Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Speeder's get 3 months

Options
13567…11

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Mossy Monk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 28,128 ✭✭✭✭Mossy Monk


    MYOB wrote: »
    Doesn't change the fact that 200km/h on a dead straight motorway isn't "taking the piss" if the car is capable of it. Illegal, yes. "taking the piss" as you asserted, no.

    Of course it is taking the piss. What are you on about? I see that you also acknowledge the fact that it is also illegal. The attitudes to speeding on this board is astonishing.


  • Options
    #63
    Fishtits
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭Fishtits


    200Kmh on a 120kmh road is breaking the law. Take yer punishment. End Of.

    Take your zoom modified, safe at Xkph motor to the track for your thrills.

    Problem is not with the motor, rather with the driver.

    Invariably inexperienced, thus naive...


  • Options
    #64
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    peasant wrote: »
    Not defending your man ...but 200 in a 9 year old Astra is nothing exceptional on a German motorway. The car is well able for it.
    As an owner of a soon to be 9 year old Astra, unless it was a special order 2.2 Sport if a 1.8 Coupe then 200 is beyond the vehicles physical capability, as mentioned already, I would have asked for proof that the speed gun was calibrated correctly.
    MYOB wrote: »
    The only taking the piss here is the custodial sentence.
    The 4 year ban was a bit much IMO also. Citing the damage that could have been done would be like sentencing someone on a public order offence for a murder they have the capability to commit but haven't.
    Bond-007 wrote: »
    In these cases they charged them with dangerous driving which is an automatic ban.
    I'm intrigued as to how it was proved they were driving dangerously. From what I gather none of these drivers are native Irish and would have learned to drive properly, most notibly the one who produced a German licence.
    dewsbury wrote: »
    A note to those who think doing 200 is not dangerous.

    Try getting a puncture (i.e. instant blowout) at that speed.
    A blow out at 80 km/h would most likely have the same impact.
    Mossy Monk wrote: »
    Of course it is taking the piss. What are you on about? I see that you also acknowledge the fact that it is also illegal. The attitudes to speeding on this board is astonishing.
    I dispute that they were all speeding. The guy driving the Astra yes, unless it was aperformance model. They were all however in breach of the speed limit.

    Whether any of our readers here like that or not that's the way it is.
    Fishtits wrote: »
    1. 200Kmh on a 120kmh road is breaking the law. Take yer punishment. End Of.

    2. Invariably inexperienced, thus naive...
    1. There is no such thing as a 120 km/h road. The limit is independent of the road itself, but based on the environmental factors of the road and surroundings.

    2. Care to explain?


  • Options
    #65
    TheNog
    Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog


    MYOB wrote: »
    Doesn't change the fact that 200km/h on a dead straight motorway isn't "taking the piss" if the car is capable of it. Illegal, yes. "taking the piss" as you asserted, no.

    It is taking the piss, taking the piss out of the speed limits and the people who were travelling within those limits.
    Damien360 wrote: »
    Anyone know if there is any truth to the old tale that driving at 160kmph or over on a motorway is trip to the courts and possible loss of license instead of points. Or is that urban myth.

    It is at the discretion of the Garda. Road and weather conditions as well as traffic density would all have to be taken into account.
    ninty9er wrote: »
    As an owner of a soon to be 9 year old Astra, unless it was a special order 2.2 Sport if a 1.8 Coupe then 200 is beyond the vehicles physical capability, as mentioned already, I would have asked for proof that the speed gun was calibrated correctly.

    I clocked a 99 Astra doing 180kph on a motorway on the handheld as well as on the speedo in the car (little bit higher though for obvious reason).

    I'm intrigued as to how it was proved they were driving dangerously. From what I gather none of these drivers are native Irish and would have learned to drive properly, most notibly the one who produced a German licence.

    The speed they were travelling at is the dangerous driving. It doesnt matter where the licences were issued from or how well trained they were, they still have to drive with the stupid Irish drivers we have.


  • Options
    #66
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    TheNog wrote: »
    I clocked a 99 Astra doing 180kph on a motorway on the handheld as well as on the speedo in the car (little bit higher though for obvious reason).
    I'm aware that 180km/h is possible, but it's about as fast as it gets, on a decline with the wind behind you. It won't go further in 1.6 and I doubt the 1.4 would get there.


    TheNog wrote: »
    The speed they were travelling at is the dangerous driving. It doesnt matter where the licences were issued from or how well trained they were, they still have to drive with the stupid Irish drivers we have.
    You see you can't just state that the speed was dangerous and take it to be true without producing evidence to back that up. That's the whole point of having a justice system.

    I know my dad is my dad, but if it were stated to a court, it would be reasonable for the court to seek evidence to support that claim.

