Shane Ross' new speeding penalties

xckjoo

mgn wrote: »

How many big suvs and jeeps did you see parked outside the school.Half on the road and half on the footpath blocking traffic.Why not start by giving these clowns penalty points and a fine while we're at it.Are we afraid to upset the Lord Ross voters.

Don't like them either and agree they should be ticketed. But if we can only tackle one then I'd rather we stop the people nearly hitting kids at >30kmph.
Anyway, off-topic so we'll leave it. I'm still of the opinion that any changes are irrelevant if enforcement stays as lax as it is.

cdaly_

cdaly_ wrote: »

Apologies, I thought we were reading the same thread.

So I got bored and went back to look and it does appear we are looking at the same thread.

cdaly_ wrote: »

It's interesting to see (based on the 'arguments' posted and the level of thanks applied to some of them) the attitude of entitlement prevailing around driving.

"I must be allowed to go as fast as I possibly can"

here, here (and screw everyone around me...), here, here, here (slow down, keep your job), here, here, here, here

"Nobody should get in my way"

here, here, here, here, here

"Slower is more dangerous"

here, here, here (I'd call that not dangerous, just irritating)

"Driving is a human right!"

here, here (slow down and keep your job)

"I was forced to overtake in a dangerous manner!! They made me do it!!!"

here, here, here, here, here

flexcon wrote: »

Nope. Can't see anyone saying that. Sure its was brought up that some speed limits are crazy, and other European countries offer faster passage but nowhere are a group of people here on this thread saying that.



Again - no sign of this. only link I can see is a small discussion on the merits of road manners and using the motorway. Also a touch of discussion on being stuck behind a tractor.



In most European countries if you are going too slow - you get pulled over. In some countries if you have a certain amount of cars behind you again you are cautioned. Again can't see anyone actually saying that line...Anywhere.



hmmmm. Can't find those points anywhere either. A brief touch of " I could loose my job" or " There is no public service available where I live maybe but, again, very extreme summary there that is totally out of proportion.



I can't even at this stage.

Your summary of the points are incredibly exaggerated and misleading to all the genuine points people have.

Yep, found them all (which was expected as I pulled them all from this thread)...

flexcon

cdaly_ wrote: »

Yep, found them all (which was expected as I pulled them all from this thread)...

5 of the 20 so links are at best plausible.

The rest you are summarizing them in a borderline Cathy Newman style :cool:

AbdulAbhaile

amcalester wrote: »

Their locations are signposted, so you'd have to be an idiot* to get caught by one. I am regularly over taken (while driving at the limit) on the R132 (old N1) in the morning by speeding motorists right at the warning sign, these same motorists are probably the ones complaining about "shooting fish in a barrel", so I don't have much sympathy.

*guilty as charged

I agree, if you get nobbled by a gosafe van you deserve a fine for speeding and another for driving without due care an attention, they can be seen from way before they clock your speed.

They are OK at catching people breakin the limit but as in your example they don't act as much of a deterant which should be the aim.

Average speed cameras installed in gosafe zones would deter all but the head bangers that nothing will work on.

cdaly_

flexcon wrote: »

5 of the 20 so links are at best plausible.

But embedded in all of them is the assumption that faster is better. In none of those posts is the option of slowing down considered except where it is cited (wrongly) as dangerous.

In at least 9 of the cited posts is the assumption that it's somebody else's fault when I make a poor decision on the road ('forced' to overtake, 'smash' into the back of a slower moving vehicle, 'lose my job'). None of these things are inevitable for a driver driving with due care, observation and consideration. Each is just an excuse for impatience or inattention, neither of which have a place behind the wheel of a multi-tonne, high-velocity projectile.

Physics dictates (E=1/2mv^2) that the damage done in any circumstance will be much greater the greater the speed (speed squared). Slowing down is always an option and always improves the outcome should an incident occur.

Yes, there are many other problems with the quality of road use (running red lights, phone use, lack of observation etc) but, in every incident arising out of such behaviour, the outcome is improved if the speed involved was less.

Corca Baiscinn

If we were to go for red light cameras or speed cameras is it DTTaS who would install them or Justice or LAs or who?

Just wondering if some of our problems dont stem from what Denis Naughten called government "silos", everybody only responsible for their own bit. Not only can a Gov Minister say, as Shane Ross did in Dail this week, that he doesn't know re enforcement of some traffic issue as he's not responsible for enforcement but they can also offload responsibility onto the various quangos, in Ross's case NTA, Dublin Bus, TFI, RSA, whoever.

However, apart from collective cabinet responsibility, Min for Transport is NOT responsible for enforcement (and it didn't go down well with anyone when he stuck his nose into Dept of Justice re Judicial Appointments) So criticising him for the wrong type of plan to tackle speeding is fine if that's our view (and I agree with the posters here re exceeding 30 or 50 being more serious than exceeding 120). But when it comes to lack of enforcement is it not Charlie Flanagan we should be after?

Emmersonn

Pretzeluck wrote: »

That wouldn't make money, if they wanted everyone to slow down then they would but no coin would be made. If everyone knew the place has cameras, no one would speed but then no money is made which is unacceptable.

Catching people using mobile phones while driving is almost totally ignored and is probably much more dangerous than 10 or 20 km over the speed limit on motorways and 100km roads but that would take enforcement so rarely happens

Emmersonn

koheim wrote: »

The faster you drive above the speed limit, the higher fine you pay. This seems very reasonable. I do not understand the resistance.

The resistance is simple to understand. A percentage basis would be much fairer. 10 over in a 50 = 20%. 10 over in a 120 = 8.5%. and a much greater chance of killing a pedestrian or cyclist in the 50 Zone. (either of who should not be in 120 zone.

NSAman

AbdulAbhaile wrote: »

I agree, if you get nobbled by a gosafe van you deserve a fine for speeding and another for driving without due care an attention, they can be seen from way before they clock your speed.

They are OK at catching people breakin the limit but as in your example they don't act as much of a deterant which should be the aim.

Average speed cameras installed in gosafe zones would deter all but the head bangers that nothing will work on.

Errr. sometimes they are obvious. Most times they are not.

Hiding behind signs in a 50 once you come down from 80 literally right at the sign means most people are slowing down.

I can think of 5 locations where this is the case and they DO hide the van.

Thankfully, most people flash the people coming towards them..;)

koheim

Emmersonn wrote: »

The resistance is simple to understand. A percentage basis would be much fairer. 10 over in a 50 = 20%. 10 over in a 120 = 8.5%. and a much greater chance of killing a pedestrian or cyclist in the 50 Zone. (either of who should not be in 120 zone.

Of course, and I am sure that is part of the proposal. Nobody is arguing for this here though.

i agree that in zones 60 and below the penalties should be much stricter.

Pretzeluck

Emmersonn wrote: »

The resistance is simple to understand. A percentage basis would be much fairer. 10 over in a 50 = 20%. 10 over in a 120 = 8.5%. and a much greater chance of killing a pedestrian or cyclist in the 50 Zone. (either of who should not be in 120 zone.

But isn't it pedestrians fault that they're walking on the road and now on crossings?

Bruthal

cdaly_ wrote: »

Agreed.

Agreed. They're far too low. Don't forget you're driving a lethal weapon and damage done increases as the square of speed so 40 in a 30 will do 1.8 times the damage. 50 in a 30 will do 2.8 times the damage.

My lethal weapons dont seem very efficient. I have not managed to kill anyone in 30 years with any of them.

antodeco

cdaly_ wrote: »

How about not starting the overtake until you can see enough clear* road to complete the overtake? You don't get caught out then.

* Yes, that includes side road junctions as 'not clear' and undulations in the road surface.

That's not what I asked. I asked would you rather be on the wrong side of the road twice as long than you could be?

antodeco

cdaly_ wrote: »

Physics dictates (E=1/2mv^2) that the damage done in any circumstance will be much greater the greater the speed (speed squared). Slowing down is always an option and always improves the outcome should an incident occur.

You seem to have stated this formula several times, but I'm not sure you are understanding what you are saying. By your simple definition, every single road should be as slow as possible, because by this formula, 90KMH on a Motorway is much more dangerous than 50KMH due to physics. I understand what you mean by the formula in that higher speeds equals more "damage". But again, the formula is ANY higher speed, so to counter argue, you driving at 90KMH on a Motorway is significant more dangerous than driving at 50KMH on a Motorway, so therefore you should only drive at 50KMH on a Motorway. Would you agree with this result, based on your formula?

GreeBo

antodeco wrote: »

You seem to have stated this formula several times, but I'm not sure you are understanding what you are saying. By your simple definition, every single road should be as slow as possible, because by this formula, 90KMH on a Motorway is much more dangerous than 50KMH due to physics. I understand what you mean by the formula in that higher speeds equals more "damage". But again, the formula is ANY higher speed, so to counter argue, you driving at 90KMH on a Motorway is significant more dangerous than driving at 50KMH on a Motorway, so therefore you should only drive at 50KMH on a Motorway. Would you agree with this result, based on your formula?

Logically yes, but we accept some risks when we get behind the wheel, same as we do when we jump on an aeroplane or a boat.

It doesnt change the fact that speed kills people in an accident.

GG66

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So I guess you need to slow down then?

Smart.

Both instances were clearly over the speed limit. I took the penalty and the fine.

But, the positioning of speed vans were not in accident blackspots and in places where motorists are transitioning from one speed to another. It's quite easy to stray over the limit unintentionally and the speed van operators know this.


My point is that many motorists who are normally compliant and safe drivers could see themselves off the road quite easily. So I believe the penalties are harsh.

4ensic15

GreeBo wrote: »

Logically yes, but we accept some risks when we get behind the wheel, same as we do when we jump on an aeroplane or a boat.

It doesnt change the fact that speed kills people in an accident.

Speed is a metaphysical object and never killed anyone.

antodeco

GreeBo wrote: »

It doesnt change the fact that speed kills people in an accident.

I agree 100%. The formula is being used as an arguement for "speeding" but the formula proves itself correct from any speed above 0KMH. This means that 90KMH on a motorway is more dangerous than 50KMH obviously. So, using the formula as an arguement "against" speeding doesn't make sense, if a person drives quicker than 0KMH. It states what "going faster" equates to, but NOT "speeding", as speeding is a construct based on speed limits.

milhous

What are the chances of this going through? Could we do a pole to see support? I'd do a fair bit of motorway driving, very few people stick to the 120km/h and I reckon if Rossy was doing a few hundred km everyday he'd realise that the big open motorway is grand for 140km/h, as opposed to nearly getting banned for it!

I think maybe have a look at the oblivious people using the overtaking lane just for the craic. They cause huge tailback, moving lanes Willy nilly, they cause frustration and I'd say are the cause for most crashes. I wonder what the stats are for the cause of accidents on the m1/m50.. I'd say it's mostly just bad drivers as opposed to speeders

Bruthal

antodeco wrote: »

I agree 100%. The formula is being used as an arguement for "speeding" but the formula proves itself correct from any speed above 0KMH. This means that 90KMH on a motorway is more dangerous than 50KMH obviously. So, using the formula as an arguement "against" speeding doesn't make sense, if a person drives quicker than 0KMH. It states what "going faster" equates to, but NOT "speeding", as speeding is a construct based on speed limits.

Yes exactly.

Its a pointless formula to be used against speeding, since it applies to anything moving, whether its above the limit or not.

For example, a dual carriageway with a limit of 60kph, and another with a limit of 100kph, one is now much more dangerous than the other with reference to that formula, but its ok, once below the limits.

Dravokivich

AbdulAbhaile wrote: »

Don't know how to post links.


THE company that operates the army of speed-camera vans across the country made profits of almost €50,000 a week last year after detecting a speeding motorist every hour.

Why wouldn't gosafe make a profit? Should ISS not make a profit when cleaning the sh!tter in your office?

Allinall

4ensic15 wrote: »

Speed is a metaphysical object and never killed anyone.

Try telling that to the judge.

Bruthal

Dravokivich wrote: »

Why wouldn't gosafe make a profit? Should ISS not make a profit when cleaning the sh!tter in your office?

Another go safe setup

Pythagorean

McCrack wrote: »

If your story is true it would mean youd have to be driving your motorcycle away from the van and on a quiet summer evening how on earth did you not see the van parked on the side of the road

The speed camera vans have both front and rear facing cameras; I know this because they sent me a picture of my rear number plate on the fixed penalty notice. I did not see the van on that occasion, but saw him the next time I was up that way. I was ready for the bastard !!

Pretzeluck

Pythagorean wrote: »

The speed camera vans have both front and rear facing cameras; I know this because they sent me a picture of my rear number plate on the fixed penalty notice. I did not see the van on that occasion, but saw him the next time I was up that way. I was ready for the bastard !!

Front camera is for safety of the operator not for catching speeders *facepalm* when will people start to understand this.

Padraig Mor

GreeBo wrote: »

It doesnt change the fact that speed kills people in an accident.

But speed (in excess of the limit) very rarely causes accidents. Why do you think that we should target a parameter which effects the outcome of accidents, but not target the actual causes of the accidents? It's utterly bizarre logic.

Pythagorean

The problem with road safety campaigners, is that they are fixated with trying to reduce fatalities to almost zero. If one looks at the fatalities for say,1972, they were very high, maybe c. 800, when the traffic volumes were a fraction of todays figures. Accidents are a statistical inevitability, eg. take the M50, 3 or 4 collisions per day, on average. Its due to the huge volumes on this route, and no amount of legislation, enforcement, penalties will change this. No one wants to see fatalities, but it may actually be better to be killed outright than spend the rest of one 's life in a wheelchair, agreed, the higher the speed the worse the outcome, but a lower speed collision may actually be just as bad.

4ensic15

Allinall wrote: »

Try telling that to the judge.

Judges are only concerned with the speed travelled. What kills people is impact, not speed.

highdef

4ensic15 wrote: »

Judges are only concerned with the speed travelled. What kills people is impact, not speed.

What kills people is (usually) dependent on the SPEED on IMPACT.

GreeBo

Bruthal wrote: »

Yes exactly.

Its a pointless formula to be used against speeding, since it applies to anything moving, whether its above the limit or not.

For example, a dual carriageway with a limit of 60kph, and another with a limit of 100kph, one is now much more dangerous than the other with reference to that formula, but its ok, once below the limits.

The whole point is that its used WITH the limits.

The limits are there based on the context of the road, the formula isn't.