Speeder's get 3 months

Johnny Utah · 02-11-2009 3:42pm

People really need to get over the 'speed kills' mantra as spouted by those goons in the RSA. Everyday, I see driving which is far more dangerous than simply speeding in a straight line; tailgating, driving whilst on the phone, not indicating, having the dog's head sticking out the driver's window, undertaking, driving too slow/not keeping up with the flow of traffic, pulling out without looking, overtaking on a continuous white line, etc. Of course, these offences are rarely detected, nor do the RSA highlight them.

TheNog · 02-11-2009 5:26pm

Johnny Utah wrote: »

People really need to get over the 'speed kills' mantra as spouted by those goons in the RSA. Everyday, I see driving which is far more dangerous than simply speeding in a straight line; tailgating, driving whilst on the phone, not indicating, having the dog's head sticking out the driver's window, undertaking, driving too slow/not keeping up with the flow of traffic, pulling out without looking, overtaking on a continuous white line, etc. Of course, these offences are rarely detected, nor do the RSA highlight them.

Fixed Penalty fines issued for 2009 up to the end of September:

Driving while on the phone: 79,775

Crossing continuous white line: 16,217

The rest of the things you mentioned could fall under Driving without due care and attention or careless driving which are court appearances so I dont have those figures.

On a side note for speeding there was 554,000 fines issued

http://penaltypoints.ie/assets/pdf/penalty%20point%20notices%20%20issued%20by%20offence%20type%20%20-%20%20sept%2009.pdf

Johnny Utah · 02-11-2009 5:33pm

^^ which backs up what I said...

TheNog · 02-11-2009 5:47pm

Johnny Utah wrote: »

People really need to get over the 'speed kills' mantra as spouted by those goons in the RSA. Everyday, I see driving which is far more dangerous than simply speeding in a straight line; tailgating, driving whilst on the phone, not indicating, having the dog's head sticking out the driver's window, undertaking, driving too slow/not keeping up with the flow of traffic, pulling out without looking, overtaking on a continuous white line, etc. Of course, these offences are rarely detected, nor do the RSA highlight them.

Johnny Utah wrote: »

^^ which backs up what I said...

No it doesnt. 10,000 fines a month are being issued for just those two offences. Hardly rarely detected are they?

L1011 · 02-11-2009 7:26pm

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I dont recall saying the you couldant kill someone driving on or below the limit

Hence your statement being completely and utterly pointlessly redundant.

Tragedy · 02-11-2009 7:32pm

TheNog wrote: »

No it doesnt. 10,000 fines a month are being issued for just those two offences. Hardly rarely detected are they?

Rarely detected compared to speeding

Speeding makes up 68% of all penalty points. I somehow doubt speeding makes up 68% of all accidents, despite how it's being villainised

ninty9er · 02-11-2009 8:08pm

Gone Drinking wrote: »

Would anyone here be saying they shouldn't have gotten jail, had their mother/sister/brother/father/child been in a car that one of these two collided with? I think not..

They would have been up on a manslaughter charge if they were proven to have caused the accident.

Gone Drinking wrote: »

They've done the numbers, speed is the main reason behind most accidents..

Give me a link that isn't a government agency or a newspaper?

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Its regularly patrolled by the Traffic Corps, in rain the water doesnt clear off the road fast enough, and it has maximum speed limits of 100kph in some spots.

There is not even one 100km/h section on the M7. I've driven it often enough to know.

Mr. Presentable · 02-11-2009 8:16pm

Johnny Utah wrote: »

People really need to get over the 'speed kills' mantra as spouted by those goons in the RSA. Everyday, I see driving which is far more dangerous than simply speeding in a straight line; tailgating, driving whilst on the phone, not indicating, having the dog's head sticking out the driver's window, undertaking, driving too slow/not keeping up with the flow of traffic, pulling out without looking, overtaking on a continuous white line, etc. Of course, these offences are rarely detected, nor do the RSA highlight them.

