10 year ban for 185kph in 80kph zone

gyppo

cancan wrote:

I be very suprised if not everone on this board has done twice the legal limit on some occasions(s) in their life.

And you were talking about making assumptions??

cancan wrote:

Do you think that jail time and a 10 year ban would have been justified in any of those cases?

Every case that comes before a court has different circumstances - to drive at twice the legal limit is dangerous driving, and yes, in many cases I feel it would be justified.

cancan wrote:

Banning someone for that amount of time is both unresonable and unjustified. How is one supposed to expect to lead a normal life with such a ban.

Perhaps one might have considered their actions prior to being banned. Perhaps draconian measures are needed to force people to slow down.

cancan

And you were talking about making assumptions??

Feel free to contradict my statement if you don't fall under the catogory.

Perhaps if the guards kept better accident statistics, we my have a better idea of understanding the root cause of the majority of accidents in this country, instead of taking guesses that only serve to placate the masses.

Stark

Indeed. Let drivers like yourself do their safe 185kph in the right 80kph zone in the right scenario. It would be so unfair to punish you :rolleyes:

Victor

cancan wrote:

Banning someone for that amount of time is both unresonable and unjustified. How is one supposed to expect to lead a normal life with such a ban.

Get a bike or a bus. Most people survive.

Vegeta

Look the guy deserved a ban simple as, definitely. He was dangerous driving, open and shut case

10 years is extremely harsh though

I personally know a person who was drunk knocked someone down (2 cyclists who were also his next door neighbours, not killed but hurt) drove from the scene and didn't get a ban.

He couldn't get done for drink driving as he fled the scene but was langers when arrested 20 minutes later.

How long do people who are caught drink driving get banned for. If you have drink in behind the wheel you are just as bad in my opinion

Again we come back to crap sign posting in Ireland. I know quite a few roads with 80kph speed limits that are well capable of a higher limit. No houses, new surface, hard shoulder, straight, even surface etc etc.

I bet everyone here knows a road where the limit is too low.

cancan

well put - if people think the punishment fit the crime in this speeding case, I really do wonder about their grasp on reality.

The judge wanted to get his name in the papers and made an example of this lad.
Lets hope ye never find yerselves in a situation where a judge uses his quest for fame as an example to throw the book at ye.

mkennedy

he definitely deserved a ban of some sort- i think most people agree it was serious muppetry doing that speed in a 80kph zone.

but if it was a first offence as some have suggested and not a particularly built up area (could be wrong about this though), a 10 year ban seems a bit harsh tbh. a lesser ban would probably be more fitting imho, 3 or 4 years maybe.

seems more like a knee jerk reaction to the recent outcry surrounding the other cases than anything else.

however the most striking thing about it is the apparent inconsistency in punishments between this case and the westmeath one.

those other lads must be laughing their a***s off right now.

as for that guy caught for not having insurance 6 times (wtf?) i don't have that much sympathy for him tbh.

seamus

mkennedy wrote:

as for that guy caught for not having insurance 6 times (wtf?) i don't have that much sympathy for him tbh.

The problem with this guy is that he clearly doesn't care. When he's finished his next custodial sentence, he'll come home, get a loan and buy a new car and drive it until he's caught again, regardless of whether he's banned or not. Ideally those who abuse the priviledge of having a vehicle would be suitably prevented from breaching the conditions of their ban. So when you get banned, the car you were driving (whether it belongs to you or not) is impounded, crushed, and you're charged for this. Legislation should be brought in so that when this happens:

1. Their insurance company is notified, so that they can't claim any damages for their crushed car.
2. They go onto a banned register - all insurance should be authenticated by PPSN and driving licence (conveniently your PPSN is on your DL), and if you're on the register, it's illegal to supply insurance to you.
3. Banks use this register to refuse motor loans for these people.


Apart from stealing the cash or the vehicles, I can't see too many people managing to get back on the road during a ban, or being eager to get banned in the first place.

ballooba

I'd say this might have been down to the solicitor the guy had.

The two lads in Mullingar appear to have had a good solictor who ironed ut a good plea bargain.

Captain Trips

gyppo wrote:

Sounds like he got his just rewards. This guy was doing twice the legal limit, so i've no sympathy for him.

Pity last weeks pair (in westmeath btw )didnt get the same treatment.

Why is that?

