Is it worth while contesting a fixed-penalty notice speeding fine?

Folks, lay off the bickering.

If you want a primary source, ask ROSPA.

Moderator

If you really were a Madd Finn you'd know that's exactly what they do in your home country, Finland, that is

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454

Madd Finn wrote: »

I don't believe I was driving recklessly. I was keeping to a reasonable speed and frankly to ensure that I never ventured over such a low limit I would either have to drive so slowly as to encourage road rage in other motorists or keep such a close eye on the speedo that it would detract from my general observation of the conditions around me. Neither situation is desirable.

This bit in doesn't surprise me, unfortunately.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

You got done for a breach of a speed limit and you admit to it so no real point in appealing. As bad as some of the limits are and how safe you were driving, the only factor they are interested in is the breach of the limit.

This is correct. There is absolutely no requirement to show that your behaviour was dangerous or even potentially dangerous in any way. There is no defense of "but it was 100% safe" even if - or especially if - it is true. In rare cases IMO it would actually be dangerous to try to obey the speed limit because it's so disproportionate you would indeed spend the majority of your time watching your speedometer.

There is also no requirement whatsoever for speed limits to have any relationship, howsoever tenuous, to what can be reasonably considered safe driving. And it shows, on N-roads that are downgraded to R-roads and suddenly become 20kph less safe despite not changing in any way, or how thousands of kilometers of road went from 60MPH/96kph to 50MPH/80kph overnight back around 2005, grade separated dual carriageways with 60, 50 and even 30 kph limits, 50 and 60kph limits well into the countryside away from the nearest town (often on wide, straight roads bounded by agricultural fields) because it's a "gateway zone" or something.

In theory a speed limit should be a maximum safe speed under the best circumstances (little/no traffic, alert and experienced driver, fair weather etc) that is not supposed to be a target but something you would regularly go under given less favourable conditions. In reality many of them however seem to set the maximum limit for the worst possible conditions many of them at best theoretical. As in some of our speed limits only make sense if you think everyone is driving a lorry, with dodgy brakes, drunk, tired, in heavy traffic on roads shrouded in fog and black ice, with ninja pedestrians/cyclists jumping out of every non-existant blind spot.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

How about just driving within the limit and avoiding such further notices?

Great idea, but it would help a lot if speed limits actually made sense.

Victor wrote: »

The speed limits are low on the Long Mile Road because there are traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, private entrances and four schools together with the associated pedestrians, cyclists, young people and turning traffic.

Without reference to any example in particular, could somoene please explain why permanent (i.e. non-variable) speed limits are/should be lowered around schools? I.E. why should/does a reduced limit apply when there are not likely to be children about, e.g. a weekend evening/night?

What I think would a lot more sense, is a regime like I once saw in North Stonington, Connecticut, where there the speed limit varies - a State Route, roughly the equivalent of a Secondary N road or UK B road - 45MPH most of the time, but 25MPH when there are likely to be children about, when this light flashes.

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

"It has been observed that a reduction of the speed limit on a road from 60 kph to 50 kph produced a 20 % drop in pedestrian accidents, and a 50 % drop in pedestrian fatalities"

Some of the claims made by the "speed is bad MMMMkay" brigade have been called into question as in posts before me, but assume for the sake of argument this is true, two questions arise:

1. How does this affect pedestrians that don't actually exist, because a road has a 50kph speed limit despite being rural in nature, i.e. bounded by agricultural fields, one off housing, having no footpaths and generally being the complete opposite of being a street where the above pedestrians might actually be relevant? Take this road as an example.
2. Again, assuming that such gains are possible, could those gains also have been achieved by increasing pedestrian awareness of/compliance with the rules of the road? I regularly observe idiot pedestrians who either walk across red man lights without looking because they're too busy with their mobile phones or whatever, or decide that the cars approaching a junction are going slow enough that they can be forced to stop. I see this happen all the time, but I don't see the usual suspects offering solutions beyond "it's all motorists fault". I suspect road safety could be improved massively by paying attention to the antics of non-motorised users.

"Further, Ashton and Mackay reported that the boundary car impact speed for the transition from mostly severe to mostly fatal pedestrian casualties was between 50 and 60kph

Again, assuming this is true, are you referring to impact speed or travelling speed before the accident? I assume that in these scenarios, most motorists will use their brakes, but not stop fast enough. So it might be reasonable for a motorist to slow from a cruising speed of 70kph down to 40kph or so.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

So to summarize, everyone's wrong except our Johnny. What's your own view on the amount of pedestrians likely to be killed at 40mph / 60kph? is it a lot less than the rest of the world think?

