nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Speeding without camera

howyegettinon1

just want to check what ground garda have to do you for speeding without speed gun or camera.

say your doing just under 160 in a 120 and they are driving behind you(unmarked), without admitting you were speeding, gives you a ticket for doing 155(on his own average guess of your speed going by his speedo)

This should get struck out in court as he has no proof of the speed the car was doing and his in the car by himself with nothing to support his claim?

please no useless posts with "shouldn't speed in the first place" - we all know speeding is bad etc...etc.....:rolleyes:

Find more posts tagged with

garda

speeding

Quick Links

Comments

9935452

howyegettinon1 wrote: »

Ahh look I'm not complaining he was fair enough with me, I've no bother taking the points just wanted to see if i could walk away without any

sure who would have thought you keep a clean license by forgetting to bring it to court and look how many people dodged points there

I had a friend who shot by an unmarked car doing 120mph, (his admission)
The eventually caught up with him, and it he was basically given a choice of dangerous driving or a fine for speeding and penalty points.
He took the fine and points.
Regarding dangerous driving, 160kmph is regarded as the speed you are automatically done for dangerous driving.
but in reality its a guards opinion, driving dangerously for the conditions , dark raining, fog , ice etc

Personally id say take the points and let that be the end of it

ironclaw

joeysoap wrote: »

from reading this I think there is a good case for overhead speed cameras (same as NI)and if your average speed between two points is over the limit then its goodnight. Have this in Portugal on some motorways and maybe other countries have it. It definitely cuts down on speeding/dangerous driving.

They don't work for two reasons:

- They are fixed. Which means you can still take it at a fair rate of knots and if you think you are over, you pull in for a little while. You'll often see cars pulled in near toll stations on the continent for this reason. Also, they don't move, so you can just slow down as needed. The expense of doing the entire motorway network is prohibitive.

- Accuracy. Its been contested in the UK and the continent.

However, all told, I am in favor of them if they also do lane, NCT, tax and insurance checks. Absolutely no reason why they can't be except red tape and heel dragging.

joeysoap

from reading this I think there is a good case for overhead speed cameras (same as NI)and if your average speed between two points is over the limit then its goodnight. Have this in Portugal on some motorways and maybe other countries have it. It definitely cuts down on speeding/dangerous driving. The OP has admitted on here that he(?) was speeding and driving with and out of date tax disc. And he wants to advice on how whether he should contest it in court. Unreal.

howyegettinon1

KeithTS wrote: »

In all fairness, no tax, travelling at 160km/h it sounds like you did get away with something. Take the points and fine and be happy that's all you got.

Ahh look I'm not complaining he was fair enough with me, I've no bother taking the points just wanted to see if i could walk away without any

sure who would have thought you keep a clean license by forgetting to bring it to court and look how many people dodged points there

howyegettinon1

Henry Ford III wrote: »

You don't drive a badly modded white BMW by any chance do you?

some shot in the dark but no

Joe 90

Del2005 wrote: »

If you look up the statute there is no requirement for a precise instrument to procescute for speeding. Even if they use a precision instrument there is no requirement for it to be calibrated or working correctly.

The only way to try to get off is to pay a solicitor who specialises in road traffic offences and even then it'll depend on what judge you go up against.

Once upon a time the law in Ireland stated that one Guard with a speed measuring device could do you for speeding or the opinion of two Guards with no speed measuring device was also good enough.

Henry Ford III

You don't drive a badly modded white BMW by any chance do you?

frozenfrozen

"there was a mad man driving behind me who was looking down constantly I tried to put distance between us and he kept matching it I was fearing for my life but I am sure I did not exceed the speed limit, my car only has 5 gears"

Or show up wearing glasses and say so would the garda like to describe the man he saw driving that day.. and when he doesn't say you had glasses just look over the to the judge and move your eyebrows up and put a concerned look on your face as you push the glasses back into place
...
or pay the fine and be more vigilant of the completely obvious unmarked cars on the motorway. The thing to look out for is two beardless men sitting in the front obeying the rules of the road

KeithTS

howyegettinon1 wrote: »

don't think there's any need for that? courts are a funny place people walk away after doing much more and much more evidence against them, it's always good to know what you can get away with.

yes i agree taking the points is an easier and cheaper option, but if you can get away with something why not? - that's all I'm here to find out if there is a valid argument that will work in a case like this to walk away pointless and fineless

In all fairness, no tax, travelling at 160km/h it sounds like you did get away with something. Take the points and fine and be happy that's all you got.

Going over the limit and arguing about a few km's is one thing but you were beyond the point of any doubt, so even if his equipment wasn't 100% and measure 20km/h wrong, you're still well over the limit.

Man up and accept the consequences.

