Graduated speed fines.

Deleted User 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?

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?

Deleted User 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.

Deleted User 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.

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

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