dangerous driving - opinons please

pixie_student

Tommy Vercetti wrote:

How many were on motorways/dual carriageways?

I'm not goin to even go there :rollseyes:

secret_squirrel

daymobrew wrote:

I have no sympathy for you. I regularly report people breaking red lights to the Gardai
[/RANT]

Relevant how? He was speeding not jumping red lights. For red lights I would agree with you - its much more dangerous imho than a few miles an hour over the limit. - especially in a half decent modern car.

Interceptor

Driving is a privelege, not a right. The licensing and testing system is woefully inadequate and there is very little 'car culture' in Ireland. I have no sympathy for anyone caught doing a ton on a dual carriageway - don't bother with excuses to the judge, tell it to the hundreds of people killed on the roads every year.

Tommy V is right, our roads are piss-poor but that is even less excuse for carelessness and it is not up to the cops to slow motorists down - it is up to the muppet with their foot on the accelerator.

Cars don't kill people, drivers kill people.

One final question, what is the stopping distance of a 1.6 lantra at 99mph? My guess would be too long and that you would be bringing a note from your boss to the funeral.

'ceptr

vector

smokey2 wrote:

you'll get a really big fine at best or a fine and points!!

would say you'll be looking at a ban though unless you've a really good solicitor to plead your case for you!!

100 mph is an instant ban afaik and you were just under it by 1 mph you'll be luck to get away with your licence!!

you have my sympathies mate been there myself but had a bloody good solicitor and the guard liked me for some reason!!!

I still shat a brick waitin to find out what my fete was goin to be!!!

You are looking at a ban so get a GOOD solicitor, even if it costs something like EUR 3000 (and you have the money) it is better than a ban.

A ban would mean getting the bus, with all that that engenders.

seamus

secret_squirrel wrote:

Relevant how? He was speeding not jumping red lights. For red lights I would agree with you - its much more dangerous imho than a few miles an hour over the limit. - especially in a half decent modern car.

Yeah great. But 40mph is not a "few miles an hour" over the limit by any measure.

OfflerCrocGod

Tough Luck. You are going to get f*cked in the a*. You wont like it. Judge will though.


Not much else to say about this

Krusty_Clown

Giles wrote:

I was stopped by a cop on the new Dundalk bypass a few weeks ago and he clocked me at 94mph :eek: Afaik I'm gonna get a fine in the post and that's it.

Expect points. I don't think they can issues speeding fines these days without points.

Victor

Giles wrote:

I was stopped by a cop on the new Dundalk bypass a few weeks ago .... on a perfect new motorway such as the Dundalk one in perfect driving conditions is that dangerous but I'm sure plenty on beg to differ...

The Dundalk Bypass (technically a through pass, not a bypass) is mostly ordinary two lane road, with a distinct (not quite sharp) bend, traffic lights and several entrances .....

HashSlinging

Tommy Vercetti wrote:

It's a simple question. Maybe if Gardai spent more time patrolling the poor excuse for roads where the vast majority of deaths occur instead of safer motorways and dual carriageways, then maybe the toll wouldn't be so high.

its very true.. you could overtake a line of 7 - 8 cars along a country road hitting well over a ton and not worry about getting caught. but if you are doing 80 on a motorway your looking for the speed traps... doesn't make sense at all. I think the reason for it is there's no where safe on country roads for the garda to place their VA-ICLES.

I've been guilty of accelerating very hard (overtaking or if someone is up my arse) but i always back down to the speed limit. Its not worth my while to get the points.

Sleipnir

There's no excuse for doing 99mph anywhere.
Go on and tell the judge you were late for a meeting and you have a "note from your boss" and watch his expression.
You might as well hand up a note from your mammy saying that she's already dealt with your boldness by banning desert for a week.

The "new car" excuse will get him all the more exasperated and if you use both I wouldn't be surprised if he leaps out of his chair at you.

I hope you get a ban for that sort of reckless driving. You don't deserve to drive.

IrishRover

Guys, I really have to wonder whether those of you who are showing such outrage and saying that you hope he gets banned from driving are actually motorists yourselves or not. Even if you are, I'd guess you haven't been driving very long or have much experience driving in different conditions and on different roads.

