Your opinion Should one be banned if caught speeding twice

c4cat

There is a debate in the UK that if one is speeding over 20mph above the limit then it would be 6pts. Get caught twice then its 12 pts meaning loss of license. Would you like to see this brought here into Ireland? and if not, why not.

Also if we did have this 2 strikes and your banned rule, and if you had already been done for speeding, once and you would have a ban hanging over your head if you were caught speeding a 2nd time, would you stick to the speed limits to keep your license? again if not why not?

eringobragh

No purely on the basis that most of dublin woul be banned if they carried to checks on the M50 60k zones.

I think that speed in lower limits ie 50k residental should incur higher penalties alright.

This Thread has potential.

ytareh

No!Of course not.I was 'caught' for the first time in 15 years driving last month.80+ kmh in a 50...Now the Super Saints will be in anyway so no point in asking them not to rub salt into my wounds.Despite my apparently monstrous crime against metropolitan humanity I have no remosre whatsoever .The place I was 'caught' was as good as out the country in rural isolation .I would strongly advise anyone to check places where 50 limits turn directly into 80s as they are getting you right at the point the transition occurs .
No doubt the authorities are ramping up the revenue generation .Stories about of 6 members of the one extended family being caught at one (3 lane) spot near Naas Rd within a week or two...
As someone said elsewhere 85-90mph is the 'default' speed on mainland UK MWays...If they enforce it the roads will be deserted.

selfdestruction

ytareh wrote: »

If they enforce it the roads will be deserted.

That should cut down on speed related fatalities.

:pac:

c4cat

ytareh wrote: »

No!Of course not.I was 'caught' for the first time in 15 years driving last month.80+ kmh in a 50...

So if we had this 2 strikes and your banned speeding rule in place would you now be cautious of your speed? (regardless if you agree or disagree with what the speed limit should be) knowing that if you were caught one more time speeding more then 20 mph over the limit would mean loss of your license to drive

Anan1

c4cat wrote: »

So if we had this 2 strikes and your banned speeding rule in place would you now be cautious of your speed? (regardless if you agree or disagree with what the speed limit should be) knowing that if you were caught one more time speeding more then 20 mph over the limit would mean loss of your license to drive

Of course, but one can use that argument anywhere - bring on the death penalty for inappropriate use of the overtaking lane, for example.

eringobragh

Anan1 wrote: »

Of course, but one can use that argument anywhere - bring on the death penalty for inappropriate use of the overtaking lane, for example.

I'd be willing to back that :pac:

AugustusMaximus

c4cat wrote: »

So if we had this 2 strikes and your banned speeding rule in place would you now be cautious of your speed? (regardless if you agree or disagree with what the speed limit should be) knowing that if you were caught one more time speeding more then 20 mph over the limit would mean loss of your license to drive

Speed isn't the great killer that is always talked about.


A ban for being caught speeding twice would be madness. Speeding accounts for 7% of all road fatalities. It would make a lot more sense if Gardai would implement the full ROR, not just bloody speed checks.

I've seen some ridiculous driving which certainly didn't involve speeding which was a hell of a lot more dangerous than driving 10kph over the post speed limit (which in itself isn't actually that dangerous sometimes as a lot of roads in Ireland have inappropriate speed limits)

For instance, the Carrigtowhill bypass. It went up to 120kph a week ago. Does this mean that it was dangerous to drive at 120kph on that road two weeks ago ?

copacetic

eringobragh wrote: »

No purely on the basis that most of dublin woul be banned if they carried to checks on the M50 60k zones.

I think that speed in lower limits ie 50k residental should incur higher penalties alright.

This Thread has potential.

yep, but if they had 6 points for exceeding the limit and a ban for doing it twice you could be damn sure people would stick to the limits instead of totally ignoring them like they do now.

c4cat

Anan1 wrote: »

Of course, but one can use that argument anywhere - bring on the death penalty for inappropriate use of the overtaking lane, for example.

