Jail for doing 44km/h over the 120km/h limit

Ultimate Seduction

CiniO wrote: »

Majority of cars have very similar stopping power.

While acceleration 0-150km/h will be crazy faster in M5 than an old Clio, but stopping from 150km/h to 0 will not differ that much. (assuming Clio's brakes are in good shape, but that's why we have NCT).

So wrong.

tuxy

All you have to do is look at the brake calipers and rotors to know that can't be true

Old Corsa


M5

tuxy

There's also this
https://www.asburyauto.com/compare/2018-bmw-m5-vs-2018-cadillac-cts-v/152283

M5 stopping distance at 60mph(96.6 km/h) 110 feet (33.5) metres

http://www.movitcars.com/rahmen/stoptbl.htm
Clio stopping distance 100 km/h 43.4 metres

Henry Ford III

tuxy wrote: »

All you have to do is look at the brake calipers and rotors to know that can't be true

Rotors?

tuxy

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Rotors?

sorry discs
I've seen them called disc rotors, I didn't not that was an incorrect term.

Henry Ford III

tuxy wrote: »

sorry discs
I've seen them called disc rotors, I didn't not that was an incorrect term.

An Americanism I think.

TeaBagMania

yep, i gots rotors on ma Ferd, what the hell are disc's?

McCrack

coylemj wrote: »

Never mind the substance of the excuse, my point is that some judges look favourably on a defendant who, in effect, throws his hands up and offers no excuse.

That might sound counter-intuitive but judges have to sit there all day listening to BS excuses for all sorts of offences. In many cases, this will involve a defendant perjuring himself in the witness box so sometimes they will give credit to a defendant who simply admits his guilt and offers no rubbish excuse.

But in this case, it backfired. Hence my point that it's a lottery and all depends on which judge is on the bench on the day.

Youre conflating a reason for doing something with an excuse for doing something

Judges can spot the difference and decide appropriately

milhous

johnmcdnl wrote: »

Anytime I'm doing a long drive on any motorway in Ireland, doing 110-115, I'm doing the majority of the overtaking, with an occasional person overtaking me. The M1 would be the exception to that.

Anedoctal evidence goes both ways I guess.

Is there any chance they're not overtaking you because you're in the over taking lane? EDIT: sorry it's sounds like I'm attacking you there, im not and then my rant just carried on. No need to answer that as I'm sure you drive properly. EDIT

On your note about the m1, infairness it's a fairly fast flowing motorway, i find it is great until the slow brigade come out. Most of the congestion is due to ppl doing 100km/h or slower and eople in the overtaking lane when they should not be. I think if you see 40 foots over taking you it's time to reevaluate your driving (And I'm aware that 120km/h is a limit not a target, but still).

If people stuck to the correct lane, and were observant when pulling in and out to overtake, then speeds on a good solid motorway (like the m1)at 130/140/150/160 km/h shouldn't be an issue.

I think two laws should start being enforced as much as speeding is, and they are driving in the correct lane, and tailgating.. I'd say these are more important factors effecting congestion and crashes.

coylemj

McCrack wrote: »

Youre conflating a reason for doing something with an excuse for doing something

Judges can spot the difference and decide appropriately

Judges are human, some of them are a soft touch for a lame excuse - Speeding Limerick beauty queen praised for honesty.

'It was me mammy's car so I didn't realise what speed I was doing' - 187 kph and she didn't even get a ban, just a fine and points FFS!

Dravokivich

Peatys wrote: »

Does anyone know approx what year the old limit set as 70mph?

Edit, 1992.
With the advances in cars, that could easily be raised to 160kph.

You're kidding right? Most cars sold here top off around 105 mph. That doesn't mean they can comfortably run at around 100 mph.

OldMrBrennan83

Dravokivich wrote: »

You're kidding right? Most cars sold here top off around 105 mph. That doesn't mean they can comfortably run at around 100 mph.

It's ok, you can just upgrade and buy the right to speed.

McCrack

coylemj wrote: »

Judges are human, some of them are a soft touch for a lame excuse - Speeding Limerick beauty queen praised for honesty.

'It was me mammy's car so I didn't realise what speed I was doing' - 187 kph and she didn't even get a ban, just a fine and points FFS!

Which judges?, what district court areas or circuits are you referring to?

coylemj

McCrack wrote: »

Which judges?, what district court areas or circuits are you referring to?

I provided a link to the case in my post (#102), the one you quoted. I've posted it again below. It was Ennis District Court.

The woman was summonsed for driving at 187 kph, she showed up with no lawyer and got off with a fine and (I assume) points.

Speeding Limerick beauty queen praised for honesty

fxotoole

selectamatic wrote: »

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/358043/jail-sentence-for-man-caught-speeding-on-limerick-motorway.html

28 year old man clocked driving at 164km/h on the motorway gets a two year disqualification, fined €400 and a two month prison sentence.

Step aside Judge Zaidan we are now entering the era of Judge Marian O'Leary.

Personally I think a fcpn and 3 points would have been plenty.

Proper fücken order

MarkN

CiniO wrote: »

Majority of cars have very similar stopping power.

While acceleration 0-150km/h will be crazy faster in M5 than an old Clio, but stopping from 150km/h to 0 will not differ that much. (assuming Clio's brakes are in good shape, but that's why we have NCT).

You’ve clearly never driven an M5 if you think they stop like a Clio! I’ve been lucky enough to drive one well beyond the speeds mentioned (legally!) and it was the safest I’ve ever felt in any car, nevermind one with 600bhp.

Level of conviction seems harsh. 4 points and a fine would’ve been enough.

McCrack

coylemj wrote: »

I provided a link to the case in my post (#102), the one you quoted. I've posted it again below. It was Ennis District Court.

The woman was summonsed for driving at 187 kph, she showed up with no lawyer and got off with a fine and (I assume) points.

Speeding Limerick beauty queen praised for honesty

A newspaper report from 4 years ago of an incident reported doesn't support anything. It's one case. Theres approximately 300,000 offenses dealt by the district courts each year and 30,000 in circuit courts

You have nothing of substance except a preconceived popular opinion

CiniO

tuxy wrote: »

There's also this
https://www.asburyauto.com/compare/2018-bmw-m5-vs-2018-cadillac-cts-v/152283

M5 stopping distance at 60mph(96.6 km/h) 110 feet (33.5) metres

http://www.movitcars.com/rahmen/stoptbl.htm
Clio stopping distance 100 km/h 43.4 metres

Perfect.
I was looking for this kind of data, but couldn't find one.

So if according to that data M5 stops in 110 feet (33.528 metres) from 60mph, than it means it stops in 35.96 metres from 100km/h.
Clio stops in 43.4 metres.

That makes M5 stopping distance 17.14% lower than clio's.

I agree there is a difference. But I can't agree that it's very significent.

CiniO

MarkN wrote: »

You’ve clearly never driven an M5 if you think they stop like a Clio! I’ve been lucky enough to drive one well beyond the speeds mentioned (legally!) and it was the safest I’ve ever felt in any car, nevermind one with 600bhp.

Well, you could have felt safer, but that was very likely deceptive, as if we're talking about possible crash at those speeds, you'd be dead no matter what car you're in.

Also have a look at figures about difference in stopping distance. It's not significent.

mickdw

M5 stops 7.5m shorter from 60 mph. That is a huge gulf. It might not seem to be a big difference but if you just managed to stop your m5 a half metre short of running under a truck, you would be fairly thankful that you were not in the clio.
Those figures also deal with the relatively low speed of 60 mph. I'd imagine the stopping distance gap between the cars would dramatically increase with further speed and that is before you include handling of the poorer car that might mean you couldn't just jump hard onto the brakes.

tuxy

CiniO wrote: »

Perfect.
I was looking for this kind of data, but couldn't find one.

So if according to that data M5 stops in 110 feet (33.528 metres) from 60mph, than it means it stops in 35.96 metres from 100km/h.
Clio stops in 43.4 metres.

That makes M5 stopping distance 17.14% lower than clio's.

I agree there is a difference. But I can't agree that it's very significent.

Is it not closer to 20%?
I'd consider that significant.
If you look at the difference for the m5 between 60 mph and 80 then 20% is going to be a massive difference when talking about some of the speeds mentioned earlier.

MarkN

There was no deception, everything is better, performance, grip, safety features, tyres, electronic stability...

Nobody would want an impact at those speeds in anything that moves but all some of us are saying is that you’d be surprised at the difference that superior engineering in a car makes. The same way as you might be surprised to see the difference between the stopping distance of a premium tyre versus a cheap one. I’ve seen it first hand on wet tracks etc and it really is the difference between hitting a human or a car and not. Literally.

sunnysoutheast

CiniO wrote: »

Well, you could have felt safer, but that was very likely deceptive, as if we're talking about possible crash at those speeds, you'd be dead no matter what car you're in.

Also have a look at figures about difference in stopping distance. It's not significent.

A difference of nearly 8 metres is very significant if something happens to be in that space, is it not?

And that's the difference at only 60 MPH!

Zubeneschamali

CiniO wrote: »

That makes M5 stopping distance 17.14% lower than clio's.

Which means that if the M5 stops just at an obstacle in the road, the Clio will hit it at 17.14 kph.

Henry Ford III

An M5 is far from top of the class on braking distances incidentally.

sunnysoutheast

Henry Ford III wrote: »

An M5 is far from top of the class on braking distances incidentally.

...but is it better than an "old Clio"? :pac:

Chevy Corvettes seem to be good! M5 in 52nd place. Can't see any Clios.

https://fastestlaps.com/lists/top-quickest-stoppers-60mph

monkeybutter

The problem aint just stopping distance at that speed

It's reaction time and how controllable the car is

Fifth gear did a good section on doing emergency maneuvers at the ever increasing speed

You might think you are Ralf Schumacher, but you arent

Dravokivich

monkeybutter wrote: »

The problem aint just stopping distance at that speed

It's reaction time and how controllable the car is

Fifth gear did a good section on doing emergency maneuvers at the ever increasing speed

You might think you are Ralf Schumacher, but you arent

Can we please burn the "2 second rule"

CrankyHaus

Dravokivich wrote: »

Can we please burn the "2 second rule"

Why, and what would you replace it with?

josip

coylemj wrote: »

This highlights the lottery which is the attitudes of different judges. In the case of the guy who's the subject of this thread and who got two months jail, his solicitor said he was offering no excuse as to why he was driving at that speed. Plenty of judges would consider this (no BS excuses) as a positive on the defendant's behalf and give him credit for it. In this case, the judge said that having no excuse for speeding was an 'aggravating factor'.

So remember folks, you were late for an important medical appointment.

Can some of the legal people on here explain, why in a country with a common not civil law legal system, the solicitor couldn't use the precedent set by the Rose of Tralee judge to secure a lighter sentence for their client?