You're confusing cause and effect.

The causes of accidents are "tailgating, driving whilst on the phone, not indicating, having the dog's head sticking out the driver's window, undertaking, driving too slow/not keeping up with the flow of traffic, pulling out without looking, overtaking on a continuous white line, etc."

The effect in an accident of speed is fatality - more likely the more speed..

Omcd · 02-11-2009 10:59pm

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

on the days when these guys were caught speeding

The May one - no rainfall, average temp of over 20 degrees and im not sure about sunset times (8pm 28th May would that still be daylight?) but I would imagine visabilty would not be hindered with cloud or fog.
http://www.met.ie/climate/monthly_summarys/may09.pdf

Checking out the other 2 briefly, there was a bit of rain when the German in the Astra was caught (who was probably used to driving on Autobahns), and the 3rd guy had no rain (and he was caught at 1am in the morning when the road would have been deserted)

Well if the sun hadn't set by that time, it would have been fairly close to it. Looking at your weather records suggests it was sunny, so 203km/h coming out of a low/setting sun would be bordering on suicidal if coming up on much slower traffic.

stealthyspeeder · 02-11-2009 11:07pm

Omcd wrote: »

Well if the sun hadn't set by that time, it would have been fairly close to it. Looking at your weather records suggests it was sunny, so 203km/h coming out of a low/setting sun would be bordering on suicidal if coming up on much slower traffic.

true true but unless we know the traffic conditions at the time its just speculation (I juat thought it worth posting!), the guy going to jail for speeding at 1am in the morning is the one that seems really really wrong to me!

Tragedy · 02-11-2009 11:44pm

The guy with his bowels in a mess was travelling northbound on the M7 at 8:10pm. The motorway would be fairly empty at that time.

bladebrew · 02-11-2009 11:51pm

the m7 would be empty at 1am,apart from the odd tesco truck!,but we cant have different speeds depending on the time,

are we all agreed so,the sentence was too harsh,but on the other hand they didnt harm anyone??!!

Turner · 02-11-2009 11:59pm

There is no evidence given of the dangerous driving in the press report.

What we need to know is what the Garda outlined to the judge in his evidence.

He might have said he was weaving in and out of traffic or undertaking at 200km/hr. Or that he drove into a motorway bend at 200km/hr (which would be way to fast to stop if anything was around the bend)

The Garda would have had to outline the amount of traffic on the road, the weather and lighting conditions also.

We dont know why it was a dangerous driving charge but the judge obviously sought fit to jail the man.

L1011 · 03-11-2009 12:13am

bladebrew wrote: »

the m7 would be empty at 1am,apart from the odd tesco truck!,but we cant have different speeds depending on the time,

are we all agreed so,the sentence was too harsh,but on the other hand they didnt harm anyone??!!

Works quite well on the M25 in London....

Omcd · 03-11-2009 2:59pm

Tragedy wrote: »

The guy with his bowels in a mess was travelling northbound on the M7 at 8:10pm. The motorway would be fairly empty at that time.

But northbound on the M7 is actually north east bound, with at least as much east as north. So the sun is behind you in the evenings, not directly, but still enough to hamper rear wards visibility when its low. I disagree the motorway would have been fairly empty at the time, that's a busy motorway nearly all the time. I'd only class it as fairly empty in the early hours of the morning. 28th May was Thursday, late evening shopping, so more traffic (yes even out there - Kildare Village and what have you). Granted it wouldn't have maximum volumes on it at that time, but we can safely assume if only for the fact that he was able to do 204 km/h.

Tragedy · 03-11-2009 3:09pm

I only drive the M7 between 8pm and 2am at night(either way). Northbound traffic at night is very light, southbound is always fairly heavy until Portlaoise

SV · 03-11-2009 3:18pm

Chief--- wrote: »

There is no evidence given of the dangerous driving in the press report.

What we need to know is what the Garda outlined to the judge in his evidence.

