That Judge, That County and That Speed

cyrusdvirus

For those of you who haven't heard, yet again we're the laughing stock of the planet. Expect this in your copy of the onion next week....

A.P. wrote:

Judge: Speeding Not 'As Bad' in Miles
By SHAWN POGATCHNIK – 1 day ago

DUBLIN, Ireland (AP) — When police caught driver David Clarke flying down a road at 180 kilometers per hour this month, he looked likely to lose his license.

But a country judge reduced the charge and let the 31-year-old information technology worker stay on the road after concluding the speed did not look as bad when converted into miles, or 112 mph.

"I am not excusing his driving. He should not have been traveling at that speed," District Court Judge Denis McLoughlin said in his verdict, delivered Tuesday in County Donegal, northwest Ireland.

McLoughlin suggested it was relatively safe to have shattered the legal road limit at the time, citing good weather, light traffic and the road's unusual straightness.

McLoughlin was quoted as saying the speed seemed "very excessive," but did not look "as bad" when converted into miles. He lowered the charge from to driving carelessly, and fined him euro1,000 ($1,450); if convicted of the tougher charge of driving dangerously, Clarke would have lost his license.

The episode underscored Ireland's slow mental conversion to metric. Ireland switched its speed limits from miles to kilometers in January 2005, but most cars still display speeds principally in miles.

Clarke, a Dubliner, had been traveling to a Donegal wedding Oct. 13 when he was clocked by a police checkpoint going 180 kph (112 mph) in a 100 kph (62 mph) zone.

Law enforcement on Ireland's roads is notoriously lax, and judges frequently acquit offending drivers because of loopholes and vagaries in the law.

Over the past week, the government has been forced into an embarrassing U-turn over its plan to close the biggest loophole of all — a law that allows people to fail a first driving test but still receive a license and drive unsupervised.

The government had made Tuesday a deadline for police to begin citing some 150,000 people for driving alone despite failing the test, but pushed the deadline back to mid-2008 after test-flunkers complained they would lose their jobs if barred from the roads.

One in six Irish drivers has never passed an on-the-road test, according to Transport Department statistics.

Jip

Can't see anything wrong with that, the judge applied a bit of common sense, we need more like him.

cornbb

Jip wrote: »

Can't see anything wrong with that, the judge applied a bit of common sense, we need more like him.

You don't see anything wrong with driving at 180kph down a country road in Donegal?

Oh wait sorry, he was only doing 112mph, sure thats grand, carry on...

:rolleyes:

Owen

cornbb wrote: »

down a country road in Donegal?

There's no mention of a country road in Donegal, in fact, they mention the road's quality as a factor in determining the sentence. And most roads I've driven in Donegal are superb.

bcmf

the only place it is ok to drive at that speed ,whether in mph or kph, is a race track with a specially tuned car.1 stone /bump him and innocent others are dead.Grow up people!!!!!!!!!!!!

cornbb

ned78 wrote: »

There's no mention of a country road in Donegal, in fact, they mention the road's quality as a factor in determining the sentence. And most roads I've driven in Donegal are superb.

Do you seriously think any road in Ireland, let alone a road in a rural part of Ireland, is designed to safely accommodate traffic travelling at anywhere near 180kph?

testicle

cornbb wrote: »

You don't see anything wrong with driving at 180kph down a country road in Donegal?

Oh wait sorry, he was only doing 112mph, sure thats grand, carry on...

:rolleyes:

It was far from a country road. It was the Ballyshannon/Bundoran bypass, which, if I understand correctly is a dual carriageway.

Marcus.Aurelius

bcmf wrote: »

the only place it is ok to drive at that speed ,whether in mph or kph, is a race track with a specially tuned car.1 stone /bump him and innocent others are dead.Grow up people!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wrong again. Speed limits are not applied with any sense. If that road is good enough, 112 mph could be plenty safe, except for the go-slow brigade driving in the middle of the road at 90 kph, policing the rest of us as usual!!! :mad:

ChippingSodbury

ned78 wrote: »

There's no mention of a country road in Donegal, in fact, they mention the road's quality as a factor in determining the sentence. And most roads I've driven in Donegal are superb.

