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

Proposal for sliding scale of speeding fines / points

[Deleted User]

Long overdue in my opinion and will work a lot better than the current system at dealing with the most dangerous offenders, issues with detection notwithstanding

Proposal for rising fines, points for higher speeds

http://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1211/1016431-cabinet/

The Cabinet will today consider legislation that would introduce new fines for motorists caught speeding.

Minister for Transport Shane Ross will bring a memo to Government on the new Road Traffic Bill.

The legislation will change the fines motorists pay when they are found to be driving over the speed limit.

It would mean that speeding would no longer be viewed as a single offence.

Instead, those driving up to 10km/h above the speed limit could pay a fine of €80 and receive between three and five penalty points.

If you drive up to 20km/h over the allowed speed there would be a €150 fine and between four and six points placed on your licence.

Motorists driving between 20km/h and 30km/h over the speed limit will be hit with a €200 fine and up to seven penalty points.

Anyone driving in excess of 30km/h above the speed limits will be charged with dangerous driving.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Lumen

In my experience of traffic police in UK and Ireland, they don't do you for the max speed during an overtake.

In the most memorable experience I was prosecuted for doing 99mph in a 60mph zone. That was the speed after I slowed down. I think 1mph faster would have been a dangerous driving charge. I got a 1 month ban.

So they are reasonable people.

I don't own fast cars any more! A laser plod at 480m away is invisible.

Infini

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Of you could just stay within the limit and not overtake, maybe?

Some people drive like idiots and are a hazard in themselves and not someone you might want to be stuck behind. You can only control your driving not others and the safest place to drive is as far from anyone else as possible.

[Deleted User]

Infini wrote: »

Some people drive like idiots and are a hazard in themselves and not someone you might want to be stuck behind. You can only control your driving not others and the safest place to drive is as far from anyone else as possible.

So you could just slow down and let them pull as far away from you as possible?

Lumen

A few years ago I was making a long (~150km) journey along motorways and national roads. Friends left at the same time on the same route, the driver of that car had just passed her test, drove carefully and within the limits, and never overtaking.

I drove in my then-typical "making progress" fashion, overtaking at every safe opportunity.

We arrived at the same time, because I stopped briefly at a petrol station.

So anyone who justifies speeding on the basis of getting to their destination faster is probably lying or deceiving themselves. It just doesn't work except when there is no traffic at all and you drive well in excess of the limit. Not to mention the bollocks about it being unsafe to constantly stare at the speedo.

OldMrBrennan83

Lumen wrote: »

A few years ago I was making a long (~150km) journey along motorways and national roads. Friends left at the same time on the same route, the driver of that car had just passed her test, drove carefully and within the limits, and never overtaking.

I drove in my then-typical "making progress" fashion, overtaking at every safe opportunity.

We arrived at the same time, because I stopped briefly at a petrol station.

So anyone who justifies speeding on the basis of getting to their destination faster is probably lying or deceiving themselves. It just doesn't work except when there is no traffic at all and you drive well in excess of the limit. Not to mention the bollocks about it being unsafe to constantly stare at the speedo.

I went for a drive this morning and broke all the speed limits on the way. Not only did I save 193 seconds on my journey but I felt so manly and successful when I got home that my house sprouted 3 more windows and I instantly grew a beard.

SeanW

First of all, I think it needs to be clarified that no-one here is looking for a "free for all". Most of us, if not all, that oppose these changes do so from the position of wanting reasonable, fair, proportionate controls on speed. Few of us here, if any, want a "Wild West" type view of speed.

Victor wrote: »

Most dual carriageways with an 80km/h limit are suburban (with many junctions or private accesses), tunnels or toll plazas. Not places where you should be doing 111km/h.

The best example of a dual carriageway with an 80kph limit in the N4 section between the M50 and Leixlip. It has the same speed limit as the non-urban sections of R and L roads. There are no toll plazas, access has been somewhat limited, there are no tunnels. Granted, there are frequent junctions and some of the access control is a bit ropey, but 80kph is a bit on the conservative side.

While I would not drive 111k on that road, I've seen people do it and does NOT qualify as "dangerous driving" that is just stupid and completely over the top. 111k on a rural R road on the other hand could easily be considered dangerous driving. Ross needs to go.

magicbastarder wrote: »

if they're being that inattentive, or that careless, is it a moot debate about whether it's dangerous?

"Dangerous" driving is a very serious claim, so yes, it should be made with care.

Duckjob wrote: »

Why does it have to be complicated by term time / school hours. What is there's an evening event on in the school? Or even just kids walking to /from school grounds for extra curricular activities?

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.

Zebra3 wrote: »

Won't someone think of the poor speeding motorists.

Are you a cyclist?

Victor

SeanW wrote: »

The best example of a dual carriageway with an 80kph limit in the N4 section between the M50 and Leixlip. It has the same speed limit as the non-urban sections of R and L roads. There are no toll plazas, access has been somewhat limited, there are no tunnels. Granted, there are frequent junctions and some of the access control is a bit ropey, but 80kph is a bit on the conservative side.

There are a few reasons for it:
* frequent junctions and accesses means weaving traffic. I used it recently and the inbound bus lane was being used for cars from Woodies to the M50.
* bus stops and urban buses (limited to 65 km/h).
* pedestrians and cyclists present.
* higher speeds would mean lower capacity and more congestion at peak times.

I think a lot of non-urban local roads should have lower speed limits, especially legacy roads and single lane roads.

Infini

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So you could just slow down and let them pull as far away from you as possible?

No I just don't want to be anywhere near anyone on the road you can't anticipate others and you cant have an accident if theres noone else around to help cause one.

SeanW

I tend to do a lot of my driving in the off-peak hours (Saturday afternoons, weekend nights etc), which is why I have a problem with a lot of this.

The factors you refer to on the N4 are mostly likely a lot more relevant in the peak hours than in the off-peak, yet the speed limits applied are 24 hour based. Like that poster above, who thinks schools should have the same speed limits when there are schoolchildren coming and going as at 10PM on a Sunday night. Proportionality? Is it reasonable? Couldn't give a crap it seems.

And this does seem to be uniquely a Republic of Ireland thing. Take a look for example at the road between Ballyconnell, Co. Cavan, and Derrylin, Co. Fermanagh. The road between the two has a lot of warehouses and industrial facilities that are (naturally enough) only used on weekdays during the day. Yet only the portions in the Republic have low speed limits, a few warehouses seem to justify 60kph limits (24/7) a mile outside the town, almost to the border, whereas in the North, roads passing the various parts of the Quinn complex in N.I. remain at National Speed Limit levels.

According to our worthless transport minister, someone traveling down this road at 91kph on a clear, sunny Saturday afternoon is guilty of "dangerous driving" (one of the most serious charges possible) when 2 miles down the road, similar conditions exist with a 60MPH speed limit.

Or 61kph on this road.

Speed limits should be enforced but we have a right to expect that they will be reasonable, and that the penalties will likewise be reasonable. This is why I have sympathy with those dealing with 60kph-but-no-roadworks limits on the M7 widening project. Just stick up a 60kph limit on the whole works area, no matter whether any segment is being worked on or anything?

Yet as insane as all this is, it's part of a disturbing trend towards obscene overregulation. Like the recent new regulation on drug-driving. Perfectly reasonable on the surface, that people shouldn't be driving while high, until you look at some of the details like the rules on THC. Those basically make someone "impaired" legally if they've partaken of the forbidden herb within the past month, because of detectable traces of THC in a roadside drug test. Yet not only is there no evidence that someone who partakes is impaired for up to a month, but so far as my knowledge extends, the international evidence is clear that de-facto impairment only lasts for about 12 hours or so.

That is, that the international evidence clearly contradicts the legal/crackdown position. Same was true of the reduction in blood alcohol limits. No evidence of accidents being caused by drivers between the old and new limits. No evidence of fatalities being caused by such drivers, as I recall. Same was true of the reduction in validity of NCT certificates from 2 years to 1 year for older cars - no evidence whatsoever of people crashing due to mechanical issues in the second year of their NCT certs. No fatalities attributable to the longer validity whatsoever.

Ross seems to spend all his time looking for new ways to over-regulate motorists with disproportionate and excessive rules, and doesn't seem to care about anything else.

This is in addition to among the worlds highest rates for tax and insurance, which Ross doesn't give a crap about.

He needs to go.

sdanseo

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.

Speed alone does not cause accidents and these easy-to-measure targets will do very little for safety bar terrorising drivers and causing people to jam on near speed vans etc.

