Speeder gets 3 months imprisonment.

JumpShivers

This time a 21-year-old lad who was caught at 208 km/h on the motorway has been sentenced to three months imprisonment, a 1000-Euro fine and a 4-year disqualification to boot and having to re-sit his driving test from scratch after his period of disqualification.

I do appreciate that the road temperatures were low and that the conditions were somewhat congested (as described by the Garda in question). But was the punishment not too excessive?


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/motorist-21-was-driving-at-one-of-the-highest-speeds-gardai-had-come-across-34695429.html

Esel

Fup sake. Shur dat's only 130 in old money... and he was in the fasht lane.

Special Circumstances

He should have thrown on the high heels and a tiara! That's enough to get away with 190!


http://www.limerickpost.ie/2014/10/08/speeding-limerick-beauty-queen-praised-for-honesty/

Special Circumstances

Or may even he should have driven the wrong way on the m18 at 180 while off his meds. No jail.

http://www.clare.fm/news/driving-ban-and-suspended-sentence-speeding-wrong-side-m18

coylemj

Whatever about the beauty queen, doing 208 kph on a wet road with the temperature a few degrees above zero was madness. His dashboard was probably showing a warning light in the shape of a snow crystal making it even more crazy. If there was 'plenty of traffic in the area' as the Gardai claimed, it meant that he was doing some mental weaving.

ahnowbrowncow

He should have said there was a bomb under his car and if he went under 200km/h it would have blown up.

armaghlad

He deserves it imo. Speeding kills.

washman3

Or entered a hotel lobby with an AK47, gun down a person, be questioned by Gardaí an then released.
Banana Republic...

ASOT

He must have had a terrible solicitor.

Special Circumstances

armaghlad wrote: »

He deserves it imo. Speeding kills.

Cars don't kill people, beauty queens do.

coylemj

I was wondering why the Indo didn't report the guy's name if he was convicted in the district court but the origin of the story appears to be a post on the Garda Facebook page and they didn't give his name.

Senna

How long a sentence did that TD scumbag get after he drove drunk down the wrong side of a dual carriageway, oh yeah, he just got a years ban.

ShatterResistant

I think the penalty is deserved given all the factors. Truly incredible speed.

As for Miss Limerick, that was certainly unduly lenient.

spaceHopper

The idiot is lucky to be alive to be sentenced, I've zero sympathy for him

Pagliuca

He's under the age of 25 and has a penis.

He didn't stand a chance.

Special Circumstances

spaceHopper wrote: »

The idiot is lucky to be alive to be sentenced, I've zero sympathy for him

What would be a fair sentence for the guy with 200+ convictions and a 30year ban, doing 180, the wrong way? "Several close calls"???

I'm gonna have to say poor legal representation in this case or the judge's piles were giving him hell on the day.

quadrifoglio verde

Special Circumstances wrote: »

What would be a fair sentence for the guy with 200+ convictions and a 30year ban, doing 180, the wrong way? "Several close calls"???

I'm gonna have to say poor legal representation in this case or the judge's piles were giving him hell on the day.

Its judge zaidan. Under 25, have a penis and dumb enough to speed in a place where theres regular speed checks, you get a right spanking of him.

Cheensbo

I've been vocal about this one too.

I think a custodial sentence is a bit far, even suspend the ****in thing ffs. But honestly, I think the ban & heavy fines should suffice.

He's been convicted and sentenced to prison for something that 'may' have happened as a result of his wrecklessness - but didn't.

People are regularly given a slap on the wrist or suspended sentence for offences/incidents that have had absolutely profound impacts on others and in some cases have killed/seriously injured people.

I'm all for punishment but ffs at least have some equality.

Cheensbo

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Its judge zaidan. Under 25, have a penis and dumb enough to speed in a place where theres regular speed checks, you get a right spanking of him.

Out of touch and delusional man.

Dangerous guy to be in front of in court - think he likes seeing his name in the paper for handing out ridiculous punishments to young men.

boardsuser1

Jim McDaid in 2005


https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_McDaid&ved=0ahUKEwiRpsWOy8vMAhVJF8AKHUkVAhQQFggdMAE&usg=AFQjCNEFIAibIfdQWC9PKdKMnCtkJwnISw&sig2=Gvrls496LYUGySqNJPY17Q

Car99

Harsh in fairness when you consider the scum that are in and OUT of court everyday of the week for actually harming someone .

coylemj

KC161 wrote: »

Jim McDaid in 2005


https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_McDaid&ved=0ahUKEwiRpsWOy8vMAhVJF8AKHUkVAhQQFggdMAE&usg=AFQjCNEFIAibIfdQWC9PKdKMnCtkJwnISw&sig2=Gvrls496LYUGySqNJPY17Q

A complete and utter pr1ck and waste of space. I was at the Galway races one year when the FF tent was in full operation and before they had electronic betting terminals. McDaid wandered out of the FF tent to put on a bet at the tote and when he did, he got a Garda to basically push people in the queue out of the way so that d'minister didn't have to waste his precious (drinking) time queuing with the great unwashed.

By coincidence I was also at Punchestown races the day he drove the wrong way up the motorway, he was swanning around the hospitality boxes looking to be noticed and plied with free beer, assh0le.

BoatMad

ShatterResistant wrote: »

I think the penalty is deserved given all the factors. Truly incredible speed.

yet entirely legal on two lane motorways in certain places in Germany , motorways that are older then ours too

gctest50

Cheensbo wrote: »

I've been vocal about this one too.

I think a custodial sentence is a bit far, even suspend the ****in thing ffs. But honestly, I think the ban & heavy fines should suffice.
...........

200km/h is a nice roundy number so it'll be the next new thing now, anything over 200km/h = jail

GarIT

Jail should for people that are a danger to society if they were not in Jail. For a first offence the driving ban, repeating the driving test and maybe a bigger fine should be enough.

quadrifoglio verde

BoatMad wrote: »

yet entirely legal on two lane motorways in certain places in Germany , motorways that are older then ours too

Yeah but you don't have bridie driving in the wrong lane of the autobahn at 60 km/h on the way to mass
The germans do driving correctly. You drive in lane 1 if you want to go at a slower speed, lane 2 if you want to overtake. When you've overtaken then car, or the car behind you is driving faster than you, you move back into lane 1. It just works over there

marno21

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Yeah but you don't have bridie driving in the wrong lane of the autobahn at 60 km/h on the way to mass
The germans do driving correctly. You drive in lane 1 if you want to go at a slower speed, lane 2 if you want to overtake. When you've overtaken then car, or the car behind you is driving faster than you, you move back into lane 1. It just works over there

That's the issue we need to tackle, not the speeding.

endacl

armaghlad wrote: »

He deserves it imo. Speeding kills.

Something's wrong. The first time I've ever agreed with one of your posts.

topmanamillion

I'd be surprised if he didn't have a criminal history.

There was that hit and run prick recently that was drink driving, uninsured and crashed into a lady causing her life altering injuries.
He got a suspended sentence because he had a clean slate.

If this fella ha a criminal history then this is fair enough.

Esel

My client had a bad cramp in his right leg, as his doctor will testify.

carzony

Probably the most harsh penalty i've seen ever!

gctest50

Japanese home market cars have/had 180km/h limiters, need them here

zl1whqvjs75cdy

He was caught near naas wasn't he? If he was tried in naas one of the judges there is a notorious hard ass when it comes to road traffic offences. May explain the sentence.

9935452

topmanamillion wrote: »

I'd be surprised if he didn't have a criminal history.

There was that hit and run prick recently that was drink driving, uninsured and crashed into a lady causing her life altering injuries.
He got a suspended sentence because he had a clean slate.

If this fella ha a criminal history then this is fair enough.

Id be inclined to agree. I think there is an aweful lot more to this than is currently being said.
The article lacks a lot of detail

millington

Unless he has a string of traffic convictions then that is a ludicrous punishment. Drink driving far more dangerous and doesn't carry anywhere near as severe a penalty.

Special Circumstances

millington wrote: »

Unless he has a string of traffic convictions then that is a ludicrous punishment. Drink driving far more dangerous and doesn't carry anywhere near as severe a penalty.

I agree with you in theory, and from a common sense point of view - but common sense has no place in the Irish justice system.

Even with a 250ish long string of convictions, including a 30year driving ban, you can drive the wrong way at 180kph in Clare without getting jail. Several close calls and a speed differential of at least 170kph* more than in the case in the OP.

Our justice system is a farce. Cases like this with huge differences in the outcome should automatically trigger some "calibration" procedure with for our cloud dwelling gods of justice.


*208 kph driving the same way as dawdlers = speed differential of approx 110kph, or as low as 90 if the rest are driving at the limit.
*180kph AGAINST the flow of same type of traffic = speed differential of 280kph approx, assuming dawdlers, or up to 300kph against normal people.

Comhrá

millington wrote: »

Unless he has a string of traffic convictions then that is a ludicrous punishment. Drink driving far more dangerous and doesn't carry anywhere near as severe a penalty.

How long is a piece of string? Depends on how much drink is consumed.

Which car would you prefer to be a passenger in?

the speeding offender driving at 208 k/hr or the guy driving home after 2-3 pints and taking his time? I'd take my chances with the latter every time, assuming he was driving within the speed limit.

Not for a moment condoning drink/driving but I think the 208 k/hr jockey is a far greater danger to himself, any passengers or anyone getting in his way on the wet road surface than someone sneaking home atfer a few pints.

marno21

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I agree with you in theory, and from a common sense point of view - but common sense has no place in the Irish justice system.

Even with a 250ish long string of convictions, including a 30year driving ban, you can drive the wrong way at 180kph in Clare without getting jail. Several close calls and a speed differential of at least 170kph* more than in the case in the OP.

Our justice system is a farce. Cases like this with huge differences in the outcome should automatically trigger some "calibration" procedure with for our cloud dwelling gods of justice.


*208 kph driving the same way as dawdlers = speed differential of approx 110kph, or as low as 90 if the rest are driving at the limit.
*180kph AGAINST the flow of same type of traffic = speed differential of 280kph approx, assuming dawdlers, or up to 300kph against normal people.

Or 388km/h if the man caught here met him on the road

Del2005

gctest50 wrote: »

Japanese home market cars have/had 180km/h limiters, need them here

Easily defeated. At one stage if the cops clocked you at over 180km/h they couldn't chase as their cars were restricted.

What we need is proper driving training, police enforcement of all traffic laws and a judiciary from the real world. Plenty of people with convictions in the triple figures get slaps on the wrist for serious crimes while a 1st offender gets jail for something that might happen!

JC01

An absolutely insane sentence unless he has a lot of previous. I doubt he does too because there's no mention of him being disqualified etc.

That's another young lads life over before it started, he will never have a career after serving jail time and will quite likely enter the revolving door system we call a judiciary. Well done judge.

How very Irish as well re the speed; sure he's mad, mad so he is 130mph sure how did he not take off, cars can't even do that sure etc etc

boardsuser1

I'd be surprised if the appeal paperwork hasn't already been lodged with the court.

If he only appeals severity the prison sentence will be either suspended or removed.

That of course is assuming it was a first conviction.

He was convicted under section 53 of the road traffic act (Dangerous driving) but i don't think that was the maximum penalty under the act.

In saying that i don't agree with the jail sentence if it is indeed a first time offence.

But some articles usually say X amount of previous convictions or no previous convictions. Why didn't that get mentioned i wonder.

On convicting a judge's first question to the state solicitor is "any previous"

Special Circumstances

JC01 wrote: »

How very Irish as well re the speed; sure he's mad, mad so he is 130mph sure how did he not take off, cars can't even do that sure etc etc

"“It is a crazy speed. I don’t know how you could get up that far,” Judge Larkin said and she warned Mr Jones to leave on time when going to an appointment."

172kph on a motorway = careless driving conviction, no mention of fine.
http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local-news/108531/Judge-imposes-heavy-fines-for-speeding.html

Allinall

JC01 wrote: »

An absolutely insane sentence unless he has a lot of previous. I doubt he does too because there's no mention of him being disqualified etc.

That's another young lads life over before it started, he will never have a career after serving jail time and will quite likely enter the revolving door system we call a judiciary. Well done judge.

How very Irish as well re the speed; sure he's mad, mad so he is 130mph sure how did he not take off, cars can't even do that sure etc etc

Nobody's fault but his own.

kirving

As a sanity check for the judges, put them in an S-Class on an empty motorway and have them guess what speed they're doing.

I would say half of them wouldn't even notice 170kph, nevermind think it was dangerous.

Judges openly in dismay at how a car can even reach such a speed shows that they have no clue about the subject matter and therefore shouldn't be on the case.

That said, 170kph on anything other than an empty motorway in Ireland is pure stupidity and will eventually cause an accident because others don't, and shouldnt have to, account for someone else with such a speed differential. On an empty motorway, I don't really see the issue with it.

Special Circumstances

Kevin Irving wrote: »

As a sanity check for the judges, put them in an S-Class on an empty motorway and have them guess what speed they're doing.

To be honest I'm imagining a response like this:

Eugene Norman

JC01 wrote: »

An absolutely insane sentence unless he has a lot of previous. I doubt he does too because there's no mention of him being disqualified etc.

That's another young lads life over before it started, he will never have a career after serving jail time and will quite likely enter the revolving door system we call a judiciary. Well done judge.

How very Irish as well re the speed; sure he's mad, mad so he is 130mph sure how did he not take off, cars can't even do that sure etc etc

The only very Irish thing here is defending him.

kirving

People aren't defending him, but most believe the sentence to be too harsh.

The guy is most likely in college, 3 months off means you have to skip the year in most circumstances. That's 25k minimum that he no won't earn in his first year out. He can't drive again until he's 25, which further messes up his chances of employment, as does his prison time.

Coupled to the above, he's now associating with plenty of other actual criminals at a time in his life when he's particularly open to influence, and lets be honest, is probably lacking a bit of cop on. Do you really think that prison time is the correct course of action, given that he didn't hurt anyone.

ED E

He was 73% over the limit, thats not "oops", thats "I'm an ignoramus that couldn't give two ****s about other road users".

I'm with other posters here, he has a record. Would put money on him not being in college either. Are names withheld from the media for traffic offences?

Special Circumstances

ED E wrote: »

He was 73% over the limit, thats not "oops", thats "I'm an ignoramus that couldn't give two ****s about other road users".

I'm with other posters here, he has a record. Would put money on him not being in college either. Are names withheld from the media for traffic offences?

Using logic to extrapolate information from Irish justice systems outcomes is a very unreliable process!

Augme

Kevin Irving wrote: »

As a sanity check for the judges, put them in an S-Class on an empty motorway and have them guess what speed they're doing.

I would say half of them wouldn't even notice 170kph, nevermind think it was dangerous.

Judges openly in dismay at how a car can even reach such a speed shows that they have no clue about the subject matter and therefore shouldn't be on the case.

That said, 170kph on anything other than an empty motorway in Ireland is pure stupidity and will eventually cause an accident because others don't, and shouldnt have to, account for someone else with such a speed differential. On an empty motorway, I don't really see the issue with it.

Why would they need to guess? They can just look at the speedometer.

Special Circumstances

Augme wrote: »

Why would they need to guess? They can just look at the speedometer.