He might have said he was weaving in and out of traffic or undertaking at 200km/hr. Or that he drove into a motorway bend at 200km/hr (which would be way to fast to stop if anything was around the bend)

The Garda would have had to outline the amount of traffic on the road, the weather and lighting conditions also.

We dont know why it was a dangerous driving charge but the judge obviously sought fit to jail the man.

I think a lot of the reason this case is being ridiculed is because of the judges reputation for being ridiculous in his sentences.
Didn't he send a guy to jail before for doing 170ish at half 1 in the morning?

Omcd · 03-11-2009 3:30pm

bladebrew wrote: »

the m7 would be empty at 1am,apart from the odd tesco truck!,but we cant have different speeds depending on the time,

are we all agreed so,the sentence was too harsh,but on the other hand they didnt harm anyone??!!

I think it a bit harsh considering that they had all three punishments thrown at them, IMO, it if they were sent to jail. that should have been instead of the fine. As they were all foreign nationals, I'm not sure how the bans would work in practise so maybe the bans were more of a token gesture.

I suppose as an alternative to jailing people who decide to drive in an excessively dangerous and/or reckless manner, maybe a very long driving ban ie 10 years, or even lifetime, might fit the crime, with jail (a few months IMO, not lock em up and throw away the key) only if for some reason a ban wouldn't be effective in their case, or for repeat offenders. Either way, in my opinion, whatever the punishment, it has to be a big deterrant, not just a token inconvenience, and driver re education should have to be part of being let out on the road again.

TheNog · 03-11-2009 5:01pm

Tragedy wrote: »

Rarely detected compared to speeding

Speeding makes up 68% of all penalty points. I somehow doubt speeding makes up 68% of all accidents, despite how it's being villainised

I would say the majority of speed detections are made by the Gatso vans. I remember last year one of the operators saying in one day the Gatso detected over 600 speeders. Thats about €50,000 in fines in one day.

MYOB wrote: »

Works quite well on the M25 in London....

The M25 and the M7 are worlds apart really. Traffic congestion can get so bad that traffic almost comes to a halt so motorways speeds at rush hour would be suicidal. The M7 doesnt have that problem.

Folks,

Chief said it right. The newspaper report doesnt go into enough detail to describe the Garda's evidence of traffic conditions or the manner of driving either which papers are notorious for.

Tragedy · 03-11-2009 5:30pm

The amount of camers on the english equivalent of N/R roads compared to M roads is a revelation though, over there they really do seem to be more interested in catching people off the motorway rather than on it.

I'm not sorry these guys were caught, I'm just sorry the penalties were so (in my opinion) harsh.

conneem-TT · 03-11-2009 5:49pm

Tragedy wrote: »

The amount of camers on the english equivalent of N/R roads compared to M roads is a revelation though, over there they really do seem to be more interested in catching people off the motorway rather than on it.

And alot of the time the cameras are in much more appropriate places such as approaching pedestrian crossings and schools.

The jail sentences were a step overboard IMO. Points, hefty ~1,000 euro fine and 3-6 month bans definitely though. Maybe even have a probationary period also, like say for a year after if caught again more than 10% over the limit an automatic 3 month ban again.

DonJose · 03-11-2009 6:35pm

A lot of people on this thread do not realise how bad Irish drivers are. We've got roughly 400,000 provisional drivers in Ireland, a huge majority of these drivers use the motorway even though they are forbidden to drive on motorways. Not the mention to hundreds of thousands of drivers who were "taught" to drive by mammy or daddy and never took an actual driving test.

From personal experience, a lot of Irish drivers don't indicate or don't know how to indicate. A lot don't even check their mirrors before overtaking. Nearly everytime I use a motorway I have to brake when overtaking as some muppet decides to overtake meters before me without any indication. 3 times in the last year I've had to blast my horn to stop idiots sideswiping me as I overtook. Its madness to think that driving at 200kph is anyway safe.

