"Judge imposes heavy fines for speeding drivers on motorway"

Comhrá

This judge ain't messin' with excuses for speeding...:eek:

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local-news/judge-imposes-heavy-fines-for-speeding-drivers-on-motorway-1-6321766

Moneymaker

Proper order. If anything they are getting off lightly.

biko

... was fined €650 on a speeding charge of driving at 140kph in a 120kph zone last January 22

**** me, I better slow down in the future. Last time I was nabbed for 140 I got 80 euro fine.

Kimbot

Funny how all the speeds are mentioned in the article except that of the only female convicted:

"Catherine McCarthy, 4 Riverbank, Buttevant, Co Cork was convicted of careless driving, because of speeding at last March 3 at Cloghacloka and fined €750."

wonski

Moneymaker wrote: »

Proper order. If anything they are getting off lightly.

€650 for doing 140 km/h - i wouldn't call it getting off lightly.

Drivers doing 70 in 50 zone are paying less than that.

Moneymaker

wonski wrote: »

€650 for doing 140 km/h - i wouldn't call it getting off lightly.

Drivers doing 70 in 50 zone are paying less than that.

Fair enough that's somewhat extreme but the other examples aren't imo.

inforfun

That newspaper should be fined €750 for blowing up that picture.
Can count the pixels.

Pedro K

Ridiculous stuff.

Mycroft H

Well at least the rules are being enforced

obezyana

Is 140kph on a motorway really classed as speeding? that's what the limit should be.

kirving

140kph is 16% over the limit. That's like doing 35 in a 30. Absolute criminal behavior Joe.

Chris_Heilong

“HE is very lucky he is not being disqualified,” Judge Mary Larkin said at Newcastle West court last Thursday when Kilmallock man, Billy Jones of Ballinagoul was convicted of careless driving arising from driving at 172kmp in a 120kph zone."

Wow "172kmp" I have never travel using KMP before.

corktina

Fines are for Careless Driving , not speeding, so it doesn't really matter what anyone considers 140 on the m'way to be. The guy doing 140 had no CRW, presumably not NCT so maybe a taxi although it could easily be a Transit)

Voodoomelon

Some harsh penalties there for the lower speeds. Fair enough for the 160kmph+ brigade.

derry

Victimless crime
where are the victims?
was there a crash?
was there people killed injured ?

Ah yes the Judge is pre criming and is collecting all that loot to put into safer driving and not into the the big
slush fund for retirement funds for the Judges .

I mean if judges were real honest they would hang draw and quarter the criminals as there is no cash in that

Then we would know they were for real caring Judges

Derry

mikeecho

I'd be more in favour of a sliding scale for speeding tickets.
The faster you go, the more you pay, as is done in the US and a lot of European countries.

And those caught exceeding by less than 15km on 100 or 120 zones receiving no points.

Similarly, 50 60 80 zones could have a leniency of X km/h before points are allocated

justjustin

derry wrote: »

Victimless crime
Derry

Sure it is...

Not much point reading the rest of your post after that beauty

dilallio

inforfun wrote: »

That newspaper should be fined €750 for blowing up that picture.
Can count the pixels.

Either that or the judge is double-jobbing as a Japanese pornstar ...

Firefox11

wonski wrote: »

€650 for doing 140 km/h - i wouldn't call it getting off lightly.

Drivers doing 70 in 50 zone are paying less than that.

So you get a 1000 euro fine for not having a TV Licence but 650 euro fine for speeding???

Justice system in this country is seriously ****ed up.

CiniO

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

“HE is very lucky he is not being disqualified,” Judge Mary Larkin said at Newcastle West court last Thursday when Kilmallock man, Billy Jones of Ballinagoul was convicted of careless driving arising from driving at 172kmp in a 120kph zone."

Wow "172kmp" I have never travel using KMP before.

Exactly same as you never uses kph as the unit we are talikng about is called km/h.

Special Circumstances

Firefox11 wrote: »

So you get a 1000 euro fine for not having a TV Licence but 650 euro fine for speeding???

