nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Cost of Speeding

outinthefields

Looks like the more you make could bite you if you have a heavy right foot.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/speeding-fines-will-be-linked-to-what-you-earn-in-bid-to-end-road-carnage-35655082.html
:eek:

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Wibbs

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Bravo for removing an important line from my post that you quoted which explains MY stance on this so that you can wedge in a condescending responce about my intelligence. Bravo.

Dunno why I left that out TBH, wasn't intentional. *mind glitch* I did not criticise your intelligence, I did critique and question your way of applying it.

And your assesment is incorrect about autonomous cars. Although you preach that you may know something about humans, you forget that humans have the abilty to adapt and change through learning.
If humans learn not to speed, the problem is solved without reliance on technology.

And you're doing it yet again. Humans are not simplistic sims. There will always be people who will not "adapt and change through learning". If there weren't we'd hardly need the legislation and legal systems we have. Legislate for idiots and all that. Murder is ranked about the most heinous of crimes, a crime we're made aware of from very early in life, a crime we learn has huge consequences, for us and society, a crime which in many jurisdictions will result in the person committing the crime being executed and yet murder still happens on a daily basis. It has been massively reduced in modern societies, but no amount of "adapt and change through learning" has eliminated it. And so it will be with speeding. It will not be eliminated until that human input is removed.

Doesn't even require autonomous cars either. If tomorrow it was a legal requirement to have GPS tracked speed limiters on all cars, speeding would be a thing of the past, because the human input would be almost eliminated(though no doubt some would still try to bypass it. Nature of the beast).

Wossack

thought this was the whole point of the penalty point system - will that now be abolished?

Boom_Bap

Wibbs wrote: »

Dunno why I left that out TBH, wasn't intentional. *mind glitch* I did not criticise your intelligence, I did critique and question your way of applying it.

And you're doing it yet again. Humans are not simplistic sims. There will always be people who will not "adapt and change through learning". If there weren't we'd hardly need the legislation and legal systems we have. Legislate for idiots and all that. Murder is ranked about the most heinous of crimes, a crime we're made aware of from very early in life, a crime we learn has huge consequences, for us and society, a crime which in many jurisdictions will result in the person committing the crime being executed and yet murder still happens on a daily basis. It has been massively reduced in modern societies, but no amount of "adapt and change through learning" has eliminated it. And so it will be with speeding. It will not be eliminated until that human input is removed.

Doesn't even require autonomous cars either. If tomorrow it was a legal requirement to have GPS tracked speed limiters on all cars, speeding would be a thing of the past, because the human input would be almost eliminated(though no doubt some would still try to bypass it. Nature of the beast).

I do completely see what you are saying.

But, if I don't want to break the ROR in terms of speeding, I stay below the speed limit. Ipso facto I don't get a fine.

If one doesn't want a fine, one doesn't speed.

I can only account for myself and my actions on the road. And I think your point is that not everyone will think this way that I do.

Mini850

Speeding is a funny one. The limits are set to what ever they are situations when 120kmph on a motorway is dangerous, and when 160kmph is not.

Road deaths have com way down since the 70s when they were up over the 600 people per year mark, but for the last 6 or 7 years, they have sort of stuck around the 160 to 190 mark, going up or down each year. The decrease from the 70s is due to safer (but faster) cars, more driver awareness and training and all that jazz.

This means that they've hit a plateau but I don't see what they can do currently to improve that drastically.

I'm betting if we restricted every car in Ireland so that all they could do was the speed limit on the road they are on at the time, I don't see the death count coming down significantly.

D0NNELLY

Pay some pauper to take the low income fine/points.

Beasty

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So what happens one when one's chauffer is caught speeding? Is one fined on the basis of one's income or one's chaufffer's income?

He's driving it so he can pay the bleedin' fine. I'll just get a replacement.....

:pac:

dav3

We won’t know if these new fines act as a deterrent until we receive whatever numbers the Gardai decide to make up for that particular year.

I’m not sure what the problem is here. People will still be fined for speeding, except now Tarquin will have to pay a little bit more for racing through the streets in his 181 Audi R8 as he tries to get to the Donnybrook Fair before closing.

ScumLord

These kind of things do nothing to improve safety on our roads.

I was just talking to someone about driving for the first time back in the 70s and 80s, we were talking about the crashes he had, how he borrowed the parents car and wrote it off in an accident, anecdotally I hear a lot of stories of people crashing cars back then and walking away and I wonder why there seems to be more fatal accidents these days when we're not really driving faster and doing it in safer cars.

Back then there were less cars but accidents often involved one car making a mistake. These days accidents often include a second car in a head on collision, the most dangerous type of car accident. We should have much lower road deaths and I think the main reason we don't is because our drivers have a terrible skill level that even modern technology can't overcome and we have no driver etiquette.

In the UK when you come to a busy junction everyone knows what to do and take their turn making way when they should, in Ireland it's every man for himself, if you see a gap making your way up the hard shoulder to get into it is just part and parcel of it, Dublin drivers are terrible for this kind of driving. If you do try to follow the rules of the road like yellow boxes someone will just take advantage and wedge themselves across two lanes of traffic blocking everything. I got stuck behind a line of cars doing 70kph recently, saw a gap half way up the line and overtook to get into it, the guy who let the gap open up took offense to this and tried to block me out on the other side of the road, a case of "how dare you try to overtake me, die you bastard", he then spent the next few miles tailgating, rushing the back of my car, flashing lights, weaving around on the road. He created far more danger than the wrong he perceived I did by pulling in front of him.

People need a more comprehensive training program that not only tells them how to drive a modern car (not using data from the 1950s) and I mean really drive a car not just show you know where everything is, but we need to teach people how to drive in traffic, even if it's just on a simulator, let them build up 10-20 hours of driving there were they have to go through different scenarios. If you want to drive slow, ok, but get out of the way of everyone else. That's a simple lesson I think would save some of those head on collisions from happening.

Our roads are a mess, I'm sure every knows of junctions that not only don't make much sense but do nothing more than create traffic, it's often like there's no rhyme or reason to traffic management. They go on to make over taking more and more difficult in straight bits of road, that doesn't stop people from overtaking, it just makes overtaking more dangerous.

We need to be practical about road safety, as far as I can see it's groups pf people trying to impose what they perceive as safety born out of statistics but ignoring the actual machine and people involved in the equation.

The government can spend millions on safety campaigns and bring in fines, and dance around the fact we're a nation of incompetent driver all it wants, but don't expect me to listen to it. I have no interest in listening to the government on road safety until they start to deal with the real issues, everything other than driver training and an overhaul of our road layouts and traffic management is just a waste of time. They're trying to look busy while doing next to nothing effective and getting paid well to do it.

daveharnett

ScumLord wrote: »

70s and 80s, I wonder why there seems to be more fatal accidents these days when we're not really driving faster and doing it in safer cars.

There are dramatically fewer fatal accidents today per km driven, and we're driving a lot faster.

Wind the clock back 20 years and the typical inter-city journey was mostly spent at 50mph in a queue of cars behind a truck. The only way to go faster was by overtaking on a single carriageway, with no hard shoulders and plenty of blind bends.

I'd credit better roads, tyres, brakes, and passenger safety cells, in that order. Other than creating a taboo around drink driving, I'm not sure how much RSA/enforcement has moved the needle.

ScumLord

daveharnett wrote: »

There are dramatically fewer fatal accidents today per km driven, and we're driving a lot faster.

I don't think we're driving faster anymore, the average speed seems to be 80-90kph everywhere, which I'd guess is on a par with the 80s. I thought road deaths were on the rise too. I was mistaken in comparing them to the 70s.

Wind the clock back 20 years and the typical inter-city journey was mostly spent at 50mph in a queue of cars behind a truck.

On major routes, I remember going to Dublin before the motorway, it was a train.

the_syco

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Road deaths are increasing because the government gutted the Traffic Corp through budget cuts.

This. Road deaths are increasing because the person gets the fine long after the speeding. Heck, they may even have killed a few people by the time they get the fine!

The Traffic Corps had 116 vehicles back in 2011. I'd say the number is less now.

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Why would they lie? They already have the state's (our) money.

SLA.

Shenshen wrote: »

It's an absurd suggestion and utterly impractical suggestion. If you want to crack down on speeding, increase the number of camera vans out there and get round to fixing the legislation that stops the country putting fixed cameras on the roads.

This. And maybe have cameras in blackspots, and not only on roads with lots of room. You've more chance of seeing a speed camera on the dual carriageway, than you do near a blackspot with a high deathrate.

CoolHandBandit wrote: »

Nice stereotyping. I earn fcuk all but i love my job. Took it because it's zero stress and i get great job satisfaction.

I do believe he's referring to those on the dole. IE; if you work, you'll pay more than the person on the dole, purely because you work.

Wibbs wrote: »

If tomorrow it was a legal requirement to have GPS tracked speed limiters on all cars, speeding would be a thing of the past, because the human input would be almost eliminated(though no doubt some would still try to bypass it. Nature of the beast).

Nope. Those things are easy to jam.

Boom_Bap wrote: »

If one doesn't want a fine, one doesn't speed.

Some of the vans like to sit at the end of motorways, so they catch anyone who hasn't slowed down in time, in the 120 to 60 zone.

=-=

If based on income, the person with no dependants could pay less than the person who has several kids, but less money to spare than the former.

jimbobaloobob

pontoonz wrote: »

that's one unique instance,

and i'm sure the "speeder" was advised of the fine by registered post?

being honest and all that

honest

its one instance which makes your previous comment false. If you mean me the 'speeder' i havent been speeding so ive no need to worry but i dont know how they contact offenders as it hasnt happened to me.
Honest

I love Sean nos

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah right, compare burglary to going 90 in an 80 zone. Brilliant.

They're both illegal and speeding has the potential to deliver far worse consequences.

To be clear, I'm not saying that speeding is the only part of driver behaviour that should be tackled. Education, training etc. is also needed. But I don't see why harsh penalties cannot be used. I'd like to see more drivers jailed for their behaviour.

ScumLord

I love Sean nos wrote: »

They're both illegal and speeding has the potential to deliver far worse consequences.

To be clear, I'm not saying that speeding is the only part of driver behaviour that should be tackled. Education, training etc. is also needed. But I don't see why harsh penalties cannot be used. I'd like to see more drivers jailed for their behaviour.

I think the problem with coming down hard on drivers is that driving is essential in this country for a lot of people. The government is pushing all the blame onto drivers that they didn't educate properly, drivers haven't been made fully aware of the rules and don't fully understand the machine they're in control of. Drivers need to take responsibility for their own actions, but the government has to take responsibility for their failures too, as far as I can see they just take any opportunity to point fingers at drivers for making minor infractions when they are a complete failure in their role as educators.

It's always the drivers fault, we never hear about the state of the road, the conditions that lead to the accident, the blame is always thrown at the person doing the most speed. That's nonsense, it helps no one and fixes nothing.

jackofalltrades

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I do completely see what you are saying.

But, if I don't want to break the ROR in terms of speeding, I stay below the speed limit. Ipso facto I don't get a fine.

If one doesn't want a fine, one doesn't speed.

Have you ever find yourself slightly drifting over the speed limit?
Have you ever find yourself driving somewhere where you don't know what the limit is?
Have you ever been overtaking another car and had to increase your speed because they did the same. Leading to you exceeding the limit?

I wouldn't be surprised to discover that people who see speeding and it's punishment in very black and white terms often speed themselves.
I think the disproportionate nature of speed checks also feeds into this. Some drivers might never or rarely pass a speed check.
I think it's a greyish law and punishment should reflect this.

222233

This is hilarious. Attack the wealthy once again.

Allinall

222233 wrote: »

This is hilarious. Attack the wealthy once again.

Attack the wealthy who break the law.

What's wrong with that?

222233

Allinall wrote: »

Attack the wealthy who break the law.

What's wrong with that?

Nothing at all but attack them with the exact same Laws and penalties as you would attack someone with a fraction of their wealth. Is everyone not equal in this country?

