Speeder's get 3 months

ecom

Stark wrote: »

And you should be driving at a speed that allows you to stop in time if you see another vehicle ahead of you before you crash into it. Sometimes that might be 30km/hr, sometimes that might be 200km/hr.

How should you be driving at 200km/hr at any time?
The max allowed by law is 120km/hr

Surely this is black&white. If you are driving at 121km/hr you are breaking the law. Whether we agree with this or any other speed limit is irrelevant. Breaking the law is breaking the law (um, weird Beavis and Butthead moment there!) and a judge is right to impose a sentence that he is legally allowed to impose.

Tragedy

ecom wrote: »

How should you be driving at 200km/hr at any time?
The max allowed by law is 120km/hr

Surely this is black&white. If you are driving at 121km/hr you are breaking the law. Whether we agree with this or any other speed limit is irrelevant. Breaking the law is breaking the law (um, weird Beavis and Butthead moment there!) and a judge is right to impose a sentence that he is legally allowed to impose.

You're misunderstanding "right" with "able".

A judge is able to impose a sentence that he is legally allowed to impose. It doesn't mean that's he right to

Stark

Would you be happy with 3 months in prison for doing 121km/hr? (As opposed to the fine and penalty points by law). How does that benefit anyone?

ecom

Stark wrote: »

Would you be happy with 3 months in prison for doing 121km/hr? (As opposed to the fine and penalty points by law). How does that benefit anyone?

of course not but then again I would never do anything near 200km/h

As I said earlier I'm sure these guys wont serve much/any time in prison, and I hope they dont, but the message being sent out by the sentencing is important.

SV

ecom wrote: »

now i must LOL at that

So you don't have any response apart from that?
Shows your level of intelligence alright.

ecom

SV wrote: »

So you don't have any response apart from that?
Shows your level of intelligence alright.

rather than having a slaggin match on here, PM me if you would like a discussion on it

SV

ecom wrote: »

rather than having a slaggin match on here, PM me if you would like a discussion on it

Well they're worlds apart.

Why not talk about it here?
200km/h really isn't fast, at all.

Of course it's fast when you suddenly stop from that speed.

ecom

SV wrote: »

200km/h really isn't fast, at all.

opinion....or Fact?
If Fact, back it up please....

galwaytt

Jailing people for speeding is not only pointless, it's stupid.

And, it's also indicative of the double-standards that apply in the 'justice' system on this issue.

For example, the Judge is factually incorrect to lay the blame on 'speed' - we all know this, and the RSA knows it -witness the thread on here where their new publication shows it's only a factor in 5% of accidents. What about the 95% ?

Secondly, we're saying that in one part of the country, under one judge, that on a 'good' road, and the 'potential' to kill (or be killed...), warrants 1000's of Euro's in fines, bans, and Jail - yet in Cork you can actually kill a motorist, and get away with a smaller fine, no ban, and no jail ? So actually causing death with your vehicle warrants less punishment than some unproven theory that speed might kill ? Or, is the judge in this case then just telling us to feck off to Cork if we want to go speeding ??

It is this sort of arrogance and inequality that brings the law into disrepute.

B00MSTICK

ecom wrote:

If you are driving at 121km/hr you are breaking the law.

If driving on a provisional unaccompanied or without an NCT you're breaking the law but the Gardai use common sense.

A judge should use the same common sense imo. Doing say 140kph on a single carriageway would be alot more dangerous as there is on coming traffic/pedestrians/cyclists as well as junctions etc.

If you happened to be hogging the overtaking lane of the motorway, doing 200kph, the minimum speed you'd be expecting would be 120kph. The roads are generally straight but even the corners are very long with good visibility offering ample time to slow down.

SV

ecom wrote: »

opinion....or Fact?
If Fact, back it up please....

:rolleyes: Opinion obviously, what is or isn't fast is all down to opinion.

Another opinion, 120km/h is very slow.

ecom

ecom wrote: »

of course not but then again I would never do anything near 200km/h

How do you know how fast 200km/h is if you have never done it. You should get yourself a spin in a decent car and see what 200km/h feels like on a motorway. The car will be cruising and you will be surprised at how it really is not warp speed like some people think. Although the most thing you will notice is how painfully slow 120km/h is after you slow back down.

stealthyspeeder

ecom wrote: »

now i must LOL at that

I can only give you my dissappinted face if you think 200kmph is fast

200kmph = 125 mph

On a clear motorway, with no rain or stong winds, 120 mph is my cruising speed. I wouldnt bat an eyelid about it!

as I said before

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

Anybody who thinks that someone doing 125 mph on a motorway should go to jail for three months, should go to a dragstrip, or a racetrack in a car capable of doing these speeds and see an feel for themselves just how wild and out of control this feels!:rolleyes:

ok ok if you regualrly drive some sh'tbox that feels like its about to fall to bits or explode once it gets to 90mph, you could be forgiven for your opinion, but some cars can cruise at 3,000 rpm in 6th of 7th gear at 125 mph!

ecom

SV wrote: »

:rolleyes: Opinion obviously, what is or isn't fast is all down to opinion.

