That Judge, That County and That Speed

cyrusdvirus · 02-11-2007 11:48am

ned78 wrote: »

Sure why not, the rest of us have!

Now noew Neddy, no need to be bold!

is_that_so · 02-11-2007 11:48am

maoleary wrote: »

Driver behaviour is appalling, but part of the reason is the fact that drivers are not involved any more in driving than they are in watching feckin telly. Of course they can't decide for themselves, they just sit like sheep and do what they're told, safe or not. The death tolls are the result. How more obvious could it possibly be????

By your logic a burglar could be shot dead aand all the householder in their defence should say "I am not going to be a sheep and do what I'm told"

Rules are there for all of us including the ones who don't think they need protecting.

What exactly does that sentence mean? I think you'll find that there are many other factors at work.

Of course they can't decide for themselves, they just sit like sheep and do what they're told, safe or not.

cyrusdvirus · 02-11-2007 11:49am

maoleary wrote: »

I was referring to the gaping stupidity that is our driver training system. A granny (90 years of age) whose doctor with lax morals gave her a cert of competency despite her senility and bad eyesight etc, may still drive legally here!!

I don't know about you, but I find it somewhat depressing and yet humorous.

Doctor with Lax Morals = Stupid Ass Judge who can't decide what laws he'd like to uphold this week

cornbb · 02-11-2007 11:51am

ned78 wrote: »

Yes there is. I was at Ablinton Airfield in Oxford on Wednesday driving the new MINI Clubman at speeds well over 100mph, and we were deliberately making the car slide and squirm as part of a driver training excercise. With new technologies like DSC, and with correct driver input, you can quite easily recover from simple mistakes at those speeds within a small area of the track.

Its relatively safe doing that on a closed track with a professional instructor and a new car. I know you realise what he did was wrong ned (unlike some of the incomprehensible attitudes on this thread) but this judgement sends out the message that the law doesn't look down very unkindly on Joe Soap doing this on the public roads. I haven't heard whether this guy passed an advanced driver course, I'll assume he didn't.

Marcus.Aurelius · 02-11-2007 11:51am

is_that_so wrote: »

What exactly does that sentence mean? I think you'll find that there are many other factors at work.

Hold on now, hmmmm let me see........hmmmmm.......I think it means.....just possibly...... that drivers are not able to think for themselves nor are they competent judges of road conditions because the arbitrary limits define their driving style and ultimately their ability.

I can break it down again pho-en-et-ic-al-ly if you're still struggling.

Marcus.Aurelius · 02-11-2007 11:52am

gatecrash wrote: »

Doctor with Lax Morals = Stupid Ass Judge who can't decide what laws he'd like to uphold this week

Fair point

But we've moved away from that issue at the moment

is_that_so · 02-11-2007 11:53am

ned78 wrote: »

Yes there is. I was at Ablinton Airfield in Oxford on Wednesday driving the new MINI Clubman at speeds well over 100mph, and we were deliberately making the car slide and squirm as part of a driver training excercise. With new technologies like DSC, and with correct driver input, you can quite easily recover from simple mistakes at those speeds within a small area of the track.

But can everyone else? Remember the Autobahn trial.

is_that_so · 02-11-2007 11:55am

maoleary wrote: »

I can break it down again pho-en-et-ic-al-ly if you're still struggling.

I asked a civil question. I am not responsible for the ire you feel through being challenged on this topic.

Phonetics is sounds, semantics is meaning or absence thereof. Ease off on the smart comments like a good chap.

peasant · 02-11-2007 11:56am

There is another side to driving too fast on a motorway/dual carriageway besides the safety and capability of the actual speeder ...and that's the safety and capability of other road users.

If you're used to (and trained in) driving on unlimited German motorways, then you will EXPECT traffic in "the fast lane" to be fast, possibly a lot faster than you. If you want to pull out to overtake and see a vehicle far off in your rear view mirror, you will wait a sec and then check again in order to check its speed, how fast it is approaching and then guage if it is safe for you to pull out.

If you're drivin on an Irish dual carriageway, doing 100 km/h and you want to pull out to overtake a slower vehicle ...if there is another vehicle in "the fast lane" far, far away in your rear view mirror ...well you don't think twice, you pull out, because you KNOW that there is a speed limit and that it will take a good while for that other vehicle to catch up with you, even if it is slightly over the limit.
You simply do not expect other vehicles to be coming along 80 km/h faster than you are.

That's why doing 180 on an Irish dual carriageway is considered (should be considered!) dangerous driving ...not because it is questionable if the driver or the vehicle itself can "handle" that speed.

Marcus.Aurelius · 02-11-2007 11:57am

is_that_so wrote: »

But can everyone else? Remember the Autobahn trial.

hence, the need for training.

cornbb · 02-11-2007 12:02pm

maoleary wrote: »

hence, the need for training.

