Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Proposal for sliding scale of speeding fines / points
Options
Comments
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »"its not me, its the other drivers that can't handle speed, I'm fine"
"it's not dangerous to speed at certain times on some roads"
"speed is not the cause of as many accidents as they would have you believe"
"I can tell when it's safe to break the limits"
"it's just a revenue generating idea"
"it's a conspiracy I tell ya, they're all in it together"
"Ross must go"
None of the above are valid reasons not to move forward with the proposed sliding scale
I'm not sure there are many people making those arguments.
My own one is the existing laws achieve exactly what these new ones might achieve without being as complicated and open to challenge should they be enforced on a more active basis.
Do you disagree?0 -
I'm not sure there are many people making those arguments.
My own one is the existing laws achieve exactly what these new ones might achieve without being as complicated and open to challenge should they be enforced on a more active basis.
Do you disagree?
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108985045&postcount=560 -
Deleted User wrote: »"its not me, its the other drivers that can't handle speed, I'm fine"
If anything the opposite is true in many places. For example where motorways end and become National Primary roads, the speed limit often decreases form 120km/h to 80km/h or even 60km/h quite quickly with no real degradation in the quality of the road or its suitability for at least 100km/h traffic.
The result is that slowing to the limit - or below, since y'know, it's not a target - can be significantly more dangerous and result in being mercilessly tailgated. All made worse by the fact that very few of the other drivers will be in the correct lane, especially on 3 lane roads, because Irish drivers as a fair generalisation simply cannot comprehend lane discipline.Deleted User wrote: »"it's not dangerous to speed at certain times on some roads"Deleted User wrote: »"it's just a revenue generating idea"Deleted User wrote: »"it's a conspiracy I tell ya, they're all in it together"
Part 1 is simply correct. And in many cases it's not unsafe to speed at rush hour. In many others, the posted limit is not far off suicidal. We cannot correctly assign speed limits to roads in this currently as a rule and to address #2 #3 and #4, while I don't believe it myself you can't blame some for wondering if that's related to revenue collection. My gut says if it was, we'd be seeing a massive fine rise instead of or together with increased points in this proposal. Ross, however deluded in his assertions, does seem to at least think it will improve safety.Deleted User wrote: »"I can tell when it's safe to break the limits"
Speed alone is physically incapable of causing an accident bar where you drive into a corner where the effort of turning the corner causes more centrifugal force to act on the car than its tyres can compensate for with friction. To do that willingly, you'd want to be 18 and clueless or a lemming.Deleted User wrote: »"speed is not the cause of as many accidents as they would have you believe"
Other factors are required to cause accidents and those other factors also need to be addressed and enforcement taken in equal measure.
This is not the only decision Ross has made leading people to that conclusion.Deleted User wrote: »"Ross must go"
I've yet to see him make one reasonable argument or law except the drink driving one. His policy decisions are blatantly biased, and the man is simply an imbecile. Nothing and no one will convince me otherwise at this point.Deleted User wrote: »None of the above are valid reasons not to move forward with the proposed sliding scale
Notwithstanding all of the above - I agree completely! A sliding scale is the idea behind proportional penalties, only by making it a fixed x km/h over regardless of the base limit you toss all proportionality out the window.
There are clearly other and arguably bigger problems at play here in terms of fixing speed limits, enforcing lane discipline and other factors which also contribute to accidents, getting VSL up and running on major routes, and a general common-sense overhaul in the DTTAS.
Wasting time and energy on an overly punitive way of penalising people for one of the only offences that they are actually already enforcing in a meaningful way is a pathetic attempt at a legacy for Ross and nothing more. I'm sure there's an element of well meaning on his part...that does not make him any less of a twat.0 -
I'm not sure there are many people making those arguments.
My own one is the existing laws achieve exactly what these new ones might achieve without being as complicated and open to challenge should they be enforced on a more active basis.
Do you disagree?
Here, here. If the guards actually enforced existing laws as opposed to fabricating the work they do it would save far more lives.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »
You called my point bogus.
I replied to you earlier in the thread - you may have missed it.
And again, if you are saying that the existing laws are not fit for purpose because they are never going to be enforced more than they are now (for some unknown reason) I'd ask what changes when new, more complex rules are intriduced whose aim is to do the same thing? Do they magicilly get a higher enforcement rate if nothing else changes?
The mind absolutely boggles here. It's blatently obvious that the issues with a lot of laws in this country are down to enforcement. This wont change with "new" laws.
The states is woefully understaffed in the area of law enforcement and woefully behind the times with the efficient use of the resources it has at it's disposal.
Ross and others like him want to be seen to be doing "something" without ever fully grasping the nettle.0 -
Advertisement
-
You called my point bogus.
I replied to you earlier in the thread - you may have missed it.
And again, if you are saying that the existing laws are not fit for purpose because they are never going to be enforced more than they are now (for some unknown reason) I'd ask what changes when new, more complex rules are intriduced whose aim is to do the same thing? Do they magicilly get a higher enforcement rate if nothing else changes?
The mind absolutely boggles here. It's blatently obvious that the issues with a lot of laws in this country are down to enforcement. This wont change with "new" laws.
The states is woefully understaffed in the area of law enforcement and woefully behind the times with the efficient use of the resources it has at it's disposal.
Ross and others like him want to be seen to be doing "something" without ever fully grasping the nettle.
While the “no new laws needed” mantra is sometimes true, it’s not the case in this case.
Higher fines for people who drive faster done right makes the system fairer and targets those causing more danger... the graduation of the fines just need to be done by area as well as speed (ie higher fines for going 10km/h over the limit in an urban area vs a rural area).0 -
While the “no new laws needed” mantra is sometimes true, it’s not the case in this case.
Higher fines for people who drive faster done right makes the system fairer and targets those causing more danger... the graduation of the fines just need to be done by area as well as speed (ie higher fines for going 10km/h over the limit in an urban area vs a rural area).
I don't agree at all (as you can see).
The primary issue is enforcement. The existing road traffic act contains plenty options for dealing with those that are "dangerously" over the speed limit.
The more granularity you bring into these things the more options there are for mistakes in enforcement and the more options there are for legal argument. This doesn't help anyone.
Latest story today:
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/traffic-corps-keeps-80-of-extra-150-officers-894739.html
We could probably do with continuing to build higher quality roads and improve the existing ones - all have a major impact on rates of death and injury.0 -
I don't agree at all (as you can see).
The primary issue is enforcement. The existing road traffic act contains plenty options for dealing with those that are "dangerously" over the speed limit.
The more granularity you bring into these things the more options there are for mistakes in enforcement and the more options there are for legal argument. This doesn't help anyone.
Latest story today:
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/traffic-corps-keeps-80-of-extra-150-officers-894739.html
We could probably do with continuing to build higher quality roads and improve the existing ones - all have a major impact on rates of death and injury.
Your argument is basically we need more X, Y and maybe Z, so we can’t have something that makes the current level of enforcement more effective.
This thread and others comment threads under articles, comments from some TDs and councillors etc makes it clearer to me that graduated fines are needed if for nothing else to make it clearer that speeding 10km/h over a 30-50km/h is far worse than the same amount of speeding over a 100km/h limit
You also seem to be implying that going “dangerously over the speed limit” is already covered when it’s only covered in an ad-hock way and enforcement can be near-automatic. And a gradual system covers more than just “dangerous driving” — it fines or should fine people for the levels of danger they are causing.
As for “more granularity you bring into these things the more options there are for mistakes in enforcement and the more options there are for legal argument” — this is again another legal excuse that needs to be tackled and a really poor excuse for not making laws better. There’s no more potential for mistakes in detection between 50 and 53km/h as there is between 60-63 or 70-73... an allowance of 2-3km/h or more at higher speeds allows for a margin or error.0 -
Your argument is basically we need more X, Y and maybe Z, so we can’t have something that makes the current level of enforcement more effective.
This thread and others comment threads under articles, comments from some TDs and councillors etc makes it clearer to me that graduated fines are needed if for nothing else to make it clearer that speeding 10km/h over a 30-50km/h is far worse than the same amount of speeding over a 100km/h limit
You also seem to be implying that going “dangerously over the speed limit” is already covered when it’s only covered in an ad-hock way and enforcement can be near-automatic. And a gradual system covers more than just “dangerous driving” — it fines or should fine people for the levels of danger they are causing.
As for “more granularity you bring into these things the more options there are for mistakes in enforcement and the more options there are for legal argument” — this is again another legal excuse that needs to be tackled and a really poor excuse for not making laws better. There’s no more potential for mistakes in detection between 50 and 53km/h as there is between 60-63 or 70-73... an allowance of 2-3km/h or more at higher speeds allows for a margin or error.
Those advocating these changes are essentially saying that enforcement is not the issue. The issue is the lack of proportional punishment. My argument is we need more enforcement (X) - simple as that.
The argument coming from those advocating the new laws is:
If A, Then B
If C, Then D
If E, Then F
If G, Then H
etc..........
All in the absense of an increase in X (enforcement)
You tell me which is more complicated.
That's plainly not the reason that people continue to break posted speed limits on a regular basis (or still take a chance on drink driving for that matter)
I suppose time will tell in all of this. Eother way, I am all for less lives lost and injuries caused on the roads and safer roads for all that use them so I hope it improves these statistics however I firmly believe that the efficient use of and increase in the number of individuals who implement these laws (and indeed many many more) is the only way to drasticilly improve driver behaviour.0 -
It's worth yet another reminder that the speed van system costs money. It is not revenue generating.The application of speed is also totally inconsistent and this combined with how they essentially set speed traps (gatso vans and gardai) in areas RIGHT where limits changes gives a strong impression that the whole system is set up to milk people for money through trickery and far less to do with safety.
You're joking, right? The RSA Speed Surveys show 3 or 4 out of 5 drivers break speed limits. We are a long, long way from 'rigid enforcement'.Drink and speed are the two easiest to measure so they are most rigidly enforced.
Maybe - but in the meantime, drivers need to drive to the road conditions that we have, not the road conditions they desire.We could probably do with continuing to build higher quality roads and improve the existing ones - all have a major impact on rates of death and injury.
Yeah, to hell with those damn Pilates class attendees and school board members coming out at 10pm. They're just fair game to be hit, right?The answer is proportionality. It's perfectly reasonable to expect motorists to slow down - heavily - when there are school children about. It is not reasonable to expect motorists to adhere to school-limits at 10PM on a Sunday night.No I just don't want to be anywhere near anyone on the road you can't anticipate others
If you want to avoid one particular driver, just pull over for five minutes. What's five minutes?
If you don't want to be 'anywhere near anyone' on the road, it sounds like you need to limit your driving to your own private roads. Or maybe to the 3am to 5am timeslot. If you can't share the road safely with others, you really shouldn't be driving.
This is so far off reality that I'm wondering if you are competent to drive.you cant have an accident if theres noone else around to help cause one.0 -
Advertisement
-
AndrewJRenko wrote: »You're joking, right? The RSA Speed Surveys show 3 or 4 out of 5 drivers break speed limits. We are a long, long way from 'rigid enforcement'.
Have you a link to these figures?
Assuming they're true (and it wouldn't surprise me) it doesn't change the fact that those two offences are the most rigidly enforced.
I didn't say we are at 100% detection. If we were, the unemployment rate would soar, since >60% of people get to work by car.
Interestingly despite this we have the 15th lowest per capita road death figures in the world and 38% of that is still caused by Alcohol. Those per capita figures are also from 2013, if none of the other countries have improved, then we're now 4th behind Monaco, which happens to have had none because it's basically a hill, Micronesia, which has feck all roads; and Norway where speeding will cost you €1300 and drink driving will land you in prison.
My argument remains that speed is enforced enough relative to other offences which have equal bearing on accidents. Speed causes around 40% of accidents - very similar to Alcohol - but I haven't been breathalysed since around 2010 despit doing c. 200,000km since then. Yet I pass a speed van weekly.0 -
That speed van - tis in the same place weekly?Have you a link to these figures?
Assuming they're true (and it wouldn't surprise me) it doesn't change the fact that those two offences are the most rigidly enforced.
I didn't say we are at 100% detection. If we were, the unemployment rate would soar, since >60% of people get to work by car.
Interestingly despite this we have the 15th lowest per capita road death figures in the world and 38% of that is still caused by Alcohol.
My argument remains that speed is enforced enough relative to other offences which have equal bearing on accidents. Speed causes around 40% of accidents - very similar to Alcohol - but I haven't been breathalysed since around 2010 despit doing c. 200,000km since then. Yet I pass a speed van weekly.
Once a month I pass a speed check on average - usually in one of two places. There are vast stretches of road that I've never passed a speed van or checkpoint on.
I've been breathalysed once in the past 15 odd years so similiar experience there.0 -
That speed van - tis in the same place weekly?
Once a month I pass a speed check on average - usually in one of two places. There are vast stretches of road that I've never passed a speed van or checkpoint on.
I've been breathalysed once in the past 15 odd years so similiar experience there.
Edited my post slightly for clarity. Realised my figures were 5 years out of date and updated.
No, various places. R132 has a few different known spots so it would be a regular example. Most often AGS with a hairdryer than a van.
Saw GoSafe on the Malahide road just last week.0 -
Look for the RSA Speed Survey reports on the RSA website. If we're not at 100% detection, what % are we? Could it be 1% or even less than that?Have you a link to these figures?
Assuming they're true (and it wouldn't surprise me) it doesn't change the fact that those two offences are the most rigidly enforced.
I didn't say we are at 100% detection. If we were, the unemployment rate would soar, since >60% of people get to work by car.
I'm not quite sure I see the connection between detection rates and unemployment, unless you're suggesting that the vast majority of drivers are congenitally unable to drive to the speed limit?0 -
Reasonable proposal for limits of 50km/h and below but draconian above that. By all means increase the financial penalty but there is no other country in Europe where 21km/h twice in a 3 year period will lose you your licence.
Not true. In Switzerland the penalty for 21-24 km/h over the limit in a built up area is a 1 month minimum disqualification.
For a single offence.
https://www.ch.ch/en/driving-over-speed-limit/
edit: according to Wikipedia Switzerland has 3.2 road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle-km (2016), the second-lowest after Norway's 3.0 (2017). Ireland has 3.8 (2013). Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate0 -
FWIW I think Ireland's relaxed enforcement of speeding is OK. Speed is mostly just an aggravating factor to stupid driving.
If radical change is required, I think I'd rather see universal roll out of dash cams and more resources to prosecute dangerous driving charges. The last crazy thing I saw on the roads was a cement truck on the M50 kicking up dust half way onto the hard shoulder at 90kph as the driver jabbed away on his mobile phone. I couldn't record it because I was driving.0 -
Most of those things have been said by precisely nobody, except for the last one.Deleted User wrote: »"its not me, its the other drivers that can't handle speed, I'm fine"
"it's not dangerous to speed at certain times on some roads"
"speed is not the cause of as many accidents as they would have you believe"
"I can tell when it's safe to break the limits"
"it's just a revenue generating idea"
"it's a conspiracy I tell ya, they're all in it together"
"Ross must go"
None of the above are valid reasons not to move forward with the proposed sliding scale
Furthermore, no-one that I can see is objecting to speed enforcement, including with sliding scale penalties. What is being called for are two things:- Laws that are fair and sensible.
- Penalties that are proportionate. I.E. that the punishment fits the crime.
To repeat: no-one is looking for a Wild West type of anarchy. What is being sought is fairness and proportionality. Ross and his supporters here seem to have no concept of either.
Seriously, what are you even talking about?AndrewJRenko wrote: »Yeah, to hell with those damn Pilates class attendees and school board members coming out at 10pm. They're just fair game to be hit, right?
If someone (without reference to any poster in particular) cannot see why a motorist should be expected to be much more conservative passing a school at 9:05 AM on a February Monday, than they might at 10PM on a Sunday in July, then such a person should not only never get behind the wheel of a car - and I mean ever - but shouldn't be on the roads at all. By any mode.0 -
Not true. In Switzerland the penalty for 21-24 km/h over the limit in a built up area is a 1 month minimum disqualification.
For a single offence.
https://www.ch.ch/en/driving-over-speed-limit/
edit: according to Wikipedia Switzerland has 3.2 road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle-km (2016), the second-lowest after Norway's 3.0 (2017). Ireland has 3.8 (2013). Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
Take your point, I looked at the EU.
Switzerland at least allows a higher tolerance for faster classes of road, and the minimum disqualifications are 1 and 3 months as opposed to 6 months here albeit for a proposed second offence.
Also, for context: Switzerland has some of the best public transport in the EEA despite being overwhelmingly mountainous. It is one of the most stringent and car unfriendly places in the world with strict emissions rules and full on bans for certain types of trucks which don't meet regulations. Nationwide. I would call those Swiss laws very harsh and they still only provide for 1 month ban for 31-34km/h over on a motorway whereas Shane Ross would instead like you prosecuted for dangerous driving (with all the bells and whistles of a criminal record. no more USA, Canada etc... ever.)
Some punishment for doing something that is nowhere near that unsafe.FWIW I think Ireland's relaxed enforcement of speeding is OK. Speed is mostly just an aggravating factor to stupid driving.
If radical change is required, I think I'd rather see universal roll out of dash cams and more resources to prosecute dangerous driving charges. The last crazy thing I saw on the roads was a cement truck on the M50 kicking up dust half way onto the hard shoulder at 90kph as the driver jabbed away on his mobile phone. I couldn't record it because I was driving.
Agree completely. I'd go so far as to make front and rear cameras on a loop-record mandatory in all vehicles. Data saved for a few hrs and locked for excess G force or airbag deployment, manual panic button.
For countries where that's a privacy concern, encrypt and lock access to the local Police / car dealer / insurance assessor in the event it's needed. Would reduce the cost of insurance exponentially.
It would also catch out people speeding, should keep a few here happy.0 -
If someone (without reference to any poster in particular) cannot see why a motorist should be expected to be much more conservative passing a school at 9:05 AM on a February Monday, than they might at 10PM on a Sunday in July, then such a person should not only never get behind the wheel of a car - and I mean ever - but shouldn't be on the roads at all. By any mode.
So, for the second time you're implying that somebody who is arguing for lower speed limits in populated areas at all times is somehow a danger behind the wheel.
Now I've truly heard it all :eek:0 -
Not all schools are in densely populated zones.So, for the second time you're implying that somebody who is arguing for lower speed limits in populated areas at all times is somehow a danger behind the wheel.
And yes, if you can't imagine why a motorist should be way more cautious around schools when there are children about (e.g. when children are going to school, released from school at the end of the day), you should not be on the road, and not just in a car, but at all. Full stop.0 -
Advertisement
-
Why do you assume there won't be children around a school at night? You know that many schools are used outside normal hours for meetings, sports, classes, dance and other events.Not all schools are in densely populated zones.
And yes, if you can't imagine why a motorist should be way more cautious around schools when there are children about (e.g. when children are going to school, released from school at the end of the day), you should not be on the road, and not just in a car, but at all. Full stop.
If you're going to make assumptions that you can speed past outside school hours, you really should hand over the keys to a competent driver.0 -
Not all schools are in densely populated zones.
And yes, if you can't imagine why a motorist should be way more cautious around schools when there are children about (e.g. when children are going to school, released from school at the end of the day), you should not be on the road, and not just in a car, but at all. Full stop.
