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
12357…11

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    NewDubliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭NewDubliner


    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.
    If you point an unloaded shotgun at people, you get 9 years. Simply putting others in fear of their lives is enough to get you put away for assault.

    How are innocent bystanders supposed to know the difference between an 'advanced driver' in a great car, and some dope in a souped up old BMW?

    This is a matter of acceptable behavior in public.


  • Options
    #123
    TheNog
    Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog


    MYOB wrote: »
    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.

    Thats just plain silly. How many threads are on boards giving out about bad driving from owners of Mercs and BMWs?

    As someone said earlier, all drivers must be treated equally in the eyes of the law.


  • Options
    #124
    gman2k
    Registered Users Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭gman2k


    MYOB wrote: »
    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.

    So, should AGS have a handbook at the side of the road, so as they can look up the braking distances of cars going by, before they decide to pull them for speeding or not?
    and re your other comment re 'wrecks', there is something called the NCT, and AGS can pull cars for not being roadworthy.
    Lots of 'enthusiast's' cars I see on the road have modifications that do not engender to safety.


  • Options
    #125
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    bazzachazza wrote: »
    Your assuming good brakes, good tyres, good road surface, no contamination and a driver with Top Gun reactions and awareness.
    And what was gman assuming in his figures? He didn't say.
    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.
    I have many a time, and I don't find it distracting as I put it as far to the back of my head as possible(because focusing on wanting to go to the toilet only makes it worse imho)
    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.
    I was using gmans maths, that implied 100-70 took the same distance/time as 70-0.
    Talk to him
    The coupe was at least 9 years old by the way.
    My cars 6 years old, it has better tyres than when new(brand new Bridgestone Potenza RE050A that cost about €170 per tyre), upgraded brakes taken from a sportier model, and new discs/pads all round 6,000 miles ago.

    Your point good sir?


  • Options
    #126
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    TheNog wrote: »
    ....but it is clear these drivers were reckless as to the safety of themselves and others.
    How so??
    bazzachazza wrote: »
    Your assuming good brakes, good tyres, good road surface, no contamination and a driver with Top Gun reactions and awareness.
    And you're being completely hypocrytivcal in assuming the opposite.
    TheNog wrote: »
    Thats a very big assumption right there. We have no idea what the driver is like nor his ability either.
    Plenty of assumptions going around in here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,168 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    gman2k wrote: »
    So, should AGS have a handbook at the side of the road, so as they can look up the braking distances of cars going by, before they decide to pull them for speeding or not?

    Eh. No. But common sense needs to be applied when charging/prosecuting someone for dangerous driving. Speeding is speeding. 200km/h on a motorway is not by definition dangerous driving.
    gman2k wrote: »
    and re your other comment re 'wrecks', there is something called the NCT, and AGS can pull cars for not being roadworthy.
    Lots of 'enthusiast's' cars I see on the road have modifications that do not engender to safety.

    The NCT only tests the basics of braking, and only in comparison to when new. And the unsafely modified cars aren't owned by enthusiasts, they're owned by morons.


  • Options
    #128
    gman2k
    Registered Users Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭gman2k


    MYOB wrote: »
    200km/h on a motorway is not by definition dangerous driving.
    The law here says differently, I'll trust them over your call. People who want to do otherwise should head over to Germany and find themselves a nice section of unrestricted Autobahn, and fight it out with the 911s...
    MYOB wrote: »
    And the unsafely modified cars aren't owned by enthusiasts, they're owned by morons.
    I agree with you on this one!


  • Options
    #129
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    gman2k wrote: »
    Again, are you saying one law for drivers of better cars, and one law for others?

    .

    There should definitely be allowances made for the car you are driving imo. I do a fair bit of motorway driving and I regularly drive at speeds up to and past 160km/h and in my current car its just feels like a normal progress making speed with no drama. I had the loan of a small hatchback for my trip last week it was a good few years newer than my car and in perfect condition but even at the 120km/h limit I was a bit uneasy. I would rather have to take evasive action at 160km/h in my own car than 120km/h in the small car and I wont even talk about the brakes which felt non-existent.

    Also on braking distances, this may be an extreme example but anyway. On an episode of top gear a while back they showed that the stopping distance for a Mclaren SLR from 120mph was the same as for a Ford Focus from 60mph.


  • Options
    #130
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,168 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    gman2k wrote: »
    The law here says differently, I'll trust them over your call

    Link me to the law that says this, please.


  • Options
    #131
    TheNog
    Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog


    ninty9er wrote: »
    How so??