Its not an argument, I am just asking a question I am not saying it should be one way or another or what if there should even be a penalty. Would you or would or would you not is the question?

javaboy

20 mph is a good bit over the speed limit. It means breaking the speed limit above the one you're driving at. So talking about fish in a barrel speed traps where limits change is nonsense. A little perspective wouldn't go amiss. Nobody is going to get unfairly caught by this.

AugustusMaximus

c4cat wrote: »

Its not an argument, I am just asking a question I am not saying it should be one way or another or what if there should even be a penalty. Would you or would or would you not is the question?

The simple answer is that people would be so preoccupied by their speed that they would ignore other very important aspects of driving. Their eyes would be on the speedo more than on the road.

THis is the very reason why McDowell's call for zero tollerance on speeding was not implemented.

AugustusMaximus

javaboy wrote: »

20 mph is a good bit over the speed limit. It means breaking the speed limit above the one you're driving at. So talking about fish in a barrel speed traps where limits change is nonsense. A little perspective wouldn't go amiss. Nobody is going to get unfairly caught by this.

20mph over the limit is roughtly 30kph.

That would be 130kph on a HQDC which has a design specification of 160kph. 130kph would be 30kph less than the design limit of a HQDC and IMO, not unsafe for this class of roads.

I'll put it with you like this. Autobahn with speed limits and sections without have the same crash and death rates.

when I read the thread title I though "eh, no" but having read the opening post, I see it's not as straightforward as I thought. The thing is, there is a big difference between going 60mph in a built up 40zone than there is going 80 on a wide open 60 road. However, I do wonder sometimes, is it really fair that someone caught going 5km over the speed limit gets the same punishment as someone going 50km over the speed limit so It would make sense to introduce an increased penalty point system for those who drive at dangerously high speeds.

c4cat

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

The simple answer is that people would be so preoccupied by their speed that they would ignore other very important aspects of driving. Their eyes would be on the speedo more than on the road.

THis is the very reason why McDowell's call for zero tollerance on speeding was not implemented.[/QUOTE

With all due respect could you pls give a direct answer to the direct question

AugustusMaximus

c4cat wrote: »

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

The simple answer is that people would be so preoccupied by their speed that they would ignore other very important aspects of driving. Their eyes would be on the speedo more than on the road.

THis is the very reason why McDowell's call for zero tollerance on speeding was not implemented.[/QUOTE

With all due respect could you pls give a direct answer to the direct question

Didn't I answer your first question ? Isn't it obvious I am against it ?


And yes, people would prob stick to the speed limit but with consequences which could easily cause accidents due to inattention in the other areas of driving.

Would you agree with my point that speed is only a very small part of road safety and a zero tollerance policy on speeding could easily lead to accidents due to other areas of poor driving ? A drivers eyes should primarily be trained on the road, not on the speedo.

Unless you're a really bad driver, you don't need to have your eyes glued to the speedo to know if you're going 20mph over the speed limit.

javaboy

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

20mph over the limit is roughtly 30kph.

That would be 130kph on a HQDC which has a design specification of 160kph. 130kph would be 30kph less than the design limit of a HQDC and IMO, not unsafe for this class of roads.

We don't work off design specifications much as you might like us to. Most drivers have no motorway training or testing. So as far as I'm concerned the "design specification" of your average Irish driver is about 80km/h. I certainly don't trust the bulk of them at speeds over 150km/h.

I'll put it with you like this. Autobahn with speed limits and sections without have the same crash and death rates.

I didn't say "SPEED KILLS" so please don't lump me in with those who spout that mantra. What I am saying is that I wouldn't trust an awful lot of drivers I see to go at 130km/h+. In that context I don't think imposing serious sanctions for going 30km/h over the speed limit is that much of an injustice.

Anan1

c4cat wrote: »

Its not an argument, I am just asking a question I am not saying it should be one way or another or what if there should even be a penalty. Would you or would or would you not is the question?