Damien360 · 03-11-2009 9:09pm

DonJose wrote: »

From personal experience, a lot of Irish drivers don't indicate or don't know how to indicate. QUOTE]

That is one of my bugbears. A car begins to brake and slow down to a stop. What in gods name are they doing is your only thought. As they turn, they indicate. I can see you are turning, why indicate now !! Indicators are supposed to indicate your intention not just your bloody action. That is lost on many, many drivers on Irish roads.

Omcd · 03-11-2009 9:29pm

DonJose wrote: »

A lot of people on this thread do not realise how bad Irish drivers are. We've got roughly 400,000 provisional drivers in Ireland, a huge majority of these drivers use the motorway even though they are forbidden to drive on motorways. Not the mention to hundreds of thousands of drivers who were "taught" to drive by mammy or daddy and never took an actual driving test.

From personal experience, a lot of Irish drivers don't indicate or don't know how to indicate. A lot don't even check their mirrors before overtaking. Nearly everytime I use a motorway I have to brake when overtaking as some muppet decides to overtake meters before me without any indication. 3 times in the last year I've had to blast my horn to stop idiots sideswiping me as I overtook. Its madness to think that driving at 200kph is anyway safe.

In my experience it can happen 3 times in one day !!

ecom · 04-11-2009 1:36pm

I'm shocked at how people think that driving at 200kph is 'not that fast'

It's against the law. FACT
It's within the judges legal right to impose a 3 month custodial sentence. FACT

the Judge knows damn well that the 3 men in question wont serve time in prison. In fact I'm sure they are out already, if they were even processed inside in the first place.

what he has done however is send a message to people in Kildare (and hopefully elsewhere) that travelling at these speeds is not acceptable and will be punished appropriately.

For anyone with a problem with this, speak to relatives of victims of people who have died at the hands of speeders.

Yes there is an imbalance in the sentences handed down by different judges. But this Judge can only control what goes on in his district and is not responsible for the more lenient sentences given by other Judges.

I for one am delighted at the sentences handed down.
I hope these guys dont actually serve any/much jail time, but the message given out should be sufficient.

Sure look...there's an 18-page thread already on boards about it!

SV · 04-11-2009 1:41pm

ecom wrote: »

I'm shocked at how people think that driving at 200kph is 'not that fast'

It's against the law. FACT

It isn't 'that fast' tbh.
It all depends on what you're used to.

If your defence for it being fast is that it's against the law then..lol, just lol.

ecom · 04-11-2009 2:25pm

SV wrote: »

It isn't 'that fast' tbh.
It all depends on what you're used to.

If your defence for it being fast is that it's against the law then..lol, just lol.

i expected such a response.

30kph is fast when you crash into someone be that a pedestrian or another vehicle.

So yes 200kph is fast. Very fast.

SV · 04-11-2009 2:28pm

ecom wrote: »

i expected such a response.

30kph is fast when you crash into someone be that a pedestrian or another vehicle.

So yes 200kph is fast. Very fast.

Any speed is fast once you crash into something else.

200kph isn't fast in the grand scheme, not in the slightest.

ecom · 04-11-2009 2:30pm

SV wrote: »

Any speed is fast once you crash into something else.

200kph isn't fast in the grand scheme, not in the slightest.

now i must LOL at that

Stark · 04-11-2009 2:33pm

Pedestrians shouldn't be on the motorway. And you should be driving at a speed that allows you to stop in time if you see another vehicle ahead of you before you crash into it. Sometimes that might be 30km/hr, sometimes that might be 200km/hr. Irish motorways are built to a minimum spec of 160km/hr, meaning that at the least, you should be able to see far ahead of you to allow you to stop from 160 if something you might crash into comes into view.

Now if you said 200kph was a very fast speed to crash into something at, I would agree with you. But so is 120kph. It's not that fast a speed to be passing through air at.

Speeder's get 3 months

Comments