Road Deaths

JimmyMolloy

Calm down, don't believe the hype.

Here is some information. You put 500,000 cars on a road network and you will get the odd crash and some deaths. Get over it.

If you are not willing to take this risk, stay in your house all day.

If not, accept his and move on. Inevitable road deaths are not a valid reason to give up all your rights.

Mena

What rights are we giving up?

Alun

He started this crap over on this thread and posted the exact same post in there as well.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055623727

JimmyMolloy

Mena wrote: »

What rights are we giving up?

The right to drive down the road unhindered by cops, speed bumps, warning signs. The right to travel without having to blow into plastic tubes. The right to travel without having money extorted in the form of speeding tickets.

Ever seen those "SLOW DOWN" signs. Well, they don't know what speed I was doing. If I was doing 20mph and I slowed down I would be a hazard.

Guy:Incognito

Ah switchign forums to promote drink driving eh?

So the jiist of your point (this stems from the sniffign copper thread in AH) is that "the government"? (persumably) has put 500,000 cars on the road and the users of those cars should be free to self regulate and should they feel the need to drink drive etc, the results of those actions should be written off as collateral damage?


The only thing inevitable about road deaths is that allowing people to do as they please around others means they will rise.

Anyone who thinks people should be free to do things like drink drive is quite frankly, an idiot.

BlackWizard

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

The right to drive down the road unhindered by cops, speed bumps, warning signs. The right to travel without having to blow into plastic tubes. The right to travel without having money extorted in the form of speeding tickets.

Ever seen those "SLOW DOWN" signs. Well, they don't know what speed I was doing. If I was doing 20mph and I slowed down I would be a hazard.

Go back to after hours!

You come across as that aggressive driver that we all meet everyday going to work. Speed off light speed overtaking and undertaking then 1min later we see them at the traffic lights ahead

JimmyMolloy

Stekelly wrote: »

Ah switchign forums to promote drink driving eh?

So the jiist of your point (this stems from the sniffign copper thread in AH) is that "the government"? (persumably) has put 500,000 cars on the road and the users of those cars should be free to self regulate and should they feel the need to drink drive etc, the results of those actions should be written off as collateral damage?


The only thing inevitable about road deaths is that allowing people to do as they please around others means they will rise.

Anyone who thinks people should be free to do things like drink drive is quite frankly, an idiot.

I did not say that. I said people should know better than to drink and drive. Encourage drink driving, don't be stupid.

God forbid the little irish man took some responsibility for his actions.

JimmyMolloy

BlackWizard wrote: »

You come across as that aggressive driver that we all meet everyday going to work. Speed off light speed overtaking and undertaking then 1min later we see them at the traffic lights ahead

Big leaps of assumption, and totally wrong. I drive in a respectful and courteous manner at all times, hence the fact that I dislike being stopped by coppers or talked down to by road safety adverts.

Guy:Incognito

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

I did not say that. I said people should know better than to drink and drive. Encourage drink driving, don't be stupid.

God forbid the little irish man took some responsibility for his actions.

People dont know better. Hence the need for checkpoints an Garda checks. It's very simple.

Whats this got to do with "little Irish men". Police forces the world over stop and check people.In fact theres regular shows from the US and the UK on tv that detail these activities.

Rowley Birkin QC

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

Calm down, don't believe the hype.

Here is some information. You put 500,000 cars on a road network and you will get the odd crash and some deaths. Get over it.

If you are not willing to take this risk, stay in your house all day.

If not, accept his and move on. Inevitable road deaths are not a valid reason to give up all your rights.

Ever lost anyone in an entirely avoidable traffic incident OP??

Doubt it, given the sh!te you are spewing here.

JimmyMolloy

bigkev49 wrote: »

Ever lost anyone in an entirely avoidable traffic incident OP??

Doubt it, given the sh!te you are spewing here.

Avoidable traffic incident. If it was avoidable it would not have happened, would it?

JimmyMolloy

Stekelly wrote: »

In fact theres regular shows from the US and the UK on tv that detail these activities.

I assume you are speaking of those police propaganda shows I see on Tv everynight.

Greenmachine

I can't believe what I am reading. It beggars belief. What will the Op be giving out about next having to pay for his petrol.

Rowley Birkin QC

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

Avoidable traffic incident. If it was avoidable it would not have happened, would it?

If there had been proper controls put in place, better driver training and education the chances of it happening would have been drastically reduced.

I really can't see how you have a problem, or a valid argument against being stopped at a checkpoint every so often to be honest.

Guy:Incognito

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

I assume you are speaking of those police propaganda shows I see on Tv everynight.

Yes the very ones that show lots of innocent people be harrassed and illegally punished for crimes such as drink driving, driving with no insirance, stealing cars, dangerous drivign etc. The bloody bastards

JimmyMolloy

Greenmachine wrote: »

I can't believe what I am reading. It beggars belief. What will the Op be giving out about next having to pay for his petrol.

:rolleyes:

I don't mind paying for the 30% that is not government tax.

jmck87

Everything the OP says is correct.

Various tools are used to program people into believing you dont have the right to drive on the road. Thats why you all think the gardai are 'doing their job' when they stop you and invade your privacy.

The media, the gardai bosses, the government, all have a part to play in gathering tax for the payment of interest. Criminals wont give up any money, so they go to the genuine people, and issue speeding fines and court fines....because they know you'll pay.

And their front is reducing road deaths. Open your eyes, the good honest public pay more fines than the low life criminals.

JimmyMolloy

Stekelly wrote: »

Yes the very ones that show lots of innocent people be harrassed and illegally punished for crimes such as drink driving, driving with no insirance, stealing cars, dangerous drivign etc. The bloody bastards

Again, it is a numbers game.

Remember this is a TV show not reality.

"Road Wars, meet Tizzy and his side kick as they bus asses in their scoobie".

They have to film for six months in four squad cars to get enough film for a few shows.

JimmyMolloy

jmck87 wrote: »

Everything the OP says is correct.

Various tools are used to program people into believing you dont have the right to drive on the road. Thats why you all think the gardai are 'doing their job' when they stop you and invade your privacy.

The media, the gardai bosses, the government, all have a part to play in gathering tax for the payment of interest. Criminals wont give up any money, so they go to the genuine people, and issue speeding fines and court fines....because they know you'll pay.

And their front is reducing road deaths. Open your eyes, the good honest public pay more fines than the low life criminals.

Finally some perspective. Oh the Garda checking my tax and insurance is so concerned about my road safety......................

Guy:Incognito

jmck87 wrote: »

Everything the OP says is correct.

Various tools are used to program people into believing you dont have the right to drive on the road. Thats why you all think the gardai are 'doing their job' when they stop you and invade your privacy.

HAHAHAH good stuff.

jmck87 wrote: »

The media, the gardai bosses, the government, all have a part to play in gathering tax for the payment of interest.

What tax do they gather by checking for drink drivers exactly?

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

Finally some perspective.

Stupiudity isnt really a persepctive worth alligning yourslef with. But I suppose mutual masturbation doesnt work on your own .

Rowley Birkin QC

So would you propose that we do away with the Traffic Corps, road markings, traffic lights, breathalysers, licensing, airbags, seatbelts etc. etc. etc.?

I'm intrigued to hear what your ideal driving environment looks like.

JimmyMolloy

Stekelly wrote: »

What tax do the gather by checking for drink drivers exactly?

Massive fines.

JimmyMolloy

bigkev49 wrote: »

So would you propose that we do away with the Traffic Corps, road markings, traffic lights, breathalysers, licensing, airbags, seatbelts etc. etc. etc.?

I'm intrigued to hear what your ideal driving environment looks like.

What are you on about. No need for exageration. No speed bumps and no stops unless driving is dangerous. No ANPR cameras to invade my privacy. And no tolls.

Apart from that things are alright as they are.

Guy:Incognito

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

Massive fines.

The fines imposed for drink driving dont come near covering the costs in having a court case, paperwork, having the Gards in court, etc, not to mention the cost of locking someone up.

You dont get a fpn for drink driving.

Back to you......

JimmyMolloy

Stekelly wrote: »

The fines imposed for drink driving dont come near covering the costs in having a court case, paperwork, having the Gards in court, etc, not to mention the cost of locking someone up.

You dont get a fpn for drink driving.

Back to you......

You got to a traffic court some day. They go through cases like nothing you ever seen. €500 here €1500 there. Don't tell me this does not cover costs and a whole lot more. It is did not cover costs the fines would be raised.

Guy:Incognito

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

What are you on about. No need for exageration. No speed bumps and no stops unless driving is dangerous. No ANPR cameras to invade my privacy. And no tolls.

Apart from that things are alright as they are.