?? I just answered you.

javaboy

Deleted User wrote: »

Unless you're a really bad driver, you don't need to have your eyes glued to the speedo to know if you're going 20mph over the speed limit.

+1. The argument that you would have to glue your eyes to your speedo to stop yourself going more than 20mph over the limit is nonsense. That argument is only valid if there is very strict limit enforcement, which there isn't. The only way you would need to glue your eyes to the speedo to stop yourself from going more than 20mph over is if you are aiming for 20mph over in the first place.

Sounds like clutching at straws to me.

AugustusMaximus

Deleted User wrote: »

Unless you're a really bad driver, you don't need to have your eyes glued to the speedo to know if you're going 20mph over the speed limit.

Certainly most people couldn't tell if they are doing 10mph over the limit on a motorway which prob would get you done for speeding. 20mph as you say may be pushing it though.

traco

I think a practical approach shoule be taken and that the points should be directly tied to the the percentage over the speed limit for example lets take 10% as 2 points.

In low speed areas with kids, pedestrians, ederly etc then there should be much tighter control. So, 50km, you have 5km to play with, on a motorway you have 12km.

20% = 4 points
30% = 6 points
etc

The 10% is just an example but it alows for more variation at higher speeds roads which is where speed wanders more and there is a lower risk of accident but tightens up where other road users are at risk and there is no excuse for not being able to regulate your speed in low speed areas

AugustusMaximus

javaboy wrote: »

We don't work off design specifications much as you might like us to. Most drivers have no motorway training or testing. So as far as I'm concerned the "design specification" of your average Irish driver is about 80km/h. I certainly don't trust the bulk of them at speeds over 150km/h.



I didn't say "SPEED KILLS" so please don't lump me in with those who spout that mantra. What I am saying is that I wouldn't trust an awful lot of drivers I see to go at 130km/h+. In that context I don't think imposing serious sanctions for going 30km/h over the speed limit is that much of an injustice.

Are you saying so that harsher penalties should be brought in in Ireland for doing 130kph over the limit due to driving testing on motorways being non-existant ?

mickoneill30

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Certainly most people couldn't tell if they are doing 10mph over the limit on a motorway

Of course they can. There's this thing in my car called a speedo. You don't need to keep your eyes glued to it. I'm sure most people can check it every so often without having an accident. And if you're that bad that you can't you can always aim for 10Kph below the speed limit.

javaboy

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Are you saying so that harsher penalties should be brought in in Ireland for doing 130kph over the limit due to driving testing on motorways being non-existant ?

:eek: Anyone doing 130kph over the limit should be put off the road immediately!

Seriously though, that sounds about right. I'd rather they sorted out driver training and testing instead but in the short term, yes. If people are only tested to about 80kph, I think it's mad to let them go almost double that speed. In my own driving test I only got to about 65kph. How do they know my reactions and observation are up to scratch for driving at 130kph+?

Anan1

javaboy wrote: »

If people are only tested to about 80kph, I think it's mad to let them go almost double that speed. In my own driving test I only got to about 65kph. How do they know my reactions and observation are up to scratch for driving at 130kph+?

I would argue that 65km/h in Dublin city requires better reactions and observation than 130km/h on a motorway.

AugustusMaximus

javaboy wrote: »

:eek: Anyone doing 130kph over the limit should be put off the road immediately!

Seriously though, that sounds about right. I'd rather they sorted out driver training and testing instead but in the short term, yes. If people are only tested to about 80kph, I think it's mad to let them go almost double that speed. In my own driving test I only got to about 65kph. How do they know my reactions and observation are up to scratch for driving at 130kph+?

Have to agree with you in regards of driver testing. While part of my test actually was on a 100kph section of road, the vast majority are not. And none on 120kph sections. I'm guessing we are one of the few countries in Europe where are no set training procedures either. Its up to yourself to train.

I'm more alarmed by the fact that totally untested and untrained drivers (people who got their licence before the driving test came in) are driving on our roads, with full licences and that this is deemed perfectly acceptable.

javaboy

Anan1 wrote: »

I would argue that 65km/h in Dublin city requires better reactions and observation than 130km/h on a motorway.

