Traffic Corps Program on RTE

TheNog · 04-06-2009 12:34AM

Zube wrote: »

Jesus Christ!

How could a heart attack behind the wheel cause an accident?

ok calm down

MYOB wrote: »

engine siezing = loss of power to power steering, braking servo, etc, etc. You suddenly have nearly no control of the vehicle, which if at the 138km/h he was blipped at, is not a good thing!

cheers for taking the time to explain it

Guy:Incognito · 04-06-2009 12:35AM

TheNog wrote: »

Again the 17yr old will have to go through the JLO office. He may have been cautioned or he may have been recommended for court and prosecuted. We do not know..

So if I'm stopped (I'm 28) under the circumstances driving a car on a provisional while unsupervised and not displaying L plates, I'll get a €1000 fine or two, but a 17 year old doing the same is sent on his way, with no issue?(bar a JLO referral)

TheNog wrote: »

If you can be more specific on which traffic stop you are taking about I will try to answer your question..

Just the one of the 17 year old in Donegal.

TheNog wrote: »

No
No and
No

You said theres no point in siezing the car as its not worth anything.

What about the fact that he's breaking numerous laws? Is that not worth bothering about?

So the fact remains that only us suckers that properly register their cars are expected to pay tax and get Nct's? should I not have bothered registering and paying VRT on my car, wouId have just been let on my way because it's only a 9 year old Xantia? Why am I bothering to pay for anything?

TheNog wrote: »

Hypothetical question really on something that didnt happen but believe it or not it is usually quite easy to trace the owner of the car even if it is registered in the UK. Would only take about 3 minutes.

I assume thats relying on the Irish buyer filling out the permenant export section of the V5 with real info? How could I be traced using the reg of a UK car that I bought while giving the guy I bought it off in the UK duff info?

TheNog wrote: »

Ok so your turn. Im sure you have seen the episode so tell us what offences have been committed and how you would deal with them.

Im not being smart with you but Im simply showing you the constraints we operate under with the traffic acts.

Driving unaccompanied
Not displaying L plates
Driving a foreign registered vehicle
No motor tax
No NCT.

What I'd like to see is the appropriate fines and points doled out and the car seized until it's VRT'd. Is that really too much to ask of AGS? The young lad is clearly taking the piss.

Zube · 04-06-2009 12:43AM

TheNog wrote: »

If his speed was determined or even an approximate speed got along with the other 2 points above, he would in my book be looking at dangerous driving or at the very least careless driving.

But his car was unfit to be on the road, so whatever he's looking at, he should be walking while he looks at it.

I would be.

Guy:Incognito · 04-06-2009 12:45AM

Zube wrote: »

But his car was unfit to be on the road, so whatever he's looking at, he should be walking while he looks at it.

I would be.

Your mixing up the young lad in Donegal with the guy stopped for breaking the red light that pulled in in th ecentre median on the dual carriageway.

Gary ITR · 04-06-2009 12:45AM

Zube wrote: »

But his car was unfit to be on the road, so whatever he's looking at, he should be walking while he looks at it.

I would be.

You're all confusing the different drivers now

Something I'd like to ask if you can answer The Nog is if you would have handled any of the situations any differently?

TheNog · 04-06-2009 12:46AM

Stekelly wrote: »

So if I'm stopped (I'm 28) under the circumstances driving a car on a provisional while unsupervised and not displaying L plates, I'll get a €1000 fine or two, but a 17 year old doing the same is sent on his way, with no issue?(bar a JLO referral)

Yes but again no one knows if this 17yr old was prosecuted or not

You said theres no point in siezing the car as its not worth anything.

Like I said seizing the car would be costly to the taxpayer unless the law is changed and owner is made pay all costs

What about the fact that he's breaking numerous laws? Is that not worth bothering about?

The only offence he has committed is VRT, driving unaccompanied and no L plates

So the fact remains that only us suckers that properly register their cars are expected to pay tax and get Nct's? should I not have bothered registering and paying VRT on my car, wouId have just been let on my way because it's only a 9 year old Xantia? Why am I bothering to pay for anything?

You can asked that question to the law makers. AGS dont make the laws, we enforce them

I assume thats relying on the Irish buyer filling out the permenant export section of the V5 with real info? How could I be traced using the reg of a UK car that I bought while giving the guy I bought it off in the UK duff info?

Im not willing to answer that question on a public forum but in the majority of cases it is not that hard

Driving unaccompanied
Not displaying L plates
Driving a foreign registered vehicle
No motor tax
No NCT.

Again he committed three offences. No tax and no NCT dont apply to a foreign registered vehicle

What I'd like to see is the appropriate fines and points doled out and the car seized until it's VRT'd. Is that really too much to ask of AGS? The young lad is clearly taking the piss.

How many times do I have to explain it to you before you get it?

In accordance with law anyone under 18yrs old must be refered to the JLO office for consideration. Again no one here knows if this referral was recommended for a prosecution

Guy:Incognito · 04-06-2009 12:50AM

TheNog wrote: »

Like I said seizing the car would be costly to the taxpayer unless the law is changed and owner is made pay all costs

The only offence he has committed is VRT, driving unaccompanied and no L plates

Is one offence not enough?

Right fair enough on the other stuff. But again, the crux of the matter here comes down to you reckoning its ok to let someone head off ontheir way drivign illegally because it would cost more to stop them breaking the law than to simply allow them do as they please. Well I'm sorry but that stinks to high heaven to me.

Your not the minister for finance. Thats not really your call to make is it?A law is broken, apply the nessecary punishment,
What about the cost of lost motor tax to the economy seeing as were all budgeting here?

I know the supply of adequate equipment is a bone of contention with Gards so if the appropriate government minister said "look , it's cheaper to train a new Gard when one gets killed than to supply them with safey gear", would you be happy enough with that?

TheNog wrote: »

Again he committed three offences. No tax and no NCT dont apply to a foreign registered vehicle

They would be though if AGS did their job and facilitated in the car being properly registered in the state.

TheNog · 04-06-2009 12:51AM

Onkle wrote: »

Something I'd like to ask if you can answer The Nog is if you would have handled any of the situations any differently?

Only one

I wouldnt drive the wrong way on a dual carriageway.

Zube · 04-06-2009 12:51AM

Stekelly wrote: »

Your mixing up the young lad in Donegal with the guy stopped for breaking the red light that pulled in in th ecentre median on the dual carriageway.

Yes, I was, and I apologize.

Zube · 04-06-2009 12:53AM

Stekelly wrote: »

Your not the minister for finance.

Not yet.

Vote TheNog for Pope!

Gary ITR · 04-06-2009 12:56AM

Stekelly wrote: »

Is one offence not enough?

Right fair enough on the other stuff. But again, the crux of the matter here comes down to you reckoning its ok to let someone head off ontheir way drivign illegally because it would cost more to stop them breaking the law than to simply allow them do as they please. Well I'm sorry but that stinks to high heaven to me.

Your not the minister for finance. Thats not really your call to make is it?A law is broken, apply the nessecary punishment,
What about the cost of lost motor tax to the economy seeing as were all budgeting here?

I wouldn't like to see Guards stop using discretion in certain circumstances. I was stopped a while back driving on the phone (stupid I know), Guard pulls me, gave me a bollocking and sent me on my way. I'm just as unlikely to do it again as if I got a fine and 2 points

Guy:Incognito · 04-06-2009 01:00AM

Onkle wrote: »

I wouldn't like to see Guards stop using discretion in certain circumstances. I was stopped a while back driving on the phone (stupid I know), Guard pulls me, gave me a bollocking and sent me on my way. I'm just as unlikely to do it again as if I got a fine and 2 points

Yes but if there was various other issues along with the phone wrong with you and the car, do you think you should be sent on your way? Or would you admit at that stage youd be taking the piss ?

