New penalty points offences

sean1141

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/drivers-face-new-penalty-point-offences-in-bid-to-curb-road-deaths-29626562.html

MOTORISTS face a raft of new penalty point offences from early next year including a ban on illegal U-turns and stiff penalties for parents who refuse to strap their children into car seats.

Transport Minister Leo Varadkar plans to introduce 11 new offences, and higher penalties for 15 others including speeding, mobile phone use, non-wearing of seatbelts and failure to display an NCT certificate.

The move comes amid deep concern about the number of motorists being killed on the roads.

Cookie_Monster

will these be just as unenforced as the rest of them?

advertsfox

... and stiff penalties for parents who refuse to strap their children into car seats.

Good to hear. Now if we could only add not smoking when children are present in the car as well.

Zubeneschamali

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

will these be just as unenforced as the rest of them?

There are really only two penalty point offences:

1) Speeding past a speed trap

2) Giving lip to an officer in the course of his duty after being stopped for a chat about your driving.

Markcheese

advertsfox wrote: »

Good to hear. Now if we could only add not smoking when children are present in the car as well.

I suppose if you make the penalty stiff enough you'd only have to be caught twice and you'd be off the road...

corktina

waste of time when they don't enforce the current laws

_Kaiser_

More revenue generating nonsense that in reality won't make a blind bit of difference anyway.

ThisRegard

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

More revenue generating nonsense that in reality won't make a blind bit of difference anyway.

Yeah, ensuring kids are properly restrained in a car is purely a money making exercise, can't think of any other reasons for it.

This forum is schizophrenic. There was a vid a while back on the dashcam thread showing a kid lying more or less on the parcel shelf and there was lots of Maude Flanders type posts about it. It is now being made a penalty point offence and it's being written off as a revenue generating exercise.

TwoShedsJackson

Never thought I'd say this but I agree with this comment on the Indo (!):

Funny, there seem to be two streams of thought:

a) any enforcement of traffic regulations is unfair, we should be free to do what we like. Any penalties we may suffer from this are a tax. Anyway, when I do dangerous things without regard for other road users, I do them safely. Except of course when I don't, which is most of the time, but that is irrelevant because I say so.

Johnnio13

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/oct/03/irish-independent-ireland

Not enforcing the ones they have....don't see them pushing these.

Del2005

ThisRegard wrote: »

Yeah, ensuring kids are properly restrained in a car is purely a money making exercise, can't think of any other reasons for it.

This forum is schizophrenic. There was a vid a while back on the dashcam thread showing a kid lying more or less on the parcel shelf and there was lots of Maude Flanders type posts about it. It is now being made a penalty point offence and it's being written off as a revenue generating exercise.

The problem is that they won't enforce the current law requiring children being restrained in a vehicle. Making a new offence won't change that. It's like the time a minister got loads of publicity for passing a law making it illegal to be drunk in a pub, we always had a law against being drunk in public.

We have plenty of laws to save lives, they just need to be enforced creating new penalty points just puts the politicians face on the news.

Every time I use the roads I see our current laws being broken and I don't drive big mileage. The Gardaì are on the road all the time yet ignore most offences. They could pay for themselves if they stood outside our schools and they could make a profit if they enforced speed limits in housing estates.

pred racer

advertsfox wrote: »

Good to hear. Now if we could only add not smoking when children are present in the car as well.

My parents smoked when I was a kid, maybe its a miracle but I managed to live through it.:rolleyes:

Jesus.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

will these be just as unenforced as the rest of them?

Hopefully

Jesus.

advertsfox wrote: »

Good to hear. Now if we could only add not smoking when children are present in the car as well.

Please tell me you're joking

ABajaninCork

advertsfox wrote: »

Good to hear. Now if we could only add not smoking when children are present in the car as well.

Jesus. wrote: »

Please tell me you're joking

Seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I'm a smoker! Never smoked when I had my nephew and niece in the car, don't smoke in front of them, don't smoke indoors and don't smoke in the car.

Common courtesy as well as common sense. Not a joke to me, anyway.

visual

I seem to be the only one that comes across checkpoints regularly.

Never during morning or evening rush hour but at other times yes. Must drive through one at least once a month some times more.

Im getting paranoid now maybe they are out to get me lol

Greenmachine

Increased penalty for no NCT cert isn't that 5 points already.

visual

I really think we should be allowed to carry guns
Then Leo might realise we dont have to wait till next general election to replace so call tranport minister.

Jesus.

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I'm a smoker! Never smoked when I had my nephew and niece in the car, don't smoke in front of them, don't smoke indoors and don't smoke in the car.Common courtesy as well as common sense. Not a joke to me, anyway.

I don't think that's the point mate. I'm not a smoker and nor would I do it when there's kids around if I was. The problem is people wanting the police force to go around enforcing all kinds of brand new laws which won't stop until the State via the police force has full control over everything we do. Forgetting about the impracticalities of it for a minute, what kind of people want the State to take control over their every movement? The Nanny State is already well and truly established without making it worse.

There's a very servile mindset prevalent on this Board and I must admit it disturbs me.

ABajaninCork

Jesus. wrote: »

I don't think that's the point mate. I'm not a smoker and nor would I do it when there's kids around if I was. The problem is people wanting the police force to go around enforcing all kinds of brand new laws which won't stop until the State via the police force has full control over everything we do. Forgetting about the impracticalities of it for a minute, what kind of people want the State to take control over their every movement? The Nanny State is already well and truly established without making it worse.

There's a very servile mindset prevalent on this Board and I must admit it disturbs me.

I agree the Gards have better things to do, and do not enforce the existing laws. Like I said, not smoking in the car should be common sense as well as common courtesy.

visual

Jesus. wrote: »

There's a very servile mindset prevalent on this Board and I must admit it disturbs me.

It's a reflection of Irish citizens easily divided into us and them and prepaired to put in the boot on their fellow motorist. Foolishly giving up their liberties, freedom and privacy.

The mindset that extracts pleasure from someone elses misfortune is disturbing

3rdDegree

Blood samples can also be taken from unconscious or incapacitated drivers involved in serious collisions, with medical consent, with the results of the analysis revealed when the driver gives permission.

Is it just me, or is that completely toothless!


Edit: Although maybe I'm misinterpreting "with medical consent" to mean "with driver's consent".

OldmanMondeo

advertsfox wrote: »

Good to hear. Now if we could only add not smoking when children are present in the car as well.

While I would agree, it is not a road safety issue.

Have the fines been increased as well? If not it is only money making for the insurance companies. But as pointed out, these need to be enforced. In this day and age of high quality CCTV and Gatso vans, there should be no excuse to catch more people breaking road traffic laws.

johndaman66

Jesus. wrote: »

Please tell me you're joking

Most likely not. The sheeple don't really think for themselves. The smoking ban is a good example. Before the smoking ban came in it was very acceptable to smoke. You would have commonly heard the expression I'm a social smoker which to me would signify it was very acceptable in society to smoke and be seen smoking

Then the smoking ban came in and moreless overnight it practically became unacceptable to smoke, at least in other peoples company. If you told someone to quit smoking in their car when they have kids in it 10 -15 years ago they would have most likely told you be on your bike and clear off. Now look where we are.

On a side note I don't smoke and people smoking in front of me don't bother me but if they are smoking one after another like a train that does go for my eyes badly and strains them...That was the case before the smoking ban and didn't change after. I'm not making this point about me per se. Point I'm making here is to apply a bit of common sense to the situation.

Whatever about not having kids restrained properly in cars I think there should be an automatic disqualification for drivers who allowe young kids hanging out the window of cars after they win their gaa matches. I'm all for fun and having a laugh but to see a kid with more than half their torso hanging out the window of a moving car is just insanity....

a ban on illegal U-turns

I think this is the most prominent issue that people are overlooking. If they're gonna start banning illegal things then it's a bit of a slippery slope.

They better not start banning other illegal things, like murder and assault.



:P

ThisRegard

johndaman66 wrote: »

Most likely not. The sheeple don't really think for themselves. The smoking ban is a good example. Before the smoking ban came in it was very acceptable to smoke. You would have commonly heard the expression I'm a social smoker which to me would signify it was very acceptable in society to smoke and be seen smoking

It wasn't. Why else was there such widespread support for the ban when it came in.

visual

ThisRegard wrote: »

It wasn't. Why else was there such widespread support for the ban when it came in.

When you could smoke in Mcdonalds they had divided the place in two smoking none smoking.
In the branch I visited it was a 50 / 50 space wise. Smoking section was full and non smoking empty.

A lot of pubs reported a drop in trade when band was introduced. Many opened heated beer gardens to attract the smoker back.

While its less socially acceptable now at time of ban it wasn't popular with smokers.

ThisRegard

It's not really for this thread but when was the last time you could smoke in McDonalds ?

pa990

ThisRegard wrote: »

when was the last time you could smoke in McDonalds ?

dunno, but i remember burger king allowed it for a few years after mcd's stopped it..




and your 100% correct

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's not really for this threads ?

Anan1

visual wrote: »

While its less socially acceptable now at time of ban it wasn't popular with smokers.

I think smokers (and I was one myself at the time of the ban) were divided. We agreed with the law in principle, but found it a PITA in practise.

Big Nasty

I'm a smoker and I think it's fvcking disgusting to see parents smoking in their car with kids in the back. I work in a hospital and I see parents driving out doing it every day.

Do I think it should be made illegal? Yes. Do I think the Gardai should spend their day trying to enforce this? No. Unfortunately common sense isn't enough for some of the parents in this country. :mad:

johndaman66

ThisRegard wrote: »

It wasn't. Why else was there such widespread support for the ban when it came in.

There was indeed but there was also plenty of resistance to it. Don't particularly want to to derail the thread off the topic in hand but I oftern would have heard the term social smoker being bandied about before the smoking ban came into being

solas111

This must be the most legislated country in the world, with every idiotic do-gooder getting his little silly ideas passed into law. It was one good reason to do away with the Seanad, an institution where people have to justify their existence by pandering to the wishes of every half-wit in the country.

The latest idea from Enda and Leo of introducing penalty points for farting is going too far though. They have argued, but won’t debate it on TV, that talking through the assh*le should be exclusively reserved for members of Dáil Éireann.

visual

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's not really for this thread but when was the last time you could smoke in McDonalds ?

Late 90s early 00's

Jesus.

Having a Ciggy in McDonald's would be less unhealthy than eating their food

Teddy Picker

What's the current situation for 'novice' drivers in terms of penalty points? I read/heard somewhere that speeding attracts 4 points rather than 2 if you're on the first two years of your licence. Is this the case at the moment? I also thought the 6 point disqualification was already in place.

jimbooth

I was going to collect my daughter from school one day and as I approached one of the other dads walked over to a car that was parked outside the gate which had all the Windows closed as it was a little bit cold , there were 4 adults smoking in it with a baby strapped in the car seat, he tapped on the window and as it rolled down it was like the scene in Predator 2 where Danny Glover goes to "Big Willy's" car and plumes smoke come out. He then asked had they a spare cigarette and when he was handed one he said it's not for me , give it to the baby He'd be better off with his own ! There were cheers all round, from me too and I was a smoker but NEVER smoked around kids and left my own house and went outside to smoke . Did smoke in the car but only on long journeys and only when alone or occasionally with a passenger who smoked.
Kids don't know any better but some adults are just stubborn to the point stupidity. It is NOT good for you and don't try saying "my parents smoked and I'm fine" that doesn't prove a thing.
Rant over :-)

foggy_lad

3rdDegree wrote: »

Is it just me, or is that completely toothless!


Edit: Although maybe I'm misinterpreting "with medical consent" to mean "with driver's consent".

With Doctors consent shortly after the incident then when/if the person recovers consciousness they get asked their permission and if they refuse the Guards can go to court to get permission to use the results as evidence.

wotzgoingon

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There are really only two penalty point offences:

1) Speeding past a speed trap

2) Giving lip to an officer in the course of his duty after being stopped for a chat about your driving.

The ammount of penalty points I got for no seat belt is unreal. Still don't wear it. I should as I was in a bad crash years ago and the seat belt saved me from going out through a window when car flipped a few times.

Esel

wotzgoingon wrote: »

The amount of penalty points I got for no seat belt is unreal. Still don't wear it. I should as I was in a bad crash years ago and the seat belt saved me from going out through a window when car flipped a few times.

What's the problem with just wearing it?

wotzgoingon

Esel wrote: »

What's the problem with just wearing it?

I had to put it on ninja style last night as I drove towards five 0.

visual

There is currently no N plate

Learner driver can attract the same points as full license driver.

But at 6 points learner is off the road compared to full licence of 12 points

Jesus.

wotzgoingon wrote: »

The ammount of penalty points I got for no seat belt is unreal. Still don't wear it.

I got a fair few down the years for that as well. Only reason I wear it now is because the car won't stop beeping until I put it on!

So in that sense, that beeping thing works.

Zubeneschamali

wotzgoingon wrote: »

The ammount of penalty points I got for no seat belt is unreal.

OK, being suicidal attracts points too.

anthony4335

3rdDegree wrote: »

Is it just me, or is that completely toothless!


Edit: Although maybe I'm misinterpreting "with medical consent" to mean "with driver's consent".

I would assume that if the driver didn't give consent it would be equivalent to refusal to provide a breath sample and would incur an automatic admission of guilt.

Government identify an issue or problem within our country, then they proceed to find the most useless method of addressing the issue ,tax it or fine it.
Bad driving habits ,fine it.
People getting fat , tax it.
Useless.

Markcheese

What do you want Anthony ,the death penalty ? In fairness penalty points,speed camera vans ,advertising ect (as well as car design) have cut road deaths dramatically ...
On the fat tax can't see it coming in ,would prefer a sugar tax anyway
And they want minimum pricing on alcohol not extra tax ...

visual

Facts
Road deaths down with better roads motorways dual carriageways and safer cars. ABS air bags 5 star NCAP.

Speeding fines penalty points etc jury still out.

Its not the price of drink that is the problem with drunk drivers. So putting up the price doesn't do the avg person or economy any good.

Markcheese

visual wrote: »

Facts
Road deaths down with better roads motorways dual carriageways and safer cars. ABS air bags 5 star NCAP.

Speeding fines penalty points etc jury still out.

Its not the price of drink that is the problem with drunk drivers. So putting up the price doesn't do the avg person
or economy any good.

I think the minimum pricing is more aimed more at the supermarket trade / antisocial behaviour thing ...

visual

Markcheese wrote: »

I think the minimum pricing is more aimed more at the supermarket trade / antisocial behaviour thing ...

That makes more sense.