This link puts it at between 83 - 85%, citing two different sources.

http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm

Again, assuming for the sake of argument that this is true - for many Irish 50/60kph (and less) roads the answer to your question is zero, because the road being 'protected' with a 20, 30 or 35MPH limit is a rural road or a dual carriageway. Or because it's in the quieter hours in a low-density area. Or because there's a school nearby, but no real prospect of their being children about as it's 11PM on Sunday, where the same speed limit applies as 9AM the following morning. How can a motorist threaten a pedestrian that doesn't actually exist? What is 85% of 0?

Madd Finn wrote: »

Rule of Thumb in UK is that if you are doing more than 30mph (they still use miles) in excess of limit you're banned automatically. Which would correspond to doing 100kph in a 50kph zone (ie 62.5kph in a 31.25kph zone)

Going over 100mph on a UK motorway would get you a ban too. Assuming the police in their Range Rover could catch you in your Porsche

I can totally agree with this, because I regularly visit Northern Ireland, and assuming it to be representative of the UK in general, it's speed limits are credible maximum limits and can be categorised thusly:

• Residential or side street: 20MPH (32kph)
• Town: 30MPH (50kph)
• In a town but very light density, e.g. urban limits, not likely to see pedestrians etc: 40 (65kph) or 50MPH (80kph).
• Everywhere else except motorways, 60MPH (96kph) (National Speed Limit).
• Motorways, 70MPH (112kph).

All of the above makes sense, but in republic, it's more likely to be:

• Urban area regardless of density: 50kph
• if you're really lucky, 60kph.
• Countryside outside of towns: 50kph, after all, it's an "urban gateway" some bs. Again, you might be lucky and it could be 60. But that's likely to be a wide, straight road surrounded by green fields and having nothing on it except a few cars - and a speed van.
• Deeper into the countryside, non N road: 80kph. usually makes sense.
• N road: usually 100kph.
• Dual carriageway: Often 100kph but could be 80, 60, 50 or even 30kph for litte/no aparent reason.

Victor wrote: »

As the fine might mean nothing to them, they can continue to speed and not alter their behaviour. The normal purpose of fines or any other sanction is to change behaviour.

isn't that what penalty points are for?

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think the financial aspect of the penalty is meaningless, as mentioned it's nothing to a rich person, or someone moderately well off; they won't care about the fine, they'll care about the penalty points. drop the fine, and maybe increase the number of penalty points by one.

We've already done that, increased the PPs from 2 to 3 per "offense" to match the UK system. However as I've shown and can provide further evidence of if needed, breaking an Irish speed limit is more likely to be a makey-uppey victimless crime than breaking a UK one. Infinitely more likely IMHO.

Victor wrote: »

If you have specific issues, raise them with your council.

The problems that I see are nationwide and they occur on all classes of roads. N and R. I'd have as much luck disputing them as pushing the water in a river back upstream.

One does need to appreciate the traffic make-up does change when most through-traffic is removed from a road.

1. Yes, there is less traffic, so it should be if anything more safe, not less.
2. Not all replaced N roads saw "most" traffic disappear, when they're replaced by a new toll road many of the "Regional" roads essentially retain their national traffic characteristics.
3. In the U.K. when a road is replaced by a Motorway, the old road keeps its A-designation - including the National Speed Limit. Why must "Paddy" be different?

A move in the right direction for many roads.

Many, yes, especially L-roads. But many, not so much. That's the thing about broad strokes - they tend to be indiscriminate.

The only place that 30 km/h exists on a grade-separated dual carriageways are specific tight curves on M50 junctions, which articulated vehicles can't safely manage at a higher speed.

Yes, we've discussed this before and IIRC you did 'explain' it, but that explanation only left me more troubled and confused. My favourite example of perverse speed limits is this one on the N3/R147 route into Dublin city. Yes, as you point out, if you are taking the N3 > M50 Southbound, there may indeed be an issue with lorries. However, there are some other things that make this example in particular, utterly bizarre.

