Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] 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 [email protected]

Graduated speed fines.

  • 08-03-2020 5:04pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 1


    Hello, I have made an account on here to find an answer to a question that i cannot find anywhere on the internet.

    so are the new graduated speed fines implemented yet or the old one is still being used ?


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 28,348 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    _kevin1995 wrote: »
    Hello, I have made an account on here to find an answer to a question that i cannot find anywhere on the internet.

    so are the new graduated speed fines implemented yet or the old one is still being used ?

    Still on the existing system. The government was dissolved before Shane Ross could take another shot at the motorist.

    What the next Government will do on the issue (whenever we get one) is anyone's guess. There was resistance to the plan as it was.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    Still on the existing system. The government was dissolved before Shane Ross could take another shot at the motorist.

    What the next Government will do on the issue (whenever we get one) is anyone's guess. There was resistance to the plan as it was.

    No resistance from pedestrians, cyclists or other vulnerable road users


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 47,810 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    before Shane Ross could take another shot at the motorist.
    dem poor, speeding, suffering motorists.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,761 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    DaCor wrote: »
    No resistance from pedestrians, cyclists or other vulnerable road users

    I don't like the x km/h over the limit system, % over the limit is a better system which wasn't being implemented. Doing 50 in a 30 is way more dangerous for the vulnerable road users than doing 140 in a 120 yet both get the same punishment.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,548 ✭✭✭SeanW


    DaCor wrote: »
    No resistance from pedestrians, cyclists or other vulnerable road users
    I think there was resistance from anyone who had any concept of proportionality. The proposed system would have been among the most draconian in the world if not the most.

    Any sane person would have had an issue with that.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Just stay on the right side of the limit

    Its simples!


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,548 ✭✭✭SeanW


    DaCor wrote: »
    Just stay on the right side of the limit

    Its simples!
    Do you think we should hang people for shoplifting? After all, just don't shoplift, its simples!


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    SeanW wrote: »
    Do you think we should hang people for shoplifting? After all, just don't shoplift, its simples!

    1+1=3?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,852 ✭✭✭Duckjob


    SeanW wrote: »
    Do you think we should hang people for shoplifting? After all, just don't shoplift, its simples!


    Does shoplifting result in the violent deaths of many people each year and the shattering of lives of their families and friends ?


    ef8.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,548 ✭✭✭SeanW


    DaCor wrote: »
    1+1=3?
    ???

    If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that deterrence is more important than proportionality. If so, this view is not unusual, for example in Saudi Arabia they cut people's hands off for stealing.

    They would argue that the deterrence factor makes it worthwhile. Indeed they might suggest that:
    Just don't steal

    Its simples!

    So the only question is: if we eschew any concept of proportionality and just pull punishments out of our arses - as you and the Minister for the Stepaside Garda Station suggest - where is the limit? Unless we know where the boundary is, then it's not too many steps from something ridiculous and bizarre, to something insane and bizarre.
    Does shoplifting result in the violent deaths of many people each year and the shattering of lives of their families and friends ?
    Every instance of theft has a victim, and in all cases, without exception, the victim has been harmed in a quantifiable way.

    By contrast, breaking speed limits almost never does. By international standards, Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world for road use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
    So we have all of this speeding that you allege is going on, that requires drastic and disproportionate penalties, and yet somehow Ireland is still one of the safest countries in both Europe and the world in terms of road usage related fatalities? For example, the figure for deaths per billion kilometers driven in Ireland is (among the lowest in the world at) 3.8.

    That means that even if:
    1. all fatal collisions were accidental, (i.e. no vehicular suicides or murders)
    2. all fatalities from accidental collisions were caused solely by a driver exceeding the speed limit AND
    3. There was no contributory negligence from any other road user involved, nor any other contributory factor of any kind.
    Then even in that scenario, a driver would have to drive - all at speed - 263,157,895 km before causing a speed related fatality. (1 billion divided by 3.8)

    But since the above conditions do not apply in all cases, the number is even higher.

    So it is clear that this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with saving lives. Zero.

    So I repeat my question: if we eschew the concept that the punishment should fit the crime - as you do - where is the limit?


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    You seem to be struggling with the fact that breaking the legal limit has legal implications for you.

