Gardai Speed Traps 'Hiding in Ditches' -Caught Today.

ytareh

Around 815/830am this morning on Prosperous - Kilmeague(Kildare) road well after the Prosperous GAA club junction I had a motor bike Garda (in the black leathers with not a hint of high viz yellow and this in the barely post dawn darkness on a foggy enough morning ) jump out in front of me waving me to halt .I assumed there was a crash up ahead or something serious like an escaped prisoner on the loose or something ,seriously!He informed me that he had caught me on his hand held speed camera doing well over the 50kmh limit 'back the road' .Now I admit I WAS doing well over 50kmh but NOT well over the 80kmh limit that is in place on every 'secondary' country road in Ireland and was in place at the point he was hiding (but not 'back the road' obviously) .
I felt aggrieved because :
1 I reckon there is a VERY good chance the 'gun' was showing at least 5 kmh more than I was actually doing .I am VERY atuned to the speed Im driving as far as is humanly possible -you have to be nowadays -your attention is as much on the potential hiding spots of the 'Traps' as other hazards..And I am aware that the cars speedo usually over reads by at least a few kmh .
2 This must be one of the horrible towns where there is no (or a very short) 60 kmh 'transition' zone and an interminably long 50kmh zone -is Kildavin /Kildangan the name of a town near Athy with a similar limit that goes on FOREVER?) .There were no houses for hundreds of yards or more behind me .He claimed he had recorded me 140 yards (yes he actually claimed that level of accuracy!) behind the 'town limits' at the point he recorded my speed.I knew Kilmeague was a former fave spot for the Traffic Corps but never saw a Garda in prosperous in my life....
3 I was going more than 60% over the posted limit "allegedly'(!)...as such wasnt I at risk of a court appearance and likely severe penalty...?I reckon hed have to have some neck to summons someone under the circumstances he 'caught' me .There was no hard shoulder, the road I was on is practically, if not literally 'out in the countryside'.He told me to pull in to the left as much as possible but I was still stopping all the traffic coming behind me .
4 I have been trying to get a form stamped in a Garda station for the last fortnight and every one I go to is shut whenever I visit !!!Its like they are becoming a secret society or something!All hiding in ditches ???
5 Quite a few people I spoke to at work today had stories of being caught by 'hidden' police recently.They obviously are on a serious revenue increasing exercise .The days of scanning ahead to see the yellow jackets are obviously gone ...youre wasting your time now at that .Visual deterent how are ya !?
6 So I now have two points on my licence ,so what ?Am I now meant to drive like a nun having got my slap on the wrists .I have a 2 hour daily commute which would be 30 mins longer if I stopped driving 'a bit over the limit '-say 10-15 kmh (less than 10mph in old money !!!)I would need the guts of an an extra hour I reckon if I were to drive comletely UNDER the limit .Lifes too short .Thats five hours a week less with my babies ,maybe 50% less time Mon -Fri!!!

Must be a curse for someone on 10 points ...Any way just a word of warning to you ...they are getting desperate .I wouldnt mind but theyve already sucked all the pleasure out of driving in the last 5 -10 years .Happy, distant memories the days when you could do well over 100 mph on a daily basis unmolested .They would lock you up now and probably have you on the Nine O Clock news as well if they caught you nowadays. Its depressing ...Ah well ....CAUGHT after 15 years ,ironically the last of which I have been driving the slowest ever .
Sorry for the rant ...oldest story in the book I suppose ,caught right at the town limits ...Beware !

mick.fr

Speeding in this country costs you less than throwing a gum in the street.
Try to understand...

Turner

Oh my god the Gardai are actually out doing their job!!!

Surely they should be sitting in stations stamping forms :rolleyes:




As they say its 50km/hr for a reason.

*waiting for the "my car has abs brakes, that one doesnt" reply.

kippy

What exactly is going on here?
Broke the law, Caught.
Simple enough.
Kippy

Turner

ya, have never seen one of these type of threads before.

Mr. Presentable

Thanks OP, warning taken. I shall endeavour to obey the speed limits from this day forward.


PS. I hope you get nailed to the wall.

brayblue24

If you stayed within the speed limits you would not know they were "hiding" and waiting for you. Tough.

ytareh

"Speeding in this country costs you less than throwing a gun in the street.
Try to understand..."

No I dont understand ...Throwing a GUN???!!!