Driving at 99 miles per hour is not in itself dangerous. In fact, driving at this speed on an uncongested dual carriageway or motorway with a straight dry surface and clear visibility sounds like one of the safest situations to do so in. It's all about whether the speed is appropriate for the conditions.

30mph may be too fast in some circumstances, even if this is still under the speed limit. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, and just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. 30mph may be too fast where there are children playing near a road, where there is a park nearby or where there are concealed entrances or bad weather conditions such as thick fog or heavy rain.

150+ mph can be perfectly safe on a three lane motorway with good visibility where everyone else is doing a similar speed and keeping an appropriate distance and observing correct lane changing procedures.

Anyone who is an experienced driver will know that this is self-evident.

All these knee-jerk reactions saying that this guy is basically the devil incarnate for driving above the speed limit on a road where it was probably quite safe to do so seem quite ill-founded and are definitely not constructive. The guy asked a question about what kind of punishment he might expect in court for being caught. He didn't ask to be preached at from the moral high ground.

Tommy Vercetti

well said

Sleipnir

IrishRover wrote:

Driving at 99 miles per hour is not in itself dangerous. In fact, driving at this speed on an uncongested dual carriageway or motorway with a straight dry surface and clear visibility sounds like one of the safest situations to do so in. It's all about whether the speed is appropriate for the conditions.

Driving 40mph over the speed limit i.e the maximum speed allowed given the conditions you state above (good visibility, dry road etc)
is reckless driving.

IrishRover wrote:

150+ mph can be perfectly safe on a three lane motorway with good visibility where everyone else is doing a similar speed and keeping an appropriate distance and observing correct lane changing procedures.

The point is that if it is safe to drive at 150mph when everyone else is doing a similar speed, keeping appropriate distance and observing correct lane changing procedures, it would probably be unsafe to drive at 250mph on that road, no?

The speed, i.e. the actual number itself doesn't matter.
Where speed matters is how it relates to all other conditions.

He was driving at least 39mph faster than other traffic on the road and that is reckless driving.

IrishRover

The speed, i.e. the actual number itself doesn't matter.
Where speed matters is how it relates to all other conditions.

Well that sounds like you agree with me there.

Driving 40mph over the speed limit i.e the maximum speed allowed given the conditions you state above (good visibility, dry road etc)
is reckless driving.

But that's just an arbitrary figure!

Re-reading what you said though, is it that you reckon some "road assessor" has come along and test driven the road and determined that 60mph is the fastest speed that can be safely achieved on the road (in the sense that car and driver are on the limit of traction and stopping distance with regard to visibility)?

Merrion

I'd imagine a blow out at 150mph+ on a road where everyone else was also doing 150mph+ would probably be a little way from "perfectly safe"....and getting tyres that are rated for 150mph+ is an expensive business.

seamus

IrishRover wrote:

Driving at 99 miles per hour is not in itself dangerous. In fact, driving at this speed on an uncongested dual carriageway or motorway with a straight dry surface and clear visibility sounds like one of the safest situations to do so in. It's all about whether the speed is appropriate for the conditions.

Indeed, except that usually speed limits exist for a reason. There is a reason why a dual carraigeway is a dual carriageway and not a motorway. It has junctions and traffic lights.

150+ mph can be perfectly safe on a three lane motorway with good visibility where everyone else is doing a similar speed and keeping an appropriate distance and observing correct lane changing procedures.

Anyone who is an experienced driver will know that this is self-evident.

Anyone who is an experienced driver will know that this is ridiculous. It's correct in theory, but not in practice. Our existing motorways are not designed to accomodate traffic at that speed. If there were no slip roads (or much longer slip roads), huge sweeping bends, no hills and walls surrounding the motorway, then yes, everyone could probably drive safely at 150mph+. But none of these things exist. One slight error at 150mph, and you've suddenely killed yourself and tens, maybe hundreds of cars behind you. Even at 70mph, people react poorly (even when driving properly) - you should know it well, one guy tips his brakes, and suddenly another 4 guys behind him panic, even though they've plenty of room, and upset everyone else's rhythym.
Theory is great, but it doesn't let you disregard reality.

