Proposal for sliding scale of speeding fines / points

Patww79 wrote: »

There's nothing complicated about not speeding.

Exactly. The existing laws do this perfectly..... Christ.
A few groups have already come out advising there may be issues with graduated scales. I can see why.
Keep it simple as it is now and ensure proper enforcement.

I've driven around 1000k in the past few days. No checkpoints for speed or alcohol anywhere I've been. I've been breath tested once in over 20 years of driving. Granted I've seen on average a speed trap of some sort once every month I would think. However noe of that I'd adequate enforcement of current laws.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is a bogus argument and here's why....

Let's take Galway as an example. Including motorway, national primary, secondary, regional and local roads, it contains over 6,000km of roads.

Please explain how the kind of enforcement you expect is to be done while considering

1. All other policing requirements
2. Staffing levels
3. Funding everything

If it's a bogus argument I don't see why you are calling for these new laws to come into effect as they won't be enforced fully either, changing absolutely nothing just introducing further complications for the legal profession to charge more for.

How to increase enforcement? Surely that's blatently obvious? I'll point it out, more automated/private Gatso vans (also checking for tax/nct, less paperwork for Gardai to have to process I know this is slowly happening with more civis being hired.
A bit of investment in technology.

I am not looking for enforcement on every corner, just a better hit rate of what my experience has been in twenty years.


The last two responses to my post perfectly sum up why introducing these laws to replace the existing ones is absolutely pointless and if anything overcomplicates to the point of introducing further opportunities for errors in paperwork.

Interesting and obvious how closely correlated roads policing numbers are to careless/dangerous driving citations in the UK.

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/103851/how-have-traffic-police-cuts-hit-uk-roads-we-talk-to-the-experts

Meanwhile traffic gardai numbers in Ireland going up strongly, from 700 to over 1000 in the next few years.

Anyone got stats for Irish careless/ dangerous driving cases?

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

Infini wrote: »

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

Lots of single-vehicle collisions out there.

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.

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 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.

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..

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?

[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?

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"

Deleted User wrote: »

"speed is not the cause of as many accidents as they would have you believe"

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.
Other factors are required to cause accidents and those other factors also need to be addressed and enforcement taken in equal measure.

Deleted User wrote: »

"Ross must go"

This is not the only decision Ross has made leading people to that conclusion.
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.

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108985045&postcount=56

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.

monument wrote: »

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.

monument wrote: »

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.