80% over speed limit 'not as bad in miles'

MOH · 31-10-2007 05:37PM #1

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21560119/

It's in today's Irish Times too.

When police caught driver David Clarke flying down a road at 180 kilometers per hour this month, he looked likely to lose his license.

But a country judge reduced the charge and let the 31-year-old information technology worker stay on the road after concluding the speed did not look as bad when converted into miles, or 112 mph.

So because some idiot judge believes 180km/h with a limit of 100 doesn't look 'as bad' expressed as 112mph with a limit of 62mph, another driver showing blatant disregard for the rules of the road stays on the roads.

It's idiots like that who should be taken off the roads, not people on their second provisional who are waiting for their test.

At the very least, these people should be re-tested and be stripped of their license if they don't pass. Let them go through the 6-month waiting period on a learner permit.

The old excuse of "I need to drive for my job" is a joke - you should think of that before you driver at nearly double the speed limit.

[/rant]

cornbb · 31-10-2007 05:39PM

Whatever about the driver, that idiot judge should have lost his... eh... judge license?

Rob_l · 31-10-2007 05:44PM

The excuse of I need my car for my job is complete toss
Eh no sir you need a new job your a danger to the public.

biko · 31-10-2007 05:48PM

Clarke, a Dubliner, had been traveling to a Donegal

He was probably just happy to be able to drive faster than 30kmh, average Dub City speed.

Robbo · 31-10-2007 07:19PM

MOH wrote: »

The old excuse of "I need to drive for my job" is a joke - you should think of that before you driver at nearly double the speed limit.

Strange how it's usually a perfect excuse for driving unaccompanied around on a second provisional...

Ro: maaan! · 31-10-2007 09:24PM

cornbb wrote: »

Whatever about the driver, that idiot judge should have lost his... eh... judge license?

He doesn't have a full judge licence. He's on a provisional. But it's exactly the same thing. Anyone can get one by just doing a basic theory test. ...Wait a minute, that would be crazy! Better set a date far in the future to get rid of it.

Pigman II · 31-10-2007 09:34PM

Sound argument from the Judge.

Clark was doing 0.000000000019026015 lightyears per hour in a 0.000000000010570008.

DonJose · 31-10-2007 10:00PM

LOL now its the Americans turn to laugh at the stupid backward Irish. OMFG.

"McLoughlin was quoted as saying the speed seemed “very excessive,” but did not look “as bad” when converted into miles. "

"The episode underscored Ireland’s slow mental conversion to metric."

"One in six Irish drivers has never passed an on-the-road test, according to Transport Department statistics."

Dar · 01-11-2007 02:04AM

The judge didn't reduce the sentence because the speed 'didn't sound as bad' in mph. He reduced the sentence because:

The road was well engineered and suitable for such speeds
At the time the road was empty
Perfect visibility & weather conditions

After considering these factors, and the fact that the defendent needed his car for work, the judge reduced the sentence from dangerous driving to careless driving.

Binomate · 01-11-2007 02:19AM

ITT: A provisional licence holder is bitter and uses the an extremely rare and stupid case to try and power his argument that the changes to the law regarding provisional licence holders is unjust.

Robbo · 01-11-2007 03:26PM

Dar wrote: »

The judge didn't reduce the sentence because the speed 'didn't sound as bad' in mph. He reduced the sentence because:
The road was well engineered and suitable for such speeds

At the time the road was empty

Perfect visibility & weather conditions

After considering these factors, and the fact that the defendent needed his car for work, the judge reduced the sentence from dangerous driving to careless driving.

It is refreshing to see someone on AH who's actually read the proper report rather than jumping on the lolquote.

is_that_so · 01-11-2007 03:32PM

Robbo wrote: »

It is refreshing to see someone on AH who's actually read the proper report rather than jumping on the lolquote.

So you see nothing wrong with 112 mph? Reckon he should have been fined €100 per kph over the limit.

Robbo · 01-11-2007 03:47PM

is_that_so wrote: »

So you see nothing wrong with 112 mph? Reckon he should have been fined €100 per kph over the limit.

The joke has come upon me, I have now been lolquoted.

cornbb · 01-11-2007 03:51PM

Robbo wrote: »

The joke has come upon me, I have now been lolquoted.

In fairness the judge is always gonna be deemed a moron for saying a speed expressed in a different format "doesn't look so bad".

And 112mph should be considered a "dangerous" speed rather than a "careless" speed on any Irish road regardless of conditions.

Finally: "lolquote" is my new word of the month.

Copper · 01-11-2007 04:10PM

I think the judgement was just right given that the road was "unusually straight", there was light traffic and perfect driving conditions. Not exactly crime of the century.

Guy:Incognito · 01-11-2007 04:27PM

Dar wrote: »

After considering these factors, and the fact that the defendent needed his car for work, the judge reduced the sentence from dangerous driving to careless driving.

Here's the part of arguements I dont get. If you "need" your car for work, surely that should mean you'd be more careful not to lose it and as a result, lose your job?

Duckjob · 01-11-2007 04:34PM

cornbb wrote: »

And 112mph should be considered a "dangerous" speed rather than a "careless" speed on any Irish road regardless of conditions.

Why? 112mph isn't an inherently dangerous speed any more than 30mph is an inherently safe one.

Genghiz Cohen · 01-11-2007 04:38PM

But still a crime, if you break the law you should be punished accordingly. Law is law, if a man broke into your house and stole your TV should should he have a reduced sentence because he wiped his feet on the rug on the way in?

cornbb · 01-11-2007 04:45PM

Duckjob wrote: »

Why? 112mph isn't an inherently dangerous speed any more than 30mph is an inherently safe one.

112mph/180kph is almost double the highest speed limit on all of the N roads in the country (bar motorways, but you can be sure he wasn't on one of those in Donegal). Roads are designed with a maximum safe speed in mind. This is usually above the legal speed limit, but I think we can be certain its nowhere near 180kph, rural Ireland isn't especially well known for the high safety standards of its N routes.

thebman · 01-11-2007 04:52PM

Dar wrote: »

The road was well engineered and suitable for such speeds
Who's professional advice did the judge seek or is he qualified to make this assessment and if so what qualification does he hold?

At the time the road was empty
Only takes one car over a blind crest or blind corner

Perfect visibility & weather conditions
So are we all allowed break the limit if the weather is good as long as it isn't by a lot. I mean if its only careless to go this speed in good weather if I did 80, it should even be pulled over. I know that makes no sense and neither does the judges comments

After considering these factors, and the fact that the defendent needed his car for work, the judge reduced the sentence from dangerous driving to careless driving.

All the more reason not to drive like an idiot then isn't it.

Duckjob · 01-11-2007 05:06PM

cornbb wrote: »

112mph/180kph is almost double the highest speed limit on all of the N roads in the country (bar motorways, but you can be sure he wasn't on one of those in Donegal). Roads are designed with a maximum safe speed in mind. This is usually above the legal speed limit, but I think we can be certain its nowhere near 180kph, rural Ireland isn't especially well known for the high safety standards of its N routes.

No problem with that, but I was actually pointing out the folly of adopting a black/white speed x is safe/speed y is dangerous view of road safety.

cornbb · 01-11-2007 05:13PM

Duckjob wrote: »

No problem with that, but I was actually pointing out the folly of adopting a black/white speed x is safe/speed y is dangerous view of road safety.

I agree with you completely, eg 30 or 40kph might be well under the limit in a crowded city centre but could still be completely unsafe depending on circumstances.

However I think when the speeds in question start straying into 180kph territory I think I'd have no qualms about referring to them as plain stupid, on any Irish public roads.

Stark · 01-11-2007 05:21PM

MOH wrote:

But a country judge reduced the charge and let the 31-year-old information technology worker stay on the road after concluding the speed did not look as bad when converted into miles, or 112 mph.

Holy sweet mother of god.

*bangs head repeatedly until the pain stops*.

MOH · 01-11-2007 06:03PM

Robbo wrote: »

Strange how it's usually a perfect excuse for driving unaccompanied around on a second provisional...

Huh? You don't need an excuse for driving unaccompanied on a second provisional. You're legally entitled to.

Dar wrote: »

The judge didn't reduce the sentence because the speed 'didn't sound as bad' in mph. He reduced the sentence because:
The road was well engineered and suitable for such speeds

At the time the road was empty

Perfect visibility & weather conditions

After considering these factors, and the fact that the defendent needed his car for work, the judge reduced the sentence from dangerous driving to careless driving.

