Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Garda with no licience,tax, and bald tyres kills two and gets a fine!

1…78101213…15

Comments

  • #272
    lividduck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,250 ✭✭✭lividduck


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    Good to know, I assume you have never broken a law, for example have you crossed a road close to a crossing. If you drive do you carry your license at all times. If you drive when did you last check tyre thread dept, brake fluid level and all lights to make sure they are working. Do you check the tax details on every car you drive if owned by someone else same with NTC.

    But itsgood to know there is one perfect driver in the country.
    You seem to be missing the point, it was admitted in court that he knew the tyres (described as being extremley bare) needed replacing, so he was aware as he headed off that he was driving (without a licience) an unroadworthy vehicle, now that is a highly negligent and dangerous thing to do imo.


  • #273
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    thebullkf wrote: »
    hows about yourself there?

    I have not called for a 10 year ban for what I believe most people including myself have done, there is a difference between making a mistake many of us make and doing something really stupid.

    Also from the tone of my posting it is in my opinion obvious that I am not a perfect driver nor for that matter perfect in many areas of life, hence maybe because of that imperfection would rather lower fines for the types of offense the Garda has been found guilty of. But as a lot of people on here are perfect and never drive without a licence, tax and with bald tyres they have every right to call for stiffer sentences.


  • #274
    lividduck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,250 ✭✭✭lividduck


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    I have not called for a 10 year ban for what I believe most people including myself have done, there is a difference between making a mistake many of us make and doing something really stupid.

    Also from the tone of my posting it is in my opinion obvious that I am not a perfect driver nor for that matter perfect in many areas of life, hence maybe because of that imperfection would rather lower fines for the types of offense the Garda has been found guilty of. But as a lot of people on here are perfect and never drive without a licence, tax and with bald tyres they have every right to call for stiffer sentences.
    I have never ever driven without a licience, I have never and would never drive a car knowing that it had extremly bare tyres as that is a highly dangerous thing to do, I have driven without tax for a week past the renewal date.
    I have a great deal of trouble with your assertion that most people have driven without tax, a driving licience and with bald tyres ,all offences at the same time.


  • #275
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    pjmn wrote: »
    Obviously you are entitled to your opinion (as I am to mine) - but my view is that anyone who is over the age of 18 (i.e. should know right from wrong) who takes a car that is not in a roadworthy condition, does not have a driving licence to drive same and the said car is not taxed then I think 10 years off the road is an appropriate punishment, and in turn it might just stop the next guy doing the same...

    ... finally, I think you should drop the 'perfect driver' comments, you don't know me, and it makes your comments look a little childish/foolish.

    You are asking for a person to be held up to a very high standard of driving, in my opinion a person would have to perfect to have never done any or all of the 3 things he was charged with in a driving life. You have stated how you drive in reply to my questions and in my opinion you are in a very small group of people, I believe most people could not tell you how to check tyres, not to mind brake fluid. My point is that to hold people to such a high standard and give 10 year ban then what you are accusing the person of must be far below the required standard, I don't believe it is you do.


  • #276
    thebullkf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,036 ✭✭✭thebullkf


    HigginsJ wrote: »
    Going on the fine he got and the fine that was issued in the cases that were linked up on this thread he was fined at the higher end of the scale for the tyres, tax and licence.

    fine if he was stopped @ a checkpoint and caught(though prob would be waved through as a courtesy) but his actions resulted in the death of 2 people,(coupled with their own actions)

    action vs consequence

    he didn't do everything a fair and reasonably practical person would do, he of all people should be checking vehicle roadworthiness on a daily basis, its a requirement for all gardai who drive fleet cars(if he was indeed driving them) to do basic safety checks incl tyres,not least having a licence!!


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    lividduck wrote: »
    I have never ever driven without a licience, I have never and would never drive a car knowing that it had extremly bare tyres as that is a highly dangerous thing to do, I have driven without tax for a week past the renewal date.
    I have a great deal of trouble with your assertion that most people have driven without tax, a driving licience and with bald tyres ,all offences at the same time.

    Sorry could you quote where I have said "most people have driven without tax, a driving licience and with bald tyres ,all offences at the same time."


