Penalty points for driving with no lights on one side?

keyboard_cat · 16-03-2018 10:36AM

lazyman wrote: »

Like you I honestly did not know the bulbs were gone on one side until I left work at 11pm, was driving my wife's car and was bright when I left home that day. She normally only drives in daylight hours so she didn't realise it either, I put on the fogs to acknowledge the bulbs were gone as it would be far more dangerous to have no light at all On,
I replaced the bulbs today so will call into the garda station in the morning in the hope of a being giving a chance.
Is it definitely an offence which carries a fine and points then?

Well to other road users the fog lights are quite dazzling, Thats like saying my low beams didnt work so i drove home only using my high beams... while it might be the safer option its still not a safe option

Irish Steve · 16-03-2018 11:33AM

Spent some time a few weeks back helping out with things like punctures and bulb changes for a friend, the highest count was one car that came in and ended up with 5 bulbs being changed, and that wasn't because of a contributory fault with the battery or alternator.

It never ceases to amaze me that the EU can come up with half arsed regulations about the shape and colour of cucumbers and bananas, but they can't get round to having regulations requiring car manufacturers to make it possible to change any bulb on the vehicle without the use of tools, and in less than 5 minutes. If tools are required, then it should be a requirement to provide them with the vehicle.

If you want some amusement one day, start counting vehicles passing in the opposite direction, and reset the count if there is a light out, or they are using fog lights when there's no fog. You will possibly be surprised how rarely the count will go above 10, especially on the busier roads around the Dublin area and out into the commuter belt.

Hopefully, the increased use of LED lights will reduce the number of complete failures, though it will be amusing to listen in time to the screams of "unfair" when the NCT system starts failing LED's because an unacceptable number of segments are not working.

Del2005 · 16-03-2018 01:50PM

Hitman3000 wrote: »

A bulb can blow at anytime, I realise this may come as a surprise to you it's true.

The OPs bulb didn't blow on the journey and I can guarantee that over 90% of cars with a blown bulb started the journey with it blown.

Hitman3000 · 16-03-2018 01:52PM

Del2005 wrote:

The OPs bulb didn't blow on the journey and I can guarantee that over 90% of cars with a blown bulb started the journey with it blown.

So you can guarantee that over 90% of cars started with a blown bulb, care to enlighten me how you can be certain?

raspberrypi67 · 16-03-2018 02:25PM

Cold , wet and windy, ...what about a bit of snow...lol

I know the new Renault Scenic requires a bit of job on removing underside of panel....OMG, there such B*****ds. Lidl took advantage of this one year by selling a jigsaw for 30euro as the cost to go to a R garage to do it was going to be around the 50euro.....
Talk about absolute Bo**ix just to replace a bulb which is a SAFETY thing....

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

It wouldn't be simple for anyone on a cold wet and windy night. Still it's easier than the mk2 megane I suppose.

raspberrypi67 · 16-03-2018 02:26PM

Yes, PLEASE enlighten me too...

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So you can guarantee that over 90% of cars started with a blown bulb, care to enlighten me how you can be certain?

lazyman · 16-03-2018 02:38PM

keyboard_cat wrote: »

Well to other road users the fog lights are quite dazzling, Thats like saying my low beams didnt work so i drove home only using my high beams... while it might be the safer option its still not a safe option

Well it's not really, small fog lights at the front are nowhere near as dazzling as the high beams. I have said throughout it was the safer option, at 11pm night should I have left them off and had no light at all on one side? I was worried when I got into the car and realised the bulbs were gone, and fully admitted the danger to the garda but hoped for leniency seeing as at least I made an effort with the fogs and offering to call to the station first thing the next morning.
Changed the bulbs in 5 minutes the next day at home in the bright when I had a screwdriver to release the light unit from the car.

elperello · 16-03-2018 05:59PM

Quote Irish Steve : "It never ceases to amaze me that the EU can come up with half arsed regulations about the shape and colour of cucumbers and bananas, but they can't get round to having regulations requiring car manufacturers to make it possible to change any bulb on the vehicle without the use of tools, and in less than 5 minutes. If tools are required, then it should be a requirement to provide them with the vehicle."