I don't think anyone here would argue that Irish drivers need more training. But most would also say that, as well as training drivers how to think for themselves and judge the right speed for the right conditions, they should be taught that driving at 112mph on a Donegal road is a pretty f*cking moronic thing to do!!!

I would have thought this was common sense, but sadly apparently not.

Marcus.Aurelius · 02-11-2007 12:04pm

cornbb wrote: »

I don't think anyone here would argue that Irish drivers need more training. But most would also say that, as well as training drivers how to think for themselves and judge the right speed for the right conditions, they should be taught that driving at 112mph on a Donegal road is a pretty f*cking moronic thing to do!!!

I would have thought this was common sense, but sadly apparently not.

no, not really. Straight road, no traffic, excellent surface and weather conditions. What's the issue? If he did it on some god-awful back road in the wet, sure, that's stupid. But he didn't, straight open road with full view of what's ahead. No issues with me.

mike65 · 02-11-2007 12:06pm

Sheesh, calm down everyone.

The judge was foolish, effectivly undermining the law of the land by not appling the full force of his office. 112 mph on any road not a motorway is excessive as it only takes someone to pull out from an obscured side-road/driveway and you are fupped.

There is the other issue - the application of speed in given cirumstances. If we were all grade A advanced drivers then we could proberly happily do without prescriptive limits cos we'd drive with some wit and intelligence, but sadly we're not.

We're a country with 400,000 L platers and many who never needed to take a test in the first place (pre 1963-ers) plus a broad "lassie-fair" mentality so limits set at a sensible level are required and should be enforced.

The matter the appropriate limits is another thread, proberly.

Mike.

Marcus.Aurelius · 02-11-2007 12:08pm

mike65 wrote: »

Sheesh, calm down everyone.

The judge was foolish, effectivly undermining the law of the land by not appling the full force of his office. 112 mph on any road not a motorway is excessive as it only takes someone to pull out from an obscured side-road/driveway and you are fupped.

There is the other issue - the application of speed in given cirumstances. If we were all grade A advanced drivers then we could proberly happily do without prescriptive limits cos we'd drive with some wit and intelligence, but sadly we're not.

We're a country with 400,000 L platers and many who never needed to take a test in the first place (pre 1963-ers) plus a broad "lassie-fair" mentality so limits set at a sensible level are required and should be enforced.

The matter the appropriate limits is another thread, proberly.

Mike.

Would agree with you. If there were side entrances or junctions, that would change matters substantially.

cyrusdvirus · 02-11-2007 1:10pm

Just as a matter of interest, is this the type of decision that the DPP can appeal due to leniency?

Marcus.Aurelius · 02-11-2007 1:15pm

I think so, although the DPP wouldn't have directed that the prosecution take place in this case. Usually the prosecution is brought by the Garda who issued the summons. I imagine it can still be appealed by the DPP.

cyrusdvirus · 02-11-2007 1:18pm

maoleary wrote: »

I think so, although the DPP wouldn't have directed that the prosecution take place in this case. Usually the prosecution is brought by the Garda who issued the summons. I imagine it can still be appealed by the DPP.

That's what i was thinking.

Marcus.Aurelius · 02-11-2007 1:30pm

All the same, I doubt he'll do anything.

galwaytt · 02-11-2007 1:48pm

mike65 wrote: »

Sheesh, calm down everyone.

The judge was foolish, effectivly undermining the law of the land by not appling the full force of his office. 112 mph on any road not a motorway is excessive as it only takes someone to pull out from an obscured side-road/driveway and you are fupped.

yes, yes, but there are no juntions or entrances on to motorways, so that point is rather moot.........

so, cornbb, armed with my advanced test, my Porsche, and avoiding Donegal - am I good to go ?

pburns · 02-11-2007 2:19pm

The roads were much safer 20 years ago when poor people couldn't afford to drive

cornbb · 02-11-2007 2:20pm

galwaytt wrote: »

yes, yes, but there are no juntions or entrances on to motorways, so that point is rather moot.........

Read his point again, he's referring to non-motorways. We can assume the guy in the news report was not on a motorway...

so, cornbb, armed with my advanced test, my Porsche, and avoiding Donegal - am I good to go ?

I'd prefer if people didn't drive at stupid speeds on public roads but sadly not everyone here seems to agree with me. 120-130kph fine, if the conditions are right, but I can't comprehend how people can think that driving at 180kph on a non-motorway could be safe.

cyrusdvirus · 02-11-2007 2:35pm

cornbb wrote: »

Read his point again, he's referring to non-motorways. We can assume the guy in the news report was not on a motorway...

I'd prefer if people didn't drive at stupid speeds on public roads but sadly not everyone here seems to agree with me. 120-130kph fine, if the conditions are right, but I can't comprehend how people can think that driving at 180kph on a non-motorway could be safe.

