Speeder's get 3 months

Mossy Monk

ninty9er wrote: »

That's didly squat so:rolleyes:

You are looking for proof to something that was not allowed to happen :rolleyes:

jape

Meh. Don't break the law if you're not prepared to deal with the consequences.

ninty9er

ninty9er wrote: »

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

Mossy Monk wrote: »

Are you serious?

ninty9er wrote: »

That's didly squat so:rolleyes:

Mossy Monk wrote: »

You are looking for proof to something that was not allowed to happen :rolleyes:

No I'm looking for proof that they were going to lose their life as a result of their driving. Your response makes no sensse.

You are arguing that losing your life is something that is not allowed to happen. If you're trying to confuse the argument you're going to have to put a bit more effort than that into it.

jape wrote: »

Meh. Don't break the law if you're not prepared to deal with the consequences.

I agree, it's the level of consequence that people her take umbridge to.

AlekSmart

One of the more unsettling aspects to come out of this is referred to in post number 7 here on the Irish Biker Forum.

http://www.irishbikerforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=79656&st=0

If this is true,it appears the State is preparing to reduce the level of evidence it needs to present to a court to secure a conviction.

Given that a printout from a Speed Measurement Device can be the ONLY evidence produced to secure a conviction surely the State would want to improve ( and be SEEN to improve) the veracity of such devices.

IMO this is a VERY serious matter indeed,and cuts to the very core of the proper enforcement of LAW.

If the State is now deciding to make low key alterations hidden in a smokescreen then it deserves robust questioning !!!

T-Square

bop1977 wrote: »

The court heard that a garda, who was giving evidence, was on motorcycle patrol that night and followed the defendant who has an address listed as 86 Langrishe Rise, Summerhill, Dublin 1 onto the M7 and stopped him at Osberstown, approximately two miles later. He jailed the defendant for three months, banned him from driving for four years and fined him E2,000.

"The message has to go out there – enough is enough. Life is precious. If you maim someone, it's a life sentence. So three months is nothing."

Judge Zaidan fixed recognisances in the event of an appeal

And in another thread, some gob$hite pulls out without looking and killed a biker. He was only fined a grand, not even disqualified from driving.

The above guys are being banned for years!!!!!!! that judge is soft in the head.

And for the record, speeding has f-all to do with road deaths.

All the Irish judges need to be rounded up and re-schooled, they haven't a clue.

Mossy Monk

ninty9er wrote: »

You are arguing that losing your life is something that is not allowed to happen. If you're trying to confuse the argument you're going to have to put a bit more effort than that into it.

You are arguing on the assumption that all cases were excellent drivers who could handle themselves in the case of something going wrong.

It is a rather pointless debate as I wont be changing my mind and I don't think you will be either.

ninty9er

Mossy Monk wrote: »

You are arguing on the assumption that all cases were excellent drivers who could handle themselves in the case of something going wrong.

No what I'm arguing is that speed isn't what determines whether someone has an accident or not on a motorway, or ultimately what determines whether someone lives or dies.

The driving is what determines that.

There is no way to satisfactorily define what an excellent driver is.

So it's each driver's comfort zone which will determine how well they drive at a given speed.

People who drive at 80 km/h in 100 km/h zones draw a lot of ire here....mainly because they fail to adjust to the 50 km/h zones speccled on N roads in general.

I would see 200 km/h on a motorway as acceptable in a suitable vehicle, whereas 70 km/h throug a town with a 50 km/h limit isn't.

It's about common sense.

TheNog

Tragedy wrote: »

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.

Cars may be made to withstand a collision with a stationary object at 200kph but human bodies cannot. Not with current technology.

ninty9er wrote: »

No I'm looking for proof that they were going to lose their life as a result of their driving. Your response makes no sensse.

You are arguing that losing your life is something that is not allowed to happen. If you're trying to confuse the argument you're going to have to put a bit more effort than that into it.

Trying to predict whether someone would have lost their life is impossible but it is clear these drivers were reckless as to the safety of themselves and others.