A regulation such as you mention is so logical and badly needed that you have to wonder why it hasn't been brought in by now. Are the manufacturers lobbying against it to save money? Does it suit garages to have you needing to come to them?

If all bulbs were accessible you would still have people who don't care but most would change the bulb without delay.

keyboard_cat · 16-03-2018 06:15PM

lazyman wrote: »

Well it's not really, small fog lights at the front are nowhere near as dazzling as the high beams. I have said throughout it was the safer option, at 11pm night should I have left them off and had no light at all on one side? I was worried when I got into the car and realised the bulbs were gone, and fully admitted the danger to the garda but hoped for leniency seeing as at least I made an effort with the fogs and offering to call to the station first thing the next morning.
Changed the bulbs in 5 minutes the next day at home in the bright when I had a screwdriver to release the light unit from the car.

Well the rsa would disagree with you regarding the fog lights.
No what you/your wife should have done is changed the bulbs as they went instead of waiting for both to go before taking action, or when you noticed both were gone go buy the bulbs in a petrol station and change them before you set off and if you couldn't manage that at 11pm find an alternative way home and sort the problem in the morning

stuff.hunter · 16-03-2018 06:32PM

keyboard_cat wrote: »

Well the rsa would disagree with you regarding the fog lights.
No what you/your wife should have done is changed the bulbs as they went instead of waiting for both to go before taking action, or when you noticed both were gone go buy the bulbs in a petrol station and change them before you set off and if you couldn't manage that at 11pm find an alternative way home and sort the problem in the morning

absolutely agree, excuses that bulb is difficult to replace makes me laugh.
if you really have no idea how to do such a simply thing, you shouldn't drive as as far as i remember, question in regard of checking lights and tyres pops during driving test.
anyways, most modern cars indicates on dashboard that bulb(s) is blown as low oil level and engines fault
finally, 60e fine seem to be low as such simply defect might be a cause of serious road accident

bucketybuck · 16-03-2018 07:27PM

Hitman3000 wrote: »

My wife has an 11 reg megane, to change a bulb in the headlight requires lifting the bonnet unscrewing to retaining nuts sliding the headlight forward removing the backplate and accessing the correct terminals. Now Mrs H ain't no fool but doing this is beyond her capabilities at the side of a road in the dark .

Your yapping in this thread prompted me to look back at your original post and I have to say, what you have described is actually incredibly easy to do so I have no idea why you are bleating on in such a passive aggressive fashion?

Lifted the bonnet. :rolleyes:
Unscrewed two nuts.
Slide light forward and remove cover.
Change bulb.

Seriously, if your wife can't do that simple series of steps then thats on her, not the manufacturer. There are indeed vehicles that limit access to the bulbs but damn sure that isn't one of them.

tcawley29 · 16-03-2018 07:43PM

stuff.hunter wrote: »

absolutely agree, excuses that bulb is difficult to replace makes me laugh.
if you really have no idea how to do such a simply thing, you shouldn't drive as as far as i remember, question in regard of checking lights and tyres pops during driving test.
anyways, most modern cars indicates on dashboard that bulb(s) is blown as low oil level and engines fault
finally, 60e fine seem to be low as such simply defect might be a cause of serious road accident

In fairness some bulbs are difficult to change due to access restrictions.
It may not always be a case of the person being lazy (although it usually is).
I'd take my '06 corolla I used to have as a perfect example.
Passenger front drivers side was easy. Driver's side was an absolute nightmare where I usually ended up with cut and scraped hands from forcing them into such a small space.
But by all means in this case the OP is 100% wrong. Complete negligence that they didn't notice the first bulb gone.