You've obviously not driven on that many roads in Donegal then! However, I think this plonker was driving on one of the good ones: they tend not to be as busy as the roads in the eastern half of the country hence the tendency to speed. But in my experience, there seems to be very little regard for speeding laws in Donegal: the proportion of boy racers to "normal drivers" is way higher than the rest of the country.
This judgement doesn't do much to sway my opinion.

antodeco

ned78 wrote: »

There's no mention of a country road in Donegal, in fact, they mention the road's quality as a factor in determining the sentence. And most roads I've driven in Donegal are superb.

Agreed. Whilst that speed is dangerous, ie if he lost control/burst a tyre, who knows where he couldve ended up, the judge's common sense was right. However, I think his comment on "its not bad when convereted to miles" is moronic. I robbed a bank in Hungary, and I stole 25million forints judge, but in fairness, its only €100,000.. :rolleyes:

Driving 180Kph on the M1 is a common occurence, yet very few fatalities happen. Perfect flat straight road, good visibility, and generally can be very quiet. And no, I dont drive that speed!

cyrusdvirus

maoleary wrote: »

Wrong again. Speed limits are not applied with any sense. If that road is good enough, 112 mph could be plenty safe, except for the go-slow brigade driving in the middle of the road at 90 kph, policing the rest of us as usual!!! :mad:

No road is good enough for travelling at 112mph. That's nearly twice the speed limit.
I'll be the first to admit, i do suffer from that condition known as heavy foot, but not to that extent. All it takes is for this judges attitude to percolate down to the newest driver and you have even more carnage on the roads.

Owen

cornbb wrote: »

Do you seriously think any road in Ireland, let alone a road in a rural part of Ireland, is designed to safely accommodate traffic travelling at anywhere near 180kph?

And again, there's no mention of traffic. If it's a single car, on a wide open dual carriageway, than I can't see how it's more dangerous than driving on an Italian motorway. It is however, still illegal.

ChippingSodbury wrote:

You've obviously not driven on that many roads in Donegal then!

I worked for a company in Derry, and had to go up through Donegal from Cork twice a month, and down twice a month. I got to see a lot of roads, most of which were baby bottom smooth, so much so in fact, that I went up there for a weekend on my bike with a few mates on their bikes, and we all loved the surfaces, and scenery. As far as motoring tourism goes, Donegal is up there with Wicklow and Kerry for me!

Marcus.Aurelius

gatecrash wrote: »

No road is good enough for travelling at 112mph.

M50? M11? N11? M4? to name but a few. I know a few lads in Traffic Corps and they're usually up to 100 just going from hiding place to hiding place for speedchecks and other checkpoints. It's hardly rocket science.

The accident rate on unlimited autobahns is practically zero, limits imposed with arbitrary numbers mean people lose the ability to drive according to conditions. Delighted that a judge actually had the brains and the balls to acknowedge this.

Owen

gatecrash wrote: »

No road is good enough for travelling at 112mph.

There are plenty of roads suitable for those speeds. What there isn't though, is a lack of traffic to allow those speeds to be safe. There's no issue doing those speeds on the Autobahns in regular cars, why are they so dangerous here then? Is it that we don't have the road network? Well, yes, but on the stretches of road that we do have, traffic and poor weather usually prohibit it.

People jump to all sorts of conclusions when they hear 3 figure speeds being shouted about, 'hit one stone and youre dead'? A bit of a Maud Flanders reaction TBH. As someone who usually drives in Europe on holidays, and with work quite a bit each year, by your logic, I should be dead driving at an average 100mph on the Motorways over there.

Still not saying what the driver in the OP did was right, I don't agree one bit with what he did.

cornbb

ned78 wrote: »

And again, there's no mention of traffic. If it's a single car, on a wide open dual carriageway, than I can't see how it's more dangerous than driving on an Italian motorway. It is however, still illegal.