You could be right. Watch out for the baby, the blindman, the taxi, the taxi, the taxi, the cyclist, the taxi.

Then again I did my test in Ballymun at a very quiet time of the day. I know that worse drivers than I could have easily passed the same test I did.

Anan1

+1, it's crazy that motorway driving is not covered by the test.

javaboy

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Have to agree with you in regards of driver testing. While part of my test actually was on a 100kph section of road, the vast majority are not. And none on 120kph sections. I'm guessing we are one of the few countries in Europe where are no set training procedures either. Its up to yourself to train.

+1. The idea that it's up to yourself to train is shocking. When they can't be bothered to learn how to indicate on roundabouts how are we supposed to trust them to drive at 120 or more.

Never mind tire pressures.

c4cat

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Would you agree with my point that speed is only a very small part of road safety and a zero tollerance policy on speeding could easily lead to accidents due to other areas of poor driving ? A drivers eyes should primarily be trained on the road, not on the speedo.

Personally I do not think your argument holds any water at all, When I drive I monitor whats going on all around me with the aid of mirrors, especially when changing lanes and glancing at the speedo to check speed is just one of the things one has to do thats why its fitted in the car. Infact I was taught to even look backwards to finally check ones mirror blind spot before changing lanes. Personally I keep within the speed limit because if one has points for speeding one has to pay higher car insurance premiums and the insurance premiums are too expensive as they are. Points on ones license which depending on your age can cost as much as an extra 1500 euro per year. Thats not to say that I agree with many of the speed limits that are set. But when I do see someone driving like they think they have the experience of a formula 1 driver, especially when its someone in their early 20s believing they are imortel, I wonder which poor road user is going to be involved with them in an accident.

E92

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Speed isn't the great killer that is always talked about.


A ban for being caught speeding twice would be madness. Speeding accounts for 7% of all road fatalities. It would make a lot more sense if Gardai would implement the full ROR, not just bloody speed checks.

But you see then they couldn't pull the wool over your eyes and steal money off us.

I raised this point with somebody on this forum who says he's a Guard, and what he told me was that all the other many braches of the ROTR *almost never* happen when people see a squad car, which I accept, because I always see people slowing down whenever they see a marked Garda car even if they are under the speed limit.

In fairness he said they were only really interested in people who are going WAY over the speed limit and people 15-20 km/h over are unlikely to get caught.

The solution to a proper enforcement of the ROTR is for there to be more unmarked cars ensuring that *all* the ROTR are enforced. While I don't agree with speed enforcement being done the way it is because most of the speed limits are too low, if they were seen to be enforcing all the ROTR then I would accept them bothering to enforce all limits, because they are rules after all.

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

For instance, the Carrigtowhill bypass. It went up to 120kph a week ago. Does this mean that it was dangerous to drive at 120kph on that road two weeks ago ?

Well according to the "speed kills"/"speeding is evil" argument yes it was dangerous because you broke a ROTR, but because you're now within the law if you driven between 101 and 120 km/h it's vnow fine because you're not breaking the law and therefore are not causing any danger.

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

20mph over the limit is roughtly 30kph.

That would be 130kph on a HQDC which has a design specification of 160kph. 130kph would be 30kph less than the design limit of a HQDC and IMO, not unsafe for this class of roads.

I'll put it with you like this. Autobahn with speed limits and sections without have the same crash and death rates.

Absolutely. I don't think you can justify higher speed limits until such time as we get rid of lane hoggers and make driving on Motorways part of the driving test(having said that driving on DCs is exactly the same as Motorways only the speed limit is lower).

The reason why there is no difference on Germany's Autobahns is because they drive so much better than we do, the reason higher limits wouldn't work here is because of our cavilier attitude towards driving.

High speeds aren't dangerous if people know how to drive properly.

That's a *completely* different thing from saying that "speed kills" though.