Del2005

howyegettinon1 wrote: »

assuming they do have speed cameras on the motorway patrol cars, he should have been able to quote the speed from it and say you were doing XYZkmph exactly? - maybe they do but seemed to me he just happened to be on the motorway on his way somewhere in an unmarked car (usually their out in two's if their out patrolling)

he did say he can get the exact speed from "mumble mumble" - and when i asked from where? he changed the subject - I didn't question it too much as i wasn't in a position to get into an argument with the tax out of date

True on the dangerous driving but that only comes into play after 160 assuming you are just speeding and not going sideways in and out of traffic. and the garda did mention you were touching close to dangerous driving(160kmh) but he will average the ticket to 155

if this does go to court for speeding only, and you do challenge the court to provide evidence of the speed, it doesn't seem they have much to go on other that a gardas word which isn't a whole lot when speeding is usually measured by a precise instrument and not rough guesstimate of the speedo?

If you look up the statute there is no requirement for a precise instrument to procescute for speeding. Even if they use a precision instrument there is no requirement for it to be calibrated or working correctly.

The only way to try to get off is to pay a solicitor who specialises in road traffic offences and even then it'll depend on what judge you go up against.

howyegettinon1

endacl wrote: »

Please do argue this in front of the judge, OP. You're coming across as somebody who we could all do with having a few extra points on their license.

don't think there's any need for that? courts are a funny place people walk away after doing much more and much more evidence against them, it's always good to know what you can get away with.

yes i agree taking the points is an easier and cheaper option, but if you can get away with something why not? - that's all I'm here to find out if there is a valid argument that will work in a case like this to walk away pointless and fineless

howyegettinon1

GM228 wrote: »

The old VASCAR system is more or less gone (if not completely gone), the ANPR system has been updated to include a function similar to VASCAR and is fitted to the majority of traffic corps cars.

yeah the traffic corps are kitted out fairly well, seen the kit they have in the jeeps, they wouldn't have any bother providing evidence in one of those

GM228

Caliden wrote: »

They can use a VASCAR (Visual Average Speed Computer And Recorder) based system to get your speed while driving behind you.

Got caught speeding before with it and he brought me into the car to show me. Fancy piece of kit.

The old VASCAR system is more or less gone (if not completely gone), the ANPR system has been updated to include a function similar to VASCAR and is fitted to the majority of traffic corps cars.

FishOnABike

A sworn statement or oral evidence is evidence :

"I drove behind vehicle, <insert description and vehicle registration number>, for approximately 1.5km and observed the speed on my speedometer to be between 155kmh and 160kmh while maintaining a constant distance between my own vehicle and that of the accused"

You might be able to try arguing over the distance / time you would have had to have been shadowed by the Garda vehicle for them to make an accurate enough determination of your speed to show beyond reasonable doubt that you were exceeding the speed limit.

If you're willing to risk the possibility of double the points, a higher fine and costs being awarded against you, you can take the chance but it's not something I'd do without getting proper advice from a solicitor who practices in the district court where any prosecution is likely to end up.

endacl

Please do argue this in front of the judge, OP. You're coming across as somebody who we could all do with having a few extra points on their license.

cml387

Speeding and tax expired :cool:

They have there own methods, but 160 kph is borderline dangerous driving and you're lucky he didn't do you for that.

Paddy@CIRL

A Garda's testimony in court can also be considered as that of an expert witness. If I was in this proverbial person's shoes, I'd take my 3 points, fine and move on.

Caliden

They can use a VASCAR (Visual Average Speed Computer And Recorder) based system to get your speed while driving behind you.

Got caught speeding before with it and he brought me into the car to show me. Fancy piece of kit.

Supergurrier

If you are doing 160 and an unmarked car matches your speed, the guards word is good enough in court.

Simple as that really.

howyegettinon1

assuming they do have speed cameras on the motorway patrol cars, he should have been able to quote the speed from it and say you were doing XYZkmph exactly? - maybe they do but seemed to me he just happened to be on the motorway on his way somewhere in an unmarked car (usually their out in two's if their out patrolling)

he did say he can get the exact speed from "mumble mumble" - and when i asked from where? he changed the subject - I didn't question it too much as i wasn't in a position to get into an argument with the tax out of date

True on the dangerous driving but that only comes into play after 160 assuming you are just speeding and not going sideways in and out of traffic. and the garda did mention you were touching close to dangerous driving(160kmh) but he will average the ticket to 155

if this does go to court for speeding only, and you do challenge the court to provide evidence of the speed, it doesn't seem they have much to go on other that a gardas word which isn't a whole lot when speeding is usually measured by a precise instrument and not rough guesstimate of the speedo?

Superwofy

(3) In a prosecution for an offence under this section, it shall not be a defence to prove that the speed at which the accused person was driving was not in excess of an ordinary, built-up area or special speed limit applying in relation to the vehicle.

If he/she decides to 'do' you for dangerous driving then you really can't argue. In court, a guard's word is worth a lot more than yours.

Cee-Jay-Cee

What you say is technically true but if those were the speeds involved then he/she could do you for dangerous driving and proof of speed isn't needed in that case.

If it's a real situation and you got a ticket then you can rightfully challenge it and I can't see a judge convicting without any evidence of speed. All you have to say is you were travelling at 110kmph and while the guard may have had to speed up to 160kmph to catch you, you were not doing that speed. His word against yours and hope for the best.

Kristopherus

Did you get caught?

joeysoap

I think all Garda cars on the motorway have a built in cameras in the patrol cars. You were on a motorway ?