Shane Ross' new speeding penalties

Red Alert

It should start at 1 penalty point and work upwards from there. Someone going 1-5km/h over the limit doesn't automatically become "dangerous". Ross is just interested in penalising motorists and not positively changing behaviour.

sdanseo

Red Alert wrote: »

It should start at 1 penalty point and work upwards from there. Someone going 1-5km/h over the limit doesn't automatically become "dangerous". Ross is just interested in penalising motorists and not positively changing behaviour.

I think he is genuinely interested in changing behaviour. The problem is he wants to change behaviour far too drastically because he is spectacularly uneducated about matters within his remit.

A grumpy old man who wants to be re-elected by all the other grumpy old people in his constituency who have almost no speed limits above 50km/h to worry about, are spoiled with probably the best selection of relatively good public transport in Ireland, and who collectively think that Stepaside Garda Station will permanently end all crime.

Meanwhile, fúck the real world with the rest of us in it.

Hurrache

flexcon wrote: »

If I get caught speeding 141kph
......
12 points to use in 3 years.

The solution is pretty obvious.

It's absurd that people are arguing that they should be allowed speed and then complain about potential consequences.

sdanseo wrote: »

.

Meanwhile, fúck the real world with the rest of us in it.

Oh woe is me, a poor motorist. Don't be so juvenile.

flexcon

amcalester wrote: »

He has to use up his points some way

Ironically it will now mean my cruise control is set to 120 period if this comes in so i suppose it would work, purely out of fear though as opposed to agreeing with the penalty. It just seems
imho opinion too harsh based on my professional driving experience.

I drove a truck for years and i can tell you those lads in the
bmw’s and audi’s doing 140kph were
more
aware
and respective of my
space and needs than clowns doing the speed limit.

anyway it’s all my subjective experience but it’s quite a lot of it.

Tazio

Anyone see the RTE report tonight ? The reporters were driving in a car with speedo on camera 'showing' dangerous drivers in lane 3 driving >100km/h on what looked like M50... while they were sitting in lane 2 with an empty lane 1! Hmmmmm

flexcon

Hurrache wrote: »

The solution is pretty obvious.

It's ridiculous that people are arguing that they should be allowed speed and then complain about potential consequences.

Context. See my post above.

Been witness to a few crashes and hairy moments over the years but it wasn’t the lads doing 20kph with cruise control on the motorway in a safe as designed zone.

Again I humbly realise speeding is speeding. I don’t take away from the research that shows speed kills.
I’d love to see to what effect doing 20kph over on a motorway was a contributing factor.

PS i was on the dublin to cork road twice a day for nearly 3 years. I’ve seen some fair bad driving.

Hurrache

Tazio wrote: »

Anyone see the RTE report tonight ? The reporters were driving in a car with speedo on camera 'showing' dangerous drivers in lane 3 driving >100km/h on what looked like M50... while they were sitting in lane 2 with an empty lane 1! Hmmmmm

I don't think they said anything about dangerous driving?

sdanseo

Hurrache wrote: »

The solution is pretty obvious.
It's absurd that people are arguing that they should be allowed speed and then complain about potential consequences.

Ah sure let's summarily execute people for littering while we're at it. They knew the rules.

Pathetic argument.

Hurrache wrote: »

Oh woe is me, a poor motorist. Don't be so juvenile.

I have a degree in Transport Planning and did my Thesis on road safety. Even if neither of these things were the case, it wouldn't make my point juvenile. Overreaction and over punishment are not effective ways to stem poor behaviour and if you scrolled up you'll see that far from being juvenile, I've gone and put time and effort into coming to the discussion with a solution rather than stamping my feet and insisting that everyone should behave immaculately and obey the exact letter of the ROTR.

Hurrache

Jesus, what a bunch of babies the way some of the reactions are to it. You'd think points and fines are mandatory each time your step into a car.

