Shane Ross' new speeding penalties

NSAman

Widdensushi wrote: »

Surely the transport minister should be making preparations for brexit

He is. He is raising money for his pension.

WH BONNEY

Absolute insanity, what an ill taught out proposal.

Nothing surprises me from this incompetent, arrogant and dismissive Minister.

I hope he reaps the whirlwind when the next election comes around.

Hurrache

vonlars wrote: »

Ross is a fcuking joke.

I'm 21, can barely afford the extortionate insurance costs, can hardly drive up my road with the absolute state of it and there's no public transport at all within any distance of my house that I could get to without driving to it.

Far more pressing issues out there but no, let's deal with the one that's a non issue so we can make changes and get our name in headlines. Good man Shane.

What's your age got to do with road traffic laws? And the "more pressing issues" line being trotted out is whataboutery at it's finest. It's like saying hey, go catch those burglars, that's ok because I'm not one. Oh, I see these proposed penalties coming in. Wait, what?!? I'm a driver and like to speed on occasion, that's a beedin disgrace that is.

"He's ruining the roads" was another hilarious line I read.

Dravokivich

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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.

No need to assume, for there's no road on this fair isle with such a speed limit, nor will there be.

seamus

Hurrache wrote: »

"He's ruining the roads" was another hilarious line I read.

It's getting to the stage where young lads can't even rally an old fiesta around the fields! It's a disgrace Joe!

fancy pigeon

Haven't a clue if it's related but...

Speaking out aloud, there are a lot of people out there (no, not just in here and by here I don't mean this specific thread) talking about the "legal requirements" and "it's the law"

Legal eagles and they want you to know they're an upstanding citizen that never steps out of line, someone they present themselves as someone upstanding, to be a role model. Any possible opportunity to let you know they're a valued law abiding citizen

I have generally found these type are trying to cover up something current/have been reprimanded albeit in a small way or more sinister/a social outcast that no one will listen to in person and are playing the look at me how good I am illusion elsewhere. Practically forcing it upon others they are actively obeying the law. A great bunch of lads, martyrs for the rest of us subhumans who dare even think of technicalities to bend the law!

Case in example: one particular person was berating me about compliance of vehicles/legal obligations etc. This particular person isn't the brightest and really shouldn't be sticking their noses in other peoples business (for legal eagles reading all vehicles I own that are driven on public are fully road legal. Just to repeat: legal. Legal. So we won't have any liable cases brought up. Good word in the daily life isn't it!). After digging around (via legal means and within the law) I discovered they were stopped at a checkpoint with no license. When presenting their license to the nearest barracks, they handed in a fake license. This was casually pointed out and I have never received a perceived smart appearance since; they haven't took me on again. And hey look! This complies with the thread as the person in question hadn't their license on them (or at all) and poses the question where would the points go in that scenario

Now I am not saying that this is the case in here in this thread at all. The aforementioned goody 2 shoes profile mentioned above usually have some twisted dark secret/a very tainted, sordid past or are a social outcast.

Most people willingly obey the law and don't have to publicly announce that what they are doing is law compliant. In the past I have kept at these people again and again until I have exposed their facade. Suddenly, those particular legal eagles become very silent

A pigeon sharing my 2 cents... With no apr or repayment, to be law compliant, of course

_Kaiser_

Dravokivich wrote: »

No need to assume, for there's no road on this fair isle with such a speed limit, nor will there be.

Who knows.. There's been former N-roads decreased to 80, left at 100, and even increased to 120 in the past.

The point still stands.. If you or your vehicle aren't comfortable travelling at the posted limit when no reason not to (ie: not hindered by traffic or conditions) then you at the very least shouldn't obstruct those who can.

I'd also argue that people dawdling unnecessarily on motorways at between 20-40 less than the limit are a hazard and shouldn't be on the motorway at all (if you find yourself being overtaken by articulated trucks you're on the wrong road) - but that's an argument for another thread....


Anyway, yes I see that the IT had a different interpretation of the proposals than RTE had this morning when I created this thread and I caught part of the Newstalk headlines earlier which had a slightly different version again.

Is this just kite-flying I wonder, or what has he put in today?

magicbastarder

you shouldn't be allowed drive on a motorway at 99km/h?
well, that's a new one.

_Kaiser_

magicbastarder wrote: »

you shouldn't be allowed drive on a motorway at 99km/h?
well, that's a new one.

Again I don't want to derail my own thread but yes.. If you're causing other traffic to have to take actions to avoid you, then there's something wrong with the speed you're travelling at - unless of course that's the maximum speed you're permitted to travel (eg : trucks, buses)

The Pheasant2

Load of overkill bollocks typical of Ross the one-trick pony. On the spot fine and penalty points for not having your license on you? Will he ever **** off

Hurrache

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I'd also argue that people dawdling unnecessarily on motorways at between 20-40 less than the limit are a hazard and shouldn't be on the motorway at all (if you find yourself being overtaken by articulated trucks you're on the wrong road) - but that's an argument for another thread....

If you find someone driving at either 80 or 100 on a motorway a hazard I think you need to look a little bit closer to home as to where the problem is.

CrankyHaus

Can anyone prove this will have a significant positive impact on road safety proportionate to its harshness on otherwise law abiding motorists for minor offences?

Have a look at the Garda Twitter thread on this forum. A grossly disproportionate amount of those caught commiting motor offences there are repeat offenders with bans. They continue to drive with effective impunity as no proper sanction is imposed on them at trial. They often go on to cause death and injury to others :

https://www.thesun.ie/news/2987237/karl-robertson-family-inquest-artane/
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/specialreports/why-are-the-family-of-shane-ofarrell-waiting-for-justice-869113.html
https://www.thejournal.ie/man-sentenced-road-death-3208182-Jan2017/

This section of wilfully dangerous and criminal drivers should be addressed rather than raising inadequately and inconsistently imposed penalties to chase headlines.

_Kaiser_

Hurrache wrote: »

If you find someone driving at either 80 or 100 on a motorway a hazard I think you need to look a little bit closer to home as to where the problem is.

OK picture the scenario...

Car driving at 80 in outside lane with no reason for it. Other cars and trucks either inadvertently or deliberately undertaking. Those who don't getting increasingly frustrated and do something stupid.. More dangerous

Car driving at 80 in inside lane with no reason for it. Truck or bus comes up behind it and moves into outside lane to overtake, slowing both lanes dramatically until they complete the manoeuvre.. Someone not paying attention slams into back of truck as they pull out. More dangerous.

Better solution : keep up with the flow of traffic and up to the limits when no reason not to. 120 is not that fast on a motorway and every modern car should be more than capable of handling it.

magicbastarder

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

OK picture the scenario...

Car driving at 80 in outside lane with no reason for it..

ah - goalposts have moved. outside lane was not mentioned before now.

_Kaiser_

magicbastarder wrote: »

ah - goalposts have moved. outside lane was not mentioned before now.

It applies to both lanes.

inforfun

Fine as long as they also introduce the death penalty for people in overtaking lanes who are not overtaking.

Hurrache

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

OK picture the scenario...

Ok..

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Car driving at 80 in outside lane with no reason for it.

I'll stop you there, that's not what you initially claimed, 2 completely different situations.

edit: magicbastarder said the same.

_Kaiser_

Hurrache wrote: »

Ok..



I'll stop you there, that's not what you initially claimed, 2 completely different situations.

edit: magicbastarder said the same.

Read on... The examples cover both situations.

Bottom line is that if you can't keep up with the flow of traffic and are causing other vehicles to take actions to avoid you (especially heavy vehicles) then you're doing something wrong unless you are limited to lower speeds (such as buses or trucks) or have some sort of mechanical issue (in which case you should pull in if safe to do so or off at the next exit)

Load of nonsense, and hopefully will be shot down for the tripe that it is.

What's actually wrong with the current situation? Our roads aren't that dangerous. Most crashes seem to be single-vehicle these days and have less to do with speeding and more to do with not paying attention.

Imagine doing 50 in a 30 around dublin. Actually, never mind that, imagine how slow off-peak traffic will be in Dublin now in those 30 zones.

Or if you're caught at 120 on the M50 twice, then say goodnight to your license? (a motorway that's practically desserted between 10pm-6am).

seamus

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Read on... The examples cover both situations.

Bottom line is that if you can't keep up with the flow of traffic and are causing other vehicles to take actions to avoid you (especially heavy vehicles) then you're doing something wrong.

Likewise if you find yourself having to make emergency manouvers to avoid a slower-moving vehicle, you're also doing something wrong.

Sometimes everybody is driving like an idiot. Just because the guy driving slowly in the overtaking lane is doing something wrong, doesn't mean you're not.

If you find yourself bearing down on a vehicle and the only thing you can do to avoid it, is swerve around it, then you were travelling too fast to begin with.

_Kaiser_

seamus wrote: »

Likewise if you find yourself having to make emergency manouvers to avoid a slower-moving vehicle, you're also doing something wrong.

Sometimes everybody is driving like an idiot. Just because the guy driving slowly in the overtaking lane is doing something wrong, doesn't mean you're not.

If you find yourself bearing down on a vehicle and the only thing you can do to avoid it, is swerve around it, then you were travelling too fast to begin with.

You're missing the point.

Yes all drivers have a duty to expect the unexpected and read the road and other traffic ahead and react accordingly to prevent an issue whenever possible.

But the issue wouldn't arise in the first place if the dawdling car doing significantly below the prevailing speed wasn't doing so in the first place.

Anyway, feel free to create a thread and we'll debate it further. I'm not derailing this one any more.

Henry Ford III

Police the motorways. Shoot middle lane hoggers and undertakers. Include the cost of tax and insurance in the price of fuel. Thread.

cdaly_

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

OK picture the scenario...

Car driving at 80 in outside lane with no reason for it. Other cars and trucks either inadvertently or deliberately undertaking. Those who don't getting increasingly frustrated and do something stupid.. More dangerous

Car driving at 80 in inside lane with no reason for it. Truck or bus comes up behind it and moves into outside lane to overtake, slowing both lanes dramatically until they complete the manoeuvre.. Someone not paying attention slams into back of truck as they pull out. More dangerous.

Better solution : keep up with the flow of traffic and up to the limits when no reason not to. 120 is not that fast on a motorway and every modern car should be more than capable of handling it.

So what you're saying is inattention is dangerous? We know that but guess what? It's less dangerous at lower speeds than at higher.

See here:

cdaly_ wrote: »

Kinetic energy E = 1/2mv^2

Energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity squared

frozenfrozen

This sounds terrible but if it comes in life will go on and there wont be a reduction in road deaths. Just more normal people getting money extracted from them.

Where are the punishments for being old and blind and incapable of driving safely. Or texting, being engulfed in conversation not paying attention to the road, cyclists out at 5.15pm holding up 30 cars who all get frustrated and overtake dangerously (everyone is an asshole in this situation)

Why have we had a massive reduction in motorcycle deaths this year while always being fed the line that motorbikes are always speeding? Have bikes got slower this year?

Roads are needlessly dangerous and it's very little to do with speed. Have the punishment for pulling out of a junction into the path of traffic be 7 points. Changing lanes without proper observation 5 points. You know, the stuff that causes an accident every day of the week.

Speeding is going too fast for the conditions, not 131kmh in a 100 zone which was a 120 zone 25 metres earlier. That would now put you off the road?

con___manx1

BrownFinger wrote: »

I say 10 points for driving under the limit ,
Stuck behind some arsehole doing 25/30kph in a 60/50 zone for 10 mins yesterday.
Breaking all the way up to green lights

slow drivers think they are being safe when in reality on a motor way for instance someone who is speeding could smash into the back of them if they are doing 70 k even.
I have been guilty of speeding when I was a young lad. Slow drivers have no idea the danger they put themselves in by doing that.
Also on country roads they cause so much frustration to other drivers that they force dangerous overtaking manouvers and this can result in head on collisions. Iv seen it nearly happen many times. These slow drivers are a danger and should be punished by the speed vans aswell.

Wibbs

On motorways I'd average 80-90 clicks. Inside lane of course. I genuinely can't recall a situation with anyone giving me static for it, or having to get an attack of the sudden swerves out of it. That said I'm near obsessive with driving smoothly and consistently, so that could be why. I have gotten peeved with eejits speeding up and slowing down alright and often for no apparent reason. I encounter that a lot.

Lord Nikon

If the current speeding laws were fully enforced, you would half the traffic on the roads tomorrow morning, easily. However, if we can all agree that everyone is breaking the speed limits, hence why they want to introduce further speeding penalties, why isn't there more accidents/crashes involving speeding? Because speeding isn't always the factor.

Why are motorists penalized with high insurance premiums, when never having a penalty point, or being convicted of any road traffic offence?

whomitconcerns

Wibbs wrote: »

On motorways I'd average 80-90 clicks. Inside lane of course. I genuinely can't recall a situation with anyone giving me static for it, or having to get an attack of the sudden swerves out of it. That said I'm near obsessive with driving smoothly and consistently, so that could be why. I have gotten peeved with eejits speeding up and slowing down alright and often for no apparent reason. I encounter that a lot.

Have to say fair play for keeping left. But your saying you don't go over 66% of the limit on a motorway, is that for confidence reasons as it's not really the safest option..

ED E

Lord Nikon wrote: »

Why are motorists penalized with high insurance premiums, when never having a penalty point, or being convicted of any road traffic offence?

Thats nothing to do with the driver and everything to do with Johnny 17 Whiplashes a year.

inforfun

I imagine Wibbs drives a Leopard II so that speed is quite good going