Plus beign 17 and only just starting out makes it all the worse. Youd theink people at that age woudl be nervous as hell and makign sure everything is ok before they set out. 17 year old are still kids for all intents and purposes, 17 year old lads are particularly immature in the main.

TheNog · 04-06-2009 01:00AM

Stekelly wrote: »

Is one offence not enough?

Right fair enough on the other stuff. But again, the crux of the matter here comes down to you reckoning its ok to let someone head off ontheir way drivign illegally because it would cost more to stop them breaking the law than to simply allow them do as they please. Well I'm sorry but that stinks to high heaven to me.

I never said its ok for anyone to drive illegally. Im just saying there is more behind the decision made that people seem to realise.

Your not the minister for finance. Thats not really your call to make is it?A law is broken, apply the nessecary punishment,
What about the cost of lost motor tax to the economy seeing as were all budgeting here?

Yes it is my decision to make. Its called discretion.

Anyway its not my fault the process for prosecution for non payment of VRT is so bloody complicated and expensive when I could be dealing with more serious road incidents such as the drink driving and the dangerous driving. By the way Im not on traffic so I deal with other stuff like
public order,
thefts,
burglaries,
UTs,
going to court,
sudden deaths/suicides,
domestics,
paperwork/files
Station Orderly
Member in Charge
warrants
summons

Guy:Incognito · 04-06-2009 01:01AM

TheNog wrote: »

Only one

I wouldnt drive the wrong way on a dual carriageway.

Is there an official line on that or is it driver discretion?
Road wars had a few clips of UK and US cops doing it.

L1011 · 04-06-2009 01:03AM

Stekelly wrote: »

Plus beign 17 and only just starting out makes it all the worse. Youd theink people at that age woudl be nervous as hell and makign sure everything is ok before they set out. 17 year old are still kids for all intents and purposes, 17 year old lads are particularly immature in the main.

As one of the Guards on the show said, Donegal lads and cars... it seems to be a primal desire to get driving as soon as you can; its almost a necessity in some areas but even in the towns.

TheNog · 04-06-2009 01:04AM

Stekelly wrote: »

Yes but if there was various other issues along with the phone wrong with you and the car, do you think you should be sent on your way? Or would you admit at that stage youd be taking the piss ?

Plus beign 17 and only just starting out makes it all the worse. Youd theink people at that age woudl be nervous as hell and makign sure everything is ok before they set out. 17 year old are still kids for all intents and purposes, 17 year old lads are particularly immature in the main.

This I do agree with ye on however with some of todays youth and their "I dont give a shit, I will do what ever I want" attitude they will take the piss when and where they can

Gary ITR · 04-06-2009 01:05AM

Stekelly wrote: »

Yes but if there was various other issues along with the phone wrong with you and the car, do you think you should be sent on your way? Or would you admit at that stage youd be taking the piss ?

Plus beign 17 and only just starting out makes it all the worse. Youd theink people at that age woudl be nervous as hell and makign sure everything is ok before they set out. 17 year old are still kids for all intents and purposes, 17 year old lads are particularly immature in the main.

But the offences were relatively minor and he was referred to the JLO. There was only one offence that the car could have been seized for and tht was the VRT issue. Would it have been safer to make the young lad walk home on the back roads of Donegal?

TheNog · 04-06-2009 01:08AM

Stekelly wrote: »

Is there an official line on that or is it driver discretion?
Road wars had a few clips of UK and US cops doing it.

The official line is "never put other road users in danger or damage the patrol car or we will screw the arse of ye by blocking you in the job and possibly bringing you to court and taking your driving licence".

The unofficial line is "Cover thy hole at all times"

MYOB wrote: »

As one of the Guards on the show said, Donegal lads and cars... it seems to be a primal desire to get driving as soon as you can; its almost a necessity in some areas but even in the towns.

Probably brought about the isolation of parts of Donegal so a car is needed to get around.

Zube · 04-06-2009 01:11AM

Onkle wrote: »

Would it have been safer to make the young lad walk home on the back roads of Donegal?

For him? No.

For everyone else? Absolutely.