Doesn't matter what your qualifications are, they didn't exclude you being juvenile in your reaction.

bingobars

Late night taxi drivers in residential areas don’t stand a chance 😂😂😂

Hurrache

bingobars wrote: »

Late night taxi drivers in residential areas don’t stand a chance 😂😂😂

There'll be no more enforcement if it passes bar a day or two for publicity, then it'll be back to the way it is now.

The reality is that nothing much is going to change unless you're doing more than 10 over the limit.

highdef

flexcon wrote: »

finally i said 141kph - not close to 150kph. If it was 150 i’d be up in court.

Yes, but if you are done for doing 141kmph (your actual real speed at time of detection), your speedo would have been reading in or around 150 so as far as your speedometer was concerned you would be knowingly doing about 30kmph over the indicated speed limit which is rather substantial.

flexcon

highdef wrote: »

Yes, but if you are done for doing 141kmph (your actual real speed at time of detection), your speedo would have been reading in or around 150 so as far as your speedometer was concerned you would be knowingly doing about 30kmph over the indicated speed limit which is rather substantial.

eh? Not aware of this rule? That’s like 8% off then? Is that actually a hard and fast thing or down to tyre pressure and wheel rim?

my understanding was most speedos under read. So if i was doing 140kph in reality it was more
like 135kph.

Edit. Silly me. We are saying the same thing.

Ok so i wouldn’t personally go to 150kph on the clock. Cruise control at 141kph is what i set it at in the
car.

highdef

flexcon wrote: »

eh? Not aware of this rule? That’s like 8% off then? Is that actually a hard and fast thing or down to tyre pressure and wheel rim?

There's no rule being mentioned here. All car speedometers over-read by varying amounts. My partners Nissan Leaf over reads by exactly 10% so if he's doing 110 kmph on the speedo, he's actually doing bang on 100 kmph in the real world.

The last car I had was an Astra and if I did 128 kmph on the speedo, I was doing 120 in the real world. New car is a Focus and I need to do 125/126 kmph on the speedo to be doing real speed of 120. In each case, I tested with 3 different GPS devices to ensure consistency in results.

In short, I almost always drive as fast as I legally can (the other times I am driving under the limit, in case anyone thinks I meant the opposite).

Corca Baiscinn

bingobars wrote: »

Late night taxi drivers in residential areas don’t stand a chance ������

I know that was tongue in cheek but there lies the flaw in the proposed legislation. A huge % of people killed in collisions are in the VRU category,ie pedestrians, cyclists and motor cyclists. Vast majority of these fatalities occur in residential 50km or 60 km speed limit areas. These are the areas least likely to have enforcement under current speed van system as the vans look for somewhere safe and if possible discrete to park. Not so easy to find beside a school, post office, library, shop etc. So unless we move to a different form of enforcement your taxi drivers will be safe but unfortunately children and older people wont be

sdanseo

highdef wrote: »

Yes, but if you are done for doing 141kmph (your actual real speed at time of detection), your speedo would have been reading in or around 150 so as far as your speedometer was concerned you would be knowingly doing about 30kmph over the indicated speed limit which is rather substantial.

It's a matter of relative risk though. Opening a wine bottle is unsafe compared to lying in bed.

People see the headline number 140km/h or 160km/h or whatever and think "oh how unsafe".

150km/h in a 120km/h is 25% over or roughly the same as doing 62km/h in a 50 zone. But if you ask most people which is more dangerous, they will say the higher speed, despite the overwhelming evidence that it's not and the fact that the motorway is a single-direction, grade-seperated, concrete protected dual lane highway with no parked car, pedestrians or obstacles of any kind on which everyone is required to be trained to a higher standard (full licence).

Like Ross, the Irish psyche on this issue is devoid of logic.

AndrewJRenko

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

I know that was tongue in cheek but there lies the flaw in the proposed legislation. A huge % of people killed in collisions are in the VRU category,ie pedestrians, cyclists and motor cyclists.

What percentage of road deaths are VRUs?

gozunda

More cash revenue from the financial livestock who are motorists

The Rape of Lucretia

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

I know that was tongue in cheek but there lies the flaw in the proposed legislation. A huge % of people killed in collisions are in the VRU category,ie pedestrians, cyclists and motor cyclists. Vast majority of these fatalities occur in residential 50km or 60 km speed limit areas. These are the areas least likely to have enforcement under current speed van system as the vans look for somewhere safe and if possible discrete to park. Not so easy to find beside a school, post office, library, shop etc. So unless we move to a different form of enforcement your taxi drivers will be safe but unfortunately children and older people wont be

Children and older people are still being protected by speed vans elsewhere though. The crucial thing is to get those of a speeding mindset on as many points as possible, which mutes their enthusiasm for it. Making everyone else safer. It doesnt matter where they accumulated the points, as long as they have them. So using the most discrete parking places, or where the most speeder can be caught in a given time increases the effectiveness of the vans.

highdef

sdanseo wrote: »

It's a matter of relative risk though. Opening a wine bottle is unsafe compared to lying in bed.

People see the headline number 140km/h or 160km/h or whatever and think "oh how unsafe".

150km/h in a 120km/h is 25% over or roughly the same as doing 62km/h in a 50 zone. But if you ask most people which is more dangerous, they will say the higher speed, despite the overwhelming evidence that it's not and the fact that the motorway is a single-direction, grade-seperated, concrete protected dual lane highway with no parked car, pedestrians or obstacles of any kind on which everyone is required to be trained to a higher standard (full licence).

Like Ross, the Irish psyche on this issue is devoid of logic.

Just to be clear, I would love to legally drive a good bit faster on the motorway however I can't legally do so and I keep to within the legal limit. It doesn't grind my gears. I just get on with life. I have a fuel card so the much higher costs of driving at say 150 kmph real speed versus 120 kmph real speed wouldn't even impact my pocket but if I was paying the fairly higher amounts of cash for those extra few kmph, I'd probably quick enough to tame it down again when I notice I'm down a tenner or so every week, as an estimate.

Corca Baiscinn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What percentage of road deaths are VRUs?

I think I saw 43% (to Nov this year) but will have to check. Some horrific deaths/injuries in single and multi-vehicle collisions but cars have got so much safer for the occupants while becoming bigger and faster for VRU's

dastardly00

It's all kicking off on Prime Time now about the new proposed changes!

jimbobaloobob

This is being debated on primetime at the moment

walshb

Watching it...

That lady has just went off on a personal rant/attack on Mattie, just because he wasn’t in full agreement on these proposals...weird..

mgn

Prime time is a disgrace.Who does that woman think she is.I speak for the whole of Ireland.You only speak for yourself to Mattie McGrath.
And was let rant away.

walshb

mgn wrote: »

Prime time is a disgrace.Who does that woman think she is.I speak for the whole of Ireland.You only speak for yourself to mattie McGrath.

That was utterly bizarre. Her rant was a disgrace, and Miriam a disgrace to allow it..

rgodard80a

walshb wrote: »

Watching it...

That lady has just went off on a personal rant/attack on Mattie, just because he wasn’t in full agreement on these proposals...weird..

Neither of them represented their side very well.

The lady said Mattie was a bitter old man, only thinking of himself because he's too old to fulfil his dreams... bizarre rant.

And Mattie focused on a bizarre "holistic" approach, saying we should educate kids in schools. Educating children won't deal with the 20 years olds who'll be on the roads for the next 50+ years. It's more likely the "kids" will have self driving cars at that stage.
He should've focused on people needing licences for jobs and the very narrow margin of error between driving the correct speed and creeping over the limit.

They're trying to up the punishment to make up for little or no enforcement.

dastardly00

I'm no cheerleader for Mattie McGrath and he was fairly incoherent went he was trying to make his points... But that lady was well out of order

macnug

mgn wrote: »

Prime time is a disgrace.Who does that woman think she is.I speak for the whole of Ireland.You only speak for yourself to mattie McGrath.

Yea if anything it was the other way round. He's elected by the people, she's not.

larchill

Overly emotionally involved to make a rational & balanced judgement.