Speeding fine - Garda attitude

egan007

I was passenger with my friend who was driving.
He was stopped by the garda after being caught by their speed trap
doing 100kmph on an 80kmph stretch of a national primary route.

The fine was accepted no bones about that.
What was a pain in the ass was the guarda's response to an answer my friend gave.

Guard:
Why were you doing 80 in a 100 zone.
Friend:
Because I did not see you.

This guy is a very honest guy and tells it like it is - right or wrong...what ever you think.

So the guard behind the guard that was giving the ticket bends down and looks in the window and says with a smirk on his face - you are not supposed to see us - and winking the head like darby o'gill.

This is bull - the guards keep harping on about 'High visibility' campaigns yet it's clear that they are just being sneaky.

I would like to point out that this is not a rant about the speeding fine it's about the agenda of the guards.
Their speed traps are Clearly 75% Money baskets 25% Slowing people down.

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=garda+high+visibility&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Hobbes

Sounds like the guard was doing his job and being reasonable to what could of been taken as smart ass comment.

Not knowing if a guard is watching or not seems to me a better system of catching people who speed.

stevenmu

You're supposed to be able to see them alright, but not nessecarily before they've caught you. Generally the traps I've seen are just around bends or over hills so that you will see them, but they'll see you first, and the camera will have you before you have a chance to slow down.

Stephen

Yeah, I can imagine many other Gardaí would have ****ed your day up for what could be perceived as a smart ass comment.

kippy

Point 1. The Gardai have no idea what your friend is like. I think your friend made what many would percieve to be a smart arsed comment that wasnt really called for.
Point 2. I think they would have been fairly visible to the cars passing when they had stopped your friend.
Point 3. The attitude of your friend leaves a lot to be desired. If people had the attitude that the guards are hiding in every nook and cranny with speed cameras then there would be less speeding. Instead people have the attitude that they wont get caught because there are no guards on the road.

Kippy

Rudolph Claus

They`d sick in your hole putting speed traps on decent roads. 100kmh/60mph in a 80kmh/50mph zone doesnt deserve 2penalty points. My main road into my local town used to be 60mph and then was reduced for no reason when the changeover to kmh happened. Its fookin laughable doing 50mph on this particular road, its entirely straight apart from a few minor bends and should be 60mph. The guards are always on it catching people doing 60mph instead of being there at night when people are doing 100mph out the road. The whole speeding this is a joke, 10mph over a ridiculous limit is not speeding and does nothing for the road safety campaign except make honest/decent/genuine motorists/people hate the sight of big thick dopey cnuts of guards. They are losing all respect from the general public by conducting such pointless and trivial speed checks. they`re pulling in genuine motorists on trivial "speeding" and then giving the same motorists attitude. They`re a pack of lazy useless cnuts afraid of doing the real work of a garda. If the guards that are doing these trivial checks in low limit areas actually think they`re doing a worthwhile contribution to road safety and lowering deaths then they really are braindead cnuts.

kippy

They are enforcing the law. Its your duty to abide by it, whether you agree with it or not.
I think your post is a lot over the top.
Kippy

Rudolph Claus

kippy wrote:

They are enforcing the law. Its your duty to abide by it, whether you agree with it or not.
I think your post is a lot over the top.
Kippy

Are you a garda?
They are doing themselves no favours with their trivial speed checks which are useless to road safety. (Im speaking of ridiculous 50mph roads here). Its laughable driving on a perfectly good straight road at 50mph. the gards arent stopping people on these roads when they should be(nighttime -getting drunks and excessive speeders), so i think we can honestly say they havent done 1 single positive thing by issusing penalty points to the average motoris doing 60 on a 50mph main road.

But sure they like the easy option, lot handier work is the above scenarios than catching the people they should be catching and boosts up their stats.

kippy

Are you a garda

No.
There are already about 654 posts in this forum regarding garda speed checks and "stupid" speed limits.
However, if people didnt break any speed limits anywhere the gardai wouldnt really have too much work to do in enforcing the limits.
I agree that there arent enough gardai doing speed checks on certain roads, however I do not agree with people breaking the law, especially the speeding laws on the road.

Rudolph Claus

Tut, i dont condone excessive speeding myself but people like to get into their cars and actually "drive" them. Its unnatural to drive(CRAWL) at a painstakingly unappropiate/unnatural speed of 50mph on decent straight wide roads. There are plenty such roads in Ireland, i know of and be on about 4 such roads between villages and towns where i live.

I agree that there arent enough gardai doing speed checks on certain roads, however I do not agree with people breaking the law, especially the speeding laws on the road.