The brits can have their video cameras on every street corner and police state gatso cameras to log how many times you pick your nose while driving.

We should be looking at Germany for ideas on how to build a road network, not England.

I have no problem with those guys doing 200kph on a dual carrageway. The new roads we have are very good quality, so why not use them like the Germans would?

Or should we just copy England and binge drink every weekend while being photographed by seven billion security and speed cameras constantly with speed bumps on the hallway to your apartment in case you run too fast.

I admire a legal system that makes a sensible decision. There are worse things going on than driving at 200kph on a top quality road in a good car.

There's no point in saying you have no pity - the speed limit at 120kph is arbitrary to say the least. It could easily be 150-160 on the motorways safely for everyone, more if people took driving seriously.

gyppo

Captain Trips wrote:

Why is that?

Because he broke the law by an excessive margin. Twice the legal limit. If you drive on a public road you are governed by legislation. If you fail to heed this legislation, then you should expect a penalty.
He got a large penalty, as he broke the law by a large margin. His quote:

"I did speed, but I wasn't drunk and nothing happened. I did not crash or hurt anyone.

The point is he could easily have crashed or hurt someone.

Captain Trips wrote:

The brits can have their video cameras on every street corner and police state gatso cameras to log how many times you pick your nose while driving.
We should be looking at Germany for ideas on how to build a road network, not England.

Where did England come from? - It has'nt been mentioned in this thread so far.

Captain Trips wrote:

I have no problem with those guys doing 200kph on a dual carrageway. The new roads we have are very good quality, so why not use them like the Germans would?

I would have no problem either with those guys doing 200kph on a dual carraigeway if we had the same system/laws as germany. But we don't, and to drive at 200kph on a road where other law abiding users drive at 100kph is reckless, and shows no respect for the safety of other road users.

Captain Trips wrote:

Or should we just copy England and binge drink every weekend while being photographed by seven billion security and speed cameras constantly with speed bumps on the hallway to your apartment in case you run too fast.

Have you got some hang up about England?

Captain Trips wrote:

I admire a legal system that makes a sensible decision. There are worse things going on than driving at 200kph on a top quality road in a good car.

So do I. A message went out that it is not OK to drive at twice the legal speed limit. A lot of people have heard it. Would as many people be aware of this case if he got a lesser sentence?
There are worse things going on than speeding offences - daily murders, rapes, etc.. take your pick. Your statement does not negate the seriousness of this offence though.

Captain Trips wrote:

There's no point in saying you have no pity - the speed limit at 120kph is arbitrary to say the least. It could easily be 150-160 on the motorways safely for everyone, more if people took driving seriously.

Suppose it was 150-160kph? Would others see this as an arbitrary figure, and justify driving at 200-220kph?
Limits, whether you agree with them or not, and whether you choose to obey them or not, are a set or rules which road users are duty bound to obey. If you choose not to obey them, then you should be prepared to face the consequences. If someone elses reckless disregard for the rules of the road put me or other road users in danger, why should I feel pity for them?

cancan

He got a large penalty, as he broke the law by a large margin.

Gyppo - do you really think that the punishment doled out in this case fitted the infraction committed?

That was the subject of the thread.

I'd rather if a judge wanted to send out a message as you say yourself, he should use the post or an internet forum like most people.

It is grossly unfair that he deceided to pick this non national to gain some notority for himself, at the expenxce of others.

A lot of people have heard it. Would as many people be aware of this case if he got a lesser sentence?

Seems that the outrage generated by both this incident and the video boys last week would indicate that common sence would lie in a punishment residing somewhere in between.

Danger on the roads is subjective - there is no law in ireland against people driving on snow covered roads with std road tires - which is more dangerous to the general public - someone plodding along with 2 inches of snow with non winter tires, or what this lad did - one will have you locked up and one is generally acceptable?

You seem so fixated with rules and regulations from your post, you wouldn't happen to work in the civil service by any chance? ;')

Hotblack Desiato

The penalty is way OTT and will undoubtedly be reduced on appeal.

FFS, people who kill with dangerous/drunken driving aren't usually treated that harshly, even though they deserve to be.

I would have expected a four figure fine and a 6 month ban.

Savman

10yr ban is insane. Prison?!?! Jesus.
Sounds like a judge on crack :rolleyes:

gyppo

cancan wrote:

Gyppo - do you really think that the punishment doled out in this case fitted the infraction committed?