Justice system in this country is seriously ****ed up.

To bring it in line with non driving offences, you should be able to get all your transgressions rolled into one - you receive the punishment for the most serious. While you are waiting between your first court date and final court date you then have free reign to commit many similar offences, safe in the knowledge it will not increase your punishment by any significant amount.

Seems legit.

justjustin

CiniO wrote: »

Exactly same as you never uses kph as the unit we are talikng about is called km/h.

No. Kph is interchangeable with km/h, just as mph is interchangeable with m/h.

_Kaiser_

Firefox11 wrote: »

So you get a 1000 euro fine for not having a TV Licence but 650 euro fine for speeding???

Justice system in this country is seriously ****ed up.

No the biggest problem we have is enforcement which ranges from feck all to penalties being wiped for the friends and famous to judges like this trying to make a name for themselves in the local paper

Doing 140 on some of our virtually deserted motorways is no more dangerous than doing 120. The problems arise when people do so in bad visibility, poor surface conditions or heavy traffic.

I wouldn't expect this sentence to hold up on appeal either

CiniO

justjustin wrote: »

No. Kph is interchangeable with km/h, just as mph is interchangeable with m/h.

I dont know much about imperial units (never seen mph written as m/h), but km/h is SI unit and as so has got exact symbol which is km/h. No other form is correct, especually kph.

mgbgt1978

corktina wrote: »

Fines are for Careless Driving , not speeding, so it doesn't really matter what anyone considers 140 on the m'way to be. The guy doing 140 had no CRW, presumably not NCT so maybe a taxi although it could easily be a Transit)

Off topic I admit but a Taxi would have an NCT (same as any other Car). CRW would apply to a Commercial Vehicle.

Skatedude

derry wrote: »

Victimless crime
where are the victims?
was there a crash?
was there people killed injured ?

Ah yes the Judge is pre criming and is collecting all that loot to put into safer driving and not into the the big
slush fund for retirement funds for the Judges .

I mean if judges were real honest they would hang draw and quarter the criminals as there is no cash in that

Then we would know they were for real caring Judges

Derry

Er, deaths on irish roads is app 4 times that of crime etc each year. I dont think anyone can possibly say that it shouldn't be tackled, if anything, we need to get a lot more strict then we currently are.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

No sign of penalty points there lads ?

Spook_ie

corktina wrote: »

Fines are for Careless Driving , not speeding, so it doesn't really matter what anyone considers 140 on the m'way to be. The guy doing 140 had no CRW, presumably not NCT so maybe a taxi although it could easily be a Transit)

+1

You'd need to be very careless to get caught at those speeds on a road


Anyways

Careless driving: This is defined as 'driving a vehicle in a public place without due care and attention'. The Gardai enforce careless driving offences and this involves a mandatory court appearance. A driver charged and subsequently found guilty of careless driving will receive 5 penalty points on their licence and may also be fined up to a maximum of €5,000. If the careless driving causes death or serious bodily harm, the driver is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine not exceeding €10,000 or to both.

That'll learn 'em

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/driving_offences/penalty_points_for_driving_offences.html

justjustin

CiniO wrote: »

I dont know much about imperial units (never seen mph written as m/h), but km/h is SI unit and as so has got exact symbol which is km/h. No other form is correct, especually kph.

My bad, I meant mi/h.

Regardless, kilometres per hour is referred to as kph and whether or not you have ever seen it does not affect it's usage I'm afraid. Also, even though km/h is the SI definition of the unit that does not mean that other expressions of units of speed are invalid. A little bit pedantic of you to be fair.

Anjobe

CiniO wrote: »

I dont know much about imperial units (never seen mph written as m/h), but km/h is SI unit and as so has got exact symbol which is km/h. No other form is correct, especually kph.

Apologies in advance for even more pedantry, but the SI unit of speed is m/s.

Spook_ie

CiniO wrote: »

I dont know much about imperial units (never seen mph written as m/h), but km/h is SI unit and as so has got exact symbol which is km/h. No other form is correct, especually kph.

Pedant rule.

Depends on if you are refering to symbology or abbreviation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilometres_per_hour

Kilometres per hour as an abbreviation

The use of abbreviations[Note 1] dates back to antiquity, but abbreviations for "kilometres per hour" did not appear in the English language until the late nineteenth century.

The kilometre, a unit of length, first appeared in English in 1810[4] and the compound unit of speed "kilometers per hour" was in use in the US by 1866.[5] "Kilometres per hour" did not begin to be abbreviated in print until many years later, with several different abbreviations existing near-contemporaneously.

1889: "k. p. h."[6]
1895: "km:h"[7]
1898: "km/h"[8]
1899: "km./hr." [9]
1900: "kms./hr."[10]
1902: "k.m.p.h."[11]
1903: "KMph."[12]
1910: "km ph"[13]
1911: "K.P.H."[14]
1914 "km. hr."[15]
1915: "km/hour"[16]
1915: "km.-hr."[16]
1916: "km. per hour"[17]
1921: "kms/hr."[18]
1922: "Kmph"[19]
1927: "kmph."[20]
1933: "KPH"[21]
1939: "kmph"[22]

With no central authority to dictate the rules for abbreviations, various publishing houses have their own rules that dictate whether to use upper case letters, lower case letters, periods and so on, reflecting both changes in fashion and the image of the publishing house concerned.[23] For example, news organisations such as Reuters[24] and The Economist[25] require "kph".

In normal day to day useage KPH, kp/h, KmPH etc. are all probably just as understood as km/h, the only one which I would imagine causing problems would be km - h-1 ( can't see how to type powers in boards )

coolbeans

derry wrote: »

Victimless crime
where are the victims?
was there a crash?
was there people killed injured ?

Ah yes the Judge is pre criming and is collecting all that loot to put into safer driving and not into the the big
slush fund for retirement funds for the Judges .

I mean if judges were real honest they would hang draw and quarter the criminals as there is no cash in that

Then we would know they were for real caring Judges

Derry

You're some man for the consistently stupid posts.

Alun

Spook_ie wrote: »

In normal day to day useage KPH, kp/h, KmPH etc. are all probably just as understood as km/h, the only one which I would imagine causing problems would be km - h-1 ( can't see how to type powers in boards )

At a pinch I guess kph or even kmph makes some kind of sense, but stuff with both a "p" and a "/" like kp/h or km/ph is utterly nonsensical ... "km per per hour" ????

mikeecho

I've always wondered in threads in "Trains & Rail Systems" get derailed as often as Motors

derry

Skatedude wrote: »

Er, deaths on irish roads is app 4 times that of crime etc each year. I dont think anyone can possibly say that it shouldn't be tackled, if anything, we need to get a lot more strict then we currently are.

Ok if one wanted to seriously tackle the death rate on the roads one would look what are the common threads and where are all the accidents

1 / death car accidents are very rare on motor ways but fine them the most for speeding


2/ Death car accidents are rare in heavy traffic.Truck and bus accidents are larger in heavy traffic as they crush cyclists . But in 30KPH regions throw the book at at car drivers and fine them the most

3/ Many car accidents with death are single driver going home small country roads late at night loses it hits wall and is dead . Too late to fine him too many small roads to police hard to set speed traps for one or two drivers that might pass that way in the late night

4/ many car death accidents are on busy two lane good roads where there are crossroads on them and cars hit each often trucks hit cars coming out of side roads .Cars speeds are low too low to get out of the way of the fast traffic coming .Often it the same junctions involved in the same types of accidents regularly with some accidents becoming fatal .
Rarely if ever is there garda speed traps near these repeat offender junctions and rarely are there high visibilty type radar speed traps that help slow traffic down but often stealthy radar speed traps are at the safer junctions that rarely if ever had collisions of any sort


Wonderful speed enforcement logic hit the wrong users the safer drivers who exceed the speed on wide straight motorways with little or no traffic and little or no risks

Derry

colm_mcm

Did any of these get penalty points?

CJhaughey

More anti-speeding crap.
I have seen tractors towing huge trailers full of rubble and rocks speeding through towns, probably doing 40-50 km/h in a narrow pedestrian filled street driven by 17 year olds.
Total train weight of probably >20t
Risk is defined by the likelihood of any accident by the potential harm.
It seems to me that doing the Ton on a motorway designed for speeds of 70-80 isn't particularly risky.
It makes good headlines though and the judge is seen to be tough.

JC01

CJhaughey wrote: »

More anti-speeding crap.
I have seen tractors towing huge trailers full of rubble and rocks speeding through towns, probably doing 40-50 km/h in a narrow pedestrian filled street driven by 17 year olds.
Total train weight of probably >20t
Risk is defined by the likelihood of any accident by the potential harm.
It seems to me that doing the Ton on a motorway designed for speeds of 70-80 isn't particularly risky.
It makes good headlines though and the judge is seen to be tough.

Pretty much exactly what I was thinking. And now the RSA can blab on about how many lives have been saved. Funny I can't think of the last fatal accident on a motorway at 200mph never mind 100

Alun

Yeah, it's perfectly OK to hog the middle lane, pull out in front of people without indicating, swerve across two lanes 50m before your exit, drive with your foglights on and/or half your lights not working, while texting as long as you do it all at exactly 119km/h.

quadrifoglio verde

Alun wrote: »

Yeah, it's perfectly OK to hog the middle lane, pull out in front of people without indicating, swerve across two lanes 50m before your exit, drive with your foglights on and/or half your lights not working, while texting as long as you do it all at exactly 119km/h.

Don't forget driving down the wrong way...which is what, one point?

CiniO

Skatedude wrote: »

Er, deaths on irish roads is app 4 times that of crime etc each year. I dont think anyone can possibly say that it shouldn't be tackled, if anything, we need to get a lot more strict then we currently are.

It's impossible (at least with todays technology) to avoid all road death.
There's hardly any proof that those deaths that happen, wouldn't happen if everyone obeyed the speed limit.

Considering how little deaths happen on motorways, and how little more danger speeding on motorway is causing, there's hardly any point in enforcing any speed limits there, or rather of having any speed limits on motorways in the first place.

I'd imagine, if from 1st January 2014 there were no speed limits on Irish motorways, death rate on Irish roads until today would be the same as it is.

tossy

Skatedude wrote: »

Er, deaths on irish roads is app 4 times that of crime etc each year. I dont think anyone can possibly say that it shouldn't be tackled, if anything, we need to get a lot more strict then we currently are.

Of course it should be tackled but it should be tackled right. It's easy to blame speed as a catch all cause of all the problems, anti speed agendas generate revenue and get votes.

If they told the truth about the lack of driver education and poor quality roads they wouldn't win votes they would be highlighting years of failure by successive governments.

More people are lost by suicide every year than either crime or road deaths, there is no votes in that though,so lets brush that under the carpet and blame 'de drink or de drugs sure' (wildly off topic)

CiniO

Anjobe wrote: »

Apologies in advance for even more pedantry, but the SI unit of speed is m/s.

m/s is a derived unit made of base SI units.
km/h is as well derived unit, but not made of base units.
It doesn't mean though that usage of km/h is incorrect.
They are both units of speed and they are both SI units, and both should be written according to SI symbols.

This is all covered in ISO standards as well:

In 1948, the ninth CGPM approved the first formal recommendation for the writing of symbols in the metric system when the basis of the rules as they are now known was laid down.[42] These rules were subsequently extended by International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and now cover unit symbols and names, prefix symbols and names, how quantity symbols should be written and used and how the values of quantities should be expressed.[22]:104,130 Both ISO and the IEC have published rules for the presentation of SI units that are generally compatible with those published in the SI Brochure.[43] As of August 2013 ISO and IEC were in the process of merging their standards for quantities and units into a single set of compatible documents identified as the ISO/IEC 80000 Standard. The rules covering printing of quantities and units are part of ISO 80000-1:2009.[44]

You can not just use any abbreviation you think will do for describing SI units.

porsche959

Disgraceful abuse of his powers. Time for a disciplinary code for judges.

dr.fuzzenstein

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

No the biggest problem we have is enforcement which ranges from feck all to penalties being wiped for the friends and famous to judges like this trying to make a name for themselves in the local paper

Doing 140 on some of our virtually deserted motorways is no more dangerous than doing 120. The problems arise when people do so in bad visibility, poor surface conditions or heavy traffic.

I wouldn't expect this sentence to hold up on appeal either

It's pure Irish RM stuff, absolute panto by frustrated local judges who will never amount to anything and have to somehow make it bearable for themselves by handing down comedy sentences such as these.
One of these clowns once complained that all his sentences where overturned on appeal. Well, if you hadn't studied law from the Beano and actually handed down proper sentences, they wouldn't have to be overturned by the grown ups in charge.

V.W.L 11

tippman1 wrote: »

This judge ain't messin' with excuses for speeding...:eek:

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local-news/judge-imposes-heavy-fines-for-speeding-drivers-on-motorway-1-6321766

A female version of former Judge Michael Pattwell!and if ye don't know who he is google him!!!his nickname was Padlock,this one is getting to his standard quickly :eek:

CiniO

Spook_ie wrote: »

Pedant rule.

Depends on if you are refering to symbology or abbreviation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilometres_per_hour


In normal day to day useage KPH, kp/h, KmPH etc. are all probably just as understood as km/h, the only one which I would imagine causing problems would be km - h-1 ( can't see how to type powers in boards )

You forgot to quote other part of this article you linked

In 1948, as part of its the preparatory work for the SI, the CGPM adopted symbols for many units of measure that did not have universally agreed symbols, one of which was the symbol "h" for "hours". At the same time the CGPM formalised the rules for combining units – quotients could be written in one of three formats resulting in "km/h", "km h−1" and "km·h−1" being valid representations of "kilometres per hour".[30] The SI standards, which were MKS-based rather than CGS-based were published in 1960 and have since then have been adopted by many authorities around the globe including academic publishers and legal authorities.

The SI explicitly states that unit symbols are not abbreviations and are to be written using a very specific set of rules.[30] M. Danloux-Dumesnils[31] provides the following justification for this distinction:

It has already been stated that, according to Maxwell, when we write down the result of a measurement, the numerical value multiplies the unit. Hence the name of the unit can be replaced by a kind of algebraic symbol, which is shorter and easier to use in formulae. This symbol is not merely an abbreviation but a symbol which, like chemical symbols, must be used in a precise and prescribed manner.

SI, and hence the use of "km/h" (or "km h−1" or "km·h−1") has now been adopted around the world in many areas related to health and safety[32] and in metrology.[33] It is also the preferred system of measure in academia and in education.[34]

Pedro K

What a pointless argument to be having on this topic...

Stinicker

Meanwhile the real criminals are laughing their asses off. If that was me I'd refuse to pay the fine and take a custodial sentence because with the revolving doors prison system you'd be signed in at the morning and out again that evening.

Fastest I've ever clocked is 302km/h on the A1 Autobahn outside Tecklenburg in North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany and 170km/h outside Craigavon Co. Armagh. Fastest in ROI ~ 150km/h on the M1 heading North.

Driving fast on the Motorway is not dangerous and this is just a revenue gathering excercise, if they wanted to punish them they'd put them out along said roads gathering litter. This has nothing to do with safety or justice and everything to do with looting the people of their savings.

Voodoomelon

Stinicker wrote: »

Fastest in ROI ~ 150km/h on the M1 heading North.

Out of the tolls? Vrrrrrrrrrrrrrm!

Sobanek

KMP, KPH, while the only relevant three letters should be PMS.

Judge in a bad mood, stuck up guards who have to show how powerful they are = careless driving.

140 km/h in a 120 km/h zone? You'd get fined €80 if you were doing 110 in an 80 zone. It's beyond ridiculous.