    Just because someone is driving a car at 200km/h + doesn't mean they are driving dangerously or without due care and attention. Someone could easily be driving dangerously within the speed limit. Speed cannot be the sole basis for a charge of dangerous driving, as a danger would have to be proven. I fail to see what danger was being posed that wouldn't exist from a driver driving at 140km/h.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    TheNog
    Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog


    ninty9er wrote: »
    I'm aware that 180km/h is possible, but it's about as fast as it gets, on a decline with the wind behind you. It won't go further in 1.6 and I doubt the 1.4 would get there.

    TBH I didnt look into the engine size of the car so I couldnt tell you. It was perhaps the sight of his new born baby in the back seat that distracted me.

    You see you can't just state that the speed was dangerous and take it to be true without producing evidence to back that up. That's the whole point of having a justice system.

    Dangerous driving does include speed. Only proof needed is oral evidence from the Garda and there would have to be other road users present.


    Just because someone is driving a car at 200km/h + doesn't mean they are driving dangerously or without due care and attention.

    Irish legislation says differently though.
    Someone could easily be driving dangerously within the speed limit.

    Very true

    Speed cannot be the sole basis for a charge of dangerous driving, as a danger would have to be proven. I fail to see what danger was being posed that wouldn't exist from a driver driving at 140km/h.

    Because all safety measures within a vehicle would all for nothing. Because some people do drive down the wrong way on a motorway. Because there are collisions on motorways where a vehicle crosses over onto oncoming traffic. Because there blow outs. Because there are dosey drivers who make lane changes without looking or indicating. The lists are endless


  • Options
    #68
    FearDark
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,425 ✭✭✭FearDark


    I know Antonio Morelli. awful nice guy has to be said, heh the business isnt his though, his dad owns the place and its a good job he wasnt driving his ALFA GTV at the time...


  • Options
    #69
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,505 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Mossy Monk wrote: »
    Of course it is taking the piss. What are you on about? I see that you also acknowledge the fact that it is also illegal. The attitudes to speeding on this board is astonishing.

    The attitudes to speed on this board are in general realistic rather than sensational and hysterical like Zaidans and, it appears, yours.

    If the people in question had been banned for four years and imprisoned for doing 70km/h through a village there'd be uproar despite the fact that that is incalculably more dangerous to others than doing 200km/h on a road designed for a minimum 160 (and in the stretch in question for the Fiat Coupe driver, capable of far higher) in a car entirely capable of those speeds. Yet 70 in an urban 50 is going to get an FPN and these drivers get imprisoned. Thats the only thing taking the piss.
    ninty9er wrote: »
    A blow out at 80 km/h would most likely have the same impact.

    I've had one at higher (about 100km/h on the N65), I'm alive and the car in question is entirely intact and sitting outside my house right now, with the rim that had the blowout sitting under the boot carpet with a new tyre on it. But I actually learned how to drive including in adverse conditions and things such as skid control, rather than how to pass the Irish test...


  • Options
    #70
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,505 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    TheNog wrote: »
    Because some people do drive down the wrong way on a motorway. Because there are collisions on motorways where a vehicle crosses over onto oncoming traffic. Because there blow outs. Because there are dosey drivers who make lane changes without looking or indicating. The lists are endless

    ...and every single one of these is just as dangerous to you when you're doing 120km/h as doing 200km/h. Are you going to go and arrest every single driver on the motorway for dangerous driving for doing more than walking pace in face of these risks?


  • Options
    #71
    TheNog
    Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog


    MYOB wrote: »
    ...and every single one of these is just as dangerous to you when you're doing 120km/h as doing 200km/h. Are you going to go and arrest every single driver on the motorway for dangerous driving for doing more than walking pace in face of these risks?

    Dont be silly MYOB of course all of them wouldnt be arrested. Yes the risks are there when travelling at 120kph but reaction time and breaking distances are substantially increased than travelling at 200kph.

    I agree with that two of the three drivers faced the dangerous driving offences purely because of the time of day being 7pm and 8pm. The third driver Im not so sure about but then again I wasnt there so I dont know what it was like on the road at 2.30am


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,505 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    TheNog wrote: »
    Dont be silly MYOB of course all of them wouldnt be arrested. Yes the risks are there when travelling at 120kph but reaction time and breaking distances are substantially increased than travelling at 200kph.

    A number of those risks you stated - drivers from the other side crossing over due to an accident for instance - are the same risk should you be stationery or travelling at warp speed 10. Also, your reaction time isn't altered at all by speed - how far you travel in your reaction time is, but the time itself remains the same.

    Doing 200km/h on a suitable condition and design road - which the die-straight and recently surfaced M7 passing Cherryville is - in a car capable of doing that speed unstressed and with brakes designed to handle it - which the Fiat Coupe is, or was - and still will be if properly maintained, is not dangerous driving in itself.