Allinall

222233 wrote: »

Nothing at all but attack them with the exact same Laws and penalties as you would attack someone with a fraction of their wealth. Is everyone not equal in this country?

Everyone equal?

Of course not.

Some are wealthier than others.

Courts take people's ability to pay into account all the time.

cnoc

How does the proposed system work if a driver is on the dole or from a disadvantaged area?

222233

Allinall wrote: »

Everyone equal?

Of course not.

Some are wealthier than others.

Courts take people's ability to pay into account all the time.

Indeed, but who is profiting from these proposed scaled speeding fines?
And absolutely courts take ability to pay into consideration, but it's a speeding fine not a defamation case..

Allinall

222233 wrote: »

Indeed, but who is profiting from these proposed scaled speeding fines?
And absolutely courts take ability to pay into consideration, but it's a speeding fine not a defamation case..

You and I- the taxpayers are profiting from people's stupidity.

Remember, you only get fined for breaking the law.

Galwayguy35

222233 wrote: »

Nothing at all but attack them with the exact same Laws and penalties as you would attack someone with a fraction of their wealth. Is everyone not equal in this country?

No they are not.

A fine of 80 quid is a lot to someone on the minimum wage, it's not to a person on 100 k a year.

222233

Allinall wrote: »

You and I- the taxpayers are profiting from people's stupidity.

Remember, you only get fined for breaking the law.

I'm already profiting from them (the very wealthy ones of society), from their taxes, I respect their contribution to this country and don't think they deserve to be penalised for being better off than me and the next joe soap.

222233

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

No they are not.

A fine of 80 quid is a lot to someone on the minimum wage, it's not to a person on 100 k a year.

Well then a person on minimum wage should consider that before breaking the law. I always remember when I worked for min wage I would never risk parking without a ticket because I simply couldn't afford a fine, it was an excellent incentive not to do a stupid thing.. and I have carried that ethos forward. If the fine is small and meaningless for speeding than I don't see the purpose of it

Royale with Cheese

Spending €80 on a meal is a lot to someone on minimum wage and nothing to someone on €100k too. Should we just start having separate prices for everything? Maybe VAT should depend on how much you earn?

The points system was brought in to deter persistent speeding. This is just more gouging of money from people. A €100k speeding fine in Finland... It's just such fúcking nonsense.

pangbang

What I don't get about speeding is the fractional difference it makes to anything, I mean, its not worth it even if only considering fines, nevermind accidents.

3 hour journey to get to destination, 100 kph speed limit.

Lets say you push to 120 kph (a fairly significant increase of 20% above limit, will be noticeable to other road users)

100 kph = 180 minutes
120 kph = 144 minutes

youd save 36 minutes....not exactly a staggering saving over several hours.

What makes even less sense are shorter journeys.

20 minute journey to destination at 50 kph limit

say you push it to 60 kph again.

50 kph = 20 minutes
60 kph = 16 minutes

a saving of four whole minutes, think of what you could do with those 4 minutes, wow! Its just not worth it. If youre already late for something and you break the speed limit by 20%, nobodies gonna give a **** if youre an extra few minutes late. If you have a flight to catch....leave earlier and don't be a spoon.

Allinall

222233 wrote: »

Well then a person on minimum wage should consider that before breaking the law. I always remember when I worked for min wage I would never risk parking without a ticket because I simply couldn't afford a fine, it was an excellent incentive not to do a stupid thing.. and I have carried that ethos forward. If the fine is small and meaningless for speeding than I don't see the purpose of it

By that logic you're saying that a very wealthy person can break the law without a thought, as the fine would mean nothing to then.

Would you're attitude to parking illegally change if you thought the fine was pocket change?

Galwayguy35

Allinall wrote: »

By that logic you're saying that a very wealthy person can break the law without a thought, as the fine would mean nothing to then.

Would you're attitude to parking illegally change if you thought the fine was pocket change?

Exactly.

The idea of a fine is it's hurts the pocket, an E80 fine is nothing to someone on a huge salary.

screamer

Oh nanny state nanny state how I detest you