  • #278
    team2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12 ✭team2


    thebullkf wrote: »
    finty wrote: »
    He is at fault for breaking road traffic laws and was convicted as such.


    He isnt at fault for the deaths of two morons getting themselves killed by lying on a motorway in the dead of night


    eh- i think you'll find he was...ffs HE killed them, sure blame is apportioned to them- but they paid for their folly- this garda has got off lightly.

    I think you will find he didn't get off lightly, sure he may have committed some road traffic offences. By any standard the fine he received is pretty steep for the offences he pleaded guilty to, as you pointed out HE KILLED Them. He will live with that for the rest of his life. Question why was he not charged with killing them, eh cause it wasn't his fault when was the last time you came across two idiots rolling around on a motor way of all places in the dark, eh never and would never expect to remember its an offence to walk on the motor way... they may have paid the price but come on what would you expect if that was their carry on. Any one could have killed them it was an accident caused by their negligence and foolhardy behaviour a not by the guy with no road tax........


  • #279
    pjmn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭pjmn


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    You are asking for a person to be held up to a very high standard of driving, in my opinion a person would have to perfect to have never done any or all of the 3 things he was charged with in a driving life. You have stated how you drive in reply to my questions and in my opinion you are in a very small group of people, I believe most people could not tell you how to check tyres, not to mind brake fluid. My point is that to hold people to such a high standard and give 10 year ban then what you are accusing the person of must be far below the required standard, I don't believe it is you do.

    Brake fluid isn't the issue here...

    He knew the tyres were bald - he knew he didn't have a licence, he knew the car wasn't taxed (the lesser of the crimes I'll admit) - therefore I believe he got off very lightly...


  • #280
    thebullkf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,036 ✭✭✭thebullkf


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    I have not called for a 10 year ban for what I believe most people including myself have done, there is a difference between making a mistake many of us make and doing something really stupid.

    Also from the tone of my posting it is in my opinion obvious that I am not a perfect driver nor for that matter perfect in many areas of life, hence maybe because of that imperfection would rather lower fines for the types of offense the Garda has been found guilty of. But as a lot of people on here are perfect and never drive without a licence, tax and with bald tyres they have every right to call for stiffer sentences.


    so you've driven witthouta license,on bald tyres to boot... you should be banned, simple really-maybe if the threat was there-peole wouldn't do it...:confused:


  • #281
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    thebullkf wrote: »
    fine if he was stopped @ a checkpoint and caught(though prob would be waved through as a courtesy) but his actions resulted in the death of 2 people,(coupled with their own actions)

    action vs consequence

    he didn't do everything a fair and reasonably practical person would do, he of all people should be checking vehicle roadworthiness on a daily basis, its a requirement for all gardai who drive fleet cars(if he was indeed driving them) to do basic safety checks incl tyres,not least having a licence!!

    Action v consequence, yes I totally agree with you, but he was not charged with dangerous driving causing death, if anyone has evidence that he should have been, then of course he should get a10 year ban which is the usuall punishment for such a charge unless there are circumstances that would allow for jail or indeed a lessor sentence. The point here is there is no evidence that what he did wrong caused the death of two people. yes he had no licence, ok bad carries fine usually €50 to €200, he had no tax again usual fine €100 to €250 depending has back tax been paid and bald tyres usual €100 to €500.

    If you have evidence that the bald tyres caused the accident then of course it should be dangerous driving causing death but if that evidence is not there he can not be found guilty of that charge.


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    lividduck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,250 ✭✭✭lividduck


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    Sorry could you quote where I have said "most people have driven without tax, a driving licience and with bald tyres ,all offences at the same time."
    He was convicted of having no licience, no tax, and two bald tyres, you referred to him as having do nothing that "I believe most people including myself have done"
    Glad to be of assistance:)


  • #283
    lividduck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,250 ✭✭✭lividduck


    team2 wrote: »
    I think you will find he didn't get off lightly, sure he may have committed some road traffic offences. By any standard the fine he received is pretty steep for the offences he pleaded guilty to, as you pointed out HE KILLED Them. He will live with that for the rest of his life. Question why was he not charged with killing them, eh cause it wasn't his fault when was the last time you came across two idiots rolling around on a motor way of all places in the dark, eh never and would never expect to remember its an offence to walk on the motor way... they may have paid the price but come on what would you expect if that was their carry on. Any one could have killed them it was an accident caused by their negligence and foolhardy behaviour a not by the guy with no road tax........
    Approximatley one weeks wages for a Garda with his service, hardly "pretty steep"