    If there were extenuating circumstances the Leader would have gleefully reported them, and seeing as the speeds given are precise it would suggest they were pulled by a patrol car and not for anything other than speed.

    However, from reading court reports it appears that trying to argue this with Zaidan would have been about as effective as trying to draw blood from a stone, as he seems to have a fetish for imprisoning people thats never been equalled by another district court judge in the Kilcock Court area for starters.


  • Options
    #73
    TheNog
    Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog


    MYOB wrote: »
    A number of those risks you stated - drivers from the other side crossing over due to an accident for instance - are the same risk should you be stationery or travelling at warp speed 10. Also, your reaction time isn't altered at all by speed - how far you travel in your reaction time is, but the time itself remains the same.

    +1 you explained it better than I did
    Doing 200km/h on a suitable condition and design road - which the die-straight and recently surfaced M7 passing Cherryville is - in a car capable of doing that speed unstressed and with brakes designed to handle it - which the Fiat Coupe is, or was - and still will be if properly maintained, is not dangerous driving in itself.

    Very true some cars are built for those speeds and can handle but to put this into perspective, its not the car that was summonsed to court it was the drivers who knew in their heart and soul what they were doing and were punished for it. Severely, very severely.

    Car specs are not a matter for the courts.
    and seeing as the speeds given are precise it would suggest they were pulled by a patrol car and not for anything other than speed.

    Probably true
    However, from reading court reports it appears that trying to argue this with Zaidan would have been about as effective as trying to draw blood from a stone, as he seems to have a fetish for imprisoning people thats never been equalled by another district court judge in the Kilcock Court area for starters.

    But again why agrue about the car specs, its the drivers who were at fault.


  • Options
    #74
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,505 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The car specs are important, because if it was someone in, say, a small modified hatchback that had managed to reach 203km/h (downhill, with a tailwind) they would have been unlikely to be able to safely perform an emergency stop from 203km/h at all (unless their brakes had also been modified, which is rare enough). The car in the 203km/h example is not only capable of reaching that speed with ease, its capable of stopping from it without the disks shattering and the tyres bursting.


  • Options
    #75
    TheNog
    Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog


    MYOB wrote: »
    The car specs are important, because if it was someone in, say, a small modified hatchback that had managed to reach 203km/h (downhill, with a tailwind) they would have been unlikely to be able to safely perform an emergency stop from 203km/h at all (unless their brakes had also been modified, which is rare enough). The car in the 203km/h example is not only capable of reaching that speed with ease, its capable of stopping from it without the disks shattering and the tyres bursting.

    Honestly and I dont mean to offend you but your line of thinking is far from the real world and is absolutely ludicrius. We can talk all we want about car specs etc etc but in reality it doesnt really make a difference at all. Driver ability is what is crux of the problem and Im not only refering to the fellas prosecuted. Im also considering other road users who may or may not be good drivers who were overtaken by these fellas at almost twice the legal speed limit.

    There is nothing safe about driving at 200kph at 7 and 8pm in evening. Nothing at all and I dont know why you keep defending it. These guys didnt respect the limits. Actually its almost as if they gave two fingers to the law and everyone else.


  • Options
    #76
    kildarelad
    Registered Users Posts: 236 ✭✭kildarelad


    This judge has been trying to make a name for himself for a while.Hes not in touch with the real world with his sentencing and the sooner he leaves the kildare courts the better and before anybody slates me speeding is wrong and these speeds were crazy but i think his sentencing is far too severe.He probably has a driver himself


  • Options
    #77
    SoupyNorman
    Registered Users Posts: 4,257 ✭✭✭SoupyNorman


    kildarelad wrote: »
    This judge has been trying to make a name for himself for a while.Hes not in touch with the real world with his sentencing and the sooner he leaves the kildare courts the better and before anybody slates me speeding is wrong and these speeds were crazy but i think his sentencing is far too severe.He probably has a driver himself

    The muppets driving 200kph+ are the ones not in touch with the real world. I wonder was that Mr. Morrellis first time driving at that speed, hardly...

    I will admit that a 4year ban and a €2k fine is plenty punishment enough HOWEVER, the judge imposed a penalty that he has every right to impose under the law and if the judge achieves anything from this is that the ar$ehole who is off to prision wont do it again and it has possibly saved lives or serious injuries.

    If people think Judge Zadien is too harsh then just dont end up in front of him. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #78
    kildarelad
    Registered Users Posts: 236 ✭✭kildarelad


    The muppets driving 200kph+ are the ones not in touch with the real world. I wonder was that Mr. Morrellis first time driving at that speed, hardly...

    I will admit that a 4year ban and a €2k fine is plenty punishment enough HOWEVER, the judge imposed a penalty that he has every right to impose under the law and if the judge achieves anything from this is that the ar$ehole who is off to prision wont do it again and it has possibly saved lives or serious injuries.