    Driving at 200kph at 7pm and 8pm is reckless. Any person with some sort of cop on would come to that conclusion.


    Plenty of assumptions going around in here.

    Im not making nor am I backing up any type of assumptions


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    TheNog
    Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog


    gman2k wrote: »
    and re your other comment re 'wrecks', there is something called the NCT, and AGS can pull cars for not being roadworthy.
    Lots of 'enthusiast's' cars I see on the road have modifications that do not engender to safety.

    IMO the NCT is only good for the day the car was tested. After that day the cert is not worth the paper its printed on.


  • Options
    #133
    NewDubliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭NewDubliner


    Ephraim Thankful Thief wrote: »
    There should definitely be allowances made for the car you are driving imo. I do a fair bit of motorway driving and I regularly drive at speeds up to and past 160km/h
    But only on the autobahn in Germany when there is no limit, I hope.


  • Options
    #134
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    NewDubliner wrote: »
    But only on the autobahn in Germany when there is no limit, I hope.

    No right here in Ireland.


  • Options
    #135
    NewDubliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭NewDubliner


    Ephraim Thankful Thief wrote: »
    No right here in Ireland.
    Isn't it illegal for you to drive at 160kph? It is for almost everyone else.


  • Options
    #136
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    MYOB wrote: »
    Link me to the law that says this, please.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0053.html
    Dangerous Driving

    53.—(1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be therein) is dangerous to the public.

    (2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and—

    ( a ) in case the contravention causes death or serious bodily harm to another person, he shall be liable on conviction on indictment to penal servitude for any term not exceeding five years or, at the discretion of the court, to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or to both such penal servitude and such fine and

    ( b ) in any other case, he shall be liable on such conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

    Driving at 200km/h on a 120km/h road at 7/8pm most definitely falls under this category imo.


  • Options
    #137
    gman2k
    Registered Users Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭gman2k


    MYOB wrote: »
    Link me to the law that says this, please.

    The law that says the max allowed speed limit is 120kph - on certain motorways?
    Go ahead and google it yourself, or even better, read the speed limit signs posted on the side of the roads.


  • Options
    #138
    B00MSTICK
    Registered Users Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭B00MSTICK


    OT:
    Can anyone give me a link to the number of deaths/accidents that occur on motorways/dual carriageways?


  • Options
    #139
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,168 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    gman2k wrote: »
    The law that says the max allowed speed limit is 120kph - on certain motorways?
    Go ahead and google it yourself, or even better, read the speed limit signs posted on the side of the roads.

    You said that the law stated that 200km/h was, by definition, dangerous driving. You're now changing what you said because - guess what? - it doesn't say that.

    MagicMarker - not one word of that states that 200km/h is by definition dangerous driving.


  • Options
    #140
    bazzachazza
    Registered Users Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭bazzachazza


    My cars 6 years old, it has better tyres than when new(brand new Bridgestone Potenza RE050A that cost about €170 per tyre), upgraded brakes taken from a sportier model, and new discs/pads all round 6,000 miles ago.

    Your point good sir?

    There is at least 9 years wear and tear on the vehicle. Visible and not visible.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bazzachazza
    Your assuming good brakes, good tyres, good road surface, no contamination and a driver with Top Gun reactions and awareness.
    And you're being completely hypocrytivcal in assuming the opposite.
    Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy is thus a kind of lie. Hypocrisy may come from a desire to hide from others actual motives or feeling

    Your kidding right!

    Your putting words in my mouth.
    I was using gmans maths, that implied 100-70 took the same distance/time as 70-0.
    Talk to him

    My bad.


  • Options
    #141
    gman2k
    Registered Users Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭gman2k


    MYOB wrote: »
    You said that the law stated that 200km/h was, by definition, dangerous driving. You're now changing what you said because - guess what? - it doesn't say that.

    MagicMarker - not one word of that states that 200km/h is by definition dangerous driving.

    Well buddy, if you think that driving on any Irish roads at 200kph is safe, then you're from planet elsewhere.
    Try arguing before any judge that you were driving safely at 200kph....
    I'm sure then you'll also have to come up with other loose bowel excuses...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,168 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    gman2k wrote: »
    Well buddy, if you think that driving on any Irish roads at 200kph is safe, then you're from planet elsewhere.
    Try arguing before any judge that you were driving safely at 200kph....
    I'm sure then you'll also have to come up with other loose bowel excuses...

    No, I'm from Ireland, where the law doesn't actually state specifically what dangerous driving is. You're from some magical place where it seems to...

    Decent lawyer and a sane judge, being charged for 203km/h on a dead straight road in a car thats perfectly capable of it = not dangerous driving. Someone who assumes the scuts is an excuse and the nutbar that is Zaidan... different story.


  • Options
    #143
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    MYOB wrote: »
    You said that the law stated that 200km/h was, by definition, dangerous driving. You're now changing what you said because - guess what? - it doesn't say that.

    MagicMarker - not one word of that states that 200km/h is by definition dangerous driving.

    I never said that, by definition, driving at 200km/h is dangerous. What I did say is that driving on Irish roads, at 7/8pm, amongst other Irish road users is dangerous.


  • Options
    #144
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    MYOB wrote: »
    No, I'm from Ireland, where the law doesn't actually state specifically what dangerous driving is. You're from some magical place where it seems to...

    Decent lawyer and a sane judge, being charged for 203km/h on a dead straight road in a car thats perfectly capable of it = not dangerous driving. Someone who assumes the scuts is an excuse and the nutbar that is Zaidan... different story.
    What if it was a car perfectly capable of travelling 350mph on a straight road in the same circumstances, is that dangerous?


  • Options
    #145
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,168 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    What if it was a car perfectly capable of travelling 350mph on a straight road in the same circumstances, is that dangerous?

    If the car, and the road, was suitable, no.

    However, this is basically the same as a teacher saying "If Johnny jumped off a cliff, would you follow?" - there aren't any conventional cars capable of reaching 350mph, and indeed the highest recorded speed on an Irish motorway is 284km/h.


  • Options
    #146
    MarkN
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭MarkN


    Ridiculous sentence - prison?!!!

    I was caught doing a fairly high speed on a straight stretch of empty road last year (I didn't even notice the speed creep up being totally honest) and when the guard listened to me I got "away" with 4 points and two fines. Did I deserve to go to prison for driving a high powered car on a straight stretch of road? Oh, of course. :rolleyes:

    I've been caught since at much smaller speeds in an M3 (a race car built for the road your honour!) and the garda said if it wasn't the car it was he'd do me but there was no doubt the car could stop very quickly if needed - we need more law enforcers like that on the roads, the ones with a bit of cop on and discretion for the circumstances.

    Fair enough some idiot in a ****box Astra is asking for trouble but a Fiat Coupe? Grossly unfair IMO.


  • Options
    #147
    bazzachazza
    Registered Users Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭bazzachazza


    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'.....

    More likely to be heard saying "F**k me. He's got her lit. Let him go this S**t box mondeo will never catch him":D

    Found this maybe some maths genius might get a stopping distance out of it. I ain't even going to try.

    http://www.csgnetwork.com/stopdistcalc.html


  • Options
    #148
    gman2k
    Registered Users Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭gman2k


    MYOB wrote: »
    No, I'm from Ireland, where the law doesn't actually state specifically what dangerous driving is. You're from some magical place where it seems to...

    Decent lawyer and a sane judge, being charged for 203km/h on a dead straight road in a car thats perfectly capable of it = not dangerous driving. Someone who assumes the scuts is an excuse and the nutbar that is Zaidan... different story.

    Laws are interpreted by the Judges, and rely on previous court decisions also to form judgments. For example, it does not say specifically/ verbatim anywhere in statute that it is illegal to stab someone in the leg, but courts have decided that this action is assault......
    So you are right, it doesn't state specifically that driving at 200 kph, or 203 kph is dangerous driving, but please, take it for read, that the judiciary of this country have decided that 200kph driving constitutes dangerous driving.
    and the judge in this case was it appears applying the allowed sentence.

    Irish people are great in asking for proper enforcement - as long as it applies to others.
    And please, no enforcement of the law on motorways please.
    And please, no enforcement of the law if I deem my driving skills to be superior to others.
    And please, no enforcement of the law if my car is better than yours....


  • Options
    #149
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    MYOB wrote: »
    If the car, and the road, was suitable, no.

    Are you honestly trying to tell me that driving 350mph on a public road at 8pm is not dangerous? Just so long as the car is capable of that speed?

    You're only making yourself out to be a fool now.


  • Options
    #150
    NewDubliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭NewDubliner


    MYOB wrote: »
    Decent lawyer and a sane judge, being charged for 203km/h on a dead straight road in a car thats perfectly capable of it = not dangerous driving.
    Do you have a link for this?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,168 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Are you honestly trying to tell me that driving 350mph on a public road at 8pm is not dangerous? Just so long as the car is capable of that speed?

    You're only making yourself out to be a fool now.

    I'm telling you its actually impossible, seeing as theres no road car capable of doing 350mph. The fool is the one who thinks its possible :rolleyes:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement