Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

summoned to court for driving offence after i paid the fixed fine.

2»

Comments

  • #52
    La Haine
    Registered Users Posts: 244 ✭✭La Haine


    ronaneire wrote: »
    What has it to do with the Clancy Law?!

    Right so.


  • #53
    flexcon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭flexcon


    My cert says exactly the following

    "Car must be of roadworthy condition"

    I called about a year ago to Liberty insurance and was plainly told - this does not mean NCT. Period.

    It is a clause they can use if you were involved in say, and accident where the brakes failed due to the car been sat up in a shed for years and the brake lines wore out.

    100% I made the call. 100% they clarified with a manager. 100% this isn't made up. Unless actually stated on the disc, it is not categoric to say NCT is needed for insurance.


  • #54
    ronaneire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,699 ✭✭✭ronaneire


    La Haine wrote: »
    Right so.


    Exactly!



    He was probably stopped before this came into law?!

    Now go and pick an argument with someone else!


  • #55
    La Haine
    Registered Users Posts: 244 ✭✭La Haine


    ronaneire wrote: »
    Exactly!
    He was probably stopped before this came into law?!
    Now go and pick an argument with someone else!

    Exactly what? He's 6 years on a provisional and I think we can both agree that it's likely he's been driving unaccompanied for a huge portion of that time.
    Which, incidentally, was still ileagal.

    You're argument or defence of the OP is "ah, sure he's grand - he had a good excuse".

    How strange of you.


  • #56
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,531 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    La Haine wrote: »
    Exactly what? He's 6 years on a provisional and I think we can both agree that it's likely he's been driving unaccompanied for a huge portion of that time.
    Which, incidentally, was still ileagal.

    You're argument or defence of the OP is "ah, sure he's grand - he had a good excuse".

    How strange of you.


    Over 9 years apparently.


  • #57
    La Haine
    Registered Users Posts: 244 ✭✭La Haine


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Over 9 years apparently.

    And by his own estimation he suspects he's a better driver than most full licence holders.

    :cool:


  • #58
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,531 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    La Haine wrote: »
    And by his own estimation he suspects he's a better driver than most full licence holders.

    :cool:


    Until they do a test they'll never know.


  • #59
    KeithTS
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 743 ✭✭✭KeithTS


    Hi OP,

    I got a summons after an accident a good few years back, admitted responsibility and insurance paid out etc.
    I thought it was all over with and then 5 months 29 days later I received a summons for driving without due care and attention.

    After contacting the Garda who issued the summons I was grand. She simply asked me did I admit fault to the insurers and was everything settled for the other person? I did and it had been so she told me that because I took responsibility and didn't put the other party through the grief of battling with insurance over my something that was clearly my fault she cancelled the summons.

    Contact the Gardai who pulled you over and discuss it with them. Tell them you produced whatever was required and admit that you were in the wrong and are sorry (valid circumstances or not).
    Don't rattle their cage by justifying your reasons or anything and maybe they'll see that you've learned your lesson and perhaps go easy on you and even cancel your court date.

    Despite popular beilef, a lot of Gardai are sound people just doing a job and don't want to make your life difficult but if they see you as a danger to other people (provisional/no NCT/Tax points in that direction for somebody who doesn't know you) they will want you off the road.
    If they see that perhaps on the surface you're a chancer who's taking a lot risks but underneath that you're decent and want to do the right thing they may give you a chance.


  • #60
    sexmag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,303 ✭✭✭sexmag


    La Haine wrote: »
    Have another read pal:

    "The appointment was sent out to us to check that everything was ok with the pregnancy "

    Pretty sure your car needs to be up to speed on TAX and NCT if you expect your insurance to be valid WHILIST DRIVING ON A PUBLIC ROAD.


    Anyway, apart from that; have a read up on the new Clancy Amendment that went live on Dec 22nd 2018.

    For your interest it's named after the Clancy family, who lost two members in a crash involving an unaccompanied learner three years. Noel Clancy lost his wife Geraldine (58) and daughter Louise (22) on December 22, 2015.