I dont view someone doing 60mph on 1 of these 50mph roads as breaking the law, its called "driving" the bloody car. These particular roads with these limits are to make money, nothing to do with safety and saving lives. If you cant see that i give up! You might aswell be a garda.

magpie

I would like to point out that this is not a rant about the speeding fine it's about the agenda of the guards.
Their speed traps are Clearly 75% Money baskets 25% Slowing people down.

More like 100% / 0%, but other than that I agree with you.

If they wanted people to slow down they would make sure their presence was visible from space. Given that they hide in bushes and unmarked transit vans I can only draw the conclusion that the revenue gained from this practice is of more interest than the shabby 'road safety' agenda they use to justify putting speed traps on the best and safest roads in the state, while ignoring the perpetual carnage on country roads caused by drunks in the early hours of the morning.

But as my man Ice Cube said in a recent interview "Cops know they're dirty - that's real".

Pherekydes

egan007 wrote:

Guard:
Why were you doing 80 in a 100 zone.

Yeah, bump it up to the bloody limit!:D

bbability

Its one of those things that will never change.. the small group of edjits who were that uniform and let it go straight to their head give the good guys a bad name. I helped a cop out last year at an accident at around 2 in the morning. It was on a bad bend and he was on his own. He rang me a few days after to thank me. The guy was genuinely thankful. Drivers (including myself) just have to get it into their heads if it says 80km its a 80km zone. Whether you or me believe its wrong, its out of our hands. Don't give them a an excuse to stop you, that's my opinion.

is_that_so

100kph=25% over the speed limit. Best not to get "offended" by forces of law and order.

gyppo

Nuttzy wrote:

Tut, i dont condone excessive speeding myself but people like to get into their cars and actually "drive" them. Its unnatural to drive(CRAWL) at a painstakingly unappropiate/unnatural speed of 50mph on decent straight wide roads. There are plenty such roads in Ireland, i know of and be on about 4 such roads between villages and towns where i live.


I dont view someone doing 60mph on 1 of these 50mph roads as breaking the law, its called "driving" the bloody car. These particular roads with these limits are to make money, nothing to do with safety and saving lives. If you cant see that i give up! You might aswell be a garda.

Do you apply the same rationale to a 50km/h speed limit? Are you ok with driving at 55-60km/h when the limit is 50km/h?
Would you prefer to stop within 75 feet at 50kmh or 96 feet at 55kmh? Thats 21 feet of a difference for a 5km/h increase in speed. You could run over 3 people in that distance. (If they were obliging enough to be spaced every 7 feet! ).;)

Look at the same scenario at 80km/h and 100 km/h. At 80km/h your stopping distance is 175 feet. At 100km/h that distance is 240 feet.

Do the sums yourself if you don't believe me.

http://www.hintsandthings.co.uk/garage/stopmph.htm

Sandwich

Just cannot understand the widespread idea that guards are doing something sneaky by cathcing 'easy' speeders with moneymaking the main aim.

Quite apart from the fact that, as someone already mentioned, if you're breaking the law then you're breaking the law - regardless of how easy it was to catch you, experience in other counties, mainly Scandinavian and Auatralia has shown that it is the perceived risk of being caught that is the real deterent to speeding.

We all feel safe in our cars even at speed. Despite the knowledge that an accident would do serious damage to us, we percieve the risk of an accident to be low to miniscule. So we speed.

If the number of speeding stops/fines/points events increases and is known to be prevelant either through personal experience or hearsay, then we start to feel a risk that we will be caught and pay the fine/points or loose our licence. So we slow down.
This was temporarily but dramatically demonstrated in Ireland when the penalty points system came in first. It was high profile and no one had a feel for what impact it would make - so they felt at risk of loosing their licence - so slowed down. ONce we all realised that the chances of being caught and accumulate enough points to loose our licences were still so low, we saw the risk as low and so accidents started increasing again. In Sweden, you will be caught, if speeding, and the threshold for being over the speed limit or to loose your licence is - so people dont risk it.

It is embarassing to realise how backward Ireland is on this topic, but i suppose it is not so long ago that we laughed at the drunk driver, or people stated in all seriousness that they drove better with one-for-the-road. While not resolved entirely (mainly by the older population who find it hard to change old habits) at least we changed for the better on that front.

So dont moan about the speed traps on the bypasses, dual carriage ways and good straight stretches. If half the driver population suddenly (and rightly) started accumulating fines and points we would slow down very quickly.

Rudolph Claus

Whats the point in building/maintaining main roads if we cant drive on them. 50mph is too slow on a straight main roads and regional roads between villages and small towns.

All this talk of the increased stopping distances in the difference between 50 and 60mph is stupid. These roads used be 60mph so whats changed. The way some folk talk about stopping distances you`d swear we were talking about stopping from 100mph, were talking about 60mph on good straight roads ffs. If you deem yourself incompetent to drive safely at 60mph on them roads then i suggest ye get the bus.

So dont moan about the speed traps on the bypasses, dual carriage ways and good straight stretches. If half the driver population suddenly (and rightly) started accumulating fines and points we would slow down very quickly

Yes i agree if you meant getting people to slow down from excessive speeds but not slowing from 60 to 50mph ffe, what does this achieve. Apart from frustration and ridicuously slow speed driving and increased overtaking.

zilog_jones

Nuttzy, nobody cares about what you deem a safe speed on whatever road. The limits are there for a reason, and they're the law. All the guards can do WRT speed limits is enforce the law. If you want to contend a speed limit, speak to whoever actually sets the limits - the council, the NRA or whoever it is (I dunno).

Speed limit reductions only coincided with the metric changeover because it was just more convenient as all the signs needed to be changed regardless. The people who set/change the speed limits are not idiots, you know - I'm sure they had their reasons.

Rudolph Claus

Nuttzy, nobody cares about what you deem a safe speed on whatever road. The limits are there for a reason, and they're the law. All the guards can do WRT speed limits is enforce the law. If you want to contend a speed limit, speak to whoever actually sets the limits - the council, the NRA or whoever it is (I dunno).

I appreciate the guards dont set the limits, but if i joined up to be a guarda and was assigned some traffic duty crap i`d try and do something worthwhile and catch worthwhile offenders where you might make a difference on them. However this approach might involve a bit of thinking and work even, which alot of guards dont like so they go and sit like knobs on a ridiculously 50mph straight safe road and harrass people doing 55 or even 60mph and give attitude. 60mph on a straight main road, :eek: :rolleyes: Good work done there. :rolleyes:

oh yeah, and theres also the issue of meeting quotas and making stats appear better so these shooting fish in a barrel spot are garda friendly. There is nothing worthwhile from a road safety point of view resulting from these particular speed checks.

Wishbone Ash

I think the posters here who have a problem with Gardai enforcing the law should realise that individual Gardai do not decide where to operate speed checks. That is generally decided by Garda management. Also, Gardai do not make transport law nor do they set the speed limits.

zilog_jones

Nuttzy wrote:

...they go and sit like knobs on a ridiculously 50mph straight safe road and harrass people doing 55 or even 60mph and give attitude. 60mph on a straight main road...

Again, that is your opinion that the road is safe to drive at 60mph. Maybe there is a lot of speeding on that road that you don't know about? Maybe there's been accidents? Maybe the guards are just trying to fill their quotas? Nobody here can say for sure, especially since no one else even knows what road you're talking about nor what the guards' motives are for doing speed checks in that particular place.

overdriver

zilog_jones wrote:

The people who set/change the speed limits are not idiots, you know - I'm sure they had their reasons.

The evidence does not support this.

The reason seems to be...

KER-CHING!!!!

gyppo

Nuttzy wrote:

All this talk of the increased stopping distances in the difference between 50 and 60mph is stupid. These roads used be 60mph so whats changed. The way some folk talk about stopping distances you`d swear we were talking about stopping from 100mph, were talking about 60mph on good straight roads ffs. If you deem yourself incompetent to drive safely at 60mph on them roads then i suggest ye get the bus.

.

I think we'd all be safer if you got the bus!:D
I drive at the speed limit, not above it. If the limit is 80km/h then thats what I drive at, not at what I feel it should be. This concept is called obeying the law.

Im my earlier post, I asked a question which you conveniently ignored, so I'll ask it again - Do you apply the same rationale to 50km/h speed limits?

A Guard who's a neighbour of mine tells me that someone who tends not to obey the speed limit on a main road is quite likely not to obey limits anywhere else.

Sandwich

gyppo wrote:

A Guard who's a neighbour of mine tells me that someone who tends not to obey the speed limit on a main road is quite likely not to obey limits anywhere else.

Is exactly right. It is a persons attitude to risk (of being caught) that determines whether they will break the limit, so they drive 10 or 20 over whatever the stated limit.

For example, we all feel safe and do 120kph on a motorway. If the 'self regulators' above who make their own assessment of what is a safe speed to drive were to follow their own logic, then they would drive at 120kph also when on some of the many dual carriageways bypasses around Ireland (perfect surface, visibility for miles ahead, and at times little or no traffic) because it would be as 'safe' as being on a motorway. Yet they dont ! - because they know that even though the risk of being caught is low the penalty for being caught is very high. So they drive at 60 or 70.

On the motorway the make the same risk/penalty evaluation and drive at 130 or 140.

It has nothing to do with an objective assessment of their own safety. Most people are incompetent to assess car safety, least of all young males, with a genetic predisposition to underevaluate the risk to self (useful back in the wooly mamoth/sabretooth tiger era though it was).

Wake up and obey the law guys.

Spitfire666

Guards dont have quota to fill! guards dont set speed limits! guards dont always have a choice in relation to where they do speed checks.

guards should need to be seen. if you couldnt see the guard untill you where being pulled over alot more people would be caught and people would slow down as they would relise that when they see the guard its too late. The way it is now is that the driver sees the guard and slams on the brakes.

Sandwich

Spitfire666 wrote:

Guards dont have quota to fill! guards dont set speed limits! guards dont always have a choice in relation to where they do speed checks.

guards should need to be seen. if you couldnt see the guard untill you where being pulled over alot more people would be caught and people would slow down as they would relise that when they see the guard its too late. The way it is now is that the driver sees the guard and slams on the brakes.

Correct also. What is effective is visibility of PEOPLE BEING CAUGHT - not a potential to be caught which is easily evaded by seeing the gaurd well in advance

bo-bo

whoah - talk about chips on shoulders

do ye people not see the elements of the argument you are making

firstly:

your problems seem to be with the gardai - as previously pointed out they are ENFORCING the law - its their job (admittably it would be ideal if discretion were used, but its supposed to be be black and white) - got a problem - talk to the legislators

secondly:

your driving a ton and a half of metal - if something beyond your control happens (which is quite likely) even 30kph can be too fast

thirdly:

grow up - if you want to speed, thats fine - so long as its on an empty road with no other users. want to be the next statistic, be my guest

but

at least take your punishment on the chin when you get it and quit whinging. if you speed its you in control of the car, its your decision.

to sum up with a simple equation: if you break the law you get punished!

Wishbone Ash

Nuttzy wrote:

These roads used be 60mph so whats changed.

Just because a road once had a higher speed limit, that does not mean that it was necessarily appropriate. The original limit may have been set when there was a lot less traffic on that road. It may have been reduced downwards in an attempt to help reduce accidents/injuries/deaths. I don't know if you do much driving in Dublin City but many of the limits are now 30km/h (19mph in your preferred currency).

It was once considered normal to drive a car without a seat belt. It is now illegal (unless exempted). I could argue "what's changed" and could also argue that it is probably safer to go without a seatbelt now as many vehicles have airbags and other accident aids. Wearing a seatbelt is now considered the norm. In a few years, driving more slowly on non-motorway roads will probably be the norm.

Prior to the introduction of the breathalyser test, it was very difficult to be convicted of a section 49 offence even though it has been illegal since 1933. Do you think that no progress should have been made here?

It was once legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Would you prefer that to remain the case?

You referred several times to what you deemed to be inappropriate limits on 'straight roads'. A straight stretch of road may have multiple junctions, an abundance of agricultural activity or other potential hazards necessitating a reduced speed limit.

I presume that speed limits are decided by engineers. I presume that they have studied the subject and are much more qualified to decide what is appropriate.

Finally, why do you continue to use MPH. We've gone metric. You will have more credibility in this forum if you use km/h.

Hotblack Desiato

zilog_jones wrote:

Nuttzy, nobody cares about what you deem a safe speed on whatever road. The limits are there for a reason, and they're the law.

The reason for the 80km/h blanket speed limit was politics not safety.

zilog_jones

Wishbone Ash wrote:

It was once considered normal to drive a car without a seat belt. It is now illegal (unless exempted). I could argue "what's changed" and could also argue that it is probably safer to go without a seatbelt now as many vehicles have airbags and other accident aids...

I hope no one actually believes that. There's a reason why airbags usually say "SRS" on them - it's a Supplemental Restraint System - they are NOT designed to replace seat belts or any other features. Early US airbags in the '70s were designed to replace seat belts (cars fitted with them didn't even have seat belts!), but they were shyte and in some cases even fatal.

And as we all know, when it comes to safety features, Mercedes Know Best, and their first airbags in the W126 were designed to work with seat belts with pre-tensioners - just like any other airbags we got in Europe.

This may be an exaggerated guess, but if you don't wear a seat belt you could be half-way out the windscreen before the airbag deploys properly.

Gregor Samsa

It's often the case that people who like to "tell it how it is" don't like to be told how it is