Guy:Incognito · 04-06-2009 01:11AM

TheNog wrote: »

I never said its ok for anyone to drive illegally. Im just saying there is more behind the decision made that people seem to realise.

Yes it is my decision to make. Its called discretion.

Anyway its not my fault the process for prosecution for non payment of VRT is so bloody complicated and expensive when I could be dealing with more serious road incidents such as the drink driving and the dangerous driving.

No one is even demanding that the guy be prosecuted. Can the car be seized and passed to the revenue to ensure he registers it without botherign to prosecute?

The bottom line is that people are being sent on their way to continue drivign illegally, which just isnt good enough and at best all it does is annoy the law abiding people.

I've always been one to wade in in defence of AGS on here when the usual Gards bashign kicks off but tbhthe kind of apathy in these situations while people ar epulled in and fined for a lot less is very disheartening and Icant see how it helps public perseptions of Gards in any way.

Bad form IMO. It's only serving to drive a wedge between people who see what on the face of it appears to be a boy racer giving the Gards the two fingers and taking the utter piss while having a nicey nice chat and a hair ruffle then sent on his way . I have no problem with middle class housewives being left on the side of the road while their cars are seized for no VRT being paid but equal treatment for all is not too much to ask.

TheNog wrote: »

This I do agree with ye on however with some of todays youth and their "I dont give a shit, I will do what ever I want" attitude they will take the piss when and where they can

But is usieng discretion and lettign them do it helping tackle that attitude? All I can see it doing is lettign them tell their mates they got one over on the gards and reinforcign the idea they can do as they please

Gary ITR · 04-06-2009 01:13AM

Zube wrote: »

For him? No.

For everyone else? Absolutely.

How so? He wasn't pulled for speeding that night. He was pulled because he was driving a car that didn't look too healthy iirc. I'm sure plenty of people on here have driven worse over the years

Guy:Incognito · 04-06-2009 01:15AM

Onkle wrote: »

How so? He wasn't pulled for speeding that night. He was pulled because he was driving a car that didn't look too healthy iirc. I'm sure plenty of people on here have driven worse over the years

In fairness, everything about the guy and the car screamed to me that he's going to end up in a ditch at some stage, the problem is he could well take others with him.

From the state of the carm, not VRT, provisional licence, no L plates, form for speeding (I doubt the previous was the first or last time he did that speed), he just gives off an attitude that he's above the law and can do what he wants.

Gary ITR · 04-06-2009 01:16AM

Stekelly wrote: »

But is usieng discretion and lettign them do it helping tackle that attitude? All I can see it doing is lettign them tell their mates they got one over on the gards and reinforcign the idea they can do as they please

I personally would like to think that the lad would have the cop on to get himself sorted out*

*I still have faith in humanity

Guy:Incognito · 04-06-2009 01:18AM

Onkle wrote: »

*I still have faith in humanity

You dotn leave the house much, do you?:)

Gary ITR · 04-06-2009 01:23AM

Stekelly wrote: »

In fairness, everything about the guy and the car screamed to me that he's going to end up in a ditch at some stage, the problem is he could well take others with him.

From the state of the carm, not VRT, provisional licence, no L plates, form for speeding (I doubt the previous was the first or last time he did that speed), he just gives off an attitude that he's above the law and can do what he wants.

I totally take your point. But seizing the car wouldn't have achieved anything imo. I think we are forgetting here that he didn't get off scott free, he was referred to the JLO.

It's like if I was stopped speeding, I'm still sent on my way after the Guard has dealt with me

Stekelly wrote: »

You dotn leave the house much, do you?:)

I lost quite a bit on Saturday tbh. I got an elbow in the eye playing football so have a hefty shiner and on Sunday (on the bar of your local nightclub) a girl poked me in the eye to see if it hurt

Zube · 04-06-2009 01:33AM

Onkle wrote: »

He was pulled because he was driving a car that didn't look too healthy iirc. I'm sure plenty of people on here have driven worse over the years

Eh, no, that's my point. I wouldn't start a car that was in that state, never mind drive it.

I think every yellow reg car should have proof that it's VRT exempt, or it should be seized. I think 17-year-old learners who are unaccompanied should have the keys taken until a qualified driver arrives to escort them.

I certainly don't think a 17 year old on a provisional licence driving a yellow reg car which has steam billowing from the engine because the radiator cap is missing should be waved on by the guards.

Nota Bene: I'm not having a go at TheNog, the officers on the TV show in question, or the Garda Siochana in general. I wish they had the power to do their job the way I'd like it done.

TheNog · 04-06-2009 01:33AM

Stekelly wrote: »

No one is even demanding that the guy be prosecuted. Can the car be seized and passed to the revenue to ensure he registers it without botherign to prosecute?

The bottom line is that people are being sent on their way to continue drivign illegally, which just isnt good enough and at best all it does is annoy the law abiding people.

I've always been one to wade in in defence of AGS on here when the usual Gards bashign kicks off but tbhthe kind of apathy in these situations while people ar epulled in and fined for a lot less is very disheartening and Icant see how it helps public perseptions of Gards in any way.

Bad form IMO. It's only serving to drive a wedge between people who see what on the face of it appears to be a boy racer giving the Gards the two fingers and taking the utter piss while having a nicey nice chat and a hair ruffle then sent on his way . I have no problem with middle class housewives being left on the side of the road while their cars are seized for no VRT being paid but equal treatment for all is not too much to ask.

But is usieng discretion and lettign them do it helping tackle that attitude? All I can see it doing is lettign them tell their mates they got one over on the gards and reinforcign the idea they can do as they please

Lets be honest about this. The car is probably worthless so the VRT would probably be less than €100 and thats me being generous. As for the tax, well with a car like that it probably wouldnt last long anyway before it breaks down beyond repair or too expensive to repair. So in all the car would probably last less than a year so if the car was registered and taxed the government would make about €4-500.

If it was seized there would €150 seizure fee, storage costs of €35 a day ( stored for a good month), Police Property application takes about 1hr to complete (Garda wages €30 excluding income and pension levies

), application goes to Sergeant's Office (civilian and sergeants wages say €30), then onto District Court Clerks office where it is put onto the Court list and dealt with (court clerk and judge wages say €100) and then the car is destroyed (€150). Thats an estimated €1510 without even including Customs in it and all for a car thats probably worth €200.

Im not saying this is right cos it isnt and you are right, ideally the car would be seized. I have already said what I would like to see happening.

You know I always hoped this programme would be a warts an all show and Im glad that it is. I see how complex the laws are everyday and now its time the public knew too.

Gary ITR · 04-06-2009 01:39AM

TheNog wrote: »

Lets be honest about this. The car is probably worthless so the VRT would probably be less than €100 and thats me being generous. As for the tax, well with a car like that it probably wouldnt last long anyway before it breaks down beyond repair or too expensive to repair. So in all the car would probably last less than a year so if the car was registered and taxed the government would make about €4-500.

Just on that, VRT isn't charged on a car by car basis. It's a make/model charge.

ie this would have the same vrt as this

TheNog · 04-06-2009 01:43AM

Onkle wrote: »

Just on that, VRT isn't charged on a car by car basis. It's a make/model charge.

ie this would have the same vrt as this

oh right I thought VRT was charged at 20% value of the car when its bought.

eringobragh · 04-06-2009 01:46AM

TBH Personally I don't give a **** about the VRT but thats besides the point. He shouldn't have been let drive home his car should have been left in a gap and he should have been bunged in the back of the car and taken home and told to collect the car tomorrow.

Its hard to stomach the RSAs stance on "Speedings evil" when an inexperienced 17 year old is let drive off in a 'lethal weapon' on a learner permit.

As I said before, Does someone have to be killed before common sense prevails?

People in the UK wouldn't dream of getting in a car on their own on a provisional (learner permit) its just not done, why should it be any different here?

Traffic Corps Program on RTE

Comments