floggg wrote: » While the wait times could and should be much shorter, you could still schedule it well ahead of time to avoid any issue. Or is that too much personal responsibility for you?
jezzer wrote: » Yes as a matter of fact, i think the role of the garda should be for the protection of the people, reducing knife crime, drug crime etc not giving out penalty points for someone doing 75 on a 60 on a straight part of a road, this is just revenue generating
tritium wrote: » I don't really have a problem with any system that helps to put dangerous drivers of the road. If you can't read and follow a speed limit sign then you might want to consider taking the bus. Pretty sure that when this story broke originally one of the examples cited had caused a fatal crash a while after having their points wiped- if penalty points had kept them off the road someone might have a loved one around this christmas
Xios wrote: » Next he'll be complaining about why he shouldn't get fined for having no Tail lights. "Sure Garda, how should i know when me lights are out, I can't see em while i'm drivin"
Xios wrote: » Good luck with that, he's got his Opinion and is too stupid/lazy to find facts to prove it, just using sweeping generalities and routine things ya say in the pub. But then again, this is after hours.
bear1 wrote: » Good luck waiting for that info. The OP still hasn't answered my question.
Tiddlypeeps wrote: » Could you supply a source for the claim that the penalty points system, or the fines that accompany them generate any revenue. Last I checked that system was costing the state money to run, but that may have changed in the mean time so please supply some evidence of this. Traffic related injuries are the second most common cause of unnatural death in this country, second only to suicide which the guards can have little effect over*. So road traffic accidents are the number 1 cause of death that the guards have any real ability to mitigate, so it stands to reason that a decent portion of their resources go to tackling this issue. They are also doing a fairly effective job of it since we are seeing a reduction in deaths on the road pretty much every year since the introduction of the penalty points system. *http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/publications/HealthProtection/Public_Health_/Health_Status_Report_section_3_and_4.pdf
Xios wrote: » It has very clearly been a large factor in road safety since its introduction in 2001.http://www.nra.ie/safety/research/irish-collision-data-revi/Collision-Data-and-International-Benchmarking.pdf Section 2. in 2001 - 110 road deaths vs 47 road deaths in 2011.
jezzer wrote: » Impossible for a person who has only just purchased a vehicle without a valid NCT
jezzer wrote: » Oh believe me i am all for road safety, people being killed on the roads is a travesty, however i don't believe that doing someone for 112 in a 100 zone helps road safety
jezzer wrote: » any your question is?
jezzer wrote: » And who says the NRA stats are correct? do you know for fact that they are correct?
bear1 wrote: » This is very simple, don't buy a car without a valid NCT then. If you got caught speeding, were fined and given points which you then will have to disclose to the insurance company which could affect your premium, are you seriously saying that said person wouldn't think twice about speeding? The limit is 100 for a reason which compared to other countries in Europe is quite high, going higher than that is breaking the law and increases the risk on the road. Doesn't take a genius to know this. Again, refer to my post number 4.
jezzer wrote: » I really couldnt be bothered looking back over old posts so for the third time, ask the question or shut up about it the limit is 100 because the roads are in s*ite, which our car tax is supposed to be paying for....dont see much of that happening.... its the manner in how people are "caught speeding" which i have an issue with
jezzer wrote: » They are costing the state money to run which is why they have come up with more stupid laws such as fining people for having no nct cert
bear1 wrote: » It's the first page of your crap thread. Post number 4. You say you are too lazy to look at the first page but yet you aren't lazy in answering stupidly. The roads aren't in "****e" and what pray tell would you have the limit set at? The speedo is usually off by a few % so if you were caught (which it sounds like you have) then your speedo would have been showing much higher than 112 before you were caught speeding. You speed and you get caught, then you pay the price. We all know the risks with speeding and financials attached to it. But you started this thread asking why were those Guards given an award which you've turned into some bull**** argument over the financials of penalty points.
jezzer wrote: » Your a gas man, if the thread is so crap why are you bothering to read what i say and post back? if i thought a thread was crap i just wouldnt bother with it, so your telling lies there Are you seriously telling me the roads arent in sh*te? your not a driver are you??? I havent been speeding in years and if i was it wouldnt be my fault that the speedo was off What i am saying is that the whole road safety thing is a farce and i think that giving a coveted people of the year award to people who ratted out a few cops who were using discretion in dubious penalty point cases is farcical, those two lads are probably on sick leave paid for by the tax payer and they must have put their families through the ringer, for what? selfishness is all, trying to make a name for themselves because they probably got passed over for promotion or something, only if a serious crime is committed should a person ever rat on a colleague, its not a nice thing to do no matter what organisation you work with.
jezzer wrote: » What i am saying is that the whole road safety thing is a farce and i think that giving a coveted people of the year award to people who ratted out a few cops who were using discretion in dubious penalty point cases is farcical, those two lads are probably on sick leave paid for by the tax payer and they must have put their families through the ringer, for what? selfishness is all, trying to make a name for themselves because they probably got passed over for promotion or something, only if a serious crime is committed should a person ever rat on a colleague, its not a nice thing to do no matter what organisation you work with.
Tiddlypeeps wrote: » Driving with an NCT means you are driving a car which has not been approved to be fit to drive on the roads, it's potentially very dangerous especially in older cars. I would wager any amount of money that people have become a lot more diligent about making sure their breaks pads and tire thread depth are sufficient since the introduction of the NCT. This directly saves lives. You said it was a revenue generating exercise. It at the very least used to cost more to run than they generated from fines, so unless you provide evidence to the contrary I'm gonna carry on believing that the state doesn't actually make any money from it.
Tiddlypeeps wrote: » If manslaughter due to deliberately driving above the speed limit isn't a serious crime then what exactly do you consider a serious crime?
jezzer wrote: » No, driving WITHOUT an NCT cert means you may or may not be driving a roadworthy vehicle. I have no argument with that only to say that the whole NCT set up is also a revenue generating scheme for the government aimed at people who cant afford new cars. The state wouldnt be bothering to bring in such ridiculous laws if they werent making money, thats the reason you wont see a guard arresting a druggie on o connell street but you might see them in the back of beyonds handing out fines to some poor auld divil who cant pay his road tax....tell me, who is more of a danger to society, some knife wielding druggie or someone who is 2 months out on their car tax...it all comes down to money, common sense would tell you that it costs money to deal with knife crime, you make money from handing out fines
lazygal wrote: » So. Much. Fail. Your use of the word 'rat' confirms for me that you think the nod and the wink approach, sorry 'discretion' is an appropriate way to administer road safety legislation and that gardaí who expose this culture are the real villains. One garda has retired and AFAIK the other is still on duty. Not to mention that sick leave is limited to six months and has various conditions attached to it. You think its 'selfish' to expose corruption, seriously?
jezzer wrote: » Yes of course, selfish to their families, selfish to the decent people they were supposed to be working alongside all for what, really? notoriety thats all, retired, no doubt happy to take the pension from the organisation he felt so strongly against...the other guy is still on duty? i fail to see how he can be expected to do so, oh i would say they can extend sick leave for as long as they like in these situations, no doubt he would feel bullied or some such situation. And, yes, I do believe that discretion should be used in certain situations
Beano wrote: » even when that situation was that the person was the friend of a guard or was somebody famous?
lazygal wrote: » Garda pensions are paid by the State, not the Garda itself. And how can a garda be decent if he or she is letting his or her mates off the hook for breaking the law. Either the law applies to everyone or we have chaos. Why should a person escape the rule of law because of who they know?
jezzer wrote: » Discretion should come into play here, are they really breaking the law? is that particular law excessive? those are the questions a guard should be allowed to ask themselves before making a decision
jezzer wrote: » coincidental circumstances, its a small country
