Shane Ross' new speeding penalties

ArrBee

highdef wrote: »

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

Yip.
But also there are the factors leading to an accident also.
These factors are more significant in causing injury and death IMO.
i.e. there are many avoidable accidents due to conditions. (drink, attitudes, road design & condition, fatigue, ability, vehicle condition, etc)

to constantly chase speed as the solution while ignoring most of the other factors is not going to reap the type of success that is sought.

GreeBo

Padraig Mor wrote: »

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.

Because we are never going to be able to stop all accidents, just like the rest of the world.

GreeBo

4ensic15 wrote: »

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

F = ma

ArrBee

Also,
I've always been of the opinion that the 1st tier speeding offence, what ever it is (10km, or 10%) should NOT carry points and be a discretionary fine only.
To add points IMO is a misuse of the points system. as in, my understanding is that points are to discourage habitual offenders who can afford fines.
The 1st tier offending is mostly accidental speeding rather than habitual.

GreeBo

ArrBee wrote: »

Yi
These factors are more significant in causing injury and death IMO.
i.e. there are many avoidable accidents due to conditions. (drink, attitudes, road design & condition, fatigue, ability, vehicle condition, etc)

And ALL of those causes have worse outcomes the faster the vehicle was travelling.

ALL of them.

Do you think we should stop wearing seat belts and instead focus on the cause of crashes?
If we stop all accidents then surely we dont need to wear seatbelts or airbags or crumple zones?
Its the same argument.

kilns

Tzardine wrote: »

I think it is a great idea. Hits those that drive the most recklessly.

If you really want to see serious penalties for speeding look at the Swiss model. They will take a fixed percentage of you annual income for the worst speeding offences. One lad got a fine of about 700,000., well he was going 170kmh over the limit.

The way they tier the offences and the penalties is actually quite fair IMO. Small penalty for minor speeding that scales pretty quickly with greater speed. I have driven quite a bit over there and people do not speed as a result.

https://www.ch.ch/en/driving-over-speed-limit/

To be fair the Swiss police are like a profit centre when it comes to speeding they are very active when it comes to it (maybe they dont have as much other policing to do as crime in general is very very low) but it works, the majority stick to the speed limits and the amount of crashes are very very low, the only time you can let loose is when you hop over the border into Germany

GreeBo

ArrBee wrote: »

Also,
I've always been of the opinion that the 1st tier speeding offence, what ever it is (10km, or 10%) should NOT carry points and be a discretionary fine only.
To add points IMO is a misuse of the points system. as in, my understanding is that points are to discourage habitual offenders who can afford fines.
The 1st tier offending is mostly accidental speeding rather than habitual.

This just causes people with money to buy a licence to speed.

ArrBee

GreeBo wrote: »

And ALL of those causes have worse outcomes the faster the vehicle was travelling.

ALL of them.

Do you think we should stop wearing seat belts and instead focus on the cause of crashes?
If we stop all accidents then surely we dont need to wear seatbelts or airbags or crumple zones?
Its the same argument.

No, I wouldn't advocate reversing binary measures like seatbelts to make travel safer.
But I do say that chasing a sliding variable such as speed is ridiculous in isolation.

It's not about "you are either over the speed limit or under" when
a. The limit is variable. Today the limit is x and tomorrow it could be y yet the real risk hasn't changed
b. is somewhat arbitrary

I've lived in a couple of places where they have applied draconian speed rules.
The results may surprise you.

ArrBee

GreeBo wrote: »

This just causes people with money to buy a licence to speed.

Come again?

GreeBo

ArrBee wrote: »

No, I wouldn't advocate reversing binary measures like seatbelts to make travel safer.
But I do say that chasing a sliding variable such as speed is ridiculous in isolation.

It's not about "you are either over the speed limit or under" when
a. The limit is variable. Today the limit is x and tomorrow it could be y yet the real risk hasn't changed
b. is somewhat arbitrary

The speed limit is a limit based on the road design.

There seems to be some issue with people on here and what a limit is.
"Oh I got caught because the limit changed and I didnt have time to slow down to the new limit"
Its a limit, maybe dont drive at the limit at all times?

I asked it earlier in this thread and didnt get a reply.
What other facets of peoples lives do they operate at the limit?

ArrBee wrote: »

Come again?

If I can afford to pay to travel 10% faster than the posted limit, why wouldn't I? If there is no impact other than to my wallet then people with money can travel faster than those without.
That doesnt seem like its going to achieve all that much tbh.

ArrBee

GreeBo wrote: »

The speed limit is a limit based on the road design.

There seems to be some issue with people on here and what a limit is.
"Oh I got caught because the limit changed and I didnt have time to slow down to the new limit"
Its a limit, maybe dont drive at the limit at all times?

I asked it earlier in this thread and didnt get a reply.
What other facets of peoples lives do they operate at the limit?

Many speed limits pay little head to the road, although there seems to be some effort in addressing that recently. I don't share your faith that limits were specified accurately based on roads (in either direction)

You are saying "don't drive at the limit at all times" Kind of an emotive non-argument really.
Unless you are saying "never drive at the limit", the frequency is irrelevant.
If you agree that driving at a posted limit should be allowed, then the debate is around how to effectively police (not enforce) that rule whilst allowing for legitimate reasons why someone might be detected traveling at a higher speed.


suggesting that because I don't always eat at my limit, I shouldn't drive at the posted limit seems a bit immature TBH.
There are times when I do want to eat at my limit.
Or perhaps sometimes when I am practicing sport I don't play to my limit but during competition I do.

GreeBo wrote: »

If I can afford to pay to travel 10% faster than the posted limit, why wouldn't I? If there is no impact other than to my wallet then people with money can travel faster than those without.
That doesnt seem like its going to achieve all that much tbh.

It's pretty clear to me where you stand on the speed in general.
I can accept that position while disagreeing with it strongly as we're all different.

I would respond to your questions though.
Taking a 10% infringement is fairly standard as it pays respect to things such as accuracy of measuring devices, and the very easy ability to slip over the limit by a couple of km/h while looking at the road, traffic, conditions instead of being fixated on a speedo.
Typically, no one is intentionally successfully targeting a speed between 101% and 109% of the limit.
You are far more likely to catch people who where trying to do the right thing.
The result is likely to be people start travelling significantly below the limit.
"Great" I hear you say. except this can create more dangerous situations, and has in other countries.




All I'm trying to say is it's a more complex situation that requires a broader approach to be successful.
I've seen kneejerk policy changes elsewhere and the results the do/don't bring and feel it would be a shame to follow that path (in such a one sided fashion) here

kilns

People arguing that people who can afford to will speed but again go back to the Swiss model, for repeat offenders the fine increases each time and after repeated offences your licence is confiscated for a period of time also, it could also be confiscated on first offence depending on the offence - they are more much stricter on someone excessively over a 50kmph speed limit than a 120 speed limit

But hey it wouldnt be Ireland if they couldnt complain about stuff

Pretzeluck

kilns wrote: »

People arguing that people who can afford to will speed but again go back to the Swiss model, for repeat offenders the fine increases each time and after repeated offences your licence is confiscated for a period of time also, it could also be confiscated on first offence depending on the offence - they are more much stricter on someone excessively over a 50kmph speed limit than a 120 speed limit

But hey it wouldnt be Ireland if they couldnt complain about stuff

Why did you choose Switzerland? Why you didn't choose Germany? Does Switzerland have the best model in the world?
"Oh I'm just gonna go and find the stupidest system in the world and says it's the best without any evidence to back it up"
Now I'm waiting for a formal study which proves that SPEEDING penalties in Switzerland specifically affect the amount of accidents as compared to let's say Ireland which do not have these laws. Ireland has relatively low road deaths so I'm very interested to see your study.

What I have noticed the most likely cause of accident is drivers that literally can't drive if their life depended on it. Going through red lights without paying any attention, cutting cars off at intersections and roundabouts, not indicating, etc. You can follow these drivers and you will see that they usually drive below the speed limit but still cause close call situations multiple times on their journey. Speed is the main cause though I guess even though the statistics themselves show otherwise but that literally doesn't matter.

Pretzeluck

Also how could anyone elect that specimen, just look at his face. You can see by just looking at his face that's he's a rat faced pos.

kilns

Pretzeluck wrote: »

Why did you choose Switzerland? Why you didn't choose Germany? Does Switzerland have the best model in the world?
"Oh I'm just gonna go and find the stupidest system in the world and says it's the best without any evidence to back it up"
Now I'm waiting for a formal study which proves that SPEEDING penalties in Switzerland specifically affect the amount of accidents as compared to let's say Ireland which do not have these laws. Ireland has relatively low road deaths so I'm very interested to see your study.

What I have noticed the most likely cause of accident is drivers that literally can't drive if their life depended on it. Going through red lights without paying any attention, cutting cars off at intersections and roundabouts, not indicating, etc. You can follow these drivers and you will see that they usually drive below the speed limit but still cause close call situations multiple times on their journey. Speed is the main cause though I guess even though the statistics themselves show otherwise but that literally doesn't matter.

Because I live here and know and see the system and can compare like for like. I can see the driving habits of both countries.

But as a statistic Ireland had 188 road fatalities whereas Switzerland had 216 - Switzerland has almost double the population.

Pretzeluck

kilns wrote: »

Because I live here and know and see the system and can compare like for like. I can see the driving habits of both countries.

But as a statistic Ireland had 188 road fatalities whereas Switzerland had 216 - Switzerland has almost double the population.

All due to speeding or driver training?

kilns

Pretzeluck wrote: »

All due to speeding or driver training?

All due to respect of the law, drivers get similar training but its attitudes as a society to the law. It is why the country functions as one of the best in the world as they realise the benefits certain laws, fees and taxes bring

cdaly_

antodeco wrote: »

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?

You asked "which is safer" in the context of being 'caught out' in an overtake.

antodeco wrote: »

This is an interesting point. Which is safer, overtake on the wrong side of the road for 5 seconds, (going over speed limit), or keep below the speed limit and be on the wrong side of the road for 10+ seconds.

My response is that safer is to overtake with due care and caution and not be 'caught out' in the first place...

AndrewJRenko

Pythagorean wrote: »

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.

How many of your family members would you be prepared to lose to avoid this restriction on speeding?

AndrewJRenko

Sienna Black Sacrifice wrote: »

No it isn’t, speed is a total scapegoat and has nothing to do with the vast majority of crashes. The RSA are totally obsessed with speed and people who don’t understand things very much believe them.

Would you like to post details of your qualifications and research in this area, just so I can compare them with the qualifications and expertise of just about every other expert in the field who came to the opposite conclusion to you?

AndrewJRenko

GG66 wrote: »

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.

So I guess those normally compliant motorists need to make sure that they are compliant - is that such a huge unreasonable imposition?

eagle eye

kilns wrote:

But as a statistic Ireland had 188 road fatalities whereas Switzerland had 216 - Switzerland has almost double the population.

Can you compare the roads?

Bruthal

GreeBo wrote: »

The whole point is that its used WITH the limits.

Is it?

Are road speed limits based on that formula?

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

A lot of them look more random than safety based. Or for the more cynical, more revenue generating.

eagle eye

AndrewJRenko wrote:

How many of your family members would you be prepared to lose to avoid this restriction on speeding?

The idiot won't stop speeding, it's the ordinary man who is a bit behind on time that will suffer.

There are apps and sensors that tell you where these vans are at on any given day. Most of the real lunatics have themselves protected against being caught out by speed cameras.

Bruthal

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How many of your family members would you be prepared to lose to avoid this restriction on speeding?

Would you back a speed limit of 20kph on all roads?

I suppose you would have to, if not prepared to lose family members based on the speed risk.

Boards does seem to have a higher percentage of people who never miss a speed sign, never break a limit, never do anything wrong, than the general population.

Bruthal

highdef wrote: »

I keep mine in licence holder on the the sun visor. No chance of forgetting it.

No chance of ever driving a different car on a given day? Many would have a high chance of that.

doolox

A blanket speed limit of 20 kph.

Don't encourage them.

This process is like dealing with a six year old problem child.

The more you give them the more they want.

More regulation and monitoring and more penalties.

This is why you need a broad representative body to review and adjudicate the practicality and effectiveness of proposed laws. If you have more people off the road for overstrict application of speeding laws by robot vans you will have more people on the dole or out of a job costing the society more in SW costs and doing no actual good towards safety.

People might even panic and crash when confronted by being pursued by a cop for a marginal excess of speed. Others will be disqualified for small amounts over the limit.

Two things need to happen.

Better signage. Many signs are covered in green gunk and hard to see, these need to be washed by the roads authorities on a regular basis.

Cutting back trees and bushes obscuring speed limit signs.

Also I have come across vandals turning the signs at 90 degrees so they cannot be read by a road user. Some mindless people also do this to direction signs.

Speed is not the only contributor to road accidents and deaths but it is easy to measure and prosecute for. The big contributor in my mind is lack of observation and positioning and peoples use of junctions. Improper use of lanes and not lighting up on time and defective lights and people phoning and being distracted can also cause accidents.

When was anybody stopped by AGS for not stopping at a stop sign?

When was anyone stopped for going right at a left or straight ahead arrow??

drunkmonkey

doolox wrote: »

When was anybody stopped by AGS for not stopping at a stop sign?

A few years ago, didn't want to jerk by stopping and knock my snack box off the window, 1am in a rural town only 2 cars around were mine and the cops.

Wibbs

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How many of your family members would you be prepared to lose to avoid this restriction on speeding?

Off the top of my head? Around three.

SC024

Its a load of nonsense by a lazy attention seeking politician trying desperately to be seen to be doing something. Equivalent of a bad labourer spending the whole day sweeping room A whilst room B next door is halfway to the ceiling with rubbish is left for someone willing to sort it.

taking the easy option same as his doing away with the 3 points for 1st offence between 50 / 80 mg limits. If anyone seriously speaks out about it you will have the "somebody please think of the children" brigade out in force.