Are there any "low profile" Garda cars? (no lightbars)?

Deleted User wrote: »

I could be taking his post completely wrongly, which is why i didn't reply to it, but I think he means from a safety standpoint?

ie; if you have a bicycle with no lights, is it ok to just wear a reflective jacket.

So the scenario that ran through my head when I read his post was; If you plough into a Garda car parked on a motorway at a crash scene, for example, can you claim you didn't see it, as it had no flashing lightbar.

Terrontress wrote: »

How articulate! I bet you are a regular down at the local debating society.

I cannot substantiate it but would ask any serving member if they would stop a driver with a full width mirror on the front of their vehicle blinding motorists or would the blame lie with the passive party as they are emitting the light?

Would you allow a vehicle with reflective yellow and blue battenburg markings proceed?

Spartan09 wrote: »

I would guess from your posts that you're not a regular debater yourself as you're basically asking the opposing side of the debate to make your points for you. Rather an obscure point to make re the full width mirror on the front of a car, have you ever heard of that occurring, no of course not but you already knew that. If a vehicle had reflective yellow and blue battenbutg markings but did not in any place claim to be a garda vehicle, ie by having the words Garda written on it, it could be argued that the battenburg markings were a safety mechanism.

I've been intrigued by this topic for sometime now and the argument of not pulling over for a car with blues on. I asked 24 friends / relatives if they would pull over for a car with no lightbars but with blue alternating lights in the front grill / front windscreen and 24/24 stated they would as they would make the reasonable presumption that the car was a Garda car and they wished to speak with them. As previous posters have stated on a number of occasions, if you're willing to take the chance of driving on and not stopping - best of luck.

goldie fish wrote: »

Incedentally, can any of the genii here tell me the difference between "illegal" and "unlawful"?

ILLEGAL. Contrary to law; unlawful. 2. It is a general rule, that the law will never give its aid to a party who has entered into an illegal contract, whether the same be in direct violation of a statute, against public policy, or opposed to public morals. Nor to a contract which is fraudulent, which affects the defendant or a third person. 3. A contract in violation of a statute is absolutely void, and, however disguised, it will be set aside, for no form of expression can remove the substantial defect inherent in the nature of the transaction; the courts will investigate the real object of the contracting parties, and if that be repugnant to the law, it will vitiate the transaction. 4. Contracts against the public policy of the law, are equally void as if they were in violation of a public statute; a contract not to marry any one, is therefore illegal and void. See Void. 5. A contract against the purity of manners is also illegal; as, for example, a agreement to cohabit unlawfully with another, is therefore void; but a bond given for past cohabitation, being considered as remuneration for past injury, is binding. 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 3853. 6. All contracts which have for their object, or which may in their consequences, be injurious to third persons, altogether unconnected with them, are in general illegal and void. Of the first, an example may be found in the case where a sheriff's officer received a sum of money from a defendant for admitting to bail, and agreed to pay the bail, part of the money which was so exacted. 2 Burr. 924. The case of a wager between two persons, as to the character of a third, is an example of the second class. Cowp. 729; 4 Camp. 152; 1 Rawle, 42; 1 B. & A. 683. Vide Illicit; Unlawful.

Source: Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)

goldie fish wrote: »

I'm waiting for the bit that says strobes mounted on motorcycles are illegal.