Shane Ross' new speeding penalties

xckjoo

Sure they don't enforce them anyway so what does it matter

antodeco

cdaly_ wrote: »

The penalties are set no lower by this than they already are. There are just higher penalties for greater exceedence.

Penalties being set at TOO low a speed (not the actual penalty being too low). 5 points for 10kmh is potentially crazy.

cdaly_

antodeco wrote: »

Penalties being set at TOO low a speed (not the actual penalty being too low). 5 points for 10kmh is potentially crazy.

Nope.

cdaly_ wrote: »

Kinetic energy E = 1/2mv^2

Energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity squared

NSAman

If you are a driver you are penalized the minute you get your car.

I love how one people think that driving is a privilege, pontificate much?

You pay for this privileged highly. Through tax on the car both VRT and VAT, tax on the fuel, tax on the bloody insurance and of course that lovely yearly tax.

Basically motoring has become much safer, and could become even MORE safer but they tax the advancements in safety on cars.. i.e. adaptive cruise control and automated advancements in driver assistance are all charged extra in VRT.

While the vast majority of people speed a little, there is a small proportion of “speeders”. Most people try to stay in the speed limits. 10 over in a 50, as some people have said, is more dangerous than 10 over in a 120.

Unfortunately, driving has become an easy target for money making at this stage and Mr. Ross is making it more revenue generating. Perhaps we should just ban cars all together... that will make the country safer of course.. and do wonders for the Economy also....

cdaly_

NSAman wrote: »

If you are a driver you are penalized the minute you get your car.

Please don't perpetuate this myth.
If you are a driver you are subsidised the minute you get in your car.

Perhaps we should just ban cars all together... that will make the country safer of course.. and do wonders for the Economy also....

It would certainly solve the M50 gridlock and various city gridlocks also...

JPCN1

antodeco wrote: »

Penalties being set at TOO low a speed (not the actual penalty being too low). 5 points for 10kmh is potentially crazy.

Agreed but the great dicktator is going to bully the rest of the cowed sheep in the Dail once again.

The Gardai will still shoot fish in a barrel on the N11 while poor buggers will lose their licences and perhaps jobs for speeding on a road that isn't about safety as much as it is about revenue.

ectoraige

cavemeister wrote: »

I feel sorry for drivers not familiar with the M4. heading east, it goes from 120km/hr to 80km/hr as it becomes the N4 in the space of about 200 meters. A flash for cash van will make a killing at the section of road.

I'm going to keep pointing this out until people get it - the GoSafe vans cost more to the state than the revenue from fines. If it's money the state wanted, they'd ditch the entire thing. What they want is for people to reduce excessive speed so that the injuries from collisions are reduced.

cdaly_

JPCN1 wrote: »

The Gardai will still shoot fish in a barrel on the N11 while poor buggers will lose their licences and perhaps jobs for speeding on a road that isn't about safety as much as it is about revenue.

I love this 'fish in a barrel' thing. It's more like people are fighting to get in front of the gun.

So how about they drive within the speed limit? Would that be an option at all?

Is it that the 'poor buggers' are just incompetent and incapable of controlling their cars?

JPCN1

cdaly_ wrote: »

I love this 'fish in a barrel' thing. It's more like people are fighting to get in front of the gun.

So how about they drive within the speed limit? Would that be an option at all?

Is it that the 'poor buggers' are just incompetent and incapable of controlling their cars?

No It's because its a ridiculously low limit for the road in question.

NSAman

cdaly_ wrote: »

Please don't perpetuate this myth.
If you are a driver you are subsidised the minute you get in your car.

Have you any cost based studies on Irish transportation please? Germany and the USA are not this country. As far as I know, infrastructure in Ireland has been paid for by the motorist umpteen times over... eg. M50 toll bridge?

cdaly_ wrote: »

It would certainly solve the M50 gridlockand various city gridlocks also...

So we should all cycle? That would make the economy boom alright....

TCM

magicbastarder wrote:

why don't you leave your licence in your wallet?

magicbastarder wrote:

anyway, my own little pet idea on how to reduce speeding. if you get caught speeding, forget the two penalty points. make it so that the driver has to surrender the car for two days instead, within 48 hours of receiving the notice. if it's a five penalty point offence, five days. do this for all motoring offences.

Nonsense.

eagle eye

Tzardine wrote:

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

So would a guy driving a brand new BMW x series doing 30 km over the speed limit be more reckless than somebody driving a 2004 Honda Accord at 10 km over the speed limit?

TCM

antodeco wrote:

Change it to weeks instead of days would be more impactful I think! The only problem is, they may have another car and just continue driving knowing the chance of being stopped at a checkpoint is very low.

Utter nonsense.

Dravokivich

Thestones wrote: »

If speed cameras were set up in genuine accident black spots then yes but this country is notorious for putting in speed traps in ridiculous places just for the purpose of 'catching' you and making money 'not' to reduce to accidents. Speed traps are against an EU directive but we only follow the EU when it suits us. In Australia the purpose of speed cameras is to make you slow down in dangerous areas not to catch to make money, they warn you 3 or 4 times speed camera ahead so if you get caught you absolutely deserve it unlike the cloak and dagger shenanigans we do here.

What cloak and dagger? The m7 has a lot of warnings posted. And the vans are extremely visible.

_Kaiser_

eagle eye wrote: »

So would a guy driving a brand new BMW x series doing 30 km over the speed limit be more reckless than somebody driving a 2004 Honda Accord at 10 km over the speed limit?