There doesn't need to be traffic, by traffic I meant vehicle, as in what he was driving. A huge proportion of fatal accidents involve a single vehicle. At that speed there isn't the slightest margin of error if anything goes wrong. Driving at that speed on a public road is beyond stupid, its moronic and there's no excuse for it.

gatecrash wrote:

All it takes is for this judges attitude to percolate down to the newest driver and you have even more carnage on the roads.

QFT. Herein lies the problem. People in this country will blame anyone for road deaths: the government, the RSA, the gardai, the state of the roads. The problem lies with the attitudes of drivers on the road who think its perfectly fine to do things like drive at 112mph.

And who cares if speed limits are arbitrary? Was the judge suitably qualified to tell whether the road was designed/maintained to safely carry a car at that speed given the conditions?

Marcus.Aurelius

So you're stating that the state of the roads, the lack of adequate signage and intelligent speed limits, have nothing to do with driver behaviour and deaths on the road.

My God, I didn't realise. :rolleyes:

cyrusdvirus

maoleary wrote: »

M50? M11? N11? M4? to name but a few. I know a few lads in Traffic Corps and they're usually up to 100 just going from hiding place to hiding place for speedchecks and other checkpoints. It's hardly rocket science.

The accident rate on unlimited autobahns is practically zero, limits imposed with arbitrary numbers mean people lose the ability to drive according to conditions. Delighted that a judge actually had the brains and the balls to acknowedge this.

the M50?? Would that be before or after the roadworks?

lads in the traffic corps are trained to drive at higher than normal speeds and they still crash.

This lad should've been taken off the roads at the very least. If he had lost control (and don't even try to tell me he was flly in control at that speed) and his car was spread all over 400 metres of road way and someone came along and took a pic of a busted speedo reading 112mph everyone would come to the correct conclusion that this lunatic was driving way to fast, and people would be on here giving out about it.

And then there are other people here who think that this speed is a good thing? maybe good for people on waiting lists for organs, that's about it. If ther'd be anything worth keeping that is.

It just shows a disregard for other road users, even contemplating that sort of speed

Marcus.Aurelius

I've drivin at 100 mph + here, and on the german autobahns with other drivers who didn't do the same advanced courses I did. Let me restate: practically zero deaths when you let people decide the safe speed for themselves. Are you seriously telling me that a Granny driving at 100 kph is less dangerous than a well-trained driver driving at 160+kph? Each to his/her own ability.

Vikings

cornbb wrote: »

QFT. Herein lies the problem. People in this country will blame anyone for road deaths: the government, the RSA, the gardai, the state of the roads. The problem lies with the attitudes of drivers on the road who think its perfectly fine to do things like drive at 112mph.

And who cares if speed limits are arbitrary? Was the judge suitably qualified to tell whether the road was designed/maintained to safely carry a car at that speed given the conditions?

If it is not perfectly safe to drive on a straight road with no traffic with all other factors in your favour such as weather etc, then why on earth would cars be made to travel at those speeds? Surely if it was unsafe these cars capable of travelling at 112 mph would never make it off their production lines?

cornbb

maoleary wrote: »

So you're stating that the state of the roads, the lack of adequate signage and intelligent speed limits, have nothing to do with driver behaviour and deaths on the road.

My God, I didn't realise. :rolleyes:

maoleary wrote: »

I've drivin at 100 mph + here, and on the german autobahns with other drivers who didn't do the same advanced courses I did. Let me restate: practically zero deaths when you let people decide the safe speed for themselves. Are you seriously telling me that a Granny driving at 100 kph is less dangerous than a well-trained driver driving at 160+kph? Each to his/her own ability.

So you would like to get rid of our non-intelligent speed limits completely and let people decide for themselves?

These things are all factors in road deaths but they have nowhere near as huge an effect as driver stupidity.

Marcus.Aurelius

cornbb wrote: »

So you would like to get rid of our non-intelligent speed limits completely and let people decide for themselves?

These things are all factors in road deaths but they have nowhere near as huge an effect as driver stupidity.