AlekSmart wrote: »

One of the more unsettling aspects to come out of this is referred to in post number 7 here on the Irish Biker Forum.

http://www.irishbikerforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=79656&st=0

If this is true,it appears the State is preparing to reduce the level of evidence it needs to present to a court to secure a conviction.

Given that a printout from a Speed Measurement Device can be the ONLY evidence produced to secure a conviction surely the State would want to improve ( and be SEEN to improve) the veracity of such devices.

IMO this is a VERY serious matter indeed,and cuts to the very core of the proper enforcement of LAW.

If the State is now deciding to make low key alterations hidden in a smokescreen then it deserves robust questioning !!!

The post in the biker forum about the calibration of the laser guns is nothing new because the Lion Intoxilysers are the same. Both of them including the roadside Alcoholyser are heavily controlled to ensure they are calibrated properly.

ninty9er wrote: »

No what I'm arguing is that speed isn't what determines whether someone has an accident or not on a motorway, or ultimately what determines whether someone lives or dies.

The driving is what determines that.

There is no way to satisfactorily define what an excellent driver is.

So it's each driver's comfort zone which will determine how well they drive at a given speed.

I would see 200 km/h on a motorway as acceptable in a suitable vehicle, whereas 70 km/h throug a town with a 50 km/h limit isn't.

It's about common sense.

It appears to be me we have two camps here. One camp wishes for Autobahn speeds where any type of speed can be done and all drivers have proper training.

Then there is the other camp. We are the ones who actually know the limitations of Irish drivers and the driving tests here.

Mr Burns

What sickens me is the two faced attitudes of people here.

A person gets a speeding fine for doing 100 in a 80 and the lynch mob is out. Pay your fine and accept your points, how dare you question the Gardai.

These people are caught doing 200 in a 120 and they are dealt with by the courts in accorance with the laws of the state. The same posters are now saying how hard done by the defendants were and the punishment was too much.

It is the 2 faced attitudes of what I consider the high moral army I despise.

gman2k

Do people actually realise the stopping distances involved at higher speeds?
For example, take two cars theoretically travelling side by side, one doing 70mph and the other doing 100mph.
If both cars performed an emergency braking stop to zero mph, the car originally doing 100mph would still be travelling at 70mph when the other car had stopped.
In the discussed speed of 200kmh, the stopping distance is around 600ft.

That's the reason why speeding is so dangerous, because in an emergency a car doing 200kmh needs 600ft clear in front.

The driver of the speeding car should be aware that not only has he to consider his own safety, but other road users also.
Whilst jail sentences seem harsh, a message is being sent out - do not risk your own life or others because you like to speed and disregard the law.
To those of you who like to speed and consider it acceptable to do so - it is not - from a general society point of view. It seems only acceptable from a petrol head point of view however.

It's like someone caught with a 20g bag of weed, an acceptable defence is not - 'but it's legal in Amsterdam'

If you choose to live in this country, you have to accept the law of the land.

Tragedy

TheNog wrote: »

Cars may be made to withstand a collision with a stationary object at 200kph but human bodies cannot. Not with current technology.

First nice guy always talks about pointing behind him to the headstones that litters motorways when people stopped for speeding on them complain to him when he pulls them over, and now you use people jaywalking on the M7 to justify an argument.

Do you moonlight for the RSA by any chance? You use the same fuzzy statistics and emotive arguments to justify the "Any speed ever always kills every time" mantra.

Tragedy

gman2k wrote: »

Do people actually realise the stopping distances involved at higher speeds?
For example, take two cars theoretically travelling side by side, one doing 70mph and the other doing 100mph.
If both cars performed an emergency braking stop to zero mph, the car originally doing 100mph would still be travelling at 70mph when the other car had stopped.
In the discussed speed of 200kmh, the stopping distance is around 600ft.

That's the reason why speeding is so dangerous, because in an emergency a car doing 200kmh needs 600ft clear in front.

Fiat Coupe 16VT stops from 70mph-0 in 156feet. To the best of my knowledge, the 20VT that one of the drivers was driving has even better brakes.

