was waved in by the garda)
Cork Truck Driver wrote: » Isn't the margin of error 10% + 4km/h?
CiniO wrote: » But the problem is that it wouldn't. According to Irish law there's no difference between speeding by 25km/h vs 5km/h so it's exactly same offence.
Patww79 wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Hudson Ugly Tournament wrote: » I know a few people who were done on the Ballymun road for 54kph (it's a 50 zone)
twin_beacon wrote: » In this situation, it doesn't matter if he was going 5km/h or 50km/h over the limit, if there is a clerical error, or wrong information on your court summons, or the guards don't follow exact procedure during an arrest, (if you are arrested) you walk.
GM228 wrote: » Completely wrong. There is a large body of case law on the matter, arrest is slightly different as you can venture into the territory of lawful vs unlawful arrest.
Carpentry wrote: » I was done in Finglas, famous "under the bridge" spot. 53km/h in 50 zone. Fined on the spot, not a chance for argument.
twin_beacon wrote: » http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/michael-clifford/comment-penalty-points-report-highlights-need-for-reform-309263.html "In May 2013, a fixed charge notice was issued in relation to a motorist speeding at 73km/h in a 50km/h location. The notice was cancelled by the District Officer responsible for where the offence occurred. The reason given on Pulse for the cancellation was “Data Entry/IT/Garda Errors. This referred to an opinion that the wrong name was given for the townland where the detection occurred. "
twin_beacon wrote: » In this situation, it doesn't matter if he was going 5km/h or 50km/h over the limit, if there is a clerical error, or wrong information on your court summons, or the guards don't follow exact procedure during an arrest, (if you are arrested) you walk. Remember the guy that didn't get the print off from his breath test in Irish, and had the charges dropped? He was way over the limit, but guards didn't follow the exact procedure. Its common in the country where people are pulled over for speeding, and the wrong town land is entered for the location, so many people have gotten off without fines and points because of this.
Del2005 wrote: » And all these people had paid solicitors to argue the case. A Joe soap walking in and saying that I wasn't speeding in a 60 zone I was speeding in an 80 zone your honour will not get off. So the question for the OP is whether the cost of 3 penalty points and the fine will be less than the solicitor to maybe get them off.
twin_beacon wrote: » Whats to stop any joe soap from hiring a solicitor?
Cork Truck Driver wrote: Isn't the margin of error 10% + 4km/h? colm_mcm wrote: » No.
colm_mcm wrote: » No.
CalamariFritti wrote: » There has to be some margin. I would agree with colm 'cos I have never heard of one and that probably means there isn't. But there has to be a margin simply because neither your speedometer nor their measuring equipment will be 100% accurate.
twin_beacon wrote: » The summons can be update before it goes to court, however, if there is incorrect information in the summons when it goes to court, and it can be proven, the case falls apart.
Del2005 wrote: » Your speedo by law has to under state the speed you are travelling at.
Rubberchikken wrote: » I don't see where there's a 9 k allowance. I've seen a notice for someone doing 109 in a 100k and the fine and points were applied.
bucketybuck wrote: » I'd love to see a cite for that?
Del2005 wrote: » Your speedo by law has to under state the speed you are travelling at. The amount it's off is set by the manufacturer, on some brands you can enter diagnostic mode and it'll show the correct speed. So you're car will always show a faster speed than you are doing. The only issue is if you have modified the car and then it's your responsibility to ensure that the speedo is accurate.
grogi wrote: » ECE Regulation 39, point 5.3.
5.3. The speed indicated shall not be less than the true speed of the vehicle. At the test speeds specified in paragraph 5.2.5. above, there shall be the following relationship between the speed displayed (V1 ) and the true speed (V2). 0 ≤ (V1 - V2) ≤ 0.1 V2 + 4 km/h
CeilingFly wrote: » I'll see you and raise you to 105km in 100zone by camera van at Kill on N7 Happened to a colleague and I had to see the ticket to believe it. Feckers