I'd expect it to be at least as fair and hopefully more consistent than the present system, which is riddled with inconsistencies - bizarre decisions and sentences that get appealed and overturned. Read the papers. I know at first hand having suffered penalties and instructed SC to appeal decisions under the existing very flawed system.How could you possible expect such a process to ensure fair and consistent process for all?
How could a system that would by design be subject to random standards provide more consistency than one set out on pretty clear legislation?I'd expect it to be at least as fair and hopefully more consistent than the present system
Only personnel change in my proposal, road traffic legislation doesn't. Read my post.How could a system that would by design be subject to random standards provide more consistency than one set out on pretty clear legislation?
I've read your post, but I'm still waiting for you to explain how you expect to to gain more consistency in terms of outcomes when you are suggesting replacing qualified people from the most important roles in the process and replacing them with people off the street! It just makes no sense.Only personnel change in my proposal, road traffic legislation doesn't. Read my post.
The law permits you to cross a continuous line in a number of circumstances, including where there is an obstruction which would cover that scenario. Tricky one though in terms of the range of discretion the Gardai have, but if they indicated for you to move and you didn't, that could also trigger another offence!I was pulled over recently by a Garda for holding up traffic. A bus was pulled in ahead of me letting off passengers. It was a continous white line on a narrow road so I didn't pass.
Not disputing that, but the Gardai are entitled to their assessment and to issue a charge or fine based on that alone.I am the driver and it's for me to assess the situation though.
Honestly, I'd agree. And in most cases I would do the same. If its a continuous white line and I cannot see what is coming, I don't overtake.He said I should have passed. I told him that is not what the rules say.
That's because you didn't read the proposal.It just makes no sense.
I did. You suggested using random drivers to act as judges in place of trained professionals, and letting those random drivers use whatever level of education they had on road traffic legislation to come to those judgements. You seemed to suggest adding multiple layers of randomness would somehow result in a more consistent result. I think it fair to conclude it made no sense.That's because you didn't read the proposal.