    Everything else you posted is a straw man argument which doesn't warrant responding to. If you wish to discuss other crimes legal forum is that way -->


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,548 ✭✭✭SeanW


    I'm "struggling" with nothing. However, if people like Shane Ross try to promote penalties that are disproportionate to the offence they cover, I'm going to have a problem with it.

    Should the punishment fit the crime? Why?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    SeanW wrote: »
    I'm "struggling" with nothing. However, if people like Shane Ross try to promote penalties that are disproportionate to the offence they cover, I'm going to have a problem with it.

    I think you misunderstand the meaning of "disproportionate".

    Graduated speeding fines are proportionate to the amount over the limit a driver was caught at.
    • Drivers up to 10km/h over the limit will receive a €60 fixed charge and two penalty points. If convicted in court a driver faces four penalty points.
      • Lower than the current fine and points applied
    • Drivers caught between 10 and up to 20km/h over the limit will receive an €80 fixed charge and three penalty points. If convicted in court a driver faces five penalty points.
      • Equal to the current fine and points applied
    • Motorists detected between 20 to 30km/h over the limit will receive a €100 fixed charge and four penalty points. If convicted in court a driver faces six penalty points.
      • Greater than the current levels
    • For drivers in these three categories of offence who either do not pay the fixed charge or contest it in court, they face on conviction the same penalty as today: a fine of up to €1,000 for a first offence, up to €2,000 for a second or subsequent offence, and up to €2,000 and/or up to three months in prison for a third or subsequent offence within 12 months.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,548 ✭✭✭SeanW


    DaCor wrote: »
    No resistance from pedestrians, cyclists or other vulnerable road users
    I can't speak for cyclists but you do not speak for all pedestrians.

    As a daily pedestrian in Dublin City, motorists often do things that put me in real, appreciable danger and they have nothing, zero to do with speed. Things like (in heavy traffic) blocking pedestrian crossings during the very short green man phase, so that dozens of pedestrians have to slink across between bumpers within 30 seconds.

    As a pedestrian, this is the kind of thing I'd like to see clamped down on. Within reason, as a pedestrian I don't care about motorists speed and the statistics clearly back up my experience.
    DaCor wrote: »
    I think you misunderstand the meaning of "disproportionate".

    Graduated speeding fines are proportionate to the amount over the limit a driver was caught at.
    • Drivers up to 10km/h over the limit will receive a €60 fixed charge and two penalty points. If convicted in court a driver faces four penalty points.
      • Lower than the current fine and points applied
    • Drivers caught between 10 and up to 20km/h over the limit will receive an €80 fixed charge and three penalty points. If convicted in court a driver faces five penalty points.
      • Equal to the current fine and points applied
    • Motorists detected between 20 to 30km/h over the limit will receive a €100 fixed charge and four penalty points. If convicted in court a driver faces six penalty points.
      • Greater than the current levels
    • For drivers in these three categories of offence who either do not pay the fixed charge or contest it in court, they face on conviction the same penalty as today: a fine of up to €1,000 for a first offence, up to €2,000 for a second or subsequent offence, and up to €2,000 and/or up to three months in prison for a third or subsequent offence within 12 months.

    The first proposals were that penalty points would start at 3 for 0-10kph over, 5 pp for the next 10-20 and 7 for 20-30 with an automatic court appearance for anyone over by 30kph or more. That most certainly was disproportionate. What you've posted here (are these official proposals?) perhaps a little less so.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    SeanW wrote: »
    The first proposals were that penalty points would start at 3 for 0-10kph over, 5 pp for the next 10-20 and 7 for 20-30 with an automatic court appearance for anyone over by 30kph or more. That most certainly was disproportionate. What you've posted here (are these official proposals?) perhaps a little less so.

    What you are referring to were the 2018 proposals, which were sent back to a subcommittee to revise. What i posted above was the updated version which received cabinet approval back in Nov 2019.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,548 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Then I'm sure you can see why people had a problem originally.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    SeanW wrote: »
    Then I'm sure you can see why people had a problem originally.

    Apology accepted


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,548 ✭✭✭SeanW


    I still have to review the Nov. 2019 proposals, but there was IIRC a lot of support for the 2018 proposals in certain quarters.


Advertisement