As for the sarcastic 'mod' ...Did you not read the post ...?I was 'caught' well past any place a human might be likely to appear -even a child carrying a watering can as in your informative video.By the way that particular advertising and enforcement campaign-Dont Drive the Extra 5 (mph) was scuppered by both the soul destroying ,mind numbing boredom of having to drive for long stretches at under 30mph and by the hypocrisy of UK police chiefs being caught at well over these limits and 'squashing ' their own summonses/tickets .Obviously INSIDE the town -this one in particular,Prosperous- you could be driving at 30-40 kmh for safety and common sense reasons...but well beyond the last house/shop/club etc its pointless (except for avoiding the revenue generators...)

mikemac

It was dark, it was foggy, you were speeding. Sorry OP, what kind of reaction are you hoping for here?

OT but reminds me of the lady killed on the N7 last year or possibly the year before. She drove into the back of a fire engine in heavy fog and killed herself. But the family blamed the government for not having electronic displays for warnings. Everyones fault but the driver

Also, a 2 hour commute is madness and no wonder you are angry and stressed. Sort that out if you can.

ytareh

What a shower of sanctimonious *****!I dont know which is more sickening the fact that you lot NEVER break the limit(thats got to put you in a minority of at most 5%) or are hypocritical enough to post on here suggesting that you dont when you do.

Mr. Presentable

Nobody here is saying they don't. What they are saying is you did so suck it down!

Turner

ytareh wrote: »

I was 'caught' well past any place a human might be likely to appear

Well the Gard was there and you never saw him.

Could easilly have been a farmer, elderly person out for a walk.

Maybe the locals have written to the gardai asking for speed checks on that stretch because of regular speeding drivers.

P.C.

ytareh wrote: »

What a shower of sanctimonious *****!I dont know which is more sickening the fact that you lot NEVER break the limit(thats got to put you in a minority of at most 5%) or are hypocritical enough to post on here suggesting that you dont when you do.

Speed limits are law.
Break the law, and get caught - then you pay the price.

I obey the law, and drive at the speed limit.

kippy

OP,
If every mofo in this country came onto this forum and posted a similiar post about getting caught breaking a speed limit, no matter what the circumstances, they would get similiar replies. It doesnt mean that those who reply keep within the law at all times.
Kippy

PS - The two hour commute is crazy and must add to your frustrations more than anything, while I appreciate that it does not give you the right to moan about getting caught speeding.
Kippy

ytareh

Why should I not moan about getting caught speeding ....its an internet forum for God's sake people moan about all human life here

E92

Is this a Motors forum or a "lets suck up to Gaybo and be an even bigger a**hole and PC nut than he is" forum I am reading?

The type of posting going on in this thread is extremely worrying for a forum that is supposed to be about cars.

It is political correctness gone mental.

The OP broke the law. Has he murdered someone? Has he even assaulted someone? No so so what? You'd swear the OP had done something truly awful:rolleyes: such is the hard time he has been getting.

Cars are safer than ever before. They do a better job of slowing people down then they have ever done, and if you are unfortunate to have an accident you'll be protected by enough airbags to float in water and ultra stiff bodyshells and god only knows what else modern cars have these days.

Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that we should be allowed go faster as cars are safer, as one would expect with the progress of time.

But of course the PC nutter types don't want to know, because all they want to do is to make the motorist's life miserable and of course are suffering from plenty of good old Schadenfreude.

cashmni1

P.C. wrote: »

Speed limits are law.
Break the law, and get caught - then you pay the price.

I obey the law, and drive at the speed limit.

Thats great for you. Just great.
Thanks for telling all of us that you never ever break the speed limit. Ever.
You must be one in a million.
Congratulations!
Its quite an achievement.

kippy

E92 wrote: »

Is this a Motors forum or a "lets suck up to Gaybo and be an even bigger a**hole and PC nut than he is" forum I am reading?

The type of posting going on in this thread is extremely worrying for a forum that is supposed to be about cars.

It is political correctness gone mental.

The OP broke the law. Has he murdered someone? Has he even assaulted someone? No so so what? You'd swear the OP had done something truly awful:rolleyes: such is the hard time he has been getting.

Cars are safer than ever before. They do a better job of slowing people down then they have ever done, and if you are unfortunate to have an accident you'll be protected by enough airbags to float in water and ultra stiff bodyshells and god only knows what else modern cars have these days.

Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that we should be allowed go faster as cars are safer, as one would expect with the progress of time.

But of course the PC nutter types don't want to know, because all they want to do is to make the motorist's life miserable and of course are suffering from plenty of good old Schadenfreude.

He broke a law, yeah, he hasnt killed anyone yeah, so why does he bother posting here in the first place if it isnt such a big deal?

So we should be allowed to go faster because cars can go faster? I didnt check but the human body didnt suddenly get built in crumple zones in case a speeding driver ploughed into them.....

It's people like you that give motorists a bad name....
Kippy

Asok

Chief--- wrote: »

As they say its 50km/hr for a reason.

I found this ad drove the point home even better

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUJ4JYA8aP8

Bobo78

ytareh wrote: »

"Speeding in this country costs you less than throwing a gun in the street.
Try to understand..."

No I dont understand ...Throwing a GUN???!!!


As for the sarcastic 'mod' ...Did you not read the post ...?I was 'caught' well past any place a human might be likely to appear -even a child carrying a watering can as in your informative video.By the way that particular advertising and enforcement campaign-Dont Drive the Extra 5 (mph) was scuppered by both the soul destroying ,mind numbing boredom of having to drive for long stretches at under 30mph and by the hypocrisy of UK police chiefs being caught at well over these limits and 'squashing ' their own summonses/tickets .Obviously INSIDE the town -this one in particular,Prosperous- you could be driving at 30-40 kmh for safety and common sense reasons...but well beyond the last house/shop/club etc its pointless (except for avoiding the revenue generators...)

I fully understand you OP.
this is just another example of "goodeys" which are wrecking this forum with their goody good doing :D

Now i ll just wait untill they start on me:D

E92

kippy wrote: »

So we should be allowed to go faster because cars can go faster? I didnt check but the human body didnt suddenly get built in crumple zones in case a speeding driver ploughed into them.....

Of course we should be allowed go faster.

Cars are better at protecting us then ever before, therefore it is only logical to conclude that it is safer to go faster.

Oh and since you mentioned cars "ploughing" into other people, you're obviously unaware of the fact that all recent cars have pedestrian safety regulations to get by, making them far better at absorbing pedestrians should they hit any too, i.e. safer to go faster.

The TV ads as posted are a joke, especially the Nissan Sunny at "35 mph" because although it may be inconvenient for some, it does not have ABS, and surprise surprise having ABS makes a significant difference for stopping distance, and modern cars have much bigger and therefore better braking systems, so the 21 ft thing is an exaggeration to be kind about it.

Anyway this whole speeding rubbish is just an excuse to inflict misery on the motorist(by forcing us to go slower than we actually need to), to rob more of our money(as is evident by the fact that the overwhelming majority of speed cameras are on motorways and dual carriageways in other words the safest roads in the country)and if going fast/speeding etc is so bad as your propoganda makes it out to be then why did we decide as recently as Wednesday to change around 300 km of road to 120 km/h instead of 100?

tiredmam

Ok ye i understand, noone around, you give it a bit more wellie.

What i hate though is when IM doing the speed limit, and someone behind me has intentions of breaking it and trying to push me on. Bugs me big time

kippy

E92 wrote: »

Of course we should be allowed go faster.

Cars are better at protecting us then ever before, therefore it is only logical to conclude that it is safer to go faster.

Oh and since you mentioned cars "ploughing" into other people, you're obviously unaware of the fact that all recent cars have pedestrian safety regulations to get by, making them far better at absorbing pedestrians should they hit any too, i.e. safer to go faster.

The TV ads as posted are a joke, especially the Nissan Sunny at "35 mph" because although it may be inconvenient for some, it does not have ABS, and surprise surprise having ABS makes a significant difference for stopping distance, and modern cars have much bigger and therefore better braking systems, so the 21 ft thing is an exaggeration to be kind about it.

Anyway this whole speeding rubbish is just an excuse to inflict misery on the motorist(by forcing us to go slower than we actually need to), to rob more of our money(as is evident by the fact that the overwhelming majority of speed cameras are on motorways and dual carriageways in other words the safest roads in the country)and if going fast/speeding etc is so bad as your propoganda makes it out to be then why did we decide as recently as Wednesday to change around 300 km of road to 120 km/h instead of 100?

All of your arguments are extremely flawed and narrow minded and do not take into account 3 very important items,
1. Human nature.
2. Road quality.
3. Driving conditions.

You also assume that everyone drives a car which is pedestrian friendly and is loaded with safety features, while failing to recognise the fact that the majority of motorists do not.

I'll again reiterate the point that humans still havent had a piece of equipment built in that saves their asses if hit by a moving vehicle.

Reclassifying a dual carriageway road built to that standard ( a road which by the way has extra regulations applying to it to increase safety) has got nothing to do with this topic.

I've seen and heard of enough accidents in this country to realise how much of an impact they have on families, communities, for the sake of some person either take risks or try save a couple of minutes on a relatively short journey to give short shift to those who complain about the Gardai doing their job.
Kippy

challengemaster

LOL. So just because the car 'absorbs' the pedestrian on impact, that doesnt change the fact that they've just been hit by a possibly 4500kg vehicle at 30+mph. Something like 135,000 newtons of force hitting a person? I'm fairly sure thats enough to crush quite a few bones, and organs. Also then of course, they're not going to stay still when the person absorbes 135,000 newtons of force, are they? So that'll cause more damage..

Cars are better at protecting the people on the inside of it more than ever. It's logical to conclude, that the cars are being re-designed to be safer this way. It's logical to conclude they're being re-designed this way because there's a need for it. It's logical to conclude there's a lot of crashes on the roads. It's logical to conclude the need for it is there's fatalities in crashes, thus needing more safety. It's logical to conclude that if there was no need, it wouldn't have happened. Thus, it's logical to conclude you should slow the hell down, not drive faster. You probably don't realise it, but when cars are tested for safety levels, they're driven into walls, at very high speed, using crash test dummies. They're not driven into people.

The fact a car crumples more is great, it is. That only helps the people in the car though. Basic physics, every force has an equal and opposite reaction. The car causes X newtons of force on the pedestrian it crashes into. The pedestrian also causes X newtons of force on the car. These forces are the same. The car, can crumple - why? It's built to do that to protect the people inside. The human body, can not crumple - why? It's not built to be hit by vehicles at high speed.

It's people like you that cause accidents with the bull you come out with and convince yourself is right. Please cop on before you kill someone, or the crap you pass on, that someone believes, does.

ytareh

Thanks E92 and Bobo ...I was beginning to wonder if Id posted on the wrong forum ...why do these other people post on the Motors forum ....?What interest do they have in cars and driving ?Perplexes me completely.

challengemaster

ytareh wrote: »

Thanks E92 and Bobo ...I was beginning to wonder if Id posted on the wrong forum ...why do these other people post on the Motors forum ....?What interest do they have in cars and driving ?Perplexes me completely.

Ones that don't involve whinging about getting caught breaking the law, perhaps?

ytareh

Dear God Challengemaster do you know ANYTHING about Physics other than a few units ....?4500kg ???The average car weighs about a quarter of that ....Where did the 135000 Newtons come from ???You didnt actually multiply(30)mph by (4500)kg did ya ???!!!Mixing metric and imperial units ???!!!
To use your favourite phrase "It is safe to conclude" you dont have a clue what you are talking about .Next time try your 'impressive' use of arbitrary physics on some one who didnt study it for 6 years !

kippy

ytareh wrote: »

Dear God Challengemaster do you know ANYTHING about Physics other than a few units ....?4500kg ???The average car weighs about a quarter of that ....Where did the 135000 Newtons come from ???You didnt actually multiply(30)mph by (4500)kg did ya ???!!!Mixing metric and imperial units ???!!!
To use your favourite phrase "It is safe to conclude" you dont have a clue what you are talking about .Next time try your 'impressive' use of arbitrary physics on some one who didnt study it for 6 years !

Fair play, pick up on the one part of the post that has the figures wrong, what about the rest of it and the rest of the other posts......

Moving on-
You expect, that since this is the motors forum, and not the pedestrian one for example, that we'll all side with you on this one and say how hard done by you were, wage a war with the powah etc etc???
Jaysus, that'd be great. A place for people who got caught speeding to post and have others reply in order to make them feel better and have a bit of a beatch about the money grabbing Gardai. I doubt the forum would remain open too long if that were the format for such posts.


Theres a bit here on pedestrian safety:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_safety
Kippy

E92

kippy wrote: »

You also assume that everyone drives a car which is pedestrian friendly and is loaded with safety features, while failing to recognise the fact that the majority of motorists do not.

And you're assuming that cars and road infrastructure have just stayed stuck in a time warp. Anyone remember how many deaths we had back in the 1960s when cars weren't anything like as fast and we didn't have anything like as many cars on the road? How do you explain that one?

You'd swear we're in some kind of epidemic at the moment that the roads have never been more dangerous and that somehow we've gone from great to bad even though last year we had the second lowest fatality rate in 40 years on our roads:rolleyes::rolleyes:.

Not that I'm saying that we should pretend that everything is now wonderful and we can all act like idiots because things are that much better, but I wish people would realise the reality of the situation. The trouble with the PC type is that no amount of progress is good enough for them, they keep shifting the goal posts, a bit like a rainbow you think you're near the end but never actually reach it. It's being made out that things have never been so awful on our roads recently.

kippy wrote: »

Reclassifying a dual carriageway road built to that standard ( a road which by the way has extra regulations applying to it to increase safety) has got nothing to do with this topic.

Of course it doesn't because you know it undermines your flawed logic that going faster = more deaths instantly and you don't like that.

kippy wrote: »

I've seen and heard of enough accidents in this country to realise how much of an impact they have on families, communities, for the sake of some person either take risks or try save a couple of minutes on a relatively short journey to give short shift to those who complain about the Gardai doing their job.
Kippy

Why are only 4% of deaths in the UK as a result of speeding, and why do German autobahns without a speed limit have exactly the same fatality rate as those with a speed limit(and some are as low as 60 km/h btw) then? Why do the Japanese have 4 times the fatality rate on theor Motorways that the Germans do, even though theirs have a limit of only 100 km/h, and as JC showed us in Top Gear they are littered with speed cameras?

Believe me I'm as concerned about reducing road deaths as the next person. I have made many proposals on this forum before.

I'm just not a fool and then don't believe and then support every bit of Government propaganda ad naseum, particularly propaganda that I firmly believe won't achieve the stated aim.

If we all used the eyes, brains and ears God gave us properly and didn't drive in such a cavilier fashion like we currently do then we would achieve a helluva lot more than making people slow down.

kippy

E92 wrote: »

And you're assuming that cars and road infrastructure have just stayed stuck in a time warp. Anyone remember how many deaths we had back in the 1960s when cars weren't anything like as fast and we didn't have anything like as many cars on the road? How do you explain that one?

You'd swear we're in some kind of epidemic at the moment that the roads have never been more dangerous and that somehow we've gone from great to bad even though last year we had the second lowest fatality rate in 40 years on our roads:rolleyes::rolleyes:.

Not that I'm saying that we should pretend that everything is now wonderful and we can all act like idiots because things are that much better, but I wish people would realise the reality of the situation. The trouble with the PC type is that no amount of progress is good enough for them, they keep shifting the goal posts, a bit like a rainbow you think you're near the end but never actually reach it. It's being made out that things have never been so awful on our roads recently.



Of course it doesn't because you know it undermines your flawed logic that going faster = more deaths instantly and you don't like that.



Why are only 4% of deaths in the UK as a result of speeding, and why do German autobahns without a speed limit have exactly the same fatality rate as those with a speed limit(and some are as low as 60 km/h btw) then? Why do the Japanese have 4 times the fatality rate on theor Motorways that the Germans do, even though theirs have a limit of only 100 km/h, and as JC showed us in Top Gear they are littered with speed cameras?

Believe me I'm as concerned about reducing road deaths as the next person. I have made many proposals

I'm just not a fool and then don't believe and then support every bit of Government propaganda ad naseum, particularly propaganda that I firmly believe won't achieve the stated aim.

If we all used the eyes, brains and ears God gave us properly and didn't drive in such a cavilier fashion like we currently do then we would achieve a helluva lot more than making people slow down.

Listen,
I aint disagreeing with you in the main, but the simple fact of the matter is that people dont use their eyes brains and ears as they should when in a car. If they did, I would suggest that our accident rates would be nil.
If limits were not in place in built up areas people would continue in general to go through them at excessive speed. You know that and I know that. To protect the people in these areas limits have to be put in place and enforced. End of. We all live by them, if we get caught breaking them we pay the fine and get the feck over it, maybe having learned a lesson, maybe not.
Kippy

challengemaster

Snap, you caught me out there. So it's been a little while since I've brushed up on force and momentum, and its units.

Yet you completely ignored the point of my post. Impressive how stuck in your ways you are.

E92

kippy wrote: »

Listen,
I aint disagreeing with you in the main, but the simple fact of the matter is that people dont use their eyes brains and ears as they should when in a car. If they did, I would suggest that our accident rates would be nil.
If limits were not in place in built up areas people would continue in general to go through them at excessive speed. You know that and I know that. To protect the people in these areas limits have to be put in place and enforced. End of. We all live by them, if we get caught breaking them we pay the fine and get the feck over it, maybe having learned a lesson, maybe not.
Kippy

Fair enough, I see where you're coming from, FWIW I'm not advocating no speed limits(bar on Motorways), or that we should raise every speed limit, rather that the whole "speeding is evil" has been blown completely out of proportion, and that we are losing the run of ourselves on the whole thing and missing the claimed mission of cutting road deaths.

What I'd like is people to use their common sense, clearly there's nothing wrong with going fast on a motorway with no traffic, but on the other hand only a fool would travel at the 120 km/h speed limit in fog even on a Motorway, yet the speeding is evil crowd claim that as long as you don't break a speed limit then everything is somehow magically ok.

I just thought I was dealing with a PC nut for a while, my apologies for assuming wrongly:)!

kippy

E92 wrote: »

Fair enough, I see where you're coming from, FWIW I'm not advocating no speed limits(bar on Motorways), or that we should raise every speed limit, rather that the whole "speeding is evil" has been blown completely out of proportion, and that we are losing the run of ourselves on the whole thing and missing the claimed mission of cutting road deaths.

What I'd like is people to use their common sense, clearly there's nothing wrong with going fast on a motorway with no traffic, but on the other hand only a fool would travel at the 120 km/h speed limit in fog even on a Motorway, yet the speeding is evil crowd claim that as long as you don't break a speed limit then everything is somehow magically ok.

I just thought I was dealing with a PC nut for a while, my apologies for assuming wrongly:)!

Agree,
The main problem being, not everyone has the same level of "Common Sense" ie, people do travel at 120 in fog on a motorway despite it being very obvious to some (hopefully the majority) that it is not safe to do so.
The speeding is evil crowd is broken up into a few different groups.
Sadly I am in one of the groups that believe that if a person can travel 80 in a 60 zone, that they are just as likely not to have the common sense in other areas of motoring as well.
I have little or NO time for those who break limits in residential areas.
In general we are on the same page I think.
Kippy

Run_to_da_hills

Did he remove his helmet when he was giving you the summonse?

fatboymsport

do half the cops in this country understand that the is more crime than speeding.

the are a ****ing joke out to get easy money time the tackled some of the major problems like all the scum walking the streets robbing and killing people

and leave the normal joe soap alone trying to get to work on time

ytareh

Yes he removed helmet....well it wasnt on in the first place he was 'based' in that spot ...he didnt chase after me just waved me over .In fairness he was perfectly polite and pleasant...

Esel

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Did he remove his helmet when he was giving you the summonse?

Tut, tut, tut.

ART6

As others on this thread have said, I think many speed limits in this country are too low to the extent that they are perceived as illogical and are too often ignored. It's also true that cars have improved out of all recognition in a few years but that people have not. But whatever anyone thinks about limits, the fact remains that they are intended for bad cars and bad drivers, not good drivers in new cars. Legislation for the lowest denominator;)

Johnny Utah

I don't like to see Gardai hiding in ditches, behind bus shelters, behind lamposts, etc. It's sneaky, it's antagonising and has little to do with road safety. These sort of speed checks are damaging relations between Gardai and the law-abiding community, who now hold them in contempt.

galwaytt

kippy wrote: »

Listen,
I aint disagreeing with you in the main, but the simple fact of the matter is that people dont use their eyes brains and ears as they should when in a car. If they did, I would suggest that our accident rates would be nil.

agree

If limits were not in place in built up areas people would continue in general to go through them at excessive speed. You know that and I know that. To protect the people in these areas limits have to be put in place and enforced. End of. We all live by them, if we get caught breaking them we pay the fine and get the feck over it, maybe having learned a lesson, maybe not.
Kippy

Disagree. People speed in the main, due not to speed limits per se, but inappropriate speed limits. As mentioned Germany has a very wide range of limits, from 25kph to unlimited, but has an enviable safety record. We, don't. Constant, persistant nanny-statism, sees people breaking laws where they may otherwise not, because the law can indeed, be an ass.......and than diminution of natural, or sensible, justice, is what leads to it's denegration.

Nobody, but nobody, seeks, or supports, high urban limits. However, it is nonsense that, for example (as in the case of the N6 Bothar na dTreabh, between the junctions of the N84 and N17), that an urban ringroad, with no exits or entrances, with 4 lanes, should be classified at anything less than 100kph, let alone the ludicrous 50kph. I will challenge anyone to drive that road at the legal limit. If, for no other reason, the amount of abuse and general comment you'll get from the rest of the traffic, you being the one holding it up......
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=116315921720161541586.00043d3b75aa10bce82a6&ll=53.290206,-9.032736&spn=0.012724,0.027466&z=15

And your comment about the recently upgraded 100 -120 kph motorway is unfounded, too. A lot of motorways in Germany are 2-lane each way only.

And yes, as time goes by, we can and do, drive faster. That's evolution for you. Accident statistics from era's long before this, with poorer and slower vehicles, are much higher per capita, than now, so the link to speeding is completely erroneous.

I'd forgotten about that video link - what nobody has mentioned at all - in a motors forum ! - is why the car they used doesn't have ABS. Well I do - because an ABS equipped car would have deemed the situation null and void, and, let's face it, that wouldn't have suited the creators of the ad, now would it - imagine pulling up 10ft short of the child - gosh, what good would that serve !! ??

Mr. Presentable

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I don't like to see Gardai hiding in ditches, behind bus shelters, behind lamposts, etc. It's sneaky, it's antagonising and has little to do with road safety. These sort of speed checks are damaging relations between Gardai and the law-abiding community, who now hold them in contempt.

What, they should stand out in the road?