Hitman3000 · 16-03-2018 07:45PM

bucketybuck wrote:

Your yapping in this thread prompted me to look back at your original post and I have to say, what you have described is actually incredibly easy to do so I have no idea why you are bleating on in such a passive aggressive fashion?

Yapping? How passive aggressive of you.

bucketybuck · 16-03-2018 08:50PM

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Yapping? How passive aggressive of you.

My post was direct and to the point. Your contributions to the thread on the other hand...

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So bulbs only blow in the driveway in daylight?

Hitman3000 wrote: »

It's a decent rebuttal and no one other than you mentioned a legion of old women.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

A bulb can blow at anytime, I realise this may come as a surprise to you it's true.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You doubt it, in other words nothing but a guess.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Must be great being prefect and never have a bulb blow unexpectedly. Meanwhile in the real world.....

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So you can guarantee that over 90% of cars started with a blown bulb, care to enlighten me how you can be certain?

More one liners than George Youngman.

Hitman3000 · 16-03-2018 08:53PM

bucketybuck wrote:

More one liners than George Youngman.

You know if you don't like a comment or one liner there is an amazing function built in to allow you scroll on by. You should try it as i'm going to do with your comments. Toodles.

Batzoo · 16-03-2018 10:48PM

AnMuinteoirOg wrote: »

And that's just fcn offences... There are also countless other offenses that a garda has to deal with.
There's also case law on the matter. Dpp V mulligan states a garda is not a legal repository. They aren't expected to know every bit of legislation and the penalties.. They just need to know it's an offense

If there is case law then I guess they are excused! But really it does not matter how many offenses there are, if the guard is gonna issue a ticket for it, he/she should be able to explain the reason it is being issued and the penalties associated with it. It a basic right to know what you are being accused of!

The problem in these situations is the guard issues a FCPN for something he thinks is wrong when no law has been broken(not op's case, just an example). Most people won't challenge it for fear of escalation and just pay the fine! Guard feels validated and does it again and again!

Really, it's not too much to ask that they know what these FCPN are and if they have points associated with them. If it's too complicated for them, they should not be doing the job, or they should get their reps to get the situation amended. At least supply an info booklet that details the offense and penalty and your rights with the FCPN.

With regards to the OP(who admitted he was wrong), he had got the fog lights on, which are white lamps to either side of the front of the vehicle and I assume the red lamps at the back were working. The common sense approach here, once the car was taxed and insured and the driver had no previous, would have being to give a warning and let the OP prove compliance the next day! Did the vehicle did meet the minimum illumination required for a motorised vehicle? The key factor would be that none of the vehicle extended 16 inches either side of the fog lights. If the fog lights were more central then so be it, but if near the side of the vehicle???

GM228 · 16-03-2018 11:24PM

Batzoo wrote: »

If there is case law then I guess they are excused! But really it does not matter how many offenses there are, if the guard is gonna issue a ticket for it, he/she should be able to explain the reason it is being issued and the penalties associated with it. It a basic right to know what you are being accused of!

Yes they must (and do) tell you what you are accused of, but nothing requires them to tell you the penalty associated with the accusation.

Gardaí are not responsible for the administration of penalties related to offences so why should they explain them?

Batzoo wrote: »

Really, it's not too much to ask that they know what these FCPN are and if they have points associated with them. If it's too complicated for them, they should not be doing the job, or they should get their reps to get the situation amended. At least supply an info booklet that details the offense and penalty and your rights with the FCPN.

I disagree, even solicitors, barristers and even judges do not know every aspect of the law and often have to look it up. As another poster pointed out the courts have agreed it is unrealistic to expect Gardaí know the exact provisions of the law:-

DPP vs Mulligan wrote:

It cannot be expected that the Garda should be turned into walking depositories of sections and subsections of various Acts of the Oireachtas. That has never been the law.

It is also worth remembering that issuing of the FCPN is separate to the issue of penalty points which is an administrative system overseen and administered by the RSA, not the Gardaí.

Batzoo · 16-03-2018 11:57PM

GM228 wrote: »

I disagree, even solicitors, barristers and even judges do not know every aspect of the law and often have to look it up. As another poster pointed out the courts have agreed it is unrealistic to expect Gardaí know the exact provisions of the law:-

Yes, I acknowledged that other post, and I agree that a guard should not be required to know all the intricacies of the law! But they should be required to have a high level overview of the laws they are accusing people of breaking, and they should also have an insight into potential consequences of breaking that law! Now the details are for the barristers to argue over if you take it to court! And the eventual penalties are for the Judges to rule upon! When it comes to FCPN's (if there are 600, like someone else mentioned) the onus should be on guards to become familiar with them and the details! It's not too much to ask that people understand their jobs!

SniperSight · 17-03-2018 12:10AM

Batzoo wrote: »

The problem in these situations is the guard issues a FCPN for something he thinks is wrong when no law has been broken(not op's case, just an example).

An FCPN can't be issued if no law has been broken. Its not just a blank cheque where you can write in whatever you want. There is a list of codes to match offences...IF a ticket is issued...then there has to be a law broken to go with it, you cant put opinions on a FCPN.

GM228 · 17-03-2018 12:33AM

Batzoo wrote: »

Yes, I acknowledged that other post, and I agree that a guard should not be required to know all the intricacies of the law! But they should be required to have a high level overview of the laws they are accusing people of breaking, and they should also have an insight into potential consequences of breaking that law! Now the details are for the barristers to argue over if you take it to court! And the eventual penalties are for the Judges to rule upon! When it comes to FCPN's (if there are 600, like someone else mentioned) the onus should be on guards to become familiar with them and the details!

They do have a high level of knowledge, but you seriously expect them to remember the 650+ (the list has grown) offences and which ones do/don't carry points and the associated fines?

Remember each FCPN has 3 different fine amounts associated and 2 different points amounts associated where applicable. That is unrealistic detail to be expected to remember.

Batzoo wrote: »

It's not too much to ask that people understand their jobs!

Penalty points have nothing to do with the Gardaí and their job though.

Being asked to remember 650 different offences with 1950 different fine amounts and about 400 different points amounts is too much to ask, they are not computers, they are human beings.

Batzoo · 17-03-2018 01:38AM

SniperSight wrote: »

An FCPN can't be issued if no law has been broken. Its not just a blank cheque where you can write in whatever you want. There is a list of codes to match offences...IF a ticket is issued...then there has to be a law broken to go with it, you cant put opinions on a FCPN.

As you seem to misinterpret the point I was making I will try and clarify it...

What I was saying is, if the guard does not know the offense, how can he issue a fine for it. The guard is required to know this information! It does not matter if there are 2 or 2000 FCPN offenses, I expect the guard to know all of them if they are prepared to fine someone over it, including the explicit details of what contravenes them! I accept that they are not required to know the penalties imposed as case law has excluded them from this. And I also accept that the penalty point system is a different thing, but knowing what is and is not a penalty point offense should be mandatory. This does not mean I expect them to know if something is 2 penalty points and 60 euro, or 3 penalty points and 80 euro for every FCPN. Just that it is or is not a penalty point offense! If its too much for the guard to remember (which is not difficult) I would expect them to have a lookup booklet or at least be able to verify that information at the time of the FCPN.

In reality, if this case law exemption was to be challenged up the chain, eventually it would become a requirement for guards to know this information! This is not unreasonable. I never said anything about guards offering opinions! Just making assumptions that something contravenes a law when in fact it may not. If they don't know for sure, they are just issuing tickets willy nilly! So of course if a guard issues a FCPN, the guard knows that the FCPN is valid for a specific reason or they would not issue it in the first place!

GM228 wrote:

They do have a high level of knowledge, but you seriously expect them to remember the 650+ (the list has grown) offences and which ones do/don't carry points and the associated fines?

Unfortunately I do expect them to remember the details of any FCPN they are willing to issue, and explicitly what contravenes it. While I don't expect them to know if its 60 or 80 euro and 2 or 3 penalty points for each of the 650+ possibilities, I do expect them to know if it is a penalty point offense or not! If they are not willing to do this, they should have some facility to look it up quickly and provide that basic courtesy to drivers!

Of the 650+ offenses, I expect they only issue a dozen or so of them with any regularity. Driving with no lights would be one of these regular ones, and I would wager on it that the guard fully knew what was asked of him! But we will never know for sure!

Really is remembering things hard to do? Every job I have ever had I was required to take in huge amounts of data in short periods of time and recall that data when required!

SniperSight · 17-03-2018 03:39AM

Batzoo wrote: »

As you seem to misinterpret the point I was making

I think you'll find that you stated the Gardai were issuing fines when no law was broken (as per quote)...I'm stating that that can't happen...I didn't misinterpret anything...your statement is false.

Batzoo · 17-03-2018 06:25AM

SniperSight wrote: »

I think you'll find that you stated the Gardai were issuing fines when no law was broken (as per quote)...I'm stating that that can't happen...I didn't misinterpret anything...your statement is false.

Ok I don't want to drag this out but go back and read it again. This time don't omit the " just an example" qualifier bit! I thought this was clear enough to point to the hypothetical nature of what I was saying!

The point was if the guard does not know what the charge is, how can they legitimately give the fine! (not in the OP's case).

The fact that they think it may be one of the 650+ FCPN offenses is not good enough! Again I keep saying it, I expect the guard to know explicitly what FCPN was broken and in what way I explicitly contravened it. A maybe is not good enough to issue a fine! This is reasonable I believe. I don't expect them to be psychic and tell me what a judge will say if I challenge it. If a headlight is out, but fog lights are working, this may meet the minimum requirement for lighting on a motorised vehicle! I am not a lawyer, and I did not study that type of law so cant say specifically! But from an old memory, I think it's two white lights, that can be seen from a distance of 500M but could be feet, and are no more than 16 or maybe 18 inches from the edge's of the vehicle! If it meets this minimum standard, maybe a better informed guard would have made a safety warning to the OP rather then create a bad feeling in an otherwise law abiding citizen! Put it on Pulse, and if another guard stops him for the same offense the OP would have no excuse!

Many people will accept a FCPN and pay it, even if it is given erroneously! They don't have the knowledge to challenge it at the side of the road and they won't risk going to court over it! I have come across a few guards in my work that insist they are right even when wrong and they won't back down! The ego takes over. Only when I escalate it above their head and they are clarified on the details do they accept it! But I still get the attitude. It's rare, but even once is too much IMHO! This is par for the course in my job! Some guards are very knowledgeable with regards to the law, some are not. It's the ones who are not that insist that they are correct more often! This should not be accepted or tolerated in that line of work! It's hard enough as it is!

PMBC · 17-03-2018 08:32AM

Irish Steve wrote: »

Spent some time a few weeks back helping out with things like punctures and bulb changes for a friend, the highest count was one car that came in and ended up with 5 bulbs being changed, and that wasn't because of a contributory fault with the battery or alternator.

It never ceases to amaze me that the EU can come up with half arsed regulations about the shape and colour of cucumbers and bananas, but they can't get round to having regulations requiring car manufacturers to make it possible to change any bulb on the vehicle without the use of tools, and in less than 5 minutes. If tools are required, then it should be a requirement to provide them with the vehicle.

If you want some amusement one day, start counting vehicles passing in the opposite direction, and reset the count if there is a light out, or they are using fog lights when there's no fog. You will possibly be surprised how rarely the count will go above 10, especially on the busier roads around the Dublin area and out into the commuter belt.

Hopefully, the increased use of LED lights will reduce the number of complete failures, though it will be amusing to listen in time to the screams of "unfair" when the NCT system starts failing LED's because an unacceptable number of segments are not working.

Maybe the EU 'wonks' havent thought of that.

whiterebel · 17-03-2018 10:50AM

Changing the front bulb on an 09 A6 take some an Audi mechanic about 20-30 minutes, never mind do it yourself at the side of the road. The amount of people on dark country lanes driving with one light is beyond a joke.

GM228 · 17-03-2018 12:40PM

Batzoo wrote: »

What I was saying is, if the guard does not know the offense, how can he issue a fine for it. The guard is required to know this information! It does not matter if there are 2 or 2000 FCPN offenses, I expect the guard to know all of them if they are prepared to fine someone over it, including the explicit details of what contravenes them!

Batzoo wrote: »

The point was if the guard does not know what the charge is, how can they legitimately give the fine! (not in the OP's case).

I'm confused, where has this "not know what the charge is" position come from? I may have missed it somewhere in the thread (if so apologies), I thought the issue was about not knowing the penalty as opposed to the charge.

But if you must know a Guard is only required to know the fundamental nature of the offence, not the exact offence itself under X, Y or Z or the consequences of the offence, again this is long settled by an abundance of case law with the High Court Hobbs vs Hurley - unreported 10th June 1980 case being an authoritative case on the matter and subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Batzoo wrote: »

I accept that they are not required to know the penalties imposed as case law has excluded them from this. And I also accept that the penalty point system is a different thing, but knowing what is and is not a penalty point offense should be mandatory. This does not mean I expect them to know if something is 2 penalty points and 60 euro, or 3 penalty points and 80 euro for every FCPN. Just that it is or is not a penalty point offense! If its too much for the guard to remember (which is not difficult) I would expect them to have a lookup booklet or at least be able to verify that information at the time of the FCPN.

The problem is an expectation on the Gardaí to know such information could create huge issues in the courts should they make a mistake at the time they informed the accused, such a requirement will never be expected or imposed as it is inconsistent with the administration of justice.

Batzoo wrote: »

In reality, if this case law exemption was to be challenged up the chain, eventually it would become a requirement for guards to know this information!

The reality is you are wrong, this will never change, it has gone up the chain as you say all the way to the Supreme Court many times, the DPP vs Mooney [1992] 1 IR 548 case being the authoritative case on the issue, a case which affirmed that Gardaí must only inform the accused in "layman's language" what they are accused of rather than give any further detail. The same applies in most common law (and even civil law) legal systems and has done so since time immemorial.

the_pen_turner · 27-03-2018 10:03PM

the_pen_turner wrote: »

this is why i always have a spare set in my van. if one blows i can change it . if i havnt noticed (very hard not too) and get pulled i have a decent chance of just getting a warning if i can change it there and then

i must have jinxed myself . just blew both bulbs this evening . luckely the road was straight and i new it so i could pull over. had to change both there and then. . bloody bulbs are only 8 months old

keyboard_cat · 28-03-2018 08:28AM

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i must have jinxed myself . just blew both bulbs this evening . luckely the road was straight and i new it so i could pull over. had to change both there and then. . bloody bulbs are only 8 months old

When fitting the blown bulbs did you touch the glass? apparently that can cause premature failure.

listermint · 28-03-2018 08:38AM

The simple fact is people dont give a boll*x until they are

1- Caught by the gaurds
2- Caught by the NCT
3- Someone else fixes it for them father/father in law usually.

Simple fix for this, Fine the arse off people until they get the message. Because driving around with 1 light or beaming fogs on is ridiculous.

the_pen_turner · 28-03-2018 12:17PM

keyboard_cat wrote: »

When fitting the blown bulbs did you touch the glass? apparently that can cause premature failure.

no. brand new van. never opened the lights before.

Penalty points for driving with no lights on one side?

Comments