I think it was severe, yes. Maybe the custodial sentence was excessive, (I realise he has a wife and family) but the driving ban for 10 years is deserved. But you have to agree that his driving was reckless, dangerous, and by his actions he showed nothing other than contempt for other road users. He was made an example of, no question.
But, break the law, be prepared to face the consequences.

I would say the same sentence would be warranted for drunk drivers also, before anyone else brings up this point.

cancan wrote:

It is grossly unfair that he deceided to pick this non national to gain some notority for himself, at the expenxce of others.

It is unfortunate that the person in this case turned out to be a non-national, as it allows people to play the racism card. Would you rather the judge gave him a slap on the wrist, and wait for an irish citizen instead to make his point?

cancan wrote:

Danger on the roads is subjective - there is no law in ireland against people driving on snow covered roads with std road tires - which is more dangerous to the general public - someone plodding along with 2 inches of snow with non winter tires, or what this lad did - one will have you locked up and one is generally acceptable?

I agree - danger on the roads is subjective. However, how many days/year have we snow in this country? How many fatalities/injurys can be attributed to 2" of snow versus dangerous driving by use of excessive speed? I don't know the answer to this, but I'm willing to bet the speed factor would far outweigh the snow factor.
In general, most people do slow down when there is snow lying on the roads, and most accidents tend to be low speed ones.
I would see a frosty road as being a greater hazard, tbh, as drivers might not be aware of the ice.
With respect, I think theres an element of nitpicking in your arguement.

cancan wrote:

You seem so fixated with rules and regulations from your post, you wouldn't happen to work in the civil service by any chance? ;')

No, I'm afraid not. I just don't care for the ala carte interpretation of the rules of the road by some users of the road wrt. speed limits.

Victor

Captain Trips wrote:

I have no problem with those guys doing 200kph on a dual carrageway. The new roads we have are very good quality, so why not use them like the Germans would?

Because there is no culture of safely driving at very high speeds here. The Germans are used to it, we are not. Germans have almost universal driver training, we have none. Germans mostly respect the rules, we don't.

There's no point in saying you have no pity - the speed limit at 120kph is arbitrary to say the least. It could easily be 150-160 on the motorways safely for everyone, more if people took driving seriously.

But if the road is only design for travel at 120km/h?

gyppo wrote:

There are worse things going on than speeding offences - daily murders, rapes, etc.. take your pick. Your statement does not negate the seriousness of this offence though.

Murder manslaughter, etc kills about 60 people per year. Road traffic kills about 400.

maidhc

Victor wrote:

Because there is no culture of safely driving at very high speeds here. The Germans are used to it, we are not.

Only one way to learn!

Speed limts ARE arbitrary numbers picked at random by civil servants which generally bear little relationship to the road. When the new M8 opens outside Fermoy it will be 120k. Once the driver reaches Watergrasshil, the road will become the N8 again, and thus 100k. However the N8 from Watergrasshill to Cork is as high, if not higer quality than the M8! Go figure!

Victor

maidhc wrote:

Once the driver reaches Watergrasshil, the road will become the N8 again, and thus 100k.

I understand the council are considering increasing the limit on Glanmire-Watergrasshill.

However the N8 from Watergrasshill to Cork is as high, if not higer quality than the M8! Go figure!

No, I suspect the Glanmire bypass is lower quality, in places in has limited visibility due to vertical and horizontal curvature, steep slopes and it ends in a roundabout.

maidhc

Victor wrote:

No, I suspect the Glanmire bypass is lower quality, in places in has limited visibility due to vertical and horizontal curvature, steep slopes and it ends in a roundabout.

Sure the speed limit would have to be dropped well before the roundabout, and I see what you mean by the slopes etc, but the road has just got a brand new surface and is well capable of sustaining traffic at 120k (maybe not 200k!).

gyppo

Victor wrote:

Murder manslaughter, etc kills about 60 people per year. Road traffic kills about 400.

I totally agree with you - it puts the seriousness of speeding/dangerous driving in context. However, I just want to point out that my quote was in reply to this post:

Captain Trips wrote:

There are worse things going on than driving at 200kph on a top quality road in a good car.

If you look at my previous posts in this thread and others, you will see my views on speeding.