That means, in your comparison, the Coupe stops in almost half the distance of whatever car you're using to demonstrate your figures.

TheNog

Tragedy wrote: »

First nice guy always talks about pointing behind him to the headstones that litters motorways when people stopped for speeding on them complain to him when he pulls them over, and now you use people jaywalking on the M7 to justify an argument.

Do you moonlight for the RSA by any chance? You use the same fuzzy statistics and emotive arguments to justify the "Any speed ever always kills every time" mantra.

Can you point out to me where I said anything about "jaywalking" or use of "statistics"?

All I said was these speeds are reckless and I will say again I feel custodial sentences are too much in these cases. My own opinion only.

Tragedy

TheNog wrote: »

Can you point out to me where I said anything about "jaywalking" or use of "statistics"?

All I said was these speeds are reckless and I will say again I feel custodial sentences are too much in these cases. My own opinion only.

"Cars may be made to withstand a collision with a stationary object at 200kph but human bodies cannot. Not with current technology."
I took that as being, someone hit at 200kph cant survive it. To take it as being "someone driving a car that hits a stationary object at 200kph cannot survive it" is almost as ridiculous. I suppose speeders cars are special in that they don't have brakes, and speeders are special in that they can't see stationary objects until it's too late to use the non-existant brakes?

TheNog

Tragedy wrote: »

"Cars may be made to withstand a collision with a stationary object at 200kph but human bodies cannot. Not with current technology."
I took that as being, someone hit at 200kph cant survive it. To take it as being "someone driving a car that hits a stationary object at 200kph cannot survive it" is almost as ridiculous. I suppose speeders cars are special in that they don't have brakes, and speeders are special in that they can't see stationary objects until it's too late to use the non-existant brakes?

I was talking about the driver of the car travelling at 200kph and stationary objects are other vehicles parked/brokedown, vehicles stopped, vehicles in a collision and crossing over to the other carriageway and lets not forget the bridges.

My question to everyone here is "What would it be like to take sudden evasive action when driving at 200kph as opposed to 120kph?"

artielange

Couldn't a lot of this be avoided by imposing bans on automobiles and motorbikes that can reach speeds greater than the maximum speed limit. Isn't kinda a crazy you can buy a car or a bike that can go close to or over 300 Kph. Or is the argument down to free will and taking responsibility for your own actions like with drugs and gun's.

LookBehindYou

Evasive action comes naturally at 200kph if you have the skills, its done before you even think about it.

L1011

artielange wrote: »

Couldn't a lot of this be avoided by imposing bans on automobiles and motorbikes that can reach speeds greater than the maximum speed limit.

That'd be, ooh, every single car sold in Ireland since about 1972. The Fiat quoted top speed on a tax Band A, 1.1 litre Panda Eco is 159km/h. It can actually go higher than this - Fiat have a history of under-reporting top speeds. There aren't many slower cars sold, and there definitely aren't any traditional cars sold that top out below 120km/h. There are mopeds that do, though.

bazzachazza

Tragedy wrote: »

Fiat Coupe 16VT stops from 70mph-0 in 156feet. To the best of my knowledge, the 20VT that one of the drivers was driving has even better brakes.

That means, in your comparison, the Coupe stops in almost half the distance of whatever car you're using to demonstrate your figures.

Your assuming good brakes, good tyres, good road surface, no contamination and a driver with Top Gun reactions and awareness.

For a start the driver had other things on his mind we know he was worried about missing his appointment, he was probably stressed about sh#£ting himself. He was probably in some discomfort or pain from his bowels. Have you ever driven your car whilst needing to use the toilet really badly. I have and can tell you its slightly distracting.

Your maths points towards you believing that there is a linear jump from 70mph-0 in 156ft to a 126.1mph-0 braking distance. I wouldn't go betting my house on stopping in less than 200m from 126.1mph before hitting anything. There is a lot more involved in that than you think.

