Meanwhile on the Roads...

Yeah, reads like the judge in the circuit court doesn't want/doesn't feel it's in their remit to make a ruling on it.

If nothing else, it'll tighten up the law on it, and mean less loopholes going forward.

She didn't.

The judge in the district court did.

Well, technically there is evidence to prove that she drove at that particular speed, purely from a physics perspective.

The world is still analogue even if the recording devices are digital: she did travel at that speed! It would be impossible for her to average that speed by taking that route if she had not - at least for a fraction of a second - travelled at that speed. We can't say exactly where on the route she hit the speed, but we can say with certainty that she did hit it. As long as her average and her route were recorded correctly then the instantaneous recording is also accurate.

Other ways she could potentially do this distance without doing the speed would be by bending time, by flying between the two points (not taking corners) or by going extremely far in excess of that speed on an alternative route.

It sounds like a physics teacher is what they need, rather than a judge.

seems the truck in Galway was a oil truck. This is a bit off-topic but it's not really noted how many of those things are trundling around, they're really heavy, they destroy the roads, I assume they have terrible visibility, they pump out diesel fumes; just another downside to our over-reliance on OFCH.

Every couple of days an oil tanker comes up our road to deliver to a neighbour, but here's the kicker - the road has had mains gas since the 90s, however only a handful of houses have ever switched over. It's the same all over the country in (sub)urban areas. Gas isn't ideal either, it's possibly worse from a climate change perspective due to leaks in the system, but at least you don't have the trucks and the heavy fug of local pollution from the boilers.

I'm reading that in a James May voice :)

Yep I don't disagree with you.

I can well believe that the legal system will refuse to allow the FCN even though the evidence does technically show that she drove at the exact speed.

who knew?

Mr Varadkar recalled the tragedy of his grandfather Tom Howell, a passenger who was killed aged 82 in a RTC in Co Carlow in 2005. “My uncle was driving from Dublin to Dungarvan where they lived. On the Carlow Road there was a loose horse. It hit the windscreen of the car. My uncle had minor injuries, but my grandfather didn’t survive"

The incident encouraged him.. when he became Minister for Transport and later Taoiseach https://connachttribune.ie/grandfathers-death-sparked-varadkars-road-safety-laws/

the horse hit the car, impressive.

Why did the judge vacate the conviction, tell the defendant to get legal advice, and refer the matter to the High Court if it's such a simple case then?

If there's no legislation governing exceeding the posted limit 'on average' then these prosecutions are dead in the water. I can't believe there isn't separate legislation as an average is completely different to a measured speed at a point in time and expecting one to cover the other due to 'must have' doesn't cut it imo.

Any solicitor would simply ask for direct evidence of the speed quoted.

Yes other speed measurements like gatso vans are also a delta over an interval, AKA an "average".

So if the argument is that the law needs to specifically refer to the word "average" for this type of enforcement measurement, you're just introducing a loophole that invalidates other measurements.

The reason the judge referred it to the high court is because they don't understand the relationship between average and instantaneous. You can't expect legal people to understand applied maths or physics in fairness. But you'd hope that someone in court can baby talk them through it. Rather than inserting the fundamental mathematical principle of every specific measurement technology into the law.

The problem is when you're explaining you're losing. So yes I expect "average" to be inserted, with loads of people getting off on an "average" technicality, then a new loophole automatically created, and a load more people getting off on the "instantaneous" technicality and then another law change. Because typically that's how the legal system does things here.

"Judge, it doesn't state the principles of doppler radar in the law!"

If I may…

This is surely a point of Road Traffic Law rather than a point of the laws of physics.

A summons must state the location of an alleged offence, as well as the alleged offence itself. The Irish Times report tell us the driver is accused of driving at 131km/h at M7 Ballinahinch (westbound), Birdhill. It goes on to tell us that this location is at one end of the 9km average speed zone.

There is no evidence that she exceeded the speed limit at Ballinahinch, Birdhill. From what I can make out from Google Maps, the average speed zone also passes through at least five other townlands. She could have been driving at 140km/h or more through these other townlands, but then slowed to less than the limit for the final stretch of the average speed zone through Ballinahinch itself.

The laws of physics do indeed tell us that she must have been driving at 131km/h at least once as she drove between the cameras, but they can't tell us exactly where. So again, no evidence that she exceeded the limit at Ballinahinch.

I'd expect the High Court to find it's a defective summons.

Exactly. It's just a fix required.

IANAL either but I do have a good working knowledge of the legislative process through my job. It's actually not always a fatal flaw not to be able to specify the precise location of an offence. Take the example of murder that you cite - Paddigol kills Pierre, but moves the body before it's found. All the evidence points to Paddigol, and Paddigol admits the offence. The charge sheet can state that Paddigol is accused of murder at location unknown, and the court can determine that the seriousness of the offence is such that not being able to specify the exact location of the murder is not a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case.

There's a chance that the High Court may rule that way in this case. But there's also a chance it'll rule otherwise. My 'expectation' above is really just a non-professional prediction.

Either way, I'd also predict a fix such that going forward, similar summonses would say something like 'drove at an average 131km/h in the 120km/h zone between [Location 1] and [Location 2]', rather than 'drove at 131km/h at Ballinahinch'.

It's obviously the fault of vulnerable road users who should be forced to wear hi viz, restricted as to where and how they can travel if they're not in a vehicle and bullied out of the way if they're an inconvenience.

I'd argue it's the fault of people not paying attention or not understanding the rules of the road

I was turning a corner the other day, on a green light, and my car automatically braked to prevent me from hitting a cyclist who broke his red light.

Generally speaking the capability of road users of all kinds to pay attention has dropped a lot lately

When your child gets killed on the road in front of you:

André's grief-stricken father said that “enforcement needs to happen, somehow”. "Any simple thing that we see on the road that is against the rules like this just make us mad. You cannot imagine how we boiled from inside seeing someone not stopping in a red light."

and opiner goes on:

Living on a narrow road beside a school, I consistently see double-parked SUVs taking up an entire side of a road, dangerous turns from parents while their kids are still getting out of their back seats. Further down, you see all kinds of road rage, you see people speeding through red lights that were amber seconds before, or ignoring pedestrian crossings.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-41610379.html