The reality is that at 100mph on a dual carriageway, you will come upon junctions, other vehicles and hazards on the carraigeway, almost twice as fast as someone doing the limit. Concordently, your reaction time is almost halved. This makes one much more likely to panic at the sudden appearance of a hazard than someone who is going the limit, and the faster you're going, the more likely it is that panicking will result in disaster. Think about it logically - dog comes out in front of you at 25mph, you swerve hard, the car might spin, or you might end up on your roof. It will stop in a relatively short distance. The same thing happens at 60mph, you swerve hard, the car rolls numerous times, probably ending up in the ditch at the side of the road. You and anyone else who happens to get in the way of a ton of rolling metal.

I'm not in the "you are the devil incarnate" group, but I'm disgusted at his childish attempts to rationalise his crime and weasel his way out of it.

IrishRover

Merrion wrote:

I'd imagine a blow out at 150mph+ on a road where everyone else was also doing 150mph+ would probably be a little way from "perfectly safe"....and getting tyres that are rated for 150mph+ is an expensive business.

That's a bit of an aside though really isn't it? - especially the part about the cost of tyres.

Sleipnir

IrishRover wrote:

Re-reading what you said though, is it that you reckon some "road assessor" has come along and test driven the road and determined that 60mph is the fastest speed that can be safely achieved on the road (in the sense that car and driver are on the limit of traction and stopping distance with regard to visibility)?

No you're dead right, we should leave it up to the individual driver.

IrishRover

Seamus, believe it or not, I'm not actually saying "it is safe for every Irish driver to do 150mph on Irish roads".

I was trying to give an example of two extremes of speed - one where many people would think they are being safe because they are not breaking the law, and the other where they would automatically assume it is extremely unsafe because the limit is 70 on motorways here.

Yes of course I agree with you that we don't have the roads here to do 150mph on, but it also stands to reason that although our speed limit for main roads and dual carriageways is 60mph, it is going to be safe to go faster than that on some sections of our roads and it is not going to be safe to go nearly as fast as that on other sections (and conditions etc) even though you may be under the legal speed limit. It is a relatively arbitrary figure and it shocks me that many people here seem to think that if they stay under this limit that makes them a safe driver. That is what I meant by just because something is legal, doesn't make it right and vice-versa.

Sleipnir

okay, so should the speed limit change every kilometer as the road changes or should we allow drivers to decide for themselves?
I can't see any other option.

IrishRover

Sleipnir wrote:

No you're dead right, we should leave it up to the individual driver.

I take it you are being tounge-in-cheek there, but consider this:
What if we did actually have a dedicated person or team of people from the department of the environment or transport or whatever who went around the roads of Ireland assessing the appropriate speed limit for various roads and even sections of road? What if we ahd electronic signs that posted the limit depending on whether it was raining or foggy? That would make more sense for me rather than this arbitrary 60mph (or is it 100kph ) limit that applies to backroad botharíns as well as dual carriageways that may actually have no intersections.

Sleipnir

You think road signs that change depending on the conditions would be a good idea?
Dynamic speed limits?
What are you kiddin' me?

IrishRover

Sleipnir wrote:

okay, so should the speed limit change every kilometer as the road changes or should we allow drivers to decide for themselves?
I can't see any other option.

Well now you see, somebody probably had this very conversation way back when speed limits were first introduced. Like you, they probably thought a varying speed limit may be impractical and so decided on a "one size fits all" blanket speed limit. And that of course naturally leads to varying cases where sometimes the speed limit is too low and other times the speed limit is too high. They probably thought of this too and figured the courts would examine each case of speeding on a case by case basis and wouldn't assume that just because a driver was going over this arbitrary set limit that they were actually being reckless.

fletch

IrishRover wrote:

Seamus, believe it or not, I'm not actually saying "it is safe for every Irish driver to do 150mph on Irish roads".

I was trying to give an example of two extremes of speed - one where many people would think they are being safe b....