Another opinion, 120km/h is very slow.

well then surely this is a pointless argument.
200km/hr is breaking the law.
Judge hands down a sentence for breaking the law.

In my opinion the sentence he handed down was fair and correct. More judges should be doing exactly the same.

The pro-drink-driving lobby (aka backbenchers) claim that speeding is the main cause of accidents/death on our roads.

The speeders appear to claim its not speeding.

Who is right?
Who cares who is right, anything that in any way has the potential to save lives is welcomed!

ecom

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

On a clear motorway, with no rain or stong winds, 120 mph is my cruising speed. I wouldnt bat an eyelid about it!

Would you be bothered about breaking any other laws in this country?

SV

ecom wrote: »

well then surely this is a pointless argument.
200km/hr is breaking the law.
Judge hands down a sentence for breaking the law.

In my opinion the sentence he handed down was fair and correct. More judges should be doing exactly the same.

The pro-drink-driving lobby (aka backbenchers) claim that speeding is the main cause of accidents/death on our roads.

The speeders appear to claim its not speeding.

Who is right?
Who cares who is right, anything that in any way has the potential to save lives is welcomed!

You say you don't want them to go to jail but believe the sentence was fair and correct? That's a tad hypocritical tbh.

Yeah, they do believe it's the main cause of accidents alright..and they also believe that drink driving relaxes you and makes you a better driver.
Sure aren't they a smart bunch!

Do you support the removal of all vehicles in Ireland minus emergency vehicles?
This has HUGE potential to save lives.

Stark

ecom wrote: »

well then surely this is a pointless argument.
200km/hr is breaking the law.
Judge hands down a sentence for breaking the law.

In my opinion the sentence he handed down was fair and correct. More judges should be doing exactly the same.

The pro-drink-driving lobby (aka backbenchers) claim that speeding is the main cause of accidents/death on our roads.

The speeders appear to claim its not speeding.

Who is right?
Who cares who is right, anything that in any way has the potential to save lives is welcomed!

Oh great, so we can put even more pressure on an overcrowded prison system based on "what he did might be bad". The guy probably had more chance of being stabbed to death in prison than being killed driving. It is speeding but there are punishments for speeding that don't involve additional burden on a crumbling criminal justice system.

stealthyspeeder

ecom wrote: »

well then surely this is a pointless argument.
200km/hr is breaking the law.
Judge hands down a sentence for breaking the law.

In my opinion the sentence he handed down was fair and correct. More judges should be doing exactly the same.

The pro-drink-driving lobby (aka backbenchers) claim that speeding is the main cause of accidents/death on our roads.

The speeders appear to claim its not speeding.

Who is right?
Who cares who is right, anything that in any way has the potential to save lives is welcomed!

If those speeders (esp the one who goat jail time for doing less than 120 at 1am) get jailed, their lives have been ruined, for what??? nothing actually happened other than a car excedding an arbitary limit which was implemented well before the modern cars of today were about, amd these cars can deal with much higher speeds as safely.

ecom

SV wrote: »

You say you don't want them to go to jail but believe the sentence was fair and correct? That's a tad hypocritical tbh.

as I said in an earlier post, I dont believe they will serve any time due to the overcrowding in prisons. I'd love to know if they actually did serve any time. It's my opinion that the Judge knows they WONT serve any time but was taking a stance against them

SV wrote: »

.
Do you support the removal of all vehicles in Ireland minus emergency vehicles?
This has HUGE potential to save lives.

There are speed limits and rules of the road in place for a reason.

stealthyspeeder

ecom wrote: »

Would you be bothered about breaking any other laws in this country?

I think I could break the assualt one at the mo, to give someone a cop on bitchslap!

SV

ecom wrote: »

There are speed limits and rules of the road in place for a reason.

but they don't stop accidents happening.
Excessive speed accounts for very little accidents, this is fact.

so once again you said that you welcome anything that has the potential to save lives, so do you welcome that suggestion?

ecom

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

If those speeders (esp the one who goat jail time for doing less than 120 at 1am) get jailed, their lives have been ruined, for what??? nothing actually happened other than a car excedding an arbitary limit which was implemented well before the modern cars of today were about, amd these cars can deal with much higher speeds as safely.

so what do you suggest we do. Let them off with it and wait until the time they are doing 200km/hr and end up killing someone.
Then yes, their Lives really would be ruined, as well as the lives of the people they kill, their families etc etc etc.
It's got to be nipped in the bud before it becomes an issue.

Prevention is better than cure...blah blah blah

ecom

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

I think I could break the assualt one at the mo, to give someone a cop on bitchslap!

hah, nopw you know that wouldnt be a good idea

mcaul

So many posters go on about 200kmh not being dangerous or too fast!

What if at 200kmh the following happened -

Tyre burst

Some eejit throws a stone off a motorway bridge

You hit debris left on the road

Animal runs across your path

Insect flies into your line of vision in the car

You sneeze


Each one of the above are very possible on even the best roads in the best conditions. The possible result of any of these is loss of control and possible crossing of motorway into oncoming traffic and killing an innocent person. - e.g. M50 2004

That's why there are speed limits.

ecom

SV wrote: »

but they don't stop accidents happening.
Excessive speed accounts for very little accidents, this is fact.

please point me to a report on this fact. I'm genuinely interested in seeing it....

SV

ecom wrote: »

so what do you suggest we do. Let them off with it and wait until the time they are doing 200km/hr and end up killing someone.
Then yes, their Lives really would be ruined, as well as the lives of the people they kill, their families etc etc etc.
It's got to be nipped in the bud before it becomes an issue.

Prevention is better than cure...blah blah blah

I think a better suggestion is a hefty fine and enough points to bring you to 11.
It is a deterrant knowing you could be banned if you speed again or break any ROTR within 3 years.
So there you have it, problem fixed and their lives go on as normal.

SV

ecom wrote: »

please point me to a report on this fact. I'm genuinely interested in seeing it....

http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/upload/Driver%20Fatigue%205%20FA.pdf
page 3, straight from the RSA themselves, oh what a surprise!

galwaytt

Who is right?
Who cares who is right, anything that in any way has the potential to save lives is welcomed!

ecom wrote: »

please point me to a report on this fact. I'm genuinely interested in seeing it....

Don't take our word for it, and the backbenchers are wrong as well, btw, but here's the actual figures from the RSA: IOW, more accidents are caused by tiredness.............much Jail will you get for that, I wonder??




Taken from HERE, btw........

mcaul

mcaul wrote: »

So many posters go on about 200kmh not being dangerous or too fast!

What if at 200kmh the following happened -

Tyre burst

Some eejit throws a stone off a motorway bridge

You hit debris left on the road

Animal runs across your path

Insect flies into your line of vision in the car

You sneeze


Each one of the above are very possible on even the best roads in the best conditions. The possible result of any of these is loss of control and possible crossing of motorway into oncoming traffic and killing an innocent person. - e.g. M50 2004

That's why there are speed limits.

For these four driving at 120km/h or 200km/h would make little difference.

Tyre burst

Some eejit throws a stone off a motorway bridge

You hit debris left on the road

Animal runs across your path

These two would not cause me any problem tbh no matter how fast I was driving. I have often sneezed when at around 100mph.

Insect flies into your line of vision in the car

You sneeze

Karma

Congratulations for you limited view ( I and me dont do much for all of us)
the law is there for all of us. we brake it at our own consequences. I have and paid for it. I drive with consideration to others and due care. there are always going to be bad drivers, we have the choice not to be.
the true problem is the belief that we could/can/should get away with it.
realisticlly, the motorway speed light should be constant, even raised to 130kph. for all of it and not creating bottlenecks by reducing speed limits where it suits them. The Garda should not be monitoring the motorways but the dangerous roads. But if you get used to eating from the same trough, why bother changing...
I really do enjoy driving in other crounties where we obey the laws as they are constant and thus fair for all. Franch speed cameras on the motorways are on turns/curves when it can be dangerous.
I have driven my car beyond its handbook speed and and will never go near that again on a AutoBahn or anywhere else.{ 245kph-Lancia } maybe on a track day. and thats more fun than going fast on a motorway...

I wonder if the defence of contestant number 1(or should that be number2!) thought about " he did not mean to go **** fast"

if we all work off the same page/book/whatever thenit SHOULD be ok, but that is never going to happen. Genuinely, good luck with your own version.


ps. my personal hate- it is the overtaking lane, not the go fast lane.
that is all.
sorry for any spelling errors... :P