Cos they're hard as nails and obviously are better people than you and I, after all, they don't even need to consider other road users

jackal · 02-11-2007 5:50pm

ned78 wrote: »

Yes there is. I was at Ablinton Airfield in Oxford on Wednesday driving the new MINI Clubman at speeds well over 100mph, and we were deliberately making the car slide and squirm as part of a driver training exercise. With new technologies like DSC, and with correct driver input, you can quite easily recover from simple mistakes at those speeds within a small area of the track.

Excellent point there dude, except...

Not everyone has a car with power steering/abs/electric fecking windows, let alone DSC!

Also, recovering from an induced slide in a car that is generally accepted to have excellent handling, on a bleedin runway, with an advanced driving instructor there is in no way relevant to a random punter choosing to give it the berries on a straight bit of road and a deer running out in front of them, or a blowout.

You did an advanced driving course, good for you! Applying your experience to this situation is without merit, and I get the feeling you are looking for a pat on the back, so here *pats back*.

Now please justify someone driving 112mph on a 60mph road again? Remember that the Germans in fact lost the war, and therefore we are not driving on autobahns after successfully attaining a license in whats considered the best of breed driving test system?

E92 · 02-11-2007 6:29pm

I see nothing wrong with somebody doing 112 mph on a Motorway. Or a dual carriageway built to the same standard as a Motorway.

I've been on a German Autobahn at over 110 mph, so its not like I haven't experienced it and am being idealistic about it. I haven't had the chance to drive on an Autobahn yet, so I don't know what they're like to drive on at those speeds. But according to other posters who've done it it is very demanding, and once the novelty of being able to travel flat out goes away you'll be happy to settle back and cruise at around 150 km/h.

As long as there was very little traffic on the roads, which in any case is the only time you can drive at high speeds anyway. I think doing those kinds of speeds on single carriageway is very wrong. That is totally unreasonable and unacceptable to me. Remember, Motorways and High Quality Dual Carriageways are designed for high speed motoring.

The Judge saying that 180 km/h doesn't sound half as bad when its converted to mph is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. We're 3 years into metric speed limits now ffs!

In saying all that,whenever I hear seriously fast speeds, I always like them in mph. They always sound a lot more impressive in old fashioned miles an hour to me:D.

Now lets deal with the thing about the speed limits in Germany.

In summary, Autobahns with no speed limit are just as safe as those without a speed limit. The Autobahns with a speed limit have a limit of either 120 km/h or 130(with the exception of some of the A2 which has a limit of 140).

The average speed on an Autobahn with no speed limit is 150 km/h.

There would be a reduction of 2.5 million tonnes of CO2 per year if there were blanket speed limits. Thats a drop in the ocean really. Even the proponants of a blanket limit admit that the move to have blanket limits would be a 'symbolic gesture'. So even they know that it will make no meaningful difference to the enviornment.

As for whether it will be introduced or not, the Conservatives are in Government and at every moment the proposal for blanket limits has been suggested, they've said a big fat 'nein' for an answer. The Socialists(SPD) who are also in Government, passed a motion at the weekend at their equivalent of an Árd Fheis, for blanket limits. However the SPD leadership is against blanket limits, and the motion was passed by an ever so small majority anyway.

The ex-Socialist Chancellor Gerhard Schröder once famously said that the Germans are an 'Autofahrernation'(a nation of drivers) and as such a speed limit would not be accepted by the public.

The idea of getting rid of the blanket limits has been talked about umpteen times ever since the early 80s when the whole climate change thing took off and it still hasn't happened. When the Greens were in Government in Germany, I didn't see them in any rush to introduce a blanket limit then either. They had the chance to, and they didn't.

There will be no elections till 2009, so there won't be speed limits till then at the earliest. And if the conservatives get in again, there won't be any till such time as the EU harmonises speed limits.

The real reason why Germany is talking about putting in blanket limits is because the EU wants all cars to be fitted with speed limiters and wants to reduce speed limits on Motorways in Europe in general. Its no secret that the EU have talked about it many times about a blanket limit of 100 km/h on all Motorways, and neither is it a secret that the EU hates the way that over 6,000 km(3,750 miles) of German Motorway has no speed limits on them.

If they decide to have blanket speed limits they will have saved their pride and won't have been seen to be bossed about by the EU. This is some of the absolute rubbish that proponants of speed limits are spouting about.

Pete4779 · 02-11-2007 6:41pm

cornbb wrote: »

You don't see anything wrong with driving at 180kph down a country road in Donegal?

Oh wait sorry, he was only doing 112mph, sure thats grand, carry on...

:rolleyes:

He wasn't on a country road.

As much evidence suggests from Germany, travelling far in excess of 120kph is not dangerous on clear dry roads on a good day with no other traffic visible. However travelling above 120kph does piss off people with chips on their shoulders.

The man was driving on a good road that in another country wouldn't have a speed limit.

The judge showed common sense. Better to have the police catch the rapists and paedos and not some bloke out for a drive.

or would you rather we turned into something like the UK with cameras everywhere and no real law enforcement and no proper right/wrong judgements?

is_that_so · 02-11-2007 6:44pm

Pete4779 wrote: »

He wasn't on a country road.

As much evidence suggests from Germany, travelling far in excess of 120kph is not dangerous on clear dry roads on a good day with no other traffic visible. However travelling above 120kph does piss off people with chips on their shoulders.

The man was driving on a good road that in another country wouldn't have a speed limit.

The judge showed common sense. Better to have the police catch the rapists and paedos and not some bloke out for a drive.

or would you rather we turned into something like the UK with cameras everywhere and no real law enforcement and no proper right/wrong judgements?

Why is it always that people who support this type of thing see the rest of us as either jealous or in some way deranged?

While we are talking about Germany that chap would have been close to an automatic license loss. Double the speed limit=automatic license loss. With license loss also comes "rehabilitation" where transgressors are taught to understand why it was that they were driving that way. A friend of mine had an "intervention" of this type on 11 points.

galwaytt · 02-11-2007 6:47pm

cornbb wrote: »

Read his point again, he's referring to non-motorways. We can assume the guy in the news report was not on a motorway...

mmm, o.k.

I'd prefer if people didn't drive at stupid speeds on public roads but sadly not everyone here seems to agree with me. 120-130kph fine, if the conditions are right, but I can't comprehend how people can think that driving at 180kph on a non-motorway could be safe.

Indeed - but there's the rub - you are saying that it's ok to break the law - a bit - but criticising a judge who applies it - a bit, as well. You need to make up your mind.

The whole motorway/non-motorway thing is a complete red herring, and even the judge sees that.

In fact, and as we all know, the motorways are one of the safest places to be, at any speed. Which explains why all the speed cameras are located there, naturally.........:rolleyes:

Pete4779 · 02-11-2007 6:52pm

deman wrote: »

Are you crazy?

And if it's been so successful in Germany then why are they changing it?

They are not. There has, however, been ongoing eco/green/ political lobbying to bring in a limit. For what reason? CO2 output and pollution.

However, even on the unlimited sections of the autobahn network, the Richtsgeschwindikeit (need to check my spelling!) means that you will be held more accountable for accidents if you are in one and it's found you are travelling over 130kph.

Giving people the authority to judge for themselves is the way forwards. Taking away personal responsibility is what leads to the "blame" culture, insurance claims being high, etc,. it's always "someone else's fault" .This is what comes from treating adults like children.

Perhaps when someone doing 120kph on a motorway falls asleep and smacks into your car, they will not regret it other than to say that well, they were doing the limit, so it's someone else's fault, eh?

When the speed goes up, the radio goes off, the concentration is higher and you are more alert.

Speed is a factor in around 5% of road casualties.

peasant · 02-11-2007 7:06pm

How fast or not someone can drive in Germany ... is besides the point.
How safely and by which margin certain people feel capable of exceeding the speed limit ... is besides the point.
Whether Irish motorways and dual carriageways could/should have a higher speed limit ... is besides the point

There was a speed limit on that road and your man exceeded it by 80 % and got caught.

No matter how safe he was feeling for himself, he was posing a danger to other users of that road who simply would not expect somebody to be driving at almost twice the speed limit ...i.e. he was driving dangerously.

By reducing the charge to driving carelessly the judge made an ass of the law.

Wit his "explanation", he mad an ass of himself.

Btw ..going 80 km/h over the posted limit in Germany would cost 400 Euro, four points and a three month driving ban (fine to be increased if you already have points) ...no judge, no jury ...they'd just look it up in the "Bussgeld-Katalog"

cornbb · 02-11-2007 7:12pm

galwaytt wrote: »

The whole motorway/non-motorway thing is a complete red herring, and even the judge sees that.

No its not, motorways are designed for high speed driving. The guy was not on a motorway.

Pete4779 wrote: »

Giving people the authority to judge for themselves is the way forwards. Taking away personal responsibility is what leads to the "blame" culture, insurance claims being high, etc,. it's always "someone else's fault" .This is what comes from treating adults like children.

What about blood alcohol limits? Should people be allowed to decide how many pints they can down before they become unsafe drivers?

When the speed goes up, the radio goes off, the concentration is higher and you are more alert.

Are you claiming that driving at high speeds is somehow inherently safer than driving within the speed limits?

Speed is a factor in around 5% of road casualties.

Got a link to back that up? While we're making up statistics: 100% of road fatalities are due to ignorance, stupidity and a stubborn belief that you are invincible.

That Judge, That County and That Speed

Comments