  • #284
    thebullkf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,036 ✭✭✭thebullkf


    team2 wrote: »
    I think you will find he didn't get off lightly, sure he may have committed some road traffic offences. By any standard the fine he received is pretty steep for the offences he pleaded guilty to, as you pointed out HE KILLED Them. He will live with that for the rest of his life. Question why was he not charged with killing them, eh cause it wasn't his fault when was the last time you came across two idiots rolling around on a motor way of all places in the dark, eh never and would never expect to remember its an offence to walk on the motor way... they may have paid the price but come on what would you expect if that was their carry on. Any one could have killed them it was an accident caused by their negligence and foolhardy behaviour a not by the guy with no road tax........

    i think you'll find they were killed, "by the guy with no road tax£"....or licence...or...roadworthy vehicle...

    Lemme ask you this : if a guy crashed into your parents and killed them as they crossed a road and he had no licence........or tax......or proper tyres.....and receive same sentence- would you still hold the same view?

    i doubt it.


  • #285
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    lividduck wrote: »
    He was convicted of having no licience, no tax, and two bald tyres, you referred to him as having do nothing that "I believe most people including myself have done"
    Glad to be of assistance:)

    And in your quote ,"all offences at the same time" I don't think I said all at the same time, my point was as is clear many of us or guilty of doing those offenses.


  • #286
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    thebullkf wrote: »
    i think you'll find they were killed, "by the guy with no road tax£"....or licence...or...roadworthy vehicle...

    Lemme ask you this : if a guy crashed into your parents and killed them as they crossed a road and he had no licence........or tax......or proper tyres.....and receive same sentence- would you still hold the same view?

    i doubt it.

    Well if my parents at 80 happened to be brawling in the middle of a motorway at night with no lighting I would think they happened to be mental.

    If on the other hand it happened at a road crossing and the cause of the accident was directly linked to the 3 factors then I would be really pissed off with a €900 fine.


  • #287
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    thebullkf wrote: »
    i think you'll find they were killed, "by the guy with no road tax£"....or licence...or...roadworthy vehicle...

    Lemme ask you this : if a guy crashed into your parents and killed them as they crossed a road and he had no licence........or tax......or proper tyres.....and receive same sentence- would you still hold the same view?

    i doubt it.

    I guess you have made a good point here, if it was one of our families that was killed we would be outraged and rightly so. You have to look at it from every angle.


  • #288
    x4winnie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7 ✭x4winnie


    I had no idea that so many people were so lax about breaking the law & the rules of the road, some people here seem to think its only a minor offence to have no driving licence, no big deal to have bald tyres and no road tax is hardly worth a mention.

    If we are to accept that this driver was in no way responsible for the accident, why did his solicitor/lawyer say that he worked late shifts in the previous days, what is the relevance.

    I think its unbelievable that a police man would have no regard for the rules of the road (until he has had an accident) Yes I do expect more from our police force.

    Regarding his motor insurance not being mentioned when he was fined for no driving licence etc. Is it possible that the garda force has a group motor insurance which covers them to drive any vehicle?.... Just a thought.


  • #289
    thebullkf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,036 ✭✭✭thebullkf


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    Action v consequence, yes I totally agree with you, but he was not charged with dangerous driving causing death, if anyone has evidence that he should have been, then of course he should get a10 year ban which is the usuall punishment for such a charge unless there are circumstances that would allow for jail or indeed a lessor sentence. The point here is there is no evidence that what he did wrong caused the death of two people. yes he had no licence, ok bad carries fine usually €50 to €200, he had no tax again usual fine €100 to €250 depending has back tax been paid and bald tyres usual €100 to €500.

