Shane Ross' new speeding penalties

ectoraige

walshb wrote: »

Of course speeding fines bring in revenue. Huge revenue...and I wouldn’t begrudge the state/people this revenue...use it wisely for the people.

You're simple wrong.


Speed camera company was paid €1.2m per month

RTE wrote:

According to information released in the Dáil in 2015 GoSafe was generating €7.5m in speeding fines.
In the same year, over €17m was paid to GoSafe.

Speed camera contract awarded to GoSafe

Irish Times wrote:

The GoSafe consortium which operates the State’s privatised speed camera contract has been chosen to provide the service for the next five years in a deal worth up to €115.5 million

€17m for speed camera firm in 2014

Irish Examiner wrote:

The €17.23m paid to the GoSafe consortium in 2014 was confirmed yesterday by Gardaí, who also confirmed the current contract expires in November.

The GoSafe consortium secured the €80m Garda Síochána contract to operate the speed camera vans in 2009

According to figures provided by the Minister for Justice, Frances Fitzgerald, GoSafe’s Fixed Charge Penalties from speeding fine detections have generated €18.9m in income between November 2010 to the end of June 2014.

walshb

ectoraige wrote: »

You're simple wrong.


Speed camera company was paid €1.2m per month


Speed camera contract awarded to GoSafe


€17m for speed camera firm in 2014

Sorry, but I never mentioned the cost of speed cameras:vans...

I simply said that speeeding fines bring in revenue.

Nothing wrong there at all...

Eggs For Dinner

Just enforce the motoring laws that we already have FFS. What's the point of adding more if the already extensive ones we have go undetected?

Wibbs

Sienna Black Sacrifice wrote: »

Golf GTI

Can't go wrong with a Golf GTi of any mark TBH. Solid well bolted together car. Mine's an Integra Type R, all standard save for a SpoonSport engine and ECU, so fairly capable of keeping up with traffic as it were.

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Just enforce the motoring laws that we already have FFS. What's the point of adding more if the already extensive ones we have go undetected?

This pretty much. Problem is that speed vans etc are "easy" and require less manpower and can show results on spreadsheets that politicians can point to. Increasing penalties looks good. Enforcing other areas of bad driving in general is more difficult and requires more Garda manpower and results are harder to point to for politicians. That's a fairly big reason why the Ross types go for speeding and penalties, it appears to be doing more politically.

CrankyHaus

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Just enforce the motoring laws that we already have FFS. What's the point of adding more if the already extensive ones we have go undetected?

No headlines in that. Ross just had everyone talking about him without having to spend any real money or do any real work.
The TV show The Thick of It demonstrates this dynamic very well as it shows talentless Ministers constantly proposing inane profile-raising policies while utterly neglecting the more mundane but essential parts of their role.

Hurrache

GG66 wrote: »

These are harsh. I've been caught for speeding twice in the last 5 years within 3 days of each other.

Once doing 120kph coming off the motorway at Mullingar to a dual carriageway. Doing 120kph in a 100kph zone 150 meters after the motorway ended.

Once doing 109kph in a 100kph zone. Accelerating coming out of a village onto a 100kph road.

With the new rules I'd nearly be off the road in a few days

How? You've only been caught twice in 5 years, you possibly have no points now?

Hurrache

walshb wrote: »

I simply said that speeeding fines bring in revenue.

And to use it wisely. You can't use something you don't have.

flexcon

walshb wrote: »

Sorry, but I never mentioned the cost of speed cameras:vans...

I simply said that speeeding fines bring in revenue.

Nothing wrong there at all...

To be fair ,subjectively speaking then, your original comment was useless.

The net result is the state spends more money enforcing than bringing in. So common sense says the state does not make money from this.

however,

I get your logical, factual, take it literal approach statement but its just useless in this thread..... and I disagree with this suggestive hike in points and fines.

ectoraige

walshb wrote: »

Sorry, but I never mentioned the cost of speed cameras:vans...

I simply said that speeeding fines bring in revenue.

Nothing wrong there at all...

You've added nothing to the debate. The revenue goes towards paying for the speed vans. It's a fool that argues semantics over substance.

brightspark

walshb wrote: »

Watching it...

That lady has just went off on a personal rant/attack on Mattie, just because he wasn’t in full agreement on these proposals...weird..

Perhaps the fact that her father was killed by a driver who ran a red light is the reason why she is so vocal?

Red Alert

And that had what to do with speed? I'm all for red-light cameras, 1 point per offence. Campaigners like her are not impartial, they're heavily biased by their own experience, and they seem to have Ross under their exclusive influence. They also haven't a clue about either traffic management or human psychology, yet Ross treats their opinions as those of an expert.

Macy0161

Red Alert wrote: »

And that had what to do with speed? I'm all for red-light cameras, 1 point per offence. Campaigners like her are not impartial, they're heavily biased by their own experience, and they seem to have Ross under their exclusive influence. They also haven't a clue about either traffic management or human psychology, yet Ross treats their opinions as those of an expert.

Only 1 point? In the UK, it's 3, and RLJ points give more of an insurance loading than speeding (Or at least used to when I lived in the UK).

brightspark

GG66 wrote: »

These are harsh. I've been caught for speeding twice in the last 5 years within 3 days of each other.

Once doing 120kph coming off the motorway at Mullingar to a dual carriageway. Doing 120kph in a 100kph zone 150 meters after the motorway ended.

Okay, I would have some sympathy for that, but if in 150 meters you were unable to slow the car down to even below 120 how could you hope to cope with an emergency? (the secret to reaching 100 would be to start slowing down when you see the sign, not wait until you have passed it!)

GG66 wrote: »

Once doing 109kph in a 100kph zone. Accelerating coming out of a village onto a 100kph road.

So you admit to being unable to control the car to the extent that you accelerated beyond the speed limit?

Red Alert

Macy0161 wrote: »

Only 1 point? In the UK, it's 3, and RLJ points give more of an insurance loading than speeding (Or at least used to when I lived in the UK).

I see your point:pac: there, but this would be against starting speeding fines at 1 point, and not 3.

brightspark

Red Alert wrote: »

And that had what to do with speed? I'm all for red-light cameras, 1 point per offence. Campaigners like her are not impartial, they're heavily biased by their own experience, and they seem to have Ross under their exclusive influence. They also haven't a clue about either traffic management or human psychology, yet Ross treats their opinions as those of an expert.

"I'm all for red-light cameras, 1 point per offence". So her father's life is only worth just one penalty point?
Okay so statistically you can probably run a red light many times without any incident, that doesn't mean that it won't happen, and life isn't a video game where you start with several lives and the game is only over when you lose them all. In real life there is no "play again?"

Campaigners rarely ever are impartial? If they were they probably wouldn't be campaigning?

As to "heavily biased by their own experience", do you want to learn lessons from others, or wait until you are personally affected?

flexcon

brightspark wrote: »

So you admit to being unable to control the car to the extent that you accelerated beyond the speed limit?

Think some people are missing the point(Excuse the Pun)

People are not defending speeding, its more the perceived notion the penalty is too high for the crime. In this case, if you are caught one a year going 6kph, 106kph in a 100kph zone you are off the road. you loose your license and this could end up loosing you your job. The kids suffer, the family suffers, mortgages go into arrears etc.

It's still the person fault of course. But, where is the limit of acceptable punishment? Could I now ask you what you feel is going to far? Just for the sake of debate. What is your acceptable limit for the above scenario.

10 points for being caught once? 9 points? 8 points..... just what is in your opinion the maximum level they could push this to before you yourself would stop and say " This is too far"

Genuine question.

Red Alert

"I'm all for red-light cameras, 1 point per offence". So her father's life is only worth just one penalty point?

What percentage of red-light runs result in injury or loss of life? I imagine the number is quite small. Should we now start putting people off the road for breaking one red light?

walshb

brightspark wrote: »

Perhaps the fact that her father was killed by a driver who ran a red light is the reason why she is so vocal?

Perhaps....

And, does that mean her personal attack rant on the man was justified, or at all relevant to the debate...?

walshb

ectoraige wrote: »

You've added nothing to the debate. The revenue goes towards paying for the speed vans. It's a fool that argues semantics over substance.

All I said was that speeding fines bring the state revenue. You then went off on one....

flexcon

walshb wrote: »

All I said was that speeding fines bring the state revenue. You then went off on one....

I would have thought someone with your post count would just be humble give it up and see that your post really did add zero.

What you essentially said is " Did you know when you pay money over for a fine its money, like real money that goes to the government? Did you know that? It's real money. It's called revenue and the government get it"

Basically describing the complete obvious scenario that - Money paid over is revenue to someone.

If I allow myself to be crued for one second, and it's rare - your responses have been borderline smartass.

coolshannagh28

walshb wrote: »

Perhaps....

And, does that mean her personal attack rant on the man was justified, or at all relevant to the debate...?

Truly was car crash tv ,RTE have a lot to answer for here ;Mattie was uncomfortable and incoherent talking holistic rot and seemed aware that his co guest was volatile , the debate should have been stopped when the rant started .

brightspark

flexcon wrote: »

Think some people are missing the point(Excuse the Pun)

People are not defending speeding, its more the perceived notion the penalty is too high for the crime. In this case, if you are caught one a year going 6kph, 106kph in a 100kph zone you are off the road. you loose your license and this could end up loosing you your job. The kids suffer, the family suffers, mortgages go into arrears etc.

It's still the person fault of course. But, where is the limit of acceptable punishment? Could I now ask you what you feel is going to far? Just for the sake of debate. What is your acceptable limit for the above scenario.

10 points for being caught once? 9 points? 8 points..... just what is in your opinion the maximum level they could push this to before you yourself would stop and say " This is too far"

Genuine question.

Some here are defending speeding,

My own opinion is the penalty should be based on a percentage of the excess speed, not just a fixed 10, 20 or 30kmh.

As to getting caught doing 106 once a year every year? I would hope that anyone caught once would be more careful until the points expire?

The level of penalty should reflect the level of enforcement, if you have a high chance of getting caught then a lower penalty may be appropriate, however as we all know that many people speed daily for years without ever getting caught then a higher penalty is required for the statistically few times you are caught.

walshb

flexcon wrote: »

I would have thought someone with your post count would just be humble give it up and see that your post really did add zero.

What you essentially said is " Did you know when you pay money over for a fine its money, like real money that goes to the government? Did you know that? It's real money. It's called revenue and the government get it"

Basically describing the complete obvious scenario that - Money paid over is revenue to someone.

If I allow myself to be crued for one second, and it's rare - your responses have been borderline smartass.

Ok,

Calm down.......it was one sentence.......don't sweat it!

Stephen Strange

flazio wrote: »

Not watching Prime Time but my 2c on the proposals are that the staggered increments to the fines and points is a good idea.
Nobody can be accidentally doing 150km/h+ on the motorway, that's their choice and their responsibility if caught.
Personally I'd do away with the the fines and just have the penalty points, but make the cost of getting your driving licence reinstated after a ban super expensive.

150km/h on an empty motorway on a dry day isn't dangerous imo. The problem with these proposals is that they don't take account of any of these factors. Typical Shane Ross nonsense, the idiot hasn't got a clue.

shamco

Car99 wrote: »

If this bill has the intention to save lives it needs to look at the location of speed traps by the Gardai . A high percentage of garda speed traps I see are on the straight stretches of motorway with high volumes of traffic and in good weather . Those traps are revenue and number building traps and will do little if anything to improve road safety.

Indeed I see Gardai regulary on the M7 on a Sunday morning. The speed limit is 100km/h but due to low volumes of traffic I think it is safe to drive at 120Km/h on an empty three lane motorway at that time. I would like to see the statistics for accidents during that period. Its just revenue collection and has nothing to do with road safety

flexcon

brightspark wrote: »

Some here are defending speeding,

My own opinion is the penalty should be based on a percentage of the excess speed, not just a fixed 10, 20 or 30kmh.

As to getting caught doing 106 once a year every year? I would hope that anyone caught once would be more careful until the points expire?

The level of penalty should reflect the level of enforcement, if you have a high chance of getting caught then a lower penalty may be appropriate, however as we all know that many people speed daily for years without ever getting caught then a higher penalty is required for the statistically few times you are caught.

Ok so yes getting caught doing 106KPH coming out of a 100KPH zone into a 120KPH zone. You're caught 10 meters too early.

I drive on average 4000 journeys over 3 years. If I get caught speeding on 3 occasions going 6KPH over in a 100 zone---- i've lost my job since I've lost my license.

That's a speeding rate of 0.0009% ( I just did the math there rather than pull it out of my ass) So for 99.999% of the total journeys I am a perfect machine, I am allowed a tolerance of less than half of one percent. ( thats suggesting I got caught each time)

My feelings on this are simple. Punish those that speed, but the fine needs to fit the crime here. Doing 160KPH in a 100KPH is not dangerous. you shouldn't put punished as if it were dangerous driving in every scenario. Why not send those that get caught to a refresher course? Anything but this.

Doing 106KPH in a 100KPH zone 3 times in 3 years - is surely not dangerous enough to put someone of the road. That's how I feel about it anyway.

eagle eye

They should sort out the speed limits before they do anything else.
There are roads with 80 limits that should be much less in some cases and more in other cases.
The slow driver causes huge problems on the roads and leads to speeding because people under pressure lose time and feel like they have to make it up.
Somebody posted about housing estates and an even lower limit and I'd agree with that. A child or domestic animal can appear out of nowhere in a housing estate and a lower limit makes sense. I think this lower limit should also apply in the shopping district of lot of cities and towns.
I'd love to know the stats as regards speeding. I'd like to know what percentage of people detected are working at the time of detection, I'd love to have the age breakdown.

Dravokivich

brightspark wrote: »

Perhaps the fact that her father was killed by a driver who ran a red light is the reason why she is so vocal?

And how does this makes Mattie a bitter old man who didn't follow his dreams?

Andrewf20

highdef wrote: »

I completely agree with you that it seems fair.

During the day with reasonable traffic levels maybe so, but what about 6am on a dry Sunday morning when it's almost deserted / nobody around you?

brightspark

Stephen Strange wrote: »

150km/h on an empty motorway on a dry day isn't dangerous imo. The problem with these proposals is that they don't take account of any of these factors. Typical Shane Ross nonsense, the idiot hasn't got a clue.

If the motorway is empty then you won't have a problem, however if the Gardai are also on the same stretch it's no longer empty!

But motorways aren't runways, you can't be certain there is nothing ahead and as others have indicated it is almost impossible to slow from 100kmh to 60, never mind going from 150 to a complete stop.

Also just how much quicker are you actually going to arrive at your destination?