Sigh,

Then train them, remove the limits except for towns/cities/danger zones which you can use well-signed speed cameras for, sit back and watch the death tolls drop. It works in Germany, all we are missing in real terms is the driver education.

Driver behaviour is appalling, but part of the reason is the fact that drivers are not involved any more in driving than they are in watching feckin telly. Of course they can't decide for themselves, they just sit like sheep and do what they're told, safe or not. The death tolls are the result. How more obvious could it possibly be????

deman

maoleary wrote: »

Are you seriously telling me that a Granny driving at 100 kph is less dangerous than a well-trained driver driving at 160+kph?

What's Grannies driving at 100kmph got to do with this thread?

unnameduser

Surely 112mph is excessive! No matter what the condition of the roads were!

Marcus.Aurelius

deman wrote: »

What's Grannies driving at 100kmph got to do with this thread?

Comparison, legal with illegal, is the supposedly illegal actually more dangerous than the legal action with regard to the less skilled and more unaware?

deman

maoleary wrote: »

Sigh,

Then train them, remove the limits except for towns/cities/danger zones which you can use well-signed speed cameras for, sit back and watch the death tolls drop. It works in Germany, all we are missing in real terms is the driver education.

Are you crazy?

And if it's been so successful in Germany then why are they changing it?

Owen

cornbb wrote: »

At that speed there isn't the slightest margin of error if anything goes wrong.

Yes there is. I was at Ablinton Airfield in Oxford on Wednesday driving the new MINI Clubman at speeds well over 100mph, and we were deliberately making the car slide and squirm as part of a driver training excercise. With new technologies like DSC, and with correct driver input, you can quite easily recover from simple mistakes at those speeds within a small area of the track.

cyrusdvirus

maoleary wrote: »

I've drivin at 100 mph + here, and on the german autobahns with other drivers who didn't do the same advanced courses I did. Let me restate: practically zero deaths when you let people decide the safe speed for themselves. Are you seriously telling me that a Granny driving at 100 kph is less dangerous than a well-trained driver driving at 160+kph? Each to his/her own ability.

Who said anything about this lunatic being well trained?? Is it the "Oh, he's an I.T. Worker, therefore spends his free time playing ridge racer on his PS2, that's training enough for him" crowd?? (P.S. i'm being deliberately facetious here!!)

And as for the Granny analogy, by your logic, deciding that he's well trained and experienced in this driving style, I can pick and choose which Granny to use as my reference point. Think I'll take my 58 year old mother then.

Marcus.Aurelius

deman wrote: »

Are you crazy?

And if it's been so successful in Germany then why are they changing it?

In response to complaints from the nanny brigade. It will be shot out of the Reichstag anyway, it's been debated before and been defeated.

Owen

deman wrote: »

Are you crazy?

And if it's been so successful in Germany then why are they changing it?

They're not. It's up for debate at the moment, no decision has been made. The fatality record on the Autobahns are actually quite low indeed, and he's correct in his stats. The only reason they're changing it, is to be politically correct and to be seen to be contributing to 'safety'. It's been up for debate in German time and time again, and each time it's been shot down. I hope it's shot down this time too. Germany is a pleasure to drive in.

Owen

gatecrash wrote: »

Think I'll take my 58 year old mother then.

Sure why not, the rest of us have!

Marcus.Aurelius

deman wrote: »

Are you crazy?

And if it's been so successful in Germany then why are they changing it?

gatecrash wrote: »

Who said anything about this lunatic being well trained?? Is it the "Oh, he's an I.T. Worker, therefore spends his free time playing ridge racer on his PS2, that's training enough for him" crowd?? (P.S. i'm being deliberately facetious here!!)

And as for the Granny analogy, by your logic, deciding that he's well trained and experienced in this driving style, I can pick and choose which Granny to use as my reference point. Think I'll take my 58 year old mother then.

I was referring to the gaping stupidity that is our driver training system. A granny (90 years of age) whose doctor with lax morals gave her a cert of competency despite her senility and bad eyesight etc, may still drive legally here!!

I don't know about you, but I find it somewhat depressing and yet humorous.

cyrusdvirus

ned78 wrote: »

Sure why not, the rest of us have!

Now noew Neddy, no need to be bold!

is_that_so

maoleary wrote: »

Driver behaviour is appalling, but part of the reason is the fact that drivers are not involved any more in driving than they are in watching feckin telly. Of course they can't decide for themselves, they just sit like sheep and do what they're told, safe or not. The death tolls are the result. How more obvious could it possibly be????

By your logic a burglar could be shot dead aand all the householder in their defence should say "I am not going to be a sheep and do what I'm told"

Rules are there for all of us including the ones who don't think they need protecting.

What exactly does that sentence mean? I think you'll find that there are many other factors at work.

Of course they can't decide for themselves, they just sit like sheep and do what they're told, safe or not.

cyrusdvirus

maoleary wrote: »

I was referring to the gaping stupidity that is our driver training system. A granny (90 years of age) whose doctor with lax morals gave her a cert of competency despite her senility and bad eyesight etc, may still drive legally here!!

I don't know about you, but I find it somewhat depressing and yet humorous.

Doctor with Lax Morals = Stupid Ass Judge who can't decide what laws he'd like to uphold this week

cornbb

ned78 wrote: »

Yes there is. I was at Ablinton Airfield in Oxford on Wednesday driving the new MINI Clubman at speeds well over 100mph, and we were deliberately making the car slide and squirm as part of a driver training excercise. With new technologies like DSC, and with correct driver input, you can quite easily recover from simple mistakes at those speeds within a small area of the track.

Its relatively safe doing that on a closed track with a professional instructor and a new car. I know you realise what he did was wrong ned (unlike some of the incomprehensible attitudes on this thread) but this judgement sends out the message that the law doesn't look down very unkindly on Joe Soap doing this on the public roads. I haven't heard whether this guy passed an advanced driver course, I'll assume he didn't.

Marcus.Aurelius

is_that_so wrote: »

What exactly does that sentence mean? I think you'll find that there are many other factors at work.

Hold on now, hmmmm let me see........hmmmmm.......I think it means.....just possibly...... that drivers are not able to think for themselves nor are they competent judges of road conditions because the arbitrary limits define their driving style and ultimately their ability.

I can break it down again pho-en-et-ic-al-ly if you're still struggling.

Marcus.Aurelius

gatecrash wrote: »

Doctor with Lax Morals = Stupid Ass Judge who can't decide what laws he'd like to uphold this week

Fair point

But we've moved away from that issue at the moment

is_that_so

ned78 wrote: »

Yes there is. I was at Ablinton Airfield in Oxford on Wednesday driving the new MINI Clubman at speeds well over 100mph, and we were deliberately making the car slide and squirm as part of a driver training excercise. With new technologies like DSC, and with correct driver input, you can quite easily recover from simple mistakes at those speeds within a small area of the track.

But can everyone else? Remember the Autobahn trial.

is_that_so

maoleary wrote: »

I can break it down again pho-en-et-ic-al-ly if you're still struggling.

I asked a civil question. I am not responsible for the ire you feel through being challenged on this topic.

Phonetics is sounds, semantics is meaning or absence thereof. Ease off on the smart comments like a good chap.

peasant

There is another side to driving too fast on a motorway/dual carriageway besides the safety and capability of the actual speeder ...and that's the safety and capability of other road users.

If you're used to (and trained in) driving on unlimited German motorways, then you will EXPECT traffic in "the fast lane" to be fast, possibly a lot faster than you. If you want to pull out to overtake and see a vehicle far off in your rear view mirror, you will wait a sec and then check again in order to check its speed, how fast it is approaching and then guage if it is safe for you to pull out.

If you're drivin on an Irish dual carriageway, doing 100 km/h and you want to pull out to overtake a slower vehicle ...if there is another vehicle in "the fast lane" far, far away in your rear view mirror ...well you don't think twice, you pull out, because you KNOW that there is a speed limit and that it will take a good while for that other vehicle to catch up with you, even if it is slightly over the limit.
You simply do not expect other vehicles to be coming along 80 km/h faster than you are.

That's why doing 180 on an Irish dual carriageway is considered (should be considered!) dangerous driving ...not because it is questionable if the driver or the vehicle itself can "handle" that speed.

Marcus.Aurelius

is_that_so wrote: »

But can everyone else? Remember the Autobahn trial.

hence, the need for training.

cornbb

maoleary wrote: »

hence, the need for training.

I don't think anyone here would argue that Irish drivers need more training. But most would also say that, as well as training drivers how to think for themselves and judge the right speed for the right conditions, they should be taught that driving at 112mph on a Donegal road is a pretty f*cking moronic thing to do!!!

I would have thought this was common sense, but sadly apparently not.

Marcus.Aurelius

cornbb wrote: »

I don't think anyone here would argue that Irish drivers need more training. But most would also say that, as well as training drivers how to think for themselves and judge the right speed for the right conditions, they should be taught that driving at 112mph on a Donegal road is a pretty f*cking moronic thing to do!!!

I would have thought this was common sense, but sadly apparently not.

no, not really. Straight road, no traffic, excellent surface and weather conditions. What's the issue? If he did it on some god-awful back road in the wet, sure, that's stupid. But he didn't, straight open road with full view of what's ahead. No issues with me.

mike65

Sheesh, calm down everyone.

The judge was foolish, effectivly undermining the law of the land by not appling the full force of his office. 112 mph on any road not a motorway is excessive as it only takes someone to pull out from an obscured side-road/driveway and you are fupped.

There is the other issue - the application of speed in given cirumstances. If we were all grade A advanced drivers then we could proberly happily do without prescriptive limits cos we'd drive with some wit and intelligence, but sadly we're not.

We're a country with 400,000 L platers and many who never needed to take a test in the first place (pre 1963-ers) plus a broad "lassie-fair" mentality so limits set at a sensible level are required and should be enforced.

The matter the appropriate limits is another thread, proberly.

Mike.

Marcus.Aurelius

mike65 wrote: »

Sheesh, calm down everyone.

The judge was foolish, effectivly undermining the law of the land by not appling the full force of his office. 112 mph on any road not a motorway is excessive as it only takes someone to pull out from an obscured side-road/driveway and you are fupped.

There is the other issue - the application of speed in given cirumstances. If we were all grade A advanced drivers then we could proberly happily do without prescriptive limits cos we'd drive with some wit and intelligence, but sadly we're not.

We're a country with 400,000 L platers and many who never needed to take a test in the first place (pre 1963-ers) plus a broad "lassie-fair" mentality so limits set at a sensible level are required and should be enforced.

The matter the appropriate limits is another thread, proberly.

Mike.

Would agree with you. If there were side entrances or junctions, that would change matters substantially.

cyrusdvirus

Just as a matter of interest, is this the type of decision that the DPP can appeal due to leniency?

Marcus.Aurelius

I think so, although the DPP wouldn't have directed that the prosecution take place in this case. Usually the prosecution is brought by the Garda who issued the summons. I imagine it can still be appealed by the DPP.

cyrusdvirus

maoleary wrote: »

I think so, although the DPP wouldn't have directed that the prosecution take place in this case. Usually the prosecution is brought by the Garda who issued the summons. I imagine it can still be appealed by the DPP.

That's what i was thinking.

Marcus.Aurelius

All the same, I doubt he'll do anything.

galwaytt

mike65 wrote: »

Sheesh, calm down everyone.

The judge was foolish, effectivly undermining the law of the land by not appling the full force of his office. 112 mph on any road not a motorway is excessive as it only takes someone to pull out from an obscured side-road/driveway and you are fupped.

yes, yes, but there are no juntions or entrances on to motorways, so that point is rather moot.........

so, cornbb, armed with my advanced test, my Porsche, and avoiding Donegal - am I good to go ?

pburns

The roads were much safer 20 years ago when poor people couldn't afford to drive