3rd time, taking what I said and twisting it completely upside down into nonsense.
For the last time, and I'm not talking about schools in particular, im talking about densely populated urban areas In general:
We don't need to assume everybody should be tucked up in their houses just because it's 10pm on a Sunday night. These spaces need to be safe and friendly to people first , 24/7 . That's my view, not any nonsense about not understanding a need to slow down at school times.
I don't know how I can be clearer than this.
And FWIW, I agree with you on the lack of enforcement issue. Ireland is great at non-enforcement of rules. I'd like to see a lot more of the clever self-enforcing infrastructure you see in urban areas in other countries that influences people to driver more slowly and carefully without the need for people hiding in hedges with hair dryers.0 -
I think this is a good thing. Don't understand the critism to be honest.
Policing speeding is obviously not good enough and this won't change that but that's a different issue. Needs to be addressed aswell0 -
Why do I "assume" there won't be children around a school at night, as opposed to 3:30PM on a weekday? Maybe a decade of driving experience with a spotless record. Driving a lot in the off-peak, it's not unusual for me to pass a school in a rural area and in total darkness. Hence my view of the need for things like variable speed limits and timed warning signs.AndrewJRenko wrote: »Why do you assume there won't be children around a school at night? You know that many schools are used outside normal hours for meetings, sports, classes, dance and other events.
If you're going to make assumptions that you can speed past outside school hours, you really should hand over the keys to a competent driver.
I don't "speed past schools" in fact I tend to stick to limits, (hence my long spotless driving record) but experience has taught me that hazards will be different in the peak hours than they might be at midnight. Way different. Anyone who does not understand that should not be on the road.
I'm doing nothing of the sort, you and Andrew have been very clear - motorists should not expect anything different outside a school on a weekend night as on a school morning or afternoon at the end of the teaching day. Presumably you both think motorists should just drive everywhere at 5 miles an hour or something?3rd time, taking what I said and twisting it completely upside down into nonsense.
You referenced one of my points about schools specifically.For the last time, and I'm not talking about schools in particular, im talking about densely populated urban areas In general:
I assume nothing. I have a lot of experience seeing areas where lots of people are out-and-about in the daytime, including schools, that are totally deserted late at night. And I mean totally, absolutely, utterly, deserted. Nobody out, almost no traffic etc. Schools are the most obvious example - 99% of the time I pass a school, it is in darkness. This is specifically tied to most of my driving being off-peak.We don't need to assume everybody should be tucked up in their houses just because it's 10pm on a Sunday night.
That's why I'm in favour of variable speeds, or simply raised limits in some cases.
You and people like you have been very clear.I don't know how I can be clearer than this.
We need rules that are:And FWIW, I agree with you on the lack of enforcement issue. Ireland is great at non-enforcement of rules. I'd like to see a lot more of the clever self-enforcing infrastructure you see in urban areas in other countries that influences people to driver more slowly and carefully without the need for people hiding in hedges with hair dryers.- Fair and reasonable
- Penalised in a manner proportionate to the offence.
- Enforced.
No problem with it in theory but it should be proportionate. It should start from 1 penalty point for being slightly over, to 3, 4 or more for larger margins, and then dangerous driving for something like a margin of the posted speed plus 50-60kph or something. Starting with 3 points for being slightly over and going up is over the top. "Dangerous driving" for the speed limit plus less 31kph (less than 20MPH) is over the top.I think this is a good thing. Don't understand the critism to be honest.
Policing speeding is obviously not good enough and this won't change that but that's a different issue. Needs to be addressed aswell0 -
We need rules that are:
Fair and reasonable
Penalised in a manner proportionate to the offence.
Enforced.
For the first 2 points, that is exactly what is being proposed. The greater the breach of the limit, the more severe the penalty. How you are failing to understand that is beyond me when what you are demanding is exactly what is proposed.
As for enforcement, it will only ever be done on a sample basis, in the exact same way as breath tests, tax/insurance checks, customs, RSA, etc etc.0 -
Did you read my post? Or those of others who have made comparisons to international systems (e.g. Switzerland). My problem is that the punishment does not fit the crime.
If it were, it would start at much lower penalties for being slightly over, and have a much higher threshold than 19 MPH for a criminal charge of dangerous driving. It should start with 1 penalty point and work up from there.0 -
Did you read my post? Or those of others who have made comparisons to international systems (e.g. Switzerland). My problem is that the punishment does not fit the crime.
If it were, it would start at much lower penalties for being slightly over, and have a much higher threshold than 19 MPH for a criminal charge of dangerous driving. It should start with 1 penalty point and work up from there.
“being slightly over” for some is 10km/h in a 50km/h zone and that can add up to life or death for pedestrians if hit.
But I think most people here can agree Ross has made a dog’s dinner of it.0 -
Those advocating these changes are essentially saying that enforcement is not the issue. The issue is the lack of proportional punishment. My argument is we need more enforcement (X) - simple as that.
The argument coming from those advocating the new laws is:
If A, Then B
If C, Then D
If E, Then F
If G, Then H
etc..........
All in the absense of an increase in X (enforcement)
You tell me which is more complicated.
That's plainly not the reason that people continue to break posted speed limits on a regular basis (or still take a chance on drink driving for that matter)
I suppose time will tell in all of this. Eother way, I am all for less lives lost and injuries caused on the roads and safer roads for all that use them so I hope it improves these statistics however I firmly believe that the efficient use of and increase in the number of individuals who implement these laws (and indeed many many more) is the only way to drasticilly improve driver behaviour.
By increasing the punishment you increase you get an educational boost and the enforcement effectiveness.
That all depends on the right kind of gradual system — ie not what Ross has proposed but a fairer system which focuses higher points and fines on urban areas.
Increasing the Garda roads police units is needed, is happening slowly and should happen faster. But it’s a side issue to a change of law — changing the law or not will not slow down or speed up the number of new roads police.0 -
How often does that happen though? Can you point to an example of where a pedestrian was killed by a motorist traveling at 56kph where it is known absolutely that wouldn't have happened at 49kph? Remember that 8kph is only 5 miles per hour in 'the old money' so to speak, it's not a lot in most cases.“being slightly over” for some is 10km/h in a 50km/h zone and that can add up to life or death for pedestrians if hit.
Again, YMMV, but a lot of my driving is late at night and Saturday afternoons, and you'll often go through a 50kph zone or a 60kph zone and not meet any pedestrians at all. So how do you "protect" a pedestrian that does not exist?
It's not just this. We now have drug driving laws that say if someone partakes of an occasional use of cannabis, they have to stay off the road for up to a month when the evidence suggests they should only be off the road for hours, not weeks. Lowering of BAC limits when there was little or no evidence of people between the old and new limits causing problems in practice. And so on.But I think most people here can agree Ross has made a dog’s dinner of it.
And all the while this goes on, insurance rates for people with good records like mine continue to climb to absolutely eye-watering levels.
By all means enforce the law to keep dangerous drivers off the road, but the laws need to be sensible and fair, with punishments that fit the crime and are proportionate. Ross supports none of that. Just more harsh laws.0 -
Advertisement
-
It should also be noted that not every 50kph zone is created equal. Take for example the town of Longford.
On this road, the 50kph zone starts a mile outside the town on the N63, where there's nothing but out-of-town industrial parks that are largely unused outside of business hours:
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7108285,-7.8195387,3a,75y,28.29h,91.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl2yTo1lRF6MOx0hsC-tiXA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
But the same 50kph limit applies on the towns Main Street. Is 50kph appropriate for either? No, it should be lower in the town and higher, significantly so, out where my link shows.
But there's no distinction in law between Main St. and the road with a bit ribbon development a mile out, nor any distinction between the various times of day one may be traveling at. It's 50kph on both, 24/7. Another reason why penalties should start low in a graduated system.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement