pulled by park ranger

Vegeta wrote: »

Fair play for ringing and asking but and again I am not trying to be smart but unless the Superintendent is a Judge in his spare time I wouldn't take his word for pretty much anything.

You should see some of the "laws" Superintendents make up when it comes to firearms legislation. One rule up the road and another rule in the next district.

You don't need to be a judge to pass out instructions to your rangers on what their job entails, and the limits of said role.

I'm fairly certain that if he says his staff are not permitted to do something, then they're not permitted. I can phone a judge though if that'll get some closure.

All that said - I have no sympathy for the OP - she sounds like a delight.

kdevitt wrote: »

You don't need to be a judge to pass out instructions to your rangers on what their job entails, and the limits of said role.

I'm fairly certain that if he says his staff are not permitted to do something, then they're not permitted. I can phone a judge though if that'll get some closure.

All that said - I have no sympathy for the OP - she sounds like a delight.

Just because you tell someone not to do something does not mean that they don't have the legal powers to do it.

Believe me as someone who deals with a Superintendent a lot and mods a forum where every user deals with a Superintendent on a regular basis, they do not enforce the law word for word all of the time and often make their own as they go.

The NARGC has taken them to court several times over this

Vegeta wrote: »

Just because you tell someone not to do something does not mean that they don't have the legal powers to do it.

Believe me as someone who deals with a Superintendent a lot and mods a forum where every user deals with a Superintendent on a regular basis, they do not enforce the law word for word all of the time and often make their own as they go.

Oh sorry you're a mod on a forum - didn't realise!

To be honest, I'm actually really not that bothered, my father did a lot of work with the OPW years back and was always under the impression that the rangers had powers of arrest within the park. Maybe with some luck the OP will get a summons and that'll answer the original post once and for all!

kdevitt wrote: »

Oh sorry you're a mod on a forum - didn't realise!

I didn't mean it like that. I meant it as an example of first hand knowledge of how Superintendents do not know the legislation word for word and basing a legal challenge on the word of one is a bad idea.

For example at 16 I applied for my first firearms license to the local Super (family is big into it) I was turned down because I was too young. Despite 16 being the minimum legal age.

To be honest, I'm actually really not that bothered, my father did a lot of work with the OPW years back and was always under the impression that the rangers had powers of arrest within the park. Maybe with some luck the OP will get a summons and that'll answer the original post once and for all!

Well looking at the Acts and SI documents they do have a lot of powers within the park.

blondie7 wrote: »

i wont be getting any summons as the gaurds wont do jach sh*t about it without proof:P

I assume that the park Warden would be able to ring Traffic Watch at the very least like other members of the public. If he was allege dangerous driving on behalf of the OP, then court proceedings may be initiated if the Warden was willing to go to court.

I may be completely wrong here, but did the Park Wardens ever have radar speed meters?. I do seem to recall that they had years ago.

podge3 wrote: »

I assume that the park Warden would be able to ring Traffic Watch at the very least like other members of the public. If he was allege dangerous driving on behalf of the OP, then court proceedings may be initiated if the Warden was willing to go to court.

That'd be interesting...
"Yes, your honour, I did overtake the OP at 65 km/hr in a posted 50km/hr zone, and yes, I did flash my lights at her, and yes I did brake to a halt in front of her suddenly without cause, thereby risking a collision, but honestly, it's my word against hers that she was doing more than the posted - but invalid as there's no bye-law just like the situation out in kilmacanogue a few years ago where they had to declare many garda-issued speeding tickets invalid - speed limit. And isn't my word as a park ranger better than her word as a mere pleb?"...

mick.fr wrote: »

Not a reason to do 65 Kmh in Phoenix Park though if I may comment.

DublinWriter wrote: »

Even so, 65kph? Take it easy, OP, think of the kids, deer, dogs, doggers, jogging guards, etc.

Anan1 wrote: »

+1, whatever about the legal position I have zero sympathy for the OP. It's a park, FFS.

Anan1 wrote: »

But we live in a very strange world if pointing out that speeding through parks is wrong qualifies as being on ones high horse.

blueeyedboy wrote: »

In fairness if you speed in the Park you speed on the public road also.

kdevitt wrote: »

You are subject to bye laws when you enter the park - and he's entitled to pull you over.

ardmacha wrote: »

They can summons you to court and the Warden can state that he followed you at a speed of 65kph or whatever.

These are only from the first page of this thread, and typifies the knee jerk of a lot of people who are on the motors forum including, unfortunately, some moderators. And some of those quoted do this repeatedly.

Will one of you please point out EXACTLY where the OP says she was speeding.

The OP stated that the park employee stated that HE had to drive at 65kph to catch up with her; she may well have been doing 60kph; she could just as easily have been doin 20kph, but the PARK EMPLOYEE WAS DOING 65KPH, no the OP. The OP never mentioned her speed AT ALL.

Sorry about the shouting, but it could have been avoided if people read the actual opening post rather than what they wanted the opening post to read as.

Fey! wrote: »

Will one of you please point out EXACTLY where the OP says she was speeding.

While it doesn't say in the OP that she was speeding, it's certainly implied that she was.

If she wasn't I'd say it would have been mentioned in the OP that she was within the posted limits.

R.O.R wrote: »

While it doesn't say in the OP that she was speeding, it's certainly implied that she was.

If she wasn't I'd say it would have been mentioned in the OP that she was within the posted limits.

Implication is not proof. And the OP wouldn't necessarily have put it in if she had been at a lower speed.

blondie7 wrote: »

the correct spelling of is GAURD!

Is this guy serious?

blondie7 wrote: »

if they have radar meters then surely he would have produced it to me yesterday evening showing my speed??

I've no doubt he would - I was just making a general historical query. I may well be mistaken but I do seem to recall some of those lads with speed guns years ago.