    If people think Judge Zadien is too harsh then just dont end up in front of him. rolleyes.gif
    Some of the people who end up in front of him dont have the contacts to get themselves off. This country is so corrupt


  • Options
    #79
    SoupyNorman
    Registered Users Posts: 4,257 ✭✭✭SoupyNorman


    kildarelad wrote: »
    Some of the people who end up in front of him dont have the contacts to get themselves off. This country is so corrupt

    What an earth is that supposed to mean?


  • Options
    #80
    Mossy Monk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 28,128 ✭✭✭✭Mossy Monk


    MYOB wrote: »
    The attitudes to speed on this board are in general realistic rather than sensational and hysterical like Zaidans and, it appears, yours.

    Take the imprisonment out of the equation. You cannot say 200 km/h on any public Irish road is acceptable. Please excuse me as I must be away to be hysterical somewhere :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #81
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    unkel wrote: »
    Fair play? Jail sentences? :eek:

    Maybe he should go back to the cave in Donegal he came from. I don't know the circumstances but doing 200km/h on an empty motorway in good weather conditions is not necessarily dangerous.

    and where in the OP did it say the motorway was empty?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Onkle wrote: »
    Crazy crazy decision. A jail sentence probably lost these guys their careers.

    I had to go to court in Naas a while back over an unpaid speeding fine (feckin fleet company not forwarding the fine on) and the people I saw walk out of there with no more than a slap on the wrist.

    better to loose your career than your life dont you think?


  • Options
    #83
    Padraig Mor
    Registered Users Posts: 9,545 ✭✭✭Padraig Mor


    Anyone notice the piece in one of the links re his custodial arrangement with the prison service? No released on bail pending appeal for these guys - straight to jail from the courtroom!

    Mossy Monk wrote: »
    Take the imprisonment out of the equation. You cannot say 200 km/h on any public Irish road is acceptable. Please excuse me as I must be away to be hysterical somewhere :rolleyes:

    No one said 200kph was acceptable. They said it was *possibly* nowhere near as dangerous as the judge made out and certainly not deserving of a jail sentence.


  • Options
    #84
    kildarelad
    Registered Users Posts: 236 ✭✭kildarelad


    No one said 200kph was acceptable. They said it was *possibly* nowhere near as dangerous as the judge made out and certainly not deserving of a jail sentence.
    Exactly what we are saying is the speed is unacceptable but the sentencing is way to harsh.
    What an earth is that supposed to mean?
    Alot of wealthy people never even make it to the courtroom and get off cos they have contacts


  • Options
    #85
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    Anyone notice the piece in one of the links re his custodial arrangement with the prison service? No released on bail pending appeal for these guys - straight to jail from the courtroom!
    There would be immediate appeals to the High Court. And they would get free legal aid for that.


  • Options
    #86
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    better to loose your career than your life dont you think?
    Show me any evidence that any of these people were going to lose their life as a result of their driving.


  • Options
    #87
    Mossy Monk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 28,128 ✭✭✭✭Mossy Monk


    ninty9er wrote: »
    Show me any evidence that any of these people were going to lose their life as a result of their driving.

    Are you serious?


  • Options
    #88
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    kildarelad wrote: »
    Alot of wealthy people never even make it to the courtroom and get off cos they have contacts
    It's not contacts, it's willingness to challenge. Knowing someone who can inform you of your rights is always helpful. Those less well off are often less willing to challenge for fear of what it might cost, of course this is primarily psychological. Contacts never "get you off", they just provide the means by which you can show the charge to be impossible to uphold.


  • Options
    #89
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    Mossy Monk wrote: »
    Are you serious?
    That's didly squat so:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #90
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    ninty9er wrote: »
    It's not contacts, it's willingness to challenge. Knowing someone who can inform you of your rights is always helpful. Those less well off are often less willing to challenge for fear of what it might cost, of course this is primarily psychological. Contacts never "get you off", they just provide the means by which you can show the charge to be impossible to uphold.
    If you are facing a Dangerous Driving charge (especially in front of Judge Ziadan) the first thing a defendant should say is, "I want free legal aid" and if you are at risk of a custodial sentance you are entitled to it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    TheNog wrote: »
    Honestly and I dont mean to offend you but your line of thinking is far from the real world and is absolutely ludicrius. We can talk all we want about car specs etc etc but in reality it doesnt really make a difference at all. Driver ability is what is crux of the problem and Im not only refering to the fellas prosecuted. Im also considering other road users who may or may not be good drivers who were overtaken by these fellas at almost twice the legal speed limit.

    Your line of thinking is ludicrous, the main reason road deaths have fallen across europe has been better cars(and in ireland, finally better roads).

    Car specs do make a difference and to argue otherwise is ludicrous and completely out of touch.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement