Proposal for sliding scale of speeding fines / points

sdanseo · 31-12-2018 1:23pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You're joking, right? The RSA Speed Surveys show 3 or 4 out of 5 drivers break speed limits. We are a long, long way from 'rigid enforcement'.

Have you a link to these figures?

Assuming they're true (and it wouldn't surprise me) it doesn't change the fact that those two offences are the most rigidly enforced.
I didn't say we are at 100% detection. If we were, the unemployment rate would soar, since >60% of people get to work by car.

Interestingly despite this we have the 15th lowest per capita road death figures in the world and 38% of that is still caused by Alcohol. Those per capita figures are also from 2013, if none of the other countries have improved, then we're now 4th behind Monaco, which happens to have had none because it's basically a hill, Micronesia, which has feck all roads; and Norway where speeding will cost you €1300 and drink driving will land you in prison.

My argument remains that speed is enforced enough relative to other offences which have equal bearing on accidents. Speed causes around 40% of accidents - very similar to Alcohol - but I haven't been breathalysed since around 2010 despit doing c. 200,000km since then. Yet I pass a speed van weekly.

kippy · 31-12-2018 1:36pm

sdanseo wrote: »

Have you a link to these figures?

Assuming they're true (and it wouldn't surprise me) it doesn't change the fact that those two offences are the most rigidly enforced.
I didn't say we are at 100% detection. If we were, the unemployment rate would soar, since >60% of people get to work by car.

Interestingly despite this we have the 15th lowest per capita road death figures in the world and 38% of that is still caused by Alcohol.

My argument remains that speed is enforced enough relative to other offences which have equal bearing on accidents. Speed causes around 40% of accidents - very similar to Alcohol - but I haven't been breathalysed since around 2010 despit doing c. 200,000km since then. Yet I pass a speed van weekly.

That speed van - tis in the same place weekly?

Once a month I pass a speed check on average - usually in one of two places. There are vast stretches of road that I've never passed a speed van or checkpoint on.
I've been breathalysed once in the past 15 odd years so similiar experience there.

sdanseo · 31-12-2018 1:41pm

kippy wrote: »

That speed van - tis in the same place weekly?

Once a month I pass a speed check on average - usually in one of two places. There are vast stretches of road that I've never passed a speed van or checkpoint on.
I've been breathalysed once in the past 15 odd years so similiar experience there.

Edited my post slightly for clarity. Realised my figures were 5 years out of date and updated.

No, various places. R132 has a few different known spots so it would be a regular example. Most often AGS with a hairdryer than a van.
Saw GoSafe on the Malahide road just last week.

AndrewJRenko · 31-12-2018 2:01pm

sdanseo wrote: »

Have you a link to these figures?

Assuming they're true (and it wouldn't surprise me) it doesn't change the fact that those two offences are the most rigidly enforced.
I didn't say we are at 100% detection. If we were, the unemployment rate would soar, since >60% of people get to work by car.

Look for the RSA Speed Survey reports on the RSA website. If we're not at 100% detection, what % are we? Could it be 1% or even less than that?

I'm not quite sure I see the connection between detection rates and unemployment, unless you're suggesting that the vast majority of drivers are congenitally unable to drive to the speed limit?

Lumen · 31-12-2018 7:24pm

sdanseo wrote: »

Reasonable proposal for limits of 50km/h and below but draconian above that. By all means increase the financial penalty but there is no other country in Europe where 21km/h twice in a 3 year period will lose you your licence.

Not true. In Switzerland the penalty for 21-24 km/h over the limit in a built up area is a 1 month minimum disqualification.

For a single offence.

https://www.ch.ch/en/driving-over-speed-limit/

edit: according to Wikipedia Switzerland has 3.2 road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle-km (2016), the second-lowest after Norway's 3.0 (2017). Ireland has 3.8 (2013). Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Lumen · 31-12-2018 7:34pm

FWIW I think Ireland's relaxed enforcement of speeding is OK. Speed is mostly just an aggravating factor to stupid driving.

If radical change is required, I think I'd rather see universal roll out of dash cams and more resources to prosecute dangerous driving charges. The last crazy thing I saw on the roads was a cement truck on the M50 kicking up dust half way onto the hard shoulder at 90kph as the driver jabbed away on his mobile phone. I couldn't record it because I was driving.

SeanW · 31-12-2018 7:35pm

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

Most of those things have been said by precisely nobody, except for the last one.

Furthermore, no-one that I can see is objecting to speed enforcement, including with sliding scale penalties. What is being called for are two things:

Laws that are fair and sensible.
Penalties that are proportionate. I.E. that the punishment fits the crime.

7 out of 12 penalty points for doing 21kph over on a dual carriageway is not a penalty proportionate to the crime. Especially in a country where a violent criminal can get the Probation Act for a robbery or public order offense that is their 124th conviction, because the poor fella is of good character or had a difficult childhood.

To repeat: no-one is looking for a Wild West type of anarchy. What is being sought is fairness and proportionality. Ross and his supporters here seem to have no concept of either.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yeah, to hell with those damn Pilates class attendees and school board members coming out at 10pm. They're just fair game to be hit, right?

Seriously, what are you even talking about?

If someone (without reference to any poster in particular) cannot see why a motorist should be expected to be much more conservative passing a school at 9:05 AM on a February Monday, than they might at 10PM on a Sunday in July, then such a person should not only never get behind the wheel of a car - and I mean ever - but shouldn't be on the roads at all. By any mode.

sdanseo · 31-12-2018 7:40pm

Lumen wrote: »

Not true. In Switzerland the penalty for 21-24 km/h over the limit in a built up area is a 1 month minimum disqualification.

For a single offence.

https://www.ch.ch/en/driving-over-speed-limit/

edit: according to Wikipedia Switzerland has 3.2 road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle-km (2016), the second-lowest after Norway's 3.0 (2017). Ireland has 3.8 (2013). Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Take your point, I looked at the EU.

Switzerland at least allows a higher tolerance for faster classes of road, and the minimum disqualifications are 1 and 3 months as opposed to 6 months here albeit for a proposed second offence.

Also, for context: Switzerland has some of the best public transport in the EEA despite being overwhelmingly mountainous. It is one of the most stringent and car unfriendly places in the world with strict emissions rules and full on bans for certain types of trucks which don't meet regulations. Nationwide. I would call those Swiss laws very harsh and they still only provide for 1 month ban for 31-34km/h over on a motorway whereas Shane Ross would instead like you prosecuted for dangerous driving (with all the bells and whistles of a criminal record. no more USA, Canada etc... ever.)

Some punishment for doing something that is nowhere near that unsafe.

Lumen wrote: »

FWIW I think Ireland's relaxed enforcement of speeding is OK. Speed is mostly just an aggravating factor to stupid driving.

If radical change is required, I think I'd rather see universal roll out of dash cams and more resources to prosecute dangerous driving charges. The last crazy thing I saw on the roads was a cement truck on the M50 kicking up dust half way onto the hard shoulder at 90kph as the driver jabbed away on his mobile phone. I couldn't record it because I was driving.

Agree completely. I'd go so far as to make front and rear cameras on a loop-record mandatory in all vehicles. Data saved for a few hrs and locked for excess G force or airbag deployment, manual panic button.
For countries where that's a privacy concern, encrypt and lock access to the local Police / car dealer / insurance assessor in the event it's needed. Would reduce the cost of insurance exponentially.
It would also catch out people speeding, should keep a few here happy.

Duckjob · 31-12-2018 7:45pm

SeanW wrote: »

If someone (without reference to any poster in particular) cannot see why a motorist should be expected to be much more conservative passing a school at 9:05 AM on a February Monday, than they might at 10PM on a Sunday in July, then such a person should not only never get behind the wheel of a car - and I mean ever - but shouldn't be on the roads at all. By any mode.

So, for the second time you're implying that somebody who is arguing for lower speed limits in populated areas at all times is somehow a danger behind the wheel.

Now I've truly heard it all :eek:

SeanW · 31-12-2018 7:58pm

Duckjob wrote: »

So, for the second time you're implying that somebody who is arguing for lower speed limits in populated areas at all times is somehow a danger behind the wheel.

Not all schools are in densely populated zones.

And yes, if you can't imagine why a motorist should be way more cautious around schools when there are children about (e.g. when children are going to school, released from school at the end of the day), you should not be on the road, and not just in a car, but at all. Full stop.

AndrewJRenko · 31-12-2018 8:06pm

SeanW wrote: »

Not all schools are in densely populated zones.

And yes, if you can't imagine why a motorist should be way more cautious around schools when there are children about (e.g. when children are going to school, released from school at the end of the day), you should not be on the road, and not just in a car, but at all. Full stop.

Why do you assume there won't be children around a school at night? You know that many schools are used outside normal hours for meetings, sports, classes, dance and other events.

If you're going to make assumptions that you can speed past outside school hours, you really should hand over the keys to a competent driver.

Duckjob · 31-12-2018 8:12pm

SeanW wrote: »

Not all schools are in densely populated zones.

And yes, if you can't imagine why a motorist should be way more cautious around schools when there are children about (e.g. when children are going to school, released from school at the end of the day), you should not be on the road, and not just in a car, but at all. Full stop.

3rd time, taking what I said and twisting it completely upside down into nonsense.

For the last time, and I'm not talking about schools in particular, im talking about densely populated urban areas In general:

We don't need to assume everybody should be tucked up in their houses just because it's 10pm on a Sunday night. These spaces need to be safe and friendly to people first , 24/7 . That's my view, not any nonsense about not understanding a need to slow down at school times.

I don't know how I can be clearer than this.

And FWIW, I agree with you on the lack of enforcement issue. Ireland is great at non-enforcement of rules. I'd like to see a lot more of the clever self-enforcing infrastructure you see in urban areas in other countries that influences people to driver more slowly and carefully without the need for people hiding in hedges with hair dryers.

dave699 · 31-12-2018 8:23pm

I think this is a good thing. Don't understand the critism to be honest.
Policing speeding is obviously not good enough and this won't change that but that's a different issue. Needs to be addressed aswell

SeanW · 31-12-2018 9:12pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why do you assume there won't be children around a school at night? You know that many schools are used outside normal hours for meetings, sports, classes, dance and other events.

If you're going to make assumptions that you can speed past outside school hours, you really should hand over the keys to a competent driver.

Why do I "assume" there won't be children around a school at night, as opposed to 3:30PM on a weekday? Maybe a decade of driving experience with a spotless record. Driving a lot in the off-peak, it's not unusual for me to pass a school in a rural area and in total darkness. Hence my view of the need for things like variable speed limits and timed warning signs.

I don't "speed past schools" in fact I tend to stick to limits, (hence my long spotless driving record) but experience has taught me that hazards will be different in the peak hours than they might be at midnight. Way different. Anyone who does not understand that should not be on the road.

Duckjob wrote: »

3rd time, taking what I said and twisting it completely upside down into nonsense.

I'm doing nothing of the sort, you and Andrew have been very clear - motorists should not expect anything different outside a school on a weekend night as on a school morning or afternoon at the end of the teaching day. Presumably you both think motorists should just drive everywhere at 5 miles an hour or something?

For the last time, and I'm not talking about schools in particular, im talking about densely populated urban areas In general:

You referenced one of my points about schools specifically.

We don't need to assume everybody should be tucked up in their houses just because it's 10pm on a Sunday night.

I assume nothing. I have a lot of experience seeing areas where lots of people are out-and-about in the daytime, including schools, that are totally deserted late at night. And I mean totally, absolutely, utterly, deserted. Nobody out, almost no traffic etc. Schools are the most obvious example - 99% of the time I pass a school, it is in darkness. This is specifically tied to most of my driving being off-peak.

That's why I'm in favour of variable speeds, or simply raised limits in some cases.

I don't know how I can be clearer than this.

You and people like you have been very clear.

And FWIW, I agree with you on the lack of enforcement issue. Ireland is great at non-enforcement of rules. I'd like to see a lot more of the clever self-enforcing infrastructure you see in urban areas in other countries that influences people to driver more slowly and carefully without the need for people hiding in hedges with hair dryers.

We need rules that are:

Fair and reasonable
Penalised in a manner proportionate to the offence.
Enforced.

It's no more complicated than that. But Ross's proposals are excessive and disproportionate.

dave699 wrote: »

I think this is a good thing. Don't understand the critism to be honest.
Policing speeding is obviously not good enough and this won't change that but that's a different issue. Needs to be addressed aswell

No problem with it in theory but it should be proportionate. It should start from 1 penalty point for being slightly over, to 3, 4 or more for larger margins, and then dangerous driving for something like a margin of the posted speed plus 50-60kph or something. Starting with 3 points for being slightly over and going up is over the top. "Dangerous driving" for the speed limit plus less 31kph (less than 20MPH) is over the top.

31-12-2018 9:24pm

We need rules that are:
Fair and reasonable
Penalised in a manner proportionate to the offence.
Enforced.

For the first 2 points, that is exactly what is being proposed. The greater the breach of the limit, the more severe the penalty. How you are failing to understand that is beyond me when what you are demanding is exactly what is proposed.

As for enforcement, it will only ever be done on a sample basis, in the exact same way as breath tests, tax/insurance checks, customs, RSA, etc etc.

SeanW · 31-12-2018 9:41pm

Did you read my post? Or those of others who have made comparisons to international systems (e.g. Switzerland). My problem is that the punishment does not fit the crime.

If it were, it would start at much lower penalties for being slightly over, and have a much higher threshold than 19 MPH for a criminal charge of dangerous driving. It should start with 1 penalty point and work up from there.

monument · 31-12-2018 10:02pm

SeanW wrote: »

Did you read my post? Or those of others who have made comparisons to international systems (e.g. Switzerland). My problem is that the punishment does not fit the crime.

If it were, it would start at much lower penalties for being slightly over, and have a much higher threshold than 19 MPH for a criminal charge of dangerous driving. It should start with 1 penalty point and work up from there.

“being slightly over” for some is 10km/h in a 50km/h zone and that can add up to life or death for pedestrians if hit.

But I think most people here can agree Ross has made a dog’s dinner of it.

monument · 31-12-2018 10:13pm

kippy wrote: »

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.

By increasing the punishment you increase you get an educational boost and the enforcement effectiveness.

That all depends on the right kind of gradual system — ie not what Ross has proposed but a fairer system which focuses higher points and fines on urban areas.

Increasing the Garda roads police units is needed, is happening slowly and should happen faster. But it’s a side issue to a change of law — changing the law or not will not slow down or speed up the number of new roads police.

SeanW · 31-12-2018 10:33pm

monument wrote: »

“being slightly over” for some is 10km/h in a 50km/h zone and that can add up to life or death for pedestrians if hit.

How often does that happen though? Can you point to an example of where a pedestrian was killed by a motorist traveling at 56kph where it is known absolutely that wouldn't have happened at 49kph? Remember that 8kph is only 5 miles per hour in 'the old money' so to speak, it's not a lot in most cases.

Again, YMMV, but a lot of my driving is late at night and Saturday afternoons, and you'll often go through a 50kph zone or a 60kph zone and not meet any pedestrians at all. So how do you "protect" a pedestrian that does not exist?

But I think most people here can agree Ross has made a dog’s dinner of it.

It's not just this. We now have drug driving laws that say if someone partakes of an occasional use of cannabis, they have to stay off the road for up to a month when the evidence suggests they should only be off the road for hours, not weeks. Lowering of BAC limits when there was little or no evidence of people between the old and new limits causing problems in practice. And so on.

And all the while this goes on, insurance rates for people with good records like mine continue to climb to absolutely eye-watering levels.

By all means enforce the law to keep dangerous drivers off the road, but the laws need to be sensible and fair, with punishments that fit the crime and are proportionate. Ross supports none of that. Just more harsh laws.

SeanW · 31-12-2018 11:12pm

It should also be noted that not every 50kph zone is created equal. Take for example the town of Longford.

On this road, the 50kph zone starts a mile outside the town on the N63, where there's nothing but out-of-town industrial parks that are largely unused outside of business hours:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7108285,-7.8195387,3a,75y,28.29h,91.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl2yTo1lRF6MOx0hsC-tiXA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

But the same 50kph limit applies on the towns Main Street. Is 50kph appropriate for either? No, it should be lower in the town and higher, significantly so, out where my link shows.

But there's no distinction in law between Main St. and the road with a bit ribbon development a mile out, nor any distinction between the various times of day one may be traveling at. It's 50kph on both, 24/7. Another reason why penalties should start low in a graduated system.

AndrewJRenko · 01-01-2019 2:52am

SeanW wrote: »

I assume nothing. I have a lot of experience seeing areas where lots of people are out-and-about in the daytime, including schools, that are totally deserted late at night.

It looks like you made a pretty big assumption about who's going to be around the school when you said :"It is not reasonable to expect motorists to adhere to school-limits at 10PM on a Sunday night".

monument · 01-01-2019 1:54pm

SeanW wrote: »

It should also be noted that not every 50kph zone is created equal. Take for example the town of Longford.

On this road, the 50kph zone starts a mile outside the town on the N63, where there's nothing but out-of-town industrial parks that are largely unused outside of business hours:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7108285,-7.8195387,3a,75y,28.29h,91.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl2yTo1lRF6MOx0hsC-tiXA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

But the same 50kph limit applies on the towns Main Street. Is 50kph appropriate for either? No, it should be lower in the town and higher, significantly so, out where my link shows.

But there's no distinction in law between Main St. and the road with a bit ribbon development a mile out, nor any distinction between the various times of day one may be traveling at. It's 50kph on both, 24/7. Another reason why penalties should start low in a graduated system.

Sorry, but that’s really bonkers if I’ve picked it up right that you want lower fines for 50km/h because there’s the odd place 50km/h is applied wrongly?!,

Lumen · 01-01-2019 2:01pm

Speed limits will always be "wrong" because they don't take into account conditions, but the sad fact is that if you set them to the safe speed at 3am people will drive that speed + 10kph all day long.

All regulations are annoying for exactly this reason. They're a clumsy fix for hunan stupidity.

But until we have something better, they're a necessary inconvenience.

monument · 01-01-2019 2:22pm

SeanW wrote: »

How often does that happen though? Can you point to an example of where a pedestrian was killed by a motorist traveling at 56kph where it is known absolutely that wouldn't have happened at 49kph?

Your attitude is bonkers — pedestrians are often killed by people driving at lower enough speeds and the risk by speed (km/h or mph) is based on well-established international research.

SeanW wrote: »

Remember that 8kph is only 5 miles per hour in 'the old money' so to speak, it's not a lot in most cases.

If you want to put it in km/h or mph, it doesn’t change the science... are we’re really talking about you perception vs science? Because that’s exactly what I said the problem was.

SeanW wrote: »

Again, YMMV, but a lot of my driving is late at night and Saturday afternoons, and you'll often go through a 50kph zone or a 60kph zone and not meet any pedestrians at all. So how do you "protect" a pedestrian that does not exist?

You know it’s not just based on pedestrians, but also junctions, driveways etc? And what exactly do you want? To be able to go 70 or 80km/h when you think it’s ok? Or what?

SeanW wrote: »

It's not just this. We now have drug driving laws that say if someone partakes of an occasional use of cannabis, they have to stay off the road for up to a month when the evidence suggests they should only be off the road for hours, not weeks. Lowering of BAC limits when there was little or no evidence of people between the old and new limits causing problems in practice. And so on.

And all the while this goes on, insurance rates for people with good records like mine continue to climb to absolutely eye-watering levels.

By all means enforce the law to keep dangerous drivers off the road, but the laws need to be sensible and fair, with punishments that fit the crime and are proportionate. Ross supports none of that. Just more harsh laws.

My recall is that the claim that there was little or no evidence of people between the old and new limits causing problems in practice was put and Ross actually provided the evidence showing there were deaths at the lower limits.

But overall... that’s an unreal amount of different grievances to bring up when debating speed.

01-01-2019 2:34pm

I really don't think that speeding is the big issue it's made out to be, on Irish roads.

Lack of attention to the road is the issue I predict that causes most crashes. Our road deaths are very low as it stands, anyway. This whole thing strikes me as 'be seen to be doing something'. It's easy to nail you to the wall with speeding, because it's just a case of a number on a sign, and whether your number is higher or lower. Easy (but poor) policing.

Again, nails the people who are actually out doing something productive.

Same as the way they enforce drink driving. Don't want the arguments or hassle at the side of the road when people are actually drunk, so instead get them the next morning when they're practically sober in every realistic manner, but if they're up out of bed early they're probably going to work or such, and will not argue on the roadside.

Much like these new speeding offences, it's cowardly policing designed to attack those who try to obey the rules, whilst Johnny on his 5th ban tears down the road beside you, oblivious to it all.

01-01-2019 2:52pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I really don't think that speeding is the big issue it's made out to be, on Irish roads.

Lack of attention to the road is the issue I predict that causes most crashes. Our road deaths are very low as it stands, anyway. This whole thing strikes me as 'be seen to be doing something'. It's easy to nail you to the wall with speeding, because it's just a case of a number on a sign, and whether your number is higher or lower. Easy (but poor) policing.

Again, nails the people who are actually out doing something productive.

Same as the way they enforce drink driving. Don't want the arguments or hassle at the side of the road when people are actually drunk, so instead get them the next morning when they're practically sober in every realistic manner, but if they're up out of bed early they're probably going to work or such, and will not argue on the roadside.

Much like these new speeding offences, it's cowardly policing designed to attack those who try to obey the rules, whilst Johnny on his 5th ban tears down the road beside you, oblivious to it all.

You'll find the tinfoil hats in aisle 3 of the Conspiracy Forum

01-01-2019 3:42pm

Deleted User wrote: »

You'll find the tinfoil hats in aisle 3 of the Conspiracy Forum

How is lazy policing a conspiracy?

magicbastarder · 01-01-2019 4:56pm

SeanW wrote: »

Can you point to an example of where a pedestrian was killed by a motorist traveling at 56kph where it is known absolutely that wouldn't have happened at 49kph?

i'm genuinely curious as to what method you expect could be used which could determine the answer to a question like this.

Victor · 01-01-2019 5:40pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, nails the people who are actually out doing something productive.

So the person caught doing 198km/h over Christmas was being "productive"?

SeanW · 01-01-2019 6:48pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It looks like you made a pretty big assumption about who's going to be around the school when you said :"It is not reasonable to expect motorists to adhere to school-limits at 10PM on a Sunday night".

I assumed nothing. Schools tend to be unused late on a July weekend evening and have lots of schoolchildren about on a February Monday morning. Ditto for school term weekday afternoons when the school day ends.

These times require lower speeds and particular care because of the fact there will be children everywhere. That's obvious to any sane person.

monument wrote: »

Sorry, but that’s really bonkers if I’ve picked it up right that you want lower fines for 50km/h because there’s the odd place 50km/h is applied wrongly?!,

No. Absolutely not. What I suggest instead is 1 PP for any amount of speed over any speed limit up to 10kph, 2 or 3 for the next 10k, 5 or so for the next 10kph, maybe 7 for 30-50kph and careless or dangerous driving for the speed limit plus over 50kph.

I just don't think 50kph zones are particularly special in the above regard, considering how many of them are applied to urban peripheries, ribbon developments, rural areas that just happen to be 1.5 kilometres from a village and so on.

monument wrote: »

You know it’s not just based on pedestrians, but also junctions, driveways etc? And what exactly do you want? To be able to go 70 or 80km/h when you think it’s ok? Or what?

No. Reasonable limits. Slow in town centres and residential estates. Special (timed) limits around schools. Higher limits on long distance roads. Urban 50/60kph limits should end much sooner as you leave a town.

My recall is that the claim that there was little or no evidence of people between the old and new limits causing problems in practice was put and Ross actually provided the evidence showing there were deaths at the lower limits.

My memory could be wrong, but there were stats posted and the evidence wasn't clear. As I recall, most fatalities are caused by drivers that are either sober or stupidly drunk, but I am open to correction.

But overall... that’s an unreal amount of different grievances to bring up when debating speed.

These most recent changes are proposed by a Minister that only cares about having more rules and who doesn't care if they are fair or proportionate.

Victor wrote: »

So the person caught doing 198km/h over Christmas was being "productive"?

Can't speak 100% for the poster, but I think we can all agree that such speeds are insane.

Lumen · 01-01-2019 6:54pm

Ah here, you'd barely be in top gear at 198kph on a decent motorbike.

AndrewJRenko · 02-01-2019 12:13am

SeanW wrote: »

I assumed nothing. Schools tend to be unused late on a July weekend evening and have lots of schoolchildren about on a February Monday morning. Ditto for school term weekday afternoons when the school day ends.

And there's that assumption again, with the extra 'July' qualifier to try to make it stand up. I've collected kids from Dublin schools at 10pm at July weekends after a Ceilí event as part of a Gaeltacht week.

Schools are often used by foreign students for events during the summer too.

Those assumptions are very dangerous.

Stephen15 · 02-01-2019 12:21am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And there's that assumption again, with the extra 'July' qualifier to try to make it stand up. I've collected kids from Dublin schools at 10pm at July weekends after a Ceilí event as part of a Gaeltacht week.

Schools are often used by foreign students for events during the summer too.

Those assumptions are very dangerous.

Ok but couldn't there be large numbers of children being collected at any location at any time of the day or night always expect the unexpected and all that.

02-01-2019 12:36am

Stephen15 wrote: »

Ok but couldn't there be large numbers of children being collected at any location at any time of the day or night always expect the unexpected and all that.

Hence speed limits

Charles Babbage · 02-01-2019 12:41am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And there's that assumption again, with the extra 'July' qualifier to try to make it stand up. I've collected kids from Dublin schools at 10pm at July weekends after a Ceilí event as part of a Gaeltacht week.

Schools are often used by foreign students for events during the summer too.

Those assumptions are very dangerous.

People shouldn't have to assume, the school should have a low limit when required and not when it isn't required.

02-01-2019 12:49am

Victor wrote: »

So the person caught doing 198km/h over Christmas was being "productive"?

That person would be done for dangerous driving under our current rules, anyway. So that makes no difference.

I drive a lot. A lot. You'll often be floating along an N road, limited to 100kph in Ireland. Suddenly, you're in a 50kph zone because there's a 2-house village up ahead, or a school nearby. There'll be no one around, because it's 1am, and the 50kph zone will last about 12 seconds.

People will continue to plod through the 50 zone at 80-100kph, because the road is well paved, wide, signed, lighted and there's nobody around for miles. Except the speed van.

That's the kind of policing that sickens people and it irks a majority of drivers (hence everyone flashing for speeds vans and a '2 finger attitude to speed enforcement' in this country).

I've seen speed vans (and Garda traps) at the bottom of steep hills, hidden behind trees, on roads where the limit is questionably low, etc. and rarely ever (never, I'd say) in actual accident black spots.

This is why people get annoyed at this lazy, colour-inside-the-lines approach to 'road safety'.

There's nothing going on in Ireland at the moment in terms of deaths, speeding offences, etc. being historically high that I can see would be a precedent to warrant a sudden introduction of overly stiff penalties to mild speeding.

Dublin is overwhelmed with traffic, transport and commuting issues. Possibly say the same for Galway, too. The rest of the country is getting by relatively okay, with an undertone of arguing about drink driving laws needing to be relaxed in rural areas. All in all, I can't understand why this is what the minister for transport has been spending his time working on. It seems redundant, useless and makes a further target out of motorists in general.