Sorry to disappoint you IrishRover but the majority of boards user are unable to comprehend the phrase "by way of example". EVERYTHING you say is taken literally.
150mph is not safe in the same way 40mph is not safe. However if we were to live our life worrying about being run over by a car we'd never leave our homes. Speed represents progress. If man did not have the desire to explore and get places faster, America would probably still remain undiscovered, space would still be a mystery and we'd all still be travelling by foot. (went a bit off track there)

Sleipnir

Basically they said

"Well, this section here would be a 40mph I think. Then there's a bit where you could drive at 60mph and then it kinda goes back to 40 again. Whaddaya think?"

"Well, make it all 40mph. It will save confusion at the speed limits changing every few hundred meters and it may stop them from killing themselves"


You see YOU are deciding that the limit here is too low, so you apply your own speed limit cos, hey, you're a great driver.
The limit only really applies to drivers who aren't as great as I am.

seamus

IrishRover wrote:

although our speed limit for main roads and dual carriageways is 60mph, it is going to be safe to go faster than that on some sections of our roads and it is not going to be safe to go nearly as fast as that on other sections (and conditions etc) even though you may be under the legal speed limit.

No argument here. In practice though, sections where it may be safe to 100mph are few and far between, and if I've ever seen one, they're not more than a couple of hundred metres long. In most other safe stretches on carriageway, 70mph, maybe 80, but 100? Not a chance.

It is a relatively arbitrary figure and it shocks me that many people here seem to think that if they stay under this limit that makes them a safe driver. That is what I meant by just because something is legal, doesn't make it right and vice-versa.

Depends on your school of thought. It can easily be argued that legal = right and illegal = wrong. But that's a whole different topic.
In the interests of other's safety, people cannot be trusted to make the correct decision in certain circumstances. While in a perfect world, there would be no speed limits, and everyone would drive at a speed safe and appropriate for the conditions, in our world, we must enforce limits because most people would abuse the freedom to make this decision, and/or would make the wrong decision, from time to time.
While on paper, it may be statistically and logistically safe to exceed this limit, legally you are wrong for doing so, because nobody can be exempt from the law, even when that law is punishing someone who was still sticking to the spirit of the law.

IrishRover

Sleipnir wrote:

You think road signs that change depending on the conditions would be a good idea?
Dynamic speed limits?
What are you kiddin' me?

Not the kind of ones that lower the speed limit just as you are approaching a speed check but this kind of thing actually does exist. If you have ever driven on actual proper motorways outside of Ireland you may have seen the illuminated traffic signs overhead that warn of upcoming dangers. These also post speed limit notices depending on whether there is adverse weather conditions or a lane closed or an accident up ahead or something. (Some people might argue that these are just advisory and aren't legally binding limits though).

scriv

That's not a half bad idea, in theory
I believe that many people especially with good cars, are safe driving at speeds well over the speed limit (including myself), but there are also so many idiots on the road with unsafe cars that I'm perfectly willing to put up with the injustice if it is to prevent these morons from mowing down many more individuals a year!
At the end of the day:
idiot + higher speed = more deaths.

Boggle

seumus wrote:

Think about it logically - dog comes out in front of you at 25mph, you swerve hard, the car might spin, or you might end up on your roof. It will stop in a relatively short distance. The same thing happens at 60mph, you swerve hard, the car rolls numerous times, probably ending up in the ditch at the side of the road. You and anyone else who happens to get in the way of a ton of rolling metal.

Nobody likes to flatten a dog but every experienced driver knows (or bloody well should know) that you NEVER swerve for an animal. It's horrible but you never take the chance of losing control of a car or causing an accident with a surrounding car for any animal. It was one of the first things my dad told me when learning to drive...

sleipnir wrote:

No you're dead right, we should leave it up to the individual driver.

No your right - we should follow the sign and stick to 60 where it says 60 - even if careering around sharp bends. Speed limits are speed limits and the man who put them there has to have thought them through.

If spped limits are so great then tell me this: Why are speed limits the same in the dry as they are in the wet?

lisa.c

the more excuses you try and rely on the more arrogent you will look.
stand before the judge and tell him you were speeding because your thick and stupid. you'll be a bit more respected for being truthful. as for your punishment...who knows a judge could be more leanient if he see's your been honest.