All of the speeding measures are pointless compared to what's already there, the current system adequately penalises those who speed consistently and is fair on those who have erred.

None of the measures are any use without enforcement of other offences as well. Lane discipline needs to be enforced period, because right now it simply isn't (and this is as much an education issue, people simplyt don't realise they need to keep left). Red light cameras please. Blocking a yellow box should be 3 points.

sdanseo

SeanW wrote: »

I tend to do a lot of my driving in the off-peak hours (Saturday afternoons, weekend nights etc), which is why I have a problem with a lot of this.

The factors you refer to on the N4 are mostly likely a lot more relevant in the peak hours than in the off-peak, yet the speed limits applied are 24 hour based. Like that poster above, who thinks schools should have the same speed limits when there are schoolchildren coming and going as at 10PM on a Sunday night. Proportionality? Is it reasonable? Couldn't give a crap it seems.

And this does seem to be uniquely a Republic of Ireland thing. Take a look for example at the road between Ballyconnell, Co. Cavan, and Derrylin, Co. Fermanagh. The road between the two has a lot of warehouses and industrial facilities that are (naturally enough) only used on weekdays during the day. Yet only the portions in the Republic have low speed limits, a few warehouses seem to justify 60kph limits (24/7) a mile outside the town, almost to the border, whereas in the North, roads passing the various parts of the Quinn complex in N.I. remain at National Speed Limit levels.

According to our worthless transport minister, someone traveling down this road at 91kph on a clear, sunny Saturday afternoon is guilty of "dangerous driving" (one of the most serious charges possible) when 2 miles down the road, similar conditions exist with a 60MPH speed limit.

Or 61kph on this road.

Speed limits should be enforced but we have a right to expect that they will be reasonable, and that the penalties will likewise be reasonable. This is why I have sympathy with those dealing with 60kph-but-no-roadworks limits on the M7 widening project. Just stick up a 60kph limit on the whole works area, no matter whether any segment is being worked on or anything?

Yet as insane as all this is, it's part of a disturbing trend towards obscene overregulation. Like the recent new regulation on drug-driving. Perfectly reasonable on the surface, that people shouldn't be driving while high, until you look at some of the details like the rules on THC. Those basically make someone "impaired" legally if they've partaken of the forbidden herb within the past month, because of detectable traces of THC in a roadside drug test. Yet not only is there no evidence that someone who partakes is impaired for up to a month, but so far as my knowledge extends, the international evidence is clear that de-facto impairment only lasts for about 12 hours or so.

That is, that the international evidence clearly contradicts the legal/crackdown position. Same was true of the reduction in blood alcohol limits. No evidence of accidents being caused by drivers between the old and new limits. No evidence of fatalities being caused by such drivers, as I recall. Same was true of the reduction in validity of NCT certificates from 2 years to 1 year for older cars - no evidence whatsoever of people crashing due to mechanical issues in the second year of their NCT certs. No fatalities attributable to the longer validity whatsoever.

Ross seems to spend all his time looking for new ways to over-regulate motorists with disproportionate and excessive rules, and doesn't seem to care about anything else. He needs to go.

Take a bow. Nail on the head.

Esel

Infini wrote: »

No I just don't want to be anywhere near anyone on the road you can't anticipate others and you cant have an accident if theres noone else around to help cause one.

That is one flaky opinion.

Victor

Infini wrote: »

you cant have an accident if theres noone else around to help cause one.

Lots of single-vehicle collisions out there.

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

This is why I have sympathy with those dealing with 60kph-but-no-roadworks limits on the M7 widening project. Just stick up a 60kph limit on the whole works area, no matter whether any segment is being worked on or anything?

so who gets to decide what the speed limit is on any one section on any one day? the workmen?
you would need a system which would allow speed limits to be changed on a frequent basis, depending on something as simple as possibly some heavy plant machinery crossing the road. and you'd need to do that within a legal framework that would stand up in court. sometimes the solutions are more complicated than the problems.

SeanW

It really shouldn't be rocket science to determine that there are road works, machinery crossings etc going on somewhere on a segment and lower the limits on that segment. But as I said, the mess on the M7 is just one of a wide variety of problems with over-regulation.

There is no need to slow drivers on a motorway to 50-60kph where there are no works going on, temporary surfaces etc.
There is no need to slow drivers down to 30-60kph around schools at 10PM on Sunday night.
There is no need to slow drivers down to low speeds on low-density out-of-town developments during times (e.g. weekends around out of town warehouses) that they're not being used.
There is no need for rules on "drug driving" that state de-jure that a driver may be "intoxicated" for a month after partaking in certain substances when the evidence suggests that defacto impairment is for less than a day.
There was zero evidence for the recent reductions in BAC limits.
There was zero evidence of need for the reduction from 2 years to 1 year for NCT certificates.
No driver benefits from any of this overregulation, if your car is over 10 years old you will have your wallet emptied out for insurance (and you might be lucky to get a quote) even if you have a spotless driving record.

So all of this insane over-regulation hasn't made the roads any safer. If it was, you wouldn't have such problems getting basic car insurance. Our public transport is still third world. And Minister Ross does not care. He only cares about having more regulations.

Duckjob

SeanW wrote: »

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.

Only if you have a entitled car-is-King mentality.

If you change your mindset to one of being a guest on the roads of a community of people and you want to show respect to those people, then regardless or time of day or night, slowing down for a km or two and having a 2 min longer journey should be a non issue.

SeanW

Only if you have a entitled car-is-King mentality.

Or desire a little thing called "proportionality". Taking the problem of speed around schools, I like to point to this example in the U.S where some schools in otherwise rural areas are protected by a variable speed limit system. Flashing lights? Slow down. No flashing lights? Carry on. Naturally, the lights, (which knock a good 20MPH off the speed limit) come on when there are likely to be children about.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.440971,-71.889354,3a,24.6y,165.65h,89.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sf9yacjm7qQOEq3ta6ARJtQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

If you cannot see why a motorist should drive slower past a school at 8:45 AM on a weekday morning than they might at 10PM on weekend night - and they should drive WAAAAAAY slower - then you really shouldn't be on the road in any mode. And you certainly should not be making policy.

sdanseo

SeanW wrote: »

It is not reasonable to expect motorists to adhere to school-limits at 10PM on a Sunday night.

Duckjob wrote: »

Only if you have a entitled car-is-King mentality.

By that same reasoning we should all stop at every green light just to make sure no cyclists or pedestrians are coming.

It's a logic so bizarre that I genuinely worry for people who use it. Your attitude against the perceived "car is king" attitude is far more unreasonable than Sean's argument, in my view.

You cannot wrap the world in cotton wool. All we can do is legislate fairly and proportionately, and telling people to slow down for a hazard that does not exist is neither.

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

It really shouldn't be rocket science

we're not talking about rocket science. we're talking about law.
you want context-specific speed limits, so you want speed limits determined by what actual works are taking place at that specific time on a motorway. who decides this? who should be on hand to sign off that the works have finished on section A but not on section B, so the speed limits can be different, and do so in a way which can stand up in court?

asking motorists to stick to 60km/h for 10km is not some violation of their human rights. i'm sure the department of transport has better things to be doing than drafting laws for what is a marginal case affecting a really small minority of motorists in a minor way.

sdanseo

magicbastarder wrote: »

we're not talking about rocket science. we're talking about law.
you want context-specific speed limits, so you want speed limits determined by what actual works are taking place at that specific time on a motorway. who decides this? who should be on hand to sign off that the works have finished on section A but not on section B, so the speed limits can be different, and do so in a way which can stand up in court?

asking motorists to stick to 60km/h for 10km is not some violation of their human rights. i'm sure the department of transport has better things to be doing than drafting laws for what is a marginal case affecting a really small minority of motorists in a minor way.

The US, kings of the motorist but strict on law enforcement, handle this in a very sane and very simple way.
I have seen signs which replace the word fines with penalties in states with demerit (penalty) points.

It does NOT have to be rocket science.

Infini

sdanseo wrote: »

The US, kings of the motorist but strict on law enforcement, handle this in a very sane and very simple way.
I have seen signs which replace the word fines with penalties in states with demerit (penalty) points.

It does NOT have to be rocket science.

One thinh to note is that in Canada at least if something like the M7 works were happening there reduced speed limits apply only when workers are present. When theyre not you can drive at a normal speed in those areas.

One thing I will say though is the politicians have an unhealthy obsession thinking speeding is somehow the biggest problem on the road. Its not its stupidity that kills by not maintaining a clear attention to your surrounding. Speed is just an easier way of trying to blame something. We have single lane roads down the county with very high 80/100kph speed limits and others on parts of our dual carrigeways with ridiculously low ones like 30kph.

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.

sdanseo

Infini wrote: »

One thinh to note is that in Canada at least if something like the M7 works were happening there reduced speed limits apply only when workers are present. When theyre not you can drive at a normal speed in those areas.

You can (and do) still have reduced speed limits in the work zones. The most recent example I saw in CA was a 65mph zone where the limit become 55mph. (Not a huge jump, but keep in mind that here the same 65mph zone would be 74mph / 120km/h)
Your works area limit is now effectively 90km/h.

Then, that works speed limit and regular penalties apply while the workers are not present but the roadworks are underway and associated paraphenalia is in place. When the workers arrive, the penalties double.

oceanman

Deleted User wrote: »

Over 400 people caught speeding on Stephens Day 2018

http://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/1227/1019263-speeding/

More than 400 drivers were caught speeding on Irish roads on St Stephen's Day.

An Garda Síochána said that 42,388 vehicles were monitored yesterday as part of the Christmas and New Year road safety campaign.

Of those, 414 vehicles were found to be in excess of the speed limit.

Examples of the speeds detected include:

124km/h in a 60km/h zone N7 Palmerstown Demesne, Naas, Kildare (roadworks)

142km/h in a 100km/h zone N25, Ballinaboola, Wexford.

112km/h in an 80km/h zone R339, Oranmore, Galway

81km/h in a 50km/h zone, R245, Carrigart, Donegal

you could probably divide that number in half given its coming from the cops..

sdanseo

oceanman wrote: »

you could probably divide that number in half given its coming from the cops..

According to this they check 2.5m a month, so around 80k a day drive past a van. In theory.

https://www.hsa.ie/eng/Vehicles_at_Work/Driving_for_Work/Driving_for_Work_Business_Case_Studies/Go_Safe_Case_Study_Dec_2017.pdf

Victor

Infini wrote: »

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.

Surely if there are signs where a speed limit changes, and people fail to change their speed, then they should be penalised?

sdanseo

Victor wrote: »

Surely if there are signs where a speed limit changes, and people fail to change their speed, then they should be penalised?

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Placing a speed van at the very start of a lower speed limit zone is a deliberate attempt to catch people out and nothing more. We police a minority of motoring offences very cynically in this country, and it would seem the majority are not policed at all.

I won't say there are bigger fish to fry, excess speed is no doubt one of the larger problems that exacerbates accidents (I say exacerbates because additional poor behaviour to speed is required to cause one). But there are certainly other fish to fry. Drink and speed are the two easiest to measure so they are most rigidly enforced.

The argument, on the whole I think from those against these proposals are that speeding is already adequately enforced and has adequate penalties, not that it should not be enforced at all. Instead priority should be now given to enforcing the plethora of shocking driver behaviours other than speeding and contributing to improving the roads beyond just slowing everyone to a crawl out of sheer terror.

[Deleted User]

"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

OldMrBrennan83

[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

They should be made a sticky for the motors forum.

magicbastarder

sdanseo wrote: »

The argument, on the whole I think from those against these proposals are that speeding is already adequately enforced and has adequate penalties, not that it should not be enforced at all. Instead priority should be now given to enforcing the plethora of shocking driver behaviours other than speeding and contributing to improving the roads beyond just slowing everyone to a crawl out of sheer terror.

that might be the argument they are advancing, but anyone who can claim with a straight face that speeding is adequately enforced should be laughed out of the room.
if speeding was adequately enforced, most people would be afraid to speed because they'd be afraid of getting caught. which they are not.

sdanseo

magicbastarder wrote: »

that might be the argument they are advancing, but anyone who can claim with a straight face that speeding is adequately enforced should be laughed out of the room.
if speeding was adequately enforced, most people would be afraid to speed because they'd be afraid of getting caught. which they are not.

We'll have to agree to disagree there. My regular drives including my daily commute all have speed zones on them. One in particular involves the R132 (north of the Swords bypass, where the road is very high standard) and its honestly ridiculous 80km/h limit but I stick to it because there are regularly vans or hairdryers and I value my licence.

An increase in points won't bother the morons but will disproportionately affect the regular Joe. It would be like putting a Garda at every junction rigidly enforcing red light rules on cyclists. Yes, they should obey them. But watch the uproar it would cause if one day there were 1,000 fines handed out for it.