The coupe was at least 9 years old by the way.

bazzachazza

This is a video of a tyre blowout at 125mph

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/Watkins-Glen-crash-in-a_25425.htm

Professional driver.

Evasive action comes naturally at 200kph if you have the skills, its done before you even think about it.

As you can see he naturally avoided hitting the crash barrier and spinning the car !!

Its at 2mins.50sec's

gyppo

bop1977 wrote: »

Mr Morelli, a retailer who employs over 20 people in Tipperary, had been on his way to a medical appointment in Dublin to treat his bowel condition, according to a letter from his doctor handed in to the court. His journey had been delayed by frequent toilet stops along the way and he was rushing to make his appointment.

Wonder if he sampled one of his own kebabs

L1011

bazzachazza wrote: »

The coupe was at least 9 years old by the way.

And its an enthusiasts car, which suggests it would likely have been in far better condition than your average 9 year old car. Age is irrelevant to vehicle condition if properly maintained, and an enthusiast is likely to properly maintain it. Someone else on the thread said they knew the driver in question and he also has an Alfa GTV which would definitely suggest an enthusiast.

TheNog

MYOB wrote: »

And its an enthusiasts car, which suggests it would likely have been in far better condition than your average 9 year old car. Age is irrelevant to vehicle condition if properly maintained, and an enthusiast is likely to properly maintain it. Someone else on the thread said they knew the driver in question and he also has an Alfa GTV which would definitely suggest an enthusiast.

Thats a very big assumption right there. We have no idea what the driver is like nor his ability either.

gman2k

MYOB wrote: »

And its an enthusiasts car, which suggests it would likely have been in far better condition than your average 9 year old car. Age is irrelevant to vehicle condition if properly maintained, and an enthusiast is likely to properly maintain it. Someone else on the thread said they knew the driver in question and he also has an Alfa GTV which would definitely suggest an enthusiast.

So, the 'better' your car, or the 'better' the 'enthuasiast' driving it, the more they should be allowed show disregard for their's or others safety?

I remember Jeremy Clarkson using this line one time on Top Gear to the Minister for Transport (IIRC)

One Law for Petrolheads and One Law for everyone else????

.

SV

bazzachazza wrote: »

This is a video of a tyre blowout at 125mph

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/Watkins-Glen-crash-in-a_25425.htm

Professional driver.



As you can see he naturally avoided hitting the crash barrier and spinning the car !!

Its at 2mins.50sec's

Honestly, that was some excellent driving right after the blowout.

gman2k

Tragedy wrote: »

Fiat Coupe 16VT stops from 70mph-0 in 156feet. To the best of my knowledge, the 20VT that one of the drivers was driving has even better brakes.

That means, in your comparison, the Coupe stops in almost half the distance of whatever car you're using to demonstrate your figures.

http://www.abcs-of-driving.com/sample.htm

Again, are you saying one law for drivers of better cars, and one law for others?

So cops sitting on a layby, see a Bugatti Veron thundering down the road at 253mph, and they say to each other - he's alright, good brakes on that car, and the driver must be an 'enthusiast'.....

L1011

gman2k wrote: »

So, the 'better' your car, or the 'better' the 'enthuasiast' driving it, the more they should be allowed show disregard for their's or others safety?

Some driving a wreck at the limit is showing far more disregard for others safety than someone driving a well maintained car above the limit.

L1011

gman2k wrote: »

http://www.abcs-of-driving.com/sample.htm

You're aware that the standard braking distances quoted in the Irish Rules of the Road refer to a Ford Anglia on crossply tyres with all-round drum brakes? They have absolutely no relevance in the real world. Those figures you dig up there do not apply to any car other than that which they were measured on.

SV

gman2k wrote: »

http://www.abcs-of-driving.com/sample.htm

Again, are you saying one law for drivers of better cars, and one law for others?

So cops sitting on a layby, see a Bugatti Veron thundering down the road at 253mph, and they say to each other - he's alright, good brakes on that car, and the driver must be an 'enthusiast'.....

That'd be nice alright.

bazzachazza

Which the bit after he over corrected and slammed it in the armco ?