It depends on the posted limit and the type of road, traffic volume and weather conditions.

On a motorway in daylight with clear skies and low traffic then no 20 km/h over is not a big deal. Motorways should be 140 by default anyway IMO

magicbastarder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3D7XYQExt0

if you want to spare eight minutes, that might help explain quite how much difference extra speed makes.

Andrewf20

highdef wrote: »

When did this change from being an 80? I was on the bypass recently and it was 80. July 2018 Streetview: https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4147712,-6.4906863,3a,75y,338.15h,71.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sljTONtsr7QSQDSJJCbr1gw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

TBH I haven't driven it in a while so an increase to 80 makes sense and is welcome. As far as I remember it was 60km/h a while back. Pity there is a continuous white line along the whole length of it. I remember they had most of the fairy house road at 50km/h for a few weeks a few years ago but then sense prevailed and the higher limits were reinstated.

The biggest culprit are roads that look like 60km/h roads that are actually 50km/h. The firhouse road is one example going from Delaney's pub down to the sherry fitz near templeogue village. If you miss a sign, you would easily assume it's 60km/h as it's so wide.

Housing estates should have a lower limit of 30km/h across the board.

AndrewJRenko

NSAman wrote: »

Most people try to stay in the speed limits.

Most people don't seem to be very good at staying within the limits, given that the RSA Speed Surveys show that 60% to 80% of drivers break speed limits.

Dravokivich

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It depends on the posted limit and the type of road, traffic volume and weather conditions.

On a motorway in daylight with clear skies and low traffic then no 20 km/h over is not a big deal. Motorways should be 140 by default anyway IMO

My car wouldn't do too well trying to keep up with 140. Not for fear of it falling apart, but it wasn't designed to maintain that speed for a prolonged amount of time.

_Kaiser_

Dravokivich wrote: »

My car wouldn't do too well trying to keep up with 140. Not for fear of it falling apart, but it wasn't designed to maintain that speed for a prolonged amount of time.

That's fine though. If you're doing whatever lower speed in the left lane and not holding anyone up who is driving a car comfortable at those speeds then there's no issue.

Dravokivich

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

That's fine though. If you're doing whatever lower speed in the left lane and not holding anyone up who is driving a car comfortable at those speeds then there's no issue.

Ill drive however is suitable to the conditions im in thanks. It should not be a matter of speed limits for some and miniature flags for others. The speed limits should be used to control the rate of traffic, not be tailored and extended for those who've faster cars.

highdef

Andrewf20 wrote: »

TBH I haven't driven it in a while so an increase to 80 makes sense and is welcome. As far as I remember it was 60km/h a while back.

I believe it's always been 80. Use the road occasionally since it opened and never recall a 60 limit at any point in time.

Regarding the solid white line, the vast majority of vehicles drive right up at or above the limit so I very rarely get held up in any way. The odd time there are slow moving agricultural vehicles travelling along the bypass but they almost always drive in the hard shoulder, or at least very far to the left on what is a fairly wide road, allowing you to still legally overtake without crossing the solid white line.

antodeco

TCM wrote: »

Utter nonsense.

Utter nonsense that it wont do anything to stop drivers still speeding (if you read the rest of what I'm saying) or are you just posting one word replies to argue with yourself?

_Kaiser_

Dravokivich wrote: »

Ill drive however is suitable to the conditions im in thanks. It should not be a matter of speed limits for some and miniature flags for others. The speed limits should be used to control the rate of traffic, not be tailored and extended for those who've faster cars.

That's not what you said.

You said your car wouldn't be comfortable at 140 because its not designed for prolonged travel at those higher speeds.

Assuming the limit was 140 then you absolutely shouldn't be in the overtaking lane at a lower cruising speed and holding others up.

duffman3833

I drive multiple cars from time to time and leave license in car mainly, but i took a photo of my license and saved it in my Dropbox online so if stopped i could at least show them the license with the Id number and photo.

I think that a lot of people could be done easily when the speed limit changes for example 80 to 50kmh. A lot of cars slow down gradually but basically now they are going to have to break hard to get down to the 50 speed limit or risk getting a lot of points.

Also on older cars, that are in MPH some don't have KMH or if they do is in small writing and not very accurate measurement which is a big disadvantage.

cdaly_

duffman3833 wrote: »

Also on older cars, that are in MPH some don't have KMH or if they do is in small writing and not very accurate measurement which is a big disadvantage.

Oh dear. Sums is it? That's gotta be hard...

ectoraige

duffman3833 wrote: »

I think that a lot of people could be done easily when the speed limit changes for example 80 to 50kmh. A lot of cars slow down gradually but basically now they are going to have to break hard to get down to the 50 speed limit or risk getting a lot of points.

Of they could slow down gradually before they reach the 50kph zone. It's really not that big a deal to ask a driver to look for roadsigns ahead and react accordingly.

Also on older cars, that are in MPH some don't have KMH or if they do is in small writing and not very accurate measurement which is a big disadvantage.

Then they can err on the side of caution, what's the problem?

Micky 32

ectoraige wrote: »

The revenue from fines are only about a quarter of the cost of the GoSafe contract. It is NOT a money-earning exercise.

Ah so it's a money making exercise for GoSafe then, good to clear that up.;)

magicbastarder

it's been a legal requirement since the 80s that cars had to include metric on the speedometers. the number of cars affected will be a tiny percentage of those out there.

Widdensushi

Surely the transport minister should be making preparations for brexit