    "Unaccompanied learner drivers were involved in 35 fatal car crashes in past four years

    While 9% of drivers on the road are learners, only 5.8% of fatal crashes involved learner drivers."

    https://www.thejournal.ie/learner-drivers-unaccompanied-3893515-Mar2018/

    That statistic means 94.2% of fatal road crashes involved fully licensed drivers or no license at all.

    The Clancy law is emotional driven crap that shouldnt have passed and should have been put to the bottom of the pile of ways of resolving Irelands fatal and all driving issues. The real culprits are people who have their licenses years and haven't resat a test with the updated requirements,elderly drivers and people who actually BOUGHT their license in the 80s. While i sympathise with Mr. Clancy and his family and agree learner drivers can be a hazard when unaccompanied but not nearly as bad as the real dangerous drivers as provided by the evidence above .

    However that is off topic and I won't refer to it again


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    KeithTS
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 743 ✭✭✭KeithTS


    sexmag wrote: »
    "Unaccompanied learner drivers were involved in 35 fatal car crashes in past four years

    While 9% of drivers on the road are learners, only 5.8% of fatal crashes involved learner drivers."

    https://www.thejournal.ie/learner-drivers-unaccompanied-3893515-Mar2018/

    That statistic means 94.2% of fatal road crashes involved fully licensed drivers or no license at all.

    The Clancy law is emotional driven crap that shouldnt have passed and should have been put to the bottom of the pile of ways of resolving Irelands fatal and all driving issues. The real culprits are people who have their licenses years and haven't resat a test with the updated requirements,elderly drivers and people who actually BOUGHT their license in the 80s. While i sympathise with Mr. Clancy and his family and agree learner drivers can be a hazard when unaccompanied but not nearly as bad as the real dangerous drivers as provided by the evidence above .

    However that is off topic and I won't refer to it again

    I'd be interested to see the numbers for this.

    The insurance industry is based heavily on stats and premiums reflect the real data.

    That being said, how come young drivers and new drivers have much higher premiums than those people who "bought" their licenses 30 years ago?
    My instinct would lead me to believe that it's primarily down to them being a higher risk based on the actual numbers


  • #62
    sexmag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,303 ✭✭✭sexmag


    KeithTS wrote: »
    I'd be interested to see the numbers for this.

    The insurance industry is based heavily on stats and premiums reflect the real data.

    That being said, how come young drivers and new drivers have much higher premiums than those people who "bought" their licenses 30 years ago?
    My instinct would lead me to believe that it's primarily down to them being a higher risk based on the actual numbers

    The statistics show the 5.8% as 12 fatal crashs,10 of which were unaccompanied in the 4 years of 2014/18. I guess you can do the math from there.

    The premiums are based on likelihood and recently it's been too pricey for young/Learner drivers to be on the road and as such statistics involving them have dropped(effectively resolving the problem) particularly with crashes, the insurance industry aren't going to tell people that it reduce premiums to reflect it as they won't make money and the consensus is these drivers are dangerous,especially given the media scrutiny around them and the Clancy amendment coming into play doesn't help


  • #63
    Rubberchikken
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,083 ✭✭✭Rubberchikken


    i support the Clancy law. someone has to change the way things are on our roads and its a start.

    having said that, most accidents are, imo, due to carelessness, frustration, speed, inattention, sense of entitlement and being a first class pr@ck.

    i read the original post and while the heading is ti do with fine/summons, it takes a bit of reading to get to the issue.
    its 'excused' away with the perceived 'justification' for driving on an L plate with no tax and no nct.
    ive no sympathy. you make a choice, you live with the decision.
    and we have taxis in this country.


  • #64
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    hullaballoo wrote: »
    You are correct in the sense that there are only two offences - but there is a legal requirement to display the disc here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/si/548/made/en/print

    What's unusual is that there is no associated offence for failing to display the disc in accordance with that SI, as far as I can ascertain (by way of my clumsy analysis of the RTAs etc!)

    Fair play Hullaballoo, I had forgotten about the regulation (massive brain fart moment :) ), not helped by the fact it generally is not used.

    With regards to an offence, one would be committed under S11 (5)(a) or (b) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 and the potential punishment is a fine up to €1000 for first offence, €2000 for second, third* or subsequent* offences. (*A third or subsequent offence within 12 months can also carry 3 months imprisonment).


Advertisement