So the defendant was entitled to ignore the speed limit and make up his own mind about how fast he could drive based on the prevailing conditions?

Binomate wrote: »

ITT: A provisional licence holder is bitter and uses the an extremely rare and stupid case to try and power his argument that the changes to the law regarding provisional licence holders is unjust.

What's ITT mean? 'I think that' ?

I'm quoting a stupid case as an example. My problem is with the atrocious standard of driving I see pretty much every time I go out, most of which comes from people without L plates. Often it's taxi and bus drivers, who of all people should know better. As I type this I've just looked out the window to see someone accelerate very late through red lights at a busy junction as cars were starting to come across - not a learner.

I've no problem with making roads safer, but the vast majority of bad driving I see every day isn't from young provisional drivers. If you really want to make the roads safer, why not bring in mandatory re-testing every x years. If someone who's been driving for that long fails, bump them back to provisional and make them pass their test again. The big problem is that some people pass their test once and think they're god's gift to driving, and have carte blanche to drive as badly as they like for the rest of their lives.

[back on topic]
I still don't understand the judge's comment. Did he mean 112 doesn't sound as fast compared to 180? Did he mean 50 mph over the limit didn't sound as bad as 80kph over? Or did he convert 180 to 112mph, then decide "sure that's only 12 over the limit of 100"?

timmywex · 01-11-2007 06:04PM

That article wrote:

Law enforcement on Ireland’s roads is notoriously lax, and judges frequently acquit offending drivers because of loopholes and vagaries in the law

cornbb · 01-11-2007 06:14PM

timmywex wrote: »

Its true though. A foreign news source stated the facts better in that one sentence than a 100 page meandering thread on this forum could have.

delta_bravo · 01-11-2007 06:39PM

This is a disgrace. The DPP should appeal the sentence. This man is a danger and should get a liftime ban for what he did.

Voipjunkie · 01-11-2007 06:51PM

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

But still a crime, if you break the law you should be punished accordingly. Law is law, if a man broke into your house and stole your TV should should he have a reduced sentence because he wiped his feet on the rug on the way in?

That would depend on how dirty his feet were and how big the TV was

Stark · 01-11-2007 07:27PM

Or if the size of the TV was measured in inches or centimetres.

Binomate · 01-11-2007 07:58PM

MOH wrote: »

What's ITT mean? 'I think that' ?

It stands for "In this thread".

MOH wrote: »

I'm quoting a stupid case as an example. My problem is with the atrocious standard of driving I see pretty much every time I go out, most of which comes from people without L plates. Often it's taxi and bus drivers, who of all people should know better. As I type this I've just looked out the window to see someone accelerate very late through red lights at a busy junction as cars were starting to come across - not a learner.

I've no problem with making roads safer, but the vast majority of bad driving I see every day isn't from young provisional drivers.

While I agree that professional drivers should be retested on a regular basis, the statistics of road accidents beg to differ. It's young male drivers who cause most accidents. Insurance companies discriminate against young male drivers for a reason.

MOH wrote: »

If you really want to make the roads safer, why not bring in mandatory re-testing every x years.

If they have trouble with the queues at the minute and testing people, imagine what it would be like with the whole country doing it every few years. This option simply wouldn't be viable.

MOH wrote: »

[back on topic]
I still don't understand the judge's comment. Did he mean 112 doesn't sound as fast compared to 180? Did he mean 50 mph over the limit didn't sound as bad as 80kph over? Or did he convert 180 to 112mph, then decide "sure that's only 12 over the limit of 100"?

The judge was a retard. That invalidates the use of this case as an example in an argument against the new changes to the licence laws.

Overheal · 01-11-2007 08:39PM

DonJose wrote: »

LOL now its the Americans turn to laugh at the stupid backward Irish. OMFG.

"McLoughlin was quoted as saying the speed seemed “very excessive,” but did not look “as bad” when converted into miles. "

"The episode underscored Ireland’s slow mental conversion to metric."

"One in six Irish drivers has never passed an on-the-road test, according to Transport Department statistics."

On behalf of My Fellow Americans:

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously though - there should be Zero Tolerance on all traffic offenses.

80% over speed limit 'not as bad in miles'

Comments