How do ANPR cameras invade your privacy? Your supposed to pay motor tax, have a licence & insurance and NCt your car as well as not steal cars. If your breaking any of these rules then your privacy is irrelevant. If not, the camera does nothign to you.

It might have escaped your notice but the number plates on your car are in public view they dont invade anything to check.

Dazzler88

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

Here is some information. You put 500,000 cars on a road network and you will get the odd crash and some deaths. Get over it.

127 people were killed on the roads in the first six months of the year,why dont you go to the Sad Homes of these peoples families and tell them that a few deaths isnt a big deal.

samsemtex

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

You got to a traffic court some day. They go through cases like nothing you ever seen. €500 here €1500 there. Don't tell me this does not cover costs and a whole lot more. It is did not cover costs the fines would be raised.

You think €500 is enough to cover a solicitors costs, a garda's costs, a judges costs and anyone else who is involved?

Rowley Birkin QC

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

What are you on about. No need for exageration. No speed bumps and no stops unless driving is dangerous. No ANPR cameras to invade my privacy. And no tolls.

Apart from that things are alright as they are.

This stuff is hilarious.....

How is an ANPR invading your privacy??

No tolls = No motorways, that ok with you?

Speed bumps, I can kind of agree with, they can be headwrecking but in some places they are necessary.

No stops is just lunacy, how do you propose drink drivers are put off the temptation to have a pint?

Guy:Incognito

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

You got to a traffic court some day. They go through cases like nothing you ever seen. €500 here €1500 there. Don't tell me this does not cover costs and a whole lot more. It is did not cover costs the fines would be raised.

Are you taking the piss? How much is a days pay for a judge? Then all the court officials and staff. The Gard (or 2) thats in there to give evidence?

Taking a wage of €30,000 , at €115 a day you wouldnt be long using up that fine.
Now I bet everyone involved is on more than 30k.

robtri

please don't feed the troll!!!!! it only encourges them more

JimmyMolloy

Dazzler88 wrote: »

127 people were killed on the roads in the first six months of the year,why dont you go to the Sad Homes of these peoples families and tell them that a few deaths isnt a big deal.

As I said before, if you can't accept the risk, don't go on the roads.

Do you like furry animals? http://www.savethepolarbear.ca/

JimmyMolloy

bigkev49 wrote: »

This stuff is hilarious.....

How is an ANPR invading your privacy???

Oh so having your every move tracked by the government is not an invasion of privacy?

bigkev49 wrote: »

No tolls = No motorways

Where did you get that idea. Motorways were around long before tolls.

bigkev49 wrote: »

Speed bumps, I can kind of agree with, they can be headwrecking but in some places they are necessary.

No they are not

bigkev49 wrote: »

No stops is just lunacy, how do you propose drink drivers are put off the temptation to have a pint?

Lock up all drink drivers for a year, that would soon put off the drinking.

Dono't be hassling all ordinary drivers.

Rowley Birkin QC

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

As I said before, if you can't accept the risk, don't go on the roads.

Do you like furry animals? http://www.savethepolarbear.ca/

Do you not see that the actions of AGS are risk minimisation?????

Obviously there is a risk involved, I took a risk this morning getting out of bed, but I planted my two feet on the ground before I stood up, therefore negating the potential risk as much as possible before I stood up.

It's the same principle.

Guy:Incognito

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

No they are not

.

People cant be trusted not to speed around residential areas as evidenced by many threads on here alone about people flying up and down roads where there are kids. Since we cant harrass these poor inocent drivers with Gards, they need to be "encouraged" some other way.

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

Lock up all drink drivers for a year, that would soon put off the drinking.

Dono't be hassling all ordinary drivers.

How do you single out the drink drivers without stopping people? Or do we wait till they kill someone then get them?

There are plenty of repeat offendes so the theory isnt really 100% sound is it?

Dazzler88

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

As I said before, if you can't accept the risk, don't go on the roads.

i dont think its a Black&White as that.People need to travel on roads to get from place to place.That doesnt mean that we should have to expect to die on the roads.Thats a bit of a silly notion.Im sure your an educated individual but to say such a incorrect statement doesnt show it.

Rowley Birkin QC

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

Oh so having your every move tracked by the government is not an invasion of privacy?

I have nothing to hide. Run_to_da_hills alternate account??


Where did you get that idea. Motorways were around long before tolls. Motorways are built through Public Private Partnerships these days, ensuring the need for tolls for a period of time.



No they are not Sometimes they are.



Lock up all drink drivers for a year, that would soon put off the drinking.

Dono't be hassling all ordinary drivers. Oh, sorry. I didn't realise you were an ordinary driver, whatever that is.:rolleyes:

.

JimmyMolloy

Dazzler88 wrote: »

i dont think its a Black&White as that.People need to travel on roads to get from place to place.That doesnt mean that we should have to expect to die on the roads.Thats a bit of a silly notion..

I have been travelling on the roads for 25 years without dying, although I accept the possibility.

You are so politically correct.

Dazzler88 wrote: »

Im sure your an educated individual but to say such a incorrect statement doesnt show it.

If by educated you mean, have I wasted many years in state education, then you are correct.

JimmyMolloy

bigkev49 wrote: »

.

Oh these days public private partnerships build the roads. Well maybe things were better the way they were.

The M50 toll, i think that has been paid for 10,000 times over, how do you justify that?

Drummerboy08

Ah lads. Someone send this fool on a holiday.

Dazzler88

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

I have been travelling on the roads for 25 years without dying, although I accept the possibility.

so what your saying is by travelling on the roads you should expect to die???Dont bother trying to reduce Road deaths as they just happen and to get on with???is that what your trying to say??

JimmyMolloy

Stekelly wrote: »

How do you single out the drink drivers without stopping people? Or do we wait till they kill someone then get them?

Watch for evidence of dangerous driving.

Stekelly wrote: »

There are plenty of repeat offendes so the theory isnt really 100% sound is it?

Repaet offences equals repeat fines, get it?

JimmyMolloy

Dazzler88 wrote: »

so what your saying is by travelling on the roads you should expect to die???

:rolleyes: Merely accept the possibility.

Dazzler88 wrote: »

Dont bother trying to reduce Road deaths as they just happen and to get on with???is that what your trying to say??

I don't need the propaganda.

As I said before, accept responsibility for your actions.

Rowley Birkin QC

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

Oh these days public private partnerships build the roads. Well maybe things were better the way they were.

The M50 toll, i think that has been paid for 10,000 times over, how do you justify that?

Things were better before we had motorways??! Best of luck with that one.

I can't justify it, it was a terrible individual deal but the process works.

Getting out of this thread now, it is a silly thread.

Guy:Incognito

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

Watch for evidence of dangerous driving.

But we cant watch them, thats an invasion of privacy

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

Repaet offences equals repeat fines, get it?

So are the government encouraging people to drink drive so they can catch them or discouraging them by locking them up ? you n eed to make up your mind.

Again drink drivers dont get FPN's so it costs much more to send them through the courts , but sure your screenin the posts that prove you wrong.

JimmyMolloy

Stekelly wrote: »

But we cant watch them, thats an invasion of privacy




So are the government encouraging people to drink drive so they can catch them or discouraging them by locking them up ? you n eed to make up your mind.

Again drink drivers dont get FPN's so it costs much more to send them through the courts , but sure your screenin the posts that prove you wrong.

Don't be bending my points around, try and argue the matter at hand. If not, just leave it.

jmck87

Everyone apart from Jimmy on this thread are gullable and naive.

Read YOUR constitution and then you'll see how the road traffic act et al hinder YOUR rights.

Did you know you arent required to comply with road traffic acts without consent??? Probably not...

Dazzler88

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

I don't need the propaganda.

you obviously live a shadowed life.If it were up to you we'd all be still travelling by Horse&Cart.

Guy:Incognito

JimmyMolloy wrote: »

Don't be bending my points around, try and argue the matter at hand. If not, just leave it.

Did I get in the way of your selective replying and contradictions?

Guy:Incognito

jmck87 wrote: »

Everyone apart from Jimmy on this thread are gullable and naive.

Read YOUR constitution and then you'll see how the road traffic act et al hinder YOUR rights.

Did you know you arent required to comply with road traffic acts without consent??? Probably not...

Yes, we are stupid. What we need is a referendum on every act or change to an act. Thatd get the country moving.

What about acts that are passed but you peronally disagreed with? You'd be complying with that without your consent.


Which parts of the orignal constitution were written specifically to deal with mass car ownership in the 21st century?

cc

very simple me thinks, surrender your licence and you can give the rules the finger. I look forward to passing you by as you argue with stop signs on the side of the road.