1. Lorries may have to slow down to avoid jack-knifing, but cars don't.
2. The 30kph limit applies not just to the N3 > M50S curve, but also to the N3 inbound, where it becomes the R147 after the M50S curve, well, curves off. That road does not have the same geometry.
3. The 30kph limit applies before a bridge, there are several hundred metres of straight, wide road between the 30kph signs and ANY - even theoretical - danger.
4. Both the N3 > R147 and N3 > M50S routes remain two lane throughout the 30kph section. Even if there was a danger of mixing fast and slow traffic, lorries would be effectively limited to the left hand lane at 30kph while cars could safely overtake them en-masse in the overtaking lane. All traffic is legally restricted to "travel only as fast and you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear" in any case, so there should be no danger, faster traffic should slow down if needed.
5. It takes no account whatsoever for off-peak hours and low-traffic conditions. Put yourself in the shoes of someone approaching this junction going "straight through" that junction (i.e. from the North into the City) on Sunday at > 10PM, when you'd have a better chance of being hit by lightening that even seeing, let alone causing danger with, a lorry.

But people don't behave like that.

But that's what the law requires - the speed limit is an absolute maximum. Full stop. And yes, it's in the ROTR that you're supposed to adjust your speed to the conditions and treat the posted limit as best-case-scenario. Again, this makes sense - where the speed limits make sense to begin with.

I think you are exaggerating.

Not by much.

The vast majority of school-specific 30 and 50 km/h limits are time-limited. However, do note that schools tend to be in residential areas and are sometimes used beyond formal school hours.

But no school is used 24/7, I am sure you would agree.

This case demonstrates the questionability of using permanent markings for schools, it doesn't involve speed limits thankfully but: here in Clonard, Co. Meath (R148, alternative to tolled M4), this road has recently been festooned with crossing yellow lines and "SLOW" "CAUTION" all over it. Total sensory overload. The only problem is that for my part, I'm only ever on it after 10PM on a Friday or Sunday evening - what exactly am I supposed to be looking out for?

The Long Mile Roads has these signs, not dissimilar to your Connecticut example: https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3238834,-6.3346197,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saqv_DQhQtv2QeyRCFoxK0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 which apply as follows: http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-roads-and-traffic-general-traffic-measures/speed-limits-your-area

This makes sense actually.

It makes sense for many straight, two-lane roads, but not for many other roads.

Again, as the law and popular culture tells us "it's a limit, not a target".

And we've seen that people, likely including gardaí, have been abusing this wholesale. The problem with penalty points is that they are a "I'll behave myself when I get caught a few times" exercise.

Two problems:

1. You'd have to be well-connected to be able to abuse the loopholes. I.E. either be a guard or be very well connected with someone with this authority.
2. Lots of people are carrying points and AFAIK there have been disqualifications.
3. It's presumably a lot harder to have points terminated nowadays with the scandal blown.

"victimless crime" seems to be one of those phrases used by people who like to think "I'll do what I damn like".

Victimless crime is a real phenomenon, and it usually causes more trouble than it solves. The drug war is a great example - in the U.S. for example 2% of their population is incarcerated, often for having a small amount of weed for example, or having originally had their lives ruined by a conviction for same. Condemnation of victimless crime laws comes from a consistent principle that people should be punished mainly/only for doing something that hurts or violates the rights of others, i.e. has a victim. Even theoretically.

For example if you look on Google News Ireland for "insurance fraud" right now there are two examples of criminals walking out of court after being convicted of large scale insurance fraud. Here. and Here. Call me a horrible evil right winger if you will, but I don't think 3 PPs for breaking an arbitrary speed limit is proportionate with community service/suspended sentence for large scale insurance fraud - jail time and lots of it being proportionate for the latter.

In the case of road law, I'd settle for a theoretical victim as well, but only if the theory makes sense. Driving at excessive speed qualifies, as does driving drunk/high.

But I'll compromise. How about?
* Exceeding speed limit by <10 km/h - 1 point + fine
* Exceeding speed limit by 10-20 km/h - 2 points + fine
* Exceeding speed limit by 20-30 km/h - 3 points + fine
* Exceeding speed limit by <30 km/h - licence suspension until court case

For about 75% of Irish roads - where breaking the speed limit by any significant degree causes danger - I could get behind this - as I said if someone is doing something dangerous or threatening, they should be punished. But applying this in a town where the same speed limit applies on the Main street as applies in its agricultural hinterlands (yes, I can point to examples of this) or to some of the junctions I mentioned above, you would end up taking masses of people to court for driving that is either perfectly safe or only a little bit irresponsible. You would also have the possibility of people found driving >30kph over on say, some roads I referenced above being disqualified, while the criminals above could drive home after being found guilty in the same court of much more serious crimes ... that actually have victims.

Victor wrote: »

I've done this on my own time and at my own cost.
.

You can go run and jump if you think we're all chipping in :pac: