Shane Ross' new speeding penalties

xckjoo

flexcon wrote: »

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.

Problem is that when you're caught breaking the speed limit, they've no way of knowing if you're the person that only breaks it by 6kmph once a year or if you're normally traveling at 160kmph but were going slow that day for some reason :pac:

amcalester

It's funny people are saying that speed isn't a huge issue or cause of road deaths, that most deaths are single vehicle collisions in the early/late hours, and then you have others saying that speeding in the early hours isn't an issue because the roads are quiet.

brightspark

flexcon wrote: »

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.

"That's a speeding rate of 0.0009%", no it would be an enforcement rate as you are not "caught each time", are you really saying that you only exceed the speed limit once a year???

IF you were to be caught each time, i.e. a 100% enforcement, then a lower penalty would be more appropriate, but that's a big IF

btkm8unsl0w5r4

If you have a car with better tyres and bigger brakes I presume under this new law you can go faster than somebody running on 20 euro Chinese ditch-finders and drum brakes?

I love the 10 kph increments, do the law makers realize how little difference there is between this. If you put it in mph it sound even more stupid. 62mph...thats fine your law abiding....81mph you loose your licence. 19mph difference...the difference of the speed of a moving pushbike. In most modern cars that 2 or 3 seconds of acceleration.

This is a law to punish the commuter, and the working driver. It does nothing to address the young lads rallying down small roads late at night killing themselves and others. It does nothing to improve the standard of driving on the road, and efficiently use the infrastructure we have all paid for.

Of course speed is a factor in road deaths, but there is a limit to how much can slow people down with arbitrary rules and achieve a reduction in road deaths, there is such a thing as appropriate speed, and there is such as thing as driving too slow.

brightspark

flexcon wrote: »

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)

I'll leave it to someone else to point out the errors in your math!!

eagle eye

The amount of money being paid for speed vans would be much better used hiring more Garda specifically for roads policing. Those lads could be called to respond to reports of boy racers, to where somebody is being reported to be moving at excessive speeds.
It'd be a lot better than some speed van stuck at a location snapping pictures of ordinary folk moving at 7 kmph over the speed limit on a 100 kmph stretch of road.

frozenfrozen

Having this conversation with people I work with.

Hed never do 130kmh on the motorway but will happily do 60 in a 50 zone, and cant see the issue with it. Says it all really about how stupid this speed kills bull**** is. As if 10kmh extra at 120 makes any difference to the danger.

magicbastarder

Bailey Slow Pastrami wrote: »

I love the 10 kph increments, do the law makers realize how little difference there is between this. If you put it in mph it sound even more stupid. 62mph...thats fine your law abiding....81mph you loose your licence. 19mph difference...the difference of the speed of a moving pushbike. In most modern cars that 2 or 3 seconds of acceleration.

the difference between 62mph and 81mph is almost a doubling of kinetic energy.
using a speed of a bicycle as a comparator is very misleading. because the extra two or three seconds of reaction time and initial braking happen at 81mph. it's worth about an extra 40m of braking distance.

koutoubia

Guys,
Has this actually been passed into Road Traffic Law or was he just bringing it as a proposal to cabinet?

flexcon

amcalester wrote: »

It's funny people are saying that speed isn't a huge issue or cause of road deaths, that most deaths are single vehicle collisions in the early/late hours, and then you have others saying that speeding in the early hours isn't an issue because the roads are quiet.

Isn't that sort of what makes people.... people? Or are we suppose to fit perfectly in one box with all exact same beliefs with no tolerance for individuality? I know for sure what I have said here on this forum does not represent everyone who is against these new proposed measures.

It's not funny, its quite expected as we all have a human, individual take on this. We are not machines that can be boxed into the same category.

All of this is subjective debate, statistically we are basing this stuff out of our own option and arse.

magicbastarder

brightspark wrote: »

I'll leave it to someone else to point out the errors in your math!!

i wonder if he is able to read the numbers on the speedo just as well.

walshb

koutoubia wrote: »

Guys,
Has this actually been passed into Road Traffic Law or was he just bringing it as a proposal to cabinet?

Proposals as far as I know.

Looking at them last night they seem a bit OTT

Percentages is the way to go here I feel.....not numbers above te limits.

rivegauche

Speeding fines in Germany; This isn't a system which wants to generate revenue but rather to correct driver behaviour

Different fine structure for urban and rural roads.
No penalty point deductions from minor infringements.
Automatic disqualification for a few months at higher speeds teaches speeding drivers to value their license and do what it required to retain it.
If you loose your licence for a month you pretty much take a 1 month holiday from work and take care not to loose your licence again.
A €10 or €15 fine and the hassle of paying it is enough of a sting for it to register with the driver that there is a reduced speed limit in a certain area and they need to slow down there.

http://stationedingermany.com/automobiles/speeding-tickets-in-germany/

victor8600

What about ridiculous speed limits which are put seemingly only to cover somebody's mistakes? There is a 30 km/h limit on the ramp going from N3 to M50 southbound. This is after the reasonable 80 km/h limit on N3 and before the 100 km/h limit on M50. The ramp curves quite gently, so there no point to drive any slower than 60 km/h there. In fact, I saw nobody driving 30 km/h there, and driving so slow would be a nuisance to other drivers.

There should be some mechanism to contest stupid limits like this one.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

magicbastarder wrote: »

the difference between 62mph and 81mph is almost a doubling of kinetic energy.
using a speed of a bicycle as a comparator is very misleading. because the extra two or three seconds of reaction time and initial braking happen at 81mph. it's worth about an extra 40m of braking distance.

In what car?

If this is the logic then fine people for not leaving proper space to the car in front, or being distracted, or having bald tyres. Teach people that distance to the car in front should increase with the square of the speed increase. Speed is one factor, but it gets 90% of the penalties because its easy to measure, and we have all been programmed to show shock and awe at drivers that would dare to travel at the legal limit in other countries. I knew the mathematicians would pop up to school me...but I want to be shown that outcomes would change. Would people who speed drunk with loaded cars change their behaviour, and if they wont will putting van drivers off the road in dublin where their average speed is 30kph improve this?

walshb

victor8600 wrote: »

What about ridiculous speed limits which are put seemingly only to cover somebody's mistakes? There is a 30 km/h limit on the ramp going from N3 to M50 southbound. This is after the reasonable 80 km/h limit on N3 and before the 100 km/h limit on M50. The ramp curves quite gently, so there no point to drive any slower than 60 km/h there. In fact, I saw nobody driving 30 km/h there, and driving so slow would be a nuisance to other drivers.

There should be some mechanism to contest stupid limits like this one.

Some of these limits are dangerous.

amcalester

flexcon wrote: »

All of this is subjective debate, statistically we are basing this stuff out of our own option and arse.

That was kind of my point, people are forming opinions on these proposals not on facts or statistics but on their desire to continue speeding. Which is fine, I just find the lengths that people go to excuse their speeding amusing.

You rarely hear someone say mea culpa, I got caught speeding it was my own fault. It's usually the fault of someone else, or a cash grab, or my car is built for speed etc.

Dravokivich

victor8600 wrote: »

What about ridiculous speed limits which are put seemingly only to cover somebody's mistakes? There is a 30 km/h limit on the ramp going from N3 to M50 southbound. This is after the reasonable 80 km/h limit on N3 and before the 100 km/h limit on M50. The ramp curves quite gently, so there no point to drive any slower than 60 km/h there. In fact, I saw nobody driving 30 km/h there, and driving so slow would be a nuisance to other drivers.

There should be some mechanism to contest stupid limits like this one.

You don't understand why that speed limit is on that over pass?

galwaytt

amcalester wrote: »

It's funny people are saying that speed isn't a huge issue or cause of road deaths, that most deaths are single vehicle collisions in the early/late hours, and then you have others saying that speeding in the early hours isn't an issue because the roads are quiet.

The RSA's own info is that most accidents are caused by 'losing control'. They don't actually measure 'speeding' as we understand it.

They use this phrase 'exceeding the safe limit'. This has, literally, nothing to do with the 'posted, legal' speed limit.

Case in point: a road has an 80kph limit on it. On a given day, due to weather or traffic, it is more prudent to drive below that speed, say 60. Paddy Joe, doing 70kph ('cos his dashcam recorded it), crashes. RSA log that to 'exceeding the safe limit' and conflate that as a 'speeding accident'. If a garda camera existed at the crash site, it would have shown he had not broken the 'posted, legal' limit: but that won't suit the RSA 'speed kills' narrative, and so it's used to bulk up the anti-speed mantra.

The figures touted by RSA et al as 'speeding' and which are being used to manipulate, nay gerrymander, 'speed limits' - are nothing of the sort.

It's blatant dishonesty tbh, and Ross & Co are falling for it.

walshb

This is mad....

Look, speed is and always will be a huge factor in accidents.....It's common sense.

Walk down any busy street and you likely will bump into nobody

Try running.......you are likely to bump into many..

victor8600

Dravokivich wrote: »

You don't understand why that speed limit is on that over pass?

Yes, I do not. A speed limit is not a recommended speed, but a maximum speed. If your vehicle or your ability to drive does not you allow to move at the speed limit, you should slow down to whatever speed is safe for you. That particular overpass seems to be safe to drive at 60 km/h in a car.

amcalester

galwaytt wrote: »

The RSA's own info is that most accidents are caused by 'losing control'. They don't actually measure 'speeding' as we understand it.

They use this phrase 'exceeding the safe limit'. This has, literally, nothing to do with the 'posted, legal' speed limit.

Case in point: a road has an 80kph limit on it. On a given day, due to weather or traffic, it is more prudent to drive below that speed, say 60. Paddy Joe, doing 70kph ('cos his dashcam recorded it), crashes. RSA log that to 'exceeding the safe limit' and conflate that as a 'speeding accident'. If a garda camera existed at the crash site, it would have shown he had not broken the 'posted, legal' limit: but that won't suit the RSA 'speed kills' narrative, and so it's used to bulk up the anti-speed mantra.

The figures touted by RSA et al as 'speeding' and which are being used to manipulate, nay gerrymander, 'speed limits' - are nothing of the sort.

It's blatant dishonesty tbh, and Ross & Co are falling for it.

If, as you say, the RSA measure deaths where the safe limit was exceeded, and this safe limit is (often) less than the posted limit, then what is the issue with putting measures in place to catch people exceeding the posted limit?

I'm aware that the safe limit will depend on road conditions and that in some cases the safe limit may be above the posted limit, but there has to be a cut off or upper limit, probably more so for pedestrians/cyclists etc than the motorist them-self.

I'd agree with you about the RSA being dishonest, they've decided what "safe" looks like and are pushing that as the answer to Road Safety despite any evidence to the contrary.

Dravokivich

victor8600 wrote: »

Yes, I do not. A speed limit is not a recommended speed, but a maximum speed. If your vehicle or your ability to drive does not you allow to move at the speed limit, you should slow down to whatever speed is safe for you. That particular overpass seems to be safe to drive at 60 km/h in a car.

Its not for cars, its for all road vehicles.

xckjoo

galwaytt wrote: »

The RSA's own info is that most accidents are caused by 'losing control'. They don't actually measure 'speeding' as we understand it.

They use this phrase 'exceeding the safe limit'. This has, literally, nothing to do with the 'posted, legal' speed limit.

Case in point: a road has an 80kph limit on it. On a given day, due to weather or traffic, it is more prudent to drive below that speed, say 60. Paddy Joe, doing 70kph ('cos his dashcam recorded it), crashes. RSA log that to 'exceeding the safe limit' and conflate that as a 'speeding accident'. If a garda camera existed at the crash site, it would have shown he had not broken the 'posted, legal' limit: but that won't suit the RSA 'speed kills' narrative, and so it's used to bulk up the anti-speed mantra.

The figures touted by RSA et al as 'speeding' and which are being used to manipulate, nay gerrymander, 'speed limits' - are nothing of the sort.

It's blatant dishonesty tbh, and Ross & Co are falling for it.

That's because "speeding" to the Guards means exceeding the legal limit, while to the RSA it's driving at a speed that's unsafe for the conditions and has resulted in an accident. Unless I'm missing your point you're kinda arguing against yourself here. If it's only safe to travel at 70 then it's only safe to travel at 70. Doesn't matter what the sign says. You can't blindly follow the posted speed limit and then complain about the Guards doing the same thing when it comes to enforcement.

kirving

Dravokivich wrote: »

You don't understand why that speed limit is on that over pass?

It's 30kph because the turn is too tight. The land nearby should have been CPO'd and proper standard junctions and flyovers built.

This leaves lower powered cars in a difficult situation trying to accelerate up to 100kph in a very short distance in order to join the motorway safely.

ectoraige wrote: »

Except GoSafe costs around four times more to operate than the revenue we receive from fines.

That's more to do with a rubbish deal negotiated by someones mate rather than a competitive bidding process. We don't know any longer what the profitability of the company is, so you can be sure it's extremely profitable.

speed-camera-group-goes-unlimited-to-maintain-financial-secrecy-1.1658100

At the below rates, they're making at least €320/hr. That in my opinion is a lot of cash for a guy sitting in a van watching a camera.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/speed-camera-contract-worth-115m-set-to-be-renewed-with-gosafe-1.2745263

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.

I don't have much of an issue with this if the motorway is indeed empty, but that extra 30kph takes far longer (distance and time) to slow than it does from 30-0. Add in the usual aggressive tailgating of drivers who do this, and I do think it should be dealt with harshly if the road has any traffic whatsoever.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I don't have much of an issue with this if the motorway is indeed empty, but that extra 30kph takes far longer (distance and time) to slow than it does from 30-0. Add in the usual aggressive tailgating of drivers who do this, and I do think it should be dealt with harshly if the road has any traffic whatsoever.

Usually I am making progress in order to get away from the tailgaiters, and past the line of slugs in the middle and driving lane so I can find a bit of space to just drive at the limt +/-. Enforcement tends to focus on areas where there is overtaking or pass potential and shot a line of fish.

There have been a couple of times I drove waterford to dublin where everyone was driving properly, not too fast, not too slow, leaving room, planning ahead etc...its is a joy to drive in those conditions, you dont have to touch your brakes.

jmayo

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

So Ross is to bring his speeding penalty changes to cabinet today

From RTE :



Let's forego the usual "speed kills" and "don't speed, don't get caught" stuff shall we?

Personally I think those changes are very harsh, especially for motorway drivers where 10-20 km/h over is not at all the same as in an urban area. This doesn't seem to have been factored in, and of course even the minimum penalty is higher than it is already which given how long the points stay on your license could see many off the road very quickly.

What say ye? Proportionate or overkill?

So this is how the c**t is going to provide the funds to open a well known garda station in South County Dublin.

If Hall's Pictorial Weekly was around he would labelled the Minister for New Laws.

And as ever the usual chomping masses are buying the shyte that this will make it all safe and cut the road deaths.

Bullcr** as usual.

Why I hear them scream ?
Well because as with all the other laws it doesn't prevent some lad getting locked drunk and booting down a cr**py road at 3 in the morning either showing off to his mates or thinking he is Billy Coleman or rather Craig Breen.

The laws as is are not implemented.
And as was highlighted by Garda whistleblowers they are not applied to everyone anyway.
Then add in how currently speed monitoring by speed traps is predicated on actually making revenue rather than being a deterrent.
Only a moron would argue otherwise when one sees where and when they are placed.

For instance why not place average speed cameras on dangerous sections of roads rather than the cr** where there is a van parked up in some entrance or hiding up a layby along some other section of good road ?
One can easily point out where this has been commonplace throughout the country.

Why not more visible patrols at night?

Wibbs

Bailey Slow Pastrami wrote: »

Teach people that distance to the car in front should increase with the square of the speed increase.

Too complicated for most FG. Well me. I run outa maths(not maaath) when I run outa fingers. The one I remember from telly ads in my youth was this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf5d2DP4Pp0

Only a fool breaks the two second rule. It's still a good metric today and easy to remember.

V8 Interceptor

Peatys wrote: »

I'll stare the bejasus out of anyone doing anything over 20kms/h near a school/shops car park/housing estate

You're a hero

DaveyDave

Is there a reason we don't throw up some speed cameras on the M50 and the like? Or have any speed cameras at all?

I see speed camera signs and I've seen more of those 'your speed is' flashy signs but nothing else. Gardai out with the hair dryer isn't enough and just causes clowns to drop the anchor and drive slow while they're there.

Few cameras and feck anyone doing 160 on the M50. But of course that would be 'entrapment' 'money making scheme' etc.

Why do we keep wanting to change speed limits, change fines, points etc. All talk. Throw up some bloody cameras and get on with it.

Some red light cameras too.