    If you have evidence that the bald tyres caused the accident then of course it should be dangerous driving causing death but if that evidence is not there he can not be found guilty of that charge.


    he should be charged with driving causing death- i know accidens happen, but you have got to give yourself every possible chance of doing things that don't cause death, like having a valid permit to rive, or valid tax, or valid tyres, he had neither, so in mind he's culpable-and the fne is scant solace or deterrent.

    neither he nor his car should've been on the road that night(nor the 2 scrappers). they were-he should be dealt with severely.


  • #290
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    x4winnie wrote: »

    Regarding his motor insurance not being mentioned when he was fined for no driving licence etc. Is it possible that the garda force has a group motor insurance which covers them to drive any vehicle?.... Just a thought.

    No they have to insure their own cars.


  • #291
    lividduck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,250 ✭✭✭lividduck


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    And in your quote ,"all offences at the same time" I don't think I said all at the same time, my point was as is clear many of us or guilty of doing those offenses.
    A wortd of advice, when you find yourself at the bottom of a hole , stop digging!


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    thebullkf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,036 ✭✭✭thebullkf


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    Well if my parents at 80 happened to be brawling in the middle of a motorway at night with no lighting I would think they happened to be mental.

    If on the other hand it happened at a road crossing and the cause of the accident was directly linked to the 3 factors then I would be really pissed off with a €900 fine.



    point is if your parents were on a road illegally (jaywalkin is illegal, yet we all do it, have done it) and it happened..... nature of the illegality is moot point tbf.


  • #293
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    thebullkf wrote: »
    he should be charged with driving causing death- i know accidens happen, but you have got to give yourself every possible chance of doing things that don't cause death, like having a valid permit to rive, or valid tax, or valid tyres, he had neither, so in mind he's culpable-and the fne is scant solace or deterrent.

    neither he nor his car should've been on the road that night(nor the 2 scrappers). they were-he should be dealt with severely.

    I may agree with you on the dangerous driving causing death charge, there is a part of me that would agree that all RTA resulting in death should lead to a charge and let the Jury decided on the evidence before it. My own belief in this case is a jury would more than likely find not guilty.

    But my point is he was not charged with that and the charges before the court are all the court can consider. If you think the 3 charges should result in 10 year ban then from what I have seen in the DC and CC lots of people would be banned.


  • #294
    team2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12 ✭team2


    thebullkf wrote: »
    team2 wrote: »
    I think you will find he didn't get off lightly, sure he may have committed some road traffic offences. By any standard the fine he received is pretty steep for the offences he pleaded guilty to, as you pointed out HE KILLED Them. He will live with that for the rest of his life. Question why was he not charged with killing them, eh cause it wasn't his fault when was the last time you came across two idiots rolling around on a motor way of all places in the dark, eh never and would never expect to remember its an offence to walk on the motor way... they may have paid the price but come on what would you expect if that was their carry on. Any one could have killed them it was an accident caused by their negligence and foolhardy behaviour a not by the guy with no road tax........

    i think you'll find they were killed, "by the guy with no road tax£"....or licence...or...roadworthy vehicle...

    Lemme ask you this : if a guy crashed into your parents and killed them as they crossed a road and he had no licence........or tax......or proper tyres.....and receive same sentence- would you still hold the same view?

    i doubt it.
    your missing the point totally the chap drove his car and committed a few minor road traffic offences hevrecieved a steep fine for those offences. He did not expect to find two idiots on a motorway rolling around on the ground he will live with that for the rest of his life. None of the offences he committed contributed to the deaths if those lads proof is he was not charged.... You appear to have the view it was all his fault hi can't understand if he wad at fault why wad he not charged with dd causing death can you explain this?


  • #295
    team2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12 ✭team2


    lividduck wrote: »
    team2 wrote: »
    I think you will find he didn't get off lightly, sure he may have committed some road traffic offences. By any standard the fine he received is pretty steep for the offences he pleaded guilty to, as you pointed out HE KILLED Them. He will live with that for the rest of his life. Question why was he not charged with killing them, eh cause it wasn't his fault when was the last time you came across two idiots rolling around on a motor way of all places in the dark, eh never and would never expect to remember its an offence to walk on the motor way... they may have paid the price but come on what would you expect if that was their carry on. Any one could have killed them it was an accident caused by their negligence and foolhardy behaviour a not by the guy with no road tax........
    Approximatley one weeks wages for a Garda with his service, hardly "pretty steep"
    its actually a steep fine the norm is a conviction and fine on the most serious offence and the rest are taken into consideration


  • #296
    x4winnie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7 ✭x4winnie


    hondasam wrote: »
    No they have to insure their own cars.

    I was wondering if the insurance policy that covers driving garda vehicles, may cover them in the event they 'overlooked the requirement' to have motor insurance on their own personal vehicle. The reason I mention it is that if he had no driving licence, how could he have motor insurance, yet he was not charged with having no insurance.


  • #297
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Milk & Honey


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    I may agree with you on the dangerous driving causing death charge, there is a part of me that would agree that all RTA resulting in death should lead to a charge and let the Jury decided on the evidence before it. My own belief in this case is a jury would more than likely find not guilty.

    Jury trials are time consuming and expensive. It would be an absolute waste for the DPP to bring a prosecution in circumstances where there is little likelihood of a conviction. There is a backlog of cases as it is. Why make it worse?


  • #298
    Merch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,322 ✭✭✭Merch


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    Good to know, I assume you have never broken a law, for example have you crossed a road close to a crossing. If you drive do you carry your license at all times. If you drive when did you last check tyre thread dept, brake fluid level and all lights to make sure they are working. Do you check the tax details on every car you drive if owned by someone else same with NTC.

    But itsgood to know there is one perfect driver in the country.
    team2 wrote: »
    your missing the point totally the chap drove his car and committed a few minor road traffic offences hevrecieved a steep fine for those offences. He did not expect to find two idiots on a motorway rolling around on the ground he will live with that for the rest of his life. None of the offences he committed contributed to the deaths if those lads proof is he was not charged.... You appear to have the view it was all his fault hi can't understand if he wad at fault why wad he not charged with dd causing death can you explain this?

    Is that what you think? minor! I think they are pretty serious offences, whats the norm, no road tax for more than 3 months, can expect car to be taken off you. If the people that died are stupid, that doesnt mean they deserved to die, because of someone elses carelessness/thoughtlessness.
    By your rationale (and many others) lets say a deaf person crosses the road, you blast away with the horn, they dont hear you, so you drive over them, but you weren't expecting a deaf person, you just assumed they could hear.
    If I was driving along, I'd rather drive the car off the road than hit someone, even if they are somewhere they shouldn't be. Rolling around in a lane on the motorway is idiotic, but the driver shouldn't just assume they can do the limit (or more) as its a motorway, he should not have been driving full stop!


  • #299
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    x4winnie wrote: »
    I was wondering if the insurance policy that covers driving garda vehicles, may cover them in the event they 'overlooked the requirement' to have motor insurance on their own personal vehicle. The reason I mention it is that if he had no driving licence, how could he have motor insurance, yet he was not charged with having no insurance.

    The insurance was mentioned earlier in the thread, I know it's a long thread so you probably have not seen it.The car is insured regardless of the d/lic.
    I don't think it would be very fair if the state insured their private cars.


  • #300
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    Jury trials are time consuming and expensive. It would be an absolute waste for the DPP to bring a prosecution in circumstances where there is little likelihood of a conviction. There is a backlog of cases as it is. Why make it worse?

    I did qualify what I said by saying there is a part of me that agrees, and it was in reply to another poster.


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    thebullkf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,036 ✭✭✭thebullkf


    Merch wrote: »
    Is that what you think? minor! I think they are pretty serious offences, whats the norm, no road tax for more than 3 months, can expect car to be taken off you. If the people that died are stupid, that doesnt mean they deserved to die, because of someone elses carelessness/thoughtlessness.
    By your rationale (and many others) lets say a deaf person crosses the road, you blast away with the horn, they dont hear you, so you drive over them, but you weren't expecting a deaf person, you just assumed they could hear.
    If I was driving along, I'd rather drive the car off the road than hit someone, even if they are somewhere they shouldn't be. Rolling around in a lane on the motorway is idiotic, but the driver shouldn't just assume they can do the limit (or more) as its a motorway, he should not have been driving full stop!

    isnt it one month.....how long was his tax out....????

    the garda who was a passenger is also guilty of negligence.


Advertisement
Advertisement