02-01-2019 1:00am

Your issue seems to be a problem with getting caught breaking the limit. This is easily fixed by one of two ways

Either you start adhering to the limits

Or

You rack up enough points to get put off the road

Either way, it's a much safer result for all concerned. The only person impacted is you and the magnitude of that impact is entirely within your control.

On a side note, I find it amusing that some posters complain about the lack of enforcement and others complain when there is enforcement. You can please some of the people some of the time............

AndrewJRenko · 02-01-2019 1:02am

Charles Babbage wrote: »

People shouldn't have to assume, the school should have a low limit when required and not when it isn't required.

Or just have a low limit maybe? Would it kill you to slow down for a minute?

Stephen15 wrote: »

Ok but couldn't there be large numbers of children being collected at any location at any time of the day or night always expect the unexpected and all that.

I guess that's why drivers are required by law to drive in a manner that allows them to stop within the distance they can see to be clear.

AndrewJRenko · 02-01-2019 1:04am

Deleted User wrote: »

makes a further target out of motorists in general.

Or makes a further target out of motorists who break speed limits in particular.

02-01-2019 3:38am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Or makes a further target out of motorists who break speed limits in particular.

Doing 40 in a 30 is speeding in the loosest sense of the word, yet you'll be done for it time and time again under these rules as the Gardai now have a 'scale' to use their discretion on.

Deleted User wrote: »

Your issue seems to be a problem with getting caught breaking the limit. This is easily fixed by one of two ways

Either you start adhering to the limits

Or

You rack up enough points to get put off the road

Either way, it's a much safer result for all concerned. The only person impacted is you and the magnitude of that impact is entirely within your control.

On a side note, I find it amusing that some posters complain about the lack of enforcement and others complain when there is enforcement. You can please some of the people some of the time............

I think you've completely missed my point altogether. I never complained about enforcement, I complained about the manner, and approach taken with regards to enforcing it.

Besides, if I get put off the road, should that ever happen, I'll just continue along anyway. Every week I see people done for no license, insurance, etc. and they are already banned, but just get repeated bans over and over. There's no punishment for those already 'off the road'.

Caught driving while banned? You get an extension to your ban.

Which only serves to further make a mockery of this new 'sliding scale'.

RobbieMD · 02-01-2019 4:07am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I really don't think that speeding is the big issue it's made out to be, on Irish roads.

Lack of attention to the road is the issue I predict that causes most crashes. Our road deaths are very low as it stands, anyway. This whole thing strikes me as 'be seen to be doing something'. It's easy to nail you to the wall with speeding, because it's just a case of a number on a sign, and whether your number is higher or lower. Easy (but poor) policing.

Again, nails the people who are actually out doing something productive.

Same as the way they enforce drink driving. Don't want the arguments or hassle at the side of the road when people are actually drunk, so instead get them the next morning when they're practically sober in every realistic manner, but if they're up out of bed early they're probably going to work or such, and will not argue on the roadside.

Much like these new speeding offences, it's cowardly policing designed to attack those who try to obey the rules, whilst Johnny on his 5th ban tears down the road beside you, oblivious to it all.

I would say that 149 deaths on the roads last year warrants harsher roads policing. Line up 149 dead bodies and their families behind them and tell them our road deaths are very low. Driving is not a right. It’s a privalige. Drivers who can’t obey the laws should be punished. Our punishments aren’t harsh enough.

Speeding is a factor. Drink driving is a factor. Drink driving in the morning is a factor. I hate that argument of “cowardly policing designed to attack those who try to obey the rules”. If you’re over the limit in the morning then it’s the same as being over the limit at anytime. Your punishment is in line with the amount of alcohol in your system.

Your point of it being easier for the Garda dealing with the person in the morning to avoid confrontation is ridiculous. Most drink drivers are so called decent working people who cause no hassle when arrested. Roughly half drink drivers are caught between 11pm and 4am. The more of them taken off the roads the better. Just because they get up and go to work doesn’t excuse drink driving.

And Johnny on his 5th ban didn’t hand himself in for those bans either.

RobbieMD · 02-01-2019 4:15am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Besides, if I get put off the road, should that ever happen, I'll just continue along anyway. Every week I see people done for no license, insurance, etc. and they are already banned, but just get repeated bans over and over. There's no punishment for those already 'off the road'.

Caught driving while banned? You get an extension to your ban.

Which only serves to further make a mockery of this new 'sliding scale'.

Get caught while banned and the judge can extend your ban. He/She can also imprison you or fine you or both. There are plenty of judges who imprison repeat offenders.

Yes there are those in society who will never obey the law, but that can’t excuse everyone from following suit. Hence why the punishments should be harsher.