Mr. Presentable

E92 wrote: »

Why are only 4% of deaths in the UK as a result of speeding, and why do German autobahns without a speed limit have exactly the same fatality rate as those with a speed limit(and some are as low as 60 km/h btw) then? Why do the Japanese have 4 times the fatality rate on theor Motorways that the Germans do, even though theirs have a limit of only 100 km/h, and as JC showed us in Top Gear they are littered with speed cameras?

.

The answer to all of these is that an impact of 30kmh can be enough to kill a person.

When we say speeding we mean driving in excess of the imposed limit, right? When they say speed kills they mean the force of an impact greater than the resistance of the victim - you don't have to be in excess of the speed limit to kill someone, in fact I'd imagine that anything above 50kmh would kill most pedestrians.

So, the only thing excessive speed does is reduce your reaction distance - but that's probably enough.

AugustusMaximus

I have 2 points. Caught coming under the rail bridge which used to have the Cork Dry Gin sign at 11 at night.

The first thing the Garda said to me was that there was a lot of children in the area.

I was going to say "at 11 at night ?"

Tried to give me the guilt trip for doing 66 in a 50 zone.

E92

galwaytt wrote: »

I'd forgotten about that video link - what nobody has mentioned at all - in a motors forum ! - is why the car they used doesn't have ABS.

Mentioned by me in post #21;)!

MojoMaker

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

I have 2 points. Caught coming under the rail bridge which used to have the Cork Dry Gin sign at 11 at night.

The first thing the Garda said to me was that there was a lot of children in the area.

I was going to say "at 11 at night ?"

Tried to give me the guilt trip for doing 66 in a 50 zone.

So next time you're driving through the same area you might, as a result of this penalty, change your driving habit and it may be at a time of day when children could be around etc etc.

So job done by officialdom, lesson learned by motorist (perhaps), unless you like collecting points? It's not a foolproof system, but present a motorist with the likely scenario of a period of absence away from motoring for continuing transgressions and you will probably slowly over time change attitudes and behaviours - one would assume that is the point of the whole exercise no?

Johnny Utah

nipplenuts wrote: »

What, they should stand out in the road?

Yeah, that would be fine. Maybe they could act as crash test dummies to show what a 35 mph impact is like :pac:

Sizzler

Chief--- wrote: »

*waiting for the "my car has abs brakes, that one doesnt" reply.

tbh

Esel

My understanding of ABS is that it is designed to help the driver retain control of the car under emergency braking, not to make the car stop quicker. In fact, it should be obvious that an ABS-assisted emergency stop on a dry, straight road will take longer than one without, as the brakes are being repeatedly released. Found this post, which describes the situation well, imo.

Everything I have ever read or seen first hand, indicates ABS increases stopping distance. In fact, stopping distance should be longer in an ABS car because ABS prevents locking up the tires.

The main point of ABS is to prevent you from losing control of the car, not to improve stoppind distance. In a non-ABS car, if you, for example, slam the brakes hard while in a turn, you lock up the front tires. Well the front tires dictate direction of the car, so you would lose directional control of the car. ABS prevents lock up, thus alowing you to steer while braking hard.

However is just a straight stop, ABS prevents locking up the tires, which increases stopping distance. Non-abs can lock the tires which will stop you far sooner.

Stopping distance is more dictated by the weight of the car, the weight balance of the car (front to back), the size of the tires and size of the brakes. A more balanced car, like a rear wheel drive, or mid-engine car, while stop quicker because more weight is distributed on all four wheels. A car with a lower center of gravity will stop quicker too. But ABS does not help here.

From http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7813_102-0.html?forumID=78&threadID=248459&messageID=2491066

kippy

galwaytt wrote: »

agree


Disagree. People speed in the main, due not to speed limits per se, but inappropriate speed limits. As mentioned Germany has a very wide range of limits, from 25kph to unlimited, but has an enviable safety record. We, don't. Constant, persistant nanny-statism, sees people breaking laws where they may otherwise not, because the law can indeed, be an ass.......and than diminution of natural, or sensible, justice, is what leads to it's denegration.

Nobody, but nobody, seeks, or supports, high urban limits. However, it is nonsense that, for example (as in the case of the N6 Bothar na dTreabh, between the junctions of the N84 and N17), that an urban ringroad, with no exits or entrances, with 4 lanes, should be classified at anything less than 100kph, let alone the ludicrous 50kph. I will challenge anyone to drive that road at the legal limit. If, for no other reason, the amount of abuse and general comment you'll get from the rest of the traffic, you being the one holding it up......
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=116315921720161541586.00043d3b75aa10bce82a6&ll=53.290206,-9.032736&spn=0.012724,0.027466&z=15

And your comment about the recently upgraded 100 -120 kph motorway is unfounded, too. A lot of motorways in Germany are 2-lane each way only.

And yes, as time goes by, we can and do, drive faster. That's evolution for you. Accident statistics from era's long before this, with poorer and slower vehicles, are much higher per capita, than now, so the link to speeding is completely erroneous.

I'd forgotten about that video link - what nobody has mentioned at all - in a motors forum ! - is why the car they used doesn't have ABS. Well I do - because an ABS equipped car would have deemed the situation null and void, and, let's face it, that wouldn't have suited the creators of the ad, now would it - imagine pulling up 10ft short of the child - gosh, what good would that serve !! ??

Sorry,
But I am going to have to pull you up on a few blatent untruths in your post.
1.The stretch of road you talk about in your post has one residential exit off it, near the roundabout at the N17 side and a large number (possibly 4) exits into fields. Now while the field exits may not be a huge factor, the one into the residential area is. While this is not justification for a reduced speed limit, the not insignificant bend in the road, the proximity of two lanes of traffic to each other and the history of at least one fatal accident on the road have led to the speed limit of 50kph on it.
2. We are indeed driving faster as time goes buy, as you can see from something you've alread stated yourself, the increase in limits on roads that are well fit to take the increases in limits. As better roads are built limits are increased ON THEM. However, just because cars are fit to go faster DOES NOT MEAN that we can go faster on all roads. To suggest so would be a complete untruth. The issue in this post is a gy breaking a limit in a residential area.
3.ABS-Well, thats already been addressed.
4 Finally as already has been mentioned, to suggest that its okay to break a law just because you believe it to be "an ass" is at best foolish and at worst totally irresponsible.

Kippy

gixerfixer

Just back in a few minutes and be warned there is a Garda on a motorbike hiding behind one of those JC decaux advertisment signs with a speed radar on the approach to the east link bridge (North bound) Very sneaky as you can not see his bike as it is hidden behind the sign and he has the speed radar stuck out the edge of the sign :mad:

galwaytt

kippy wrote: »

Sorry,
But I am going to have to pull you up on a few blatent untruths in your post.
1.The stretch of road you talk about in your post has one residential exit off it, near the roundabout at the N17 side and a large number (possibly 4) exits into fields. Now while the field exits may not be a huge factor, the one into the residential area is. While this is not justification for a reduced speed limit, the not insignificant bend in the road, the proximity of two lanes of traffic to each other and the history of at least one fatal accident on the road have led to the speed limit of 50kph on it.
2. We are indeed driving faster as time goes buy, as you can see from something you've alread stated yourself, the increase in limits on roads that are well fit to take the increases in limits. As better roads are built limits are increased ON THEM. However, just because cars are fit to go faster DOES NOT MEAN that we can go faster on all roads. To suggest so would be a complete untruth. The issue in this post is a gy breaking a limit in a residential area.
3.ABS-Well, thats already been addressed.
4 Finally as already has been mentioned, to suggest that its okay to break a law just because you believe it to be "an ass" is at best foolish and at worst totally irresponsible.

Kippy

1.
Now I'm going to tell you to go back and read that map again. I have - deliberately - put the markers upstream of the roundabout and downstream of the estate, with no entrances in between.
And there is only one agricultural gate on the road - that in itself does not warrant a 50kph limit. If it did, the entire N6 ,N17, N18, N4 would be 50kph roads. They are not. The radius in that road will cope with considerably in excess of not only the 100, but the 120 limit - and higher. The accident you are referring to was AFTER the 50kph limit was imposed, so I will either take it that the 50kph limit was a contributing factor to the accident, or, that the accident was not influenced by speed at all. Knowing as I do, the circumstances of the accident, I will go with the latter......... besides, again, if to impose a 50kph limit would do something for accident statistics, then the entire N17 would now be a 50kph road......

2.
Your argument is contradicted by your own first paragraph - we have an upper limit capable road with a 50kph limit. I am not aware, except for the recent M6 reclassification, of any new road being upgraded, limit wise. But there should be, regularly. And, once again, read what I said- nowhere did I advocate in increase in urban limits. What I said limits should be applied properly - imposing an urban limit in an inapplicable/unsuitable situation brings the law into disrepute.

3.
It was commented on, yes. But it is a fact that ABS reduces braking distances. ABS is merely an automated version of cadence braking, the acknowledged way by experts of stopping vehicles, safely in a shorter distance. Yes it also brings control........which brings shorter braking distances, by dint of more control..........

4.
For the third time - read. Show where I said it was o.k. to break the limit ? What I said, and I say again, correctly, is that there is no law that brings law disrepute quicker than a bad law.

Misinterpretation, or mis-reading of the facts is what's irresponsible.