Lumen · 02-01-2019 5:38am

Deleted User wrote: »

You'll often be floating along an N road, limited to 100kph in Ireland. Suddenly, you're in a 50kph zone because there's a 2-house village up ahead, or a school nearby. There'll be no one around, because it's 1am, and the 50kph zone will last about 12 seconds.

People will continue to plod through the 50 zone at 80-100kph, because the road is well paved, wide, signed, lighted and there's nobody around for miles. Except the speed van.

That's the kind of policing that sickens people

The reason the limit is 50 is because there are houses on the road. If a dog bolts out you could end up hitting a house at 100kph. Well not you obviously, because you possess god-like infallibility, but those other idiots you see on the road every day.

Sure, the risk is low, but all accidents are freak accidents.

What "sickens" me is people feeling aggrieved at slowing down for 12 seconds. You're driving through a village, slow down FFS.

Good example I see every day is Kilmacanogue on the N11. There's an 80kph limit northbound due to vehicles merging. People buzz through at 120kph and it causes a real hazard. I've seen them moan on social media about the "ridiculous" limit but it isn't ridiculous at all. People are just crap at recognising hazards. Their licences should be revoked. I go through at 80kph on the motorbike and have people tailgating me aggressively. Cnts.

Of course the gardai never enforce that limit. Really needs a camera.

Duckjob · 02-01-2019 2:01pm

SeanW wrote: »

Presumably you both think motorists should just drive everywhere at 5 miles an hour or something?

That's not my position, but you carry on presuming bull**** that neither me or anybody in the thread is arguing for.

I'm quite happy with people being able to drive at 50/80/100/120 kph in the correct circumstances. I'm a fan of the principles of vision zero for road safety which have and still are being implemented with great success by the Dutch.

One of the principles of vision zero is that you avoid mixing vehicular and non vehicular traffic where the expected maximum speed (not necessarily the posted speed limit) is > 30kph or 20mph. If the infrastructure requires these traffic types to mix, which is a lot of our urban roads (and probably most everywhere we have schools) then you limit the speed to 30kph. This can be done largely with clever self-enforcing infrastructure which, as well as physically restraining speeding also mentally influences drivers to a calmer and more careful mode of driving. Also, such infrastructure, where it exists is there 24/7, so people are free to travel with safety 24/7, regardless of whether it a "normal" time to be out walking / cycling etc.

Ideally our road infrastructure would be completely revamped to be opened up for safe passage everywhere by other modes of transport than a motor car. However, I'm enough of a realist to know that's not going to happen anytime soon. But what we CAN do now is apply vision zero to out current infrasturure- limit to 30kph when cars and user road users are not well separated and start enforcing strictly to force people to change their attitudes.

AndrewJRenko · 02-01-2019 2:27pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Doing 40 in a 30 is speeding in the loosest sense of the word, yet you'll be done for it time and time again under these rules as the Gardai now have a 'scale' to use their discretion on.

Doing 40 in a 30 zone more than doubles the probability of fatal injury to a pedestrian; https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/speed/speed_is_a_central_issue_in_road_safety/speed_and_the_injury_risk_for_different_speed_levels_en

JeffKenna · 02-01-2019 2:50pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Doing 40 in a 30 zone more than doubles the probability of fatal injury to a pedestrian; https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/speed/speed_is_a_central_issue_in_road_safety/speed_and_the_injury_risk_for_different_speed_levels_en

yeah but most of the speed traps are just inside the 30k zone heading out of a town/village where no pedestrians actually are.

AndrewJRenko · 02-01-2019 4:56pm

JeffKenna wrote: »

yeah but most of the speed traps are just inside the 30k zone heading out of a town/village where no pedestrians actually are.

How did you work out that there are not going to be any pedestrians on the outskirts?

JeffKenna · 02-01-2019 5:20pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How did you work out that there are not going to be any pedestrians on the outskirts?

Experience, drive through a town and pedestrians generally tend to be in the center at shops etc not a half mile out the road with no houses/shops buildings of any kind around.

AndrewJRenko · 02-01-2019 5:25pm

JeffKenna wrote: »

Experience, drive through a town and pedestrians generally tend to be in the center at shops etc not a half mile out the road with no houses/shops buildings of any kind around.

I often see pedestrians hitching outside towns, but regardless, it doesn't look like a safe assumption. In fact, it looks like a fairly dangerous assumption.

JeffKenna · 02-01-2019 5:30pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I often see pedestrians hitching outside towns, but regardless, it doesn't look like a safe assumption. In fact, it looks like a fairly dangerous assumption.

Most of the hitchhikers I see have been on 100/80km stretch of roads so your dangerous assumption is incorrect.

Proposal for sliding scale of speeding fines / points

Comments