That Judge, That County and That Speed

is_that_so

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.

In an ideal world yes but the litigious mentality of Irish people, our need for rights without any responsibilities and our delusions about our collective driving ability would almost guarantee a lawsuit blaming the State.
We tend to ascribe our own better qualities to others and while you may be a responsible and competent driver , daily adventures on Irish roads remind us that many are neither responsible nor competent.

Esel

mike65 wrote: »

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)

Don't forget the countless thousands who were given a licence without having to take a test (just to clear the backlog of L-drivers waiting for a test) in the late 70s / early 80s or whenever it was. Now that was a scandal!

I don't subscribe to the point of view that 180km/h is automatically lethal / wrong / mental / whatever. I do agree that the judge in this case was a prat though.

"Guard, you say that the defendant admitted to drinking eight pints of Guinness before setting off in his vehicle. What's that in metric?"

"Approximately four and a half litres, your honour."

"Ah well, when you put it like that, it doesn't seem to be so bad, now does it? What speed was he doing?"

"15 km/h, your honour."

"That fast, eh? What's that in miles per gallon?"

"A bit less than 10 mph, your honour."

"10 miles per hour? And he had only four drinks taken you say?"

"But your honour, he was - "

"I've heard enough, Guard. Do you take pleasure in wasting this court's time? Do you know that while driving here today I counted six fields which were overgrown with thistles in the space of five minutes? What are you doing about that, may I ask?"

E92

cornbb wrote: »

Got a link to back that up?

I don't have a link unfortunately but the UK's Department for Transport says that speeding is responsible for 5% of road deaths. It was in Autocar several months ago.

I do have a link which says that German Autobahns with no speed limit are no more dangerous than those with a speed limit.

It says and I quote

Wikipedia.org wrote:

A 2005 study by the German Interior Ministry indicated that motorway sections with unrestricted speed have the same accident record as sections with speed limits. The only identifiable source of traffic risks in connection with speeding have been high-powered, light trucks that came up within the last 15 years and as they are used by courier services (e.g. Mercedes-Benz Sprinter and trucks alike).

Speeding on a Motorway/Dual Carriageway, even exceeding the limit by 80 km/h is nowhere near as bad as exceeding the limit on those twisty roads with a limit of 100 km/h by even 5 km/h IMHO.

Biro

cornbb wrote: »

... 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...

The Judge didn't send out the message, the media did! Maybe they're to blame...

cornbb

E92 wrote: »

I don't have a link unfortunately but the UK's Department for Transport says that speeding is responsible for 5% of road deaths. It was in Autocar several months ago.

Well I have a link that says otherwise.
According to RSA:

http://www.rte.ie/news/features/roadsafety/roadsafetyissues.html wrote:

* Speed is the single largest factor contributing to road deaths in Ireland.
* Over 40% of fatal accidents are caused by excessive or inappropriate speed.

I do have a link which says that German Autobahns with no speed limit are no more dangerous than those with a speed limit.

I still don't see what the German autobahn, designed for very high speed driving, has to do with an incident on a non-motorway in Donegal. It has been pointed out on the thread already what the penalties would have been had the guy been speeding on a similar road (with speed limit) in Germany. If you're so keen to look to the Germans for road safety standards maybe you should focus on that instead.

Alun

Originally Posted by http://www.rte.ie/news/features/roadsafety/roadsafetyissues.html
* Speed is the single largest factor contributing to road deaths in Ireland.
* Over 40% of fatal accidents are caused by excessive or inappropriate speed.

I've not read the particular report, but I've read responses to these kinds of thing written by senior police officers in the UK, and when you delve a bit deeper into the reports it's not always quite as cut and dried as these convenient little RTE soundbites make out. Many of these people have openly said that excessive speed is only actually a primary cause of something like 5% of all accidents.

For every accident, there are usually a whole load of contributory factors leading to both to the accident itself, and it's outcome. These are ranked in order of importance, with the primary one at the top of the list. Speed often features somewhere on this list, quite possibly in 40% of cases, but it's not often at the top. More often than not, it's things like swerving to the wrong side of the road, or plain old lack of observation that figure top of the list, but "95% of accidents are caused by motorists' own stupidity" doesn't quite grab the headlines like the one you quoted.

It's an easy, lazy journalistic step from "Excessive or inappropriate speed is one of many contributory factors in over 40% of fatal accidents" to "Over 40% of fatal accidents are caused by excessive or inappropriate speed."

E92

cornbb wrote: »

Well I have a link that says otherwise....

We have considerably less Motorways in this country than they do, I never said that speeding couldn't be considered dangerous, rather it is not a problem on Motorways.

I already posted in this thread that

E92 wrote:

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

The RSA think that a car stops from 100 km/h in 59.4 metres. Its absolute rubbish. All Volvos made in the past 6-8 years stop in only 42 m from 100 km/h. So they are 4 car lengths out. Their figure is out by more than 41%. As we know from the Euro NCAP tests, the days that only Volvo bothered with road safety are as old as the days when diesels were slower than walking.

Unfortunately I don't have a scanner to prove it, but I can tell you they used to put it into old brochures. Anyway, the point being that the statistics they're using bmay not necessarily be true. I mean you could argue that 2.5 million tonnes is a huge amount of CO2 to be saved if the German Autobahns all had speed limits. But that would be to ignore the fact that this would be per year, that Germany wants to save almost 100 times that a year and the fact that billions of tonnes of CO2 are polluted every single day. All of a sudden 2.5 million tonnes is a drop in the ocean.

The whole reason why I mentioned Germany in the first place was because you asked was there a link that showed the popular(incorrect) assertion about speeding not to be true.

And I provided evidence to show that sometimes its simply not true to say so.

unkel

Alun wrote: »

It's an easy, lazy journalistic step from "Excessive or inappropriate speed is one of many contributory factors in over 40% of fatal accidents" to "Over 40% of fatal accidents are caused by excessive or inappropriate speed."

Indeed, although I wouldn't fully blame the media. I don't think appropriate statistics are recorded for accidents in this country. Even if that was the case, it is sometimes hard or impossible to categorise accidents. E.g. how many single vehicle fatal accidents are suicides really? And about speed - would it really matter if 2 drivers playing chicken do 80km/h or 180km/h each on their fatal collision path on a road with a 100km/h limit?

cianclarke

I'd have to agree with most here, that 118mph on an N road is pretty unacceptable, however I'm also strongly of the opinion that the speed limit on our motorways is far too low in a lot of cases. Take some stretches of the M1 for example, where it'd be perfectly safe to do 90mph, maybe a little more.

What I'd like to see is speed limits on motorways which change according to the traffic density, but that might actually make sense...

Owen

Please please please don't quote the RSA in this thread. Not only are they woefully out of date with their stats, and figures, they chose to have Gay Byrne as their spokesperson, and have to date released, not one, not two, but three road safety strategies, none of which have, or will work. They introduced penalty points in an attempt to curb road deaths, and that also didn't work. The only solution to road deaths in Ireland, is better training, testing, and a decent road infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the sheep in this thread who think 180kph is dangerous on all roads, have been brainwashed by the tripe served up by the RSA.

Alun

unkel wrote: »

I don't think appropriate statistics are recorded for accidents in this country.

You may be right. Do the Gardai even have a dedicated Accident Investigation team like many other countries, including the UK, have?

cyrusdvirus

ned78 wrote: »

Unfortunately, the sheep in this thread who think 180kph is dangerous on all roads, have been brainwashed by the tripe served up by the RSA.

Neddy neddy neddy neddy neddy............ 180kph is safe? Yes. In a fkn aeroplane, booting it off down the runway. Or in a racing car driven by someone trained to do it. On an N road, driven by an I.T. worker??? Big fat resounding NO.

The argument about motorways is to be honest, off topic in this thread. This guy was on a national road, not a motorway. Now i'm not ognna profess to knowing what road he was on, or the condition of it, but it's the attitude of people like you, who consider 180kph to be ok on a national road, that quite frankly pisses me off. If you think that 180kph on a road is safe, (oh but your honour, it was 6 in the morning, sure there was no one around, great weather, sure why wouldn't i drive at that speed) it makes me wonder what speed is safe to drive through towns at? "Oh but your honour, it was 6 in the morning, great weather, sure there was no way i'd have thought that.... that little kid was on his way to school / that young teenager was sneaking back home after being out all night with her boyfriend... at that time."

What if this lunatic had ploughed into someone jogging on the side of the road, out for a run before he went to work???

He's a danger on the roads. FACT!
The attitude of people here saying it's ok to drive at those speeds just shows a disregard for other road users that is all to common here today.

MrPudding

cornbb wrote: »

Well I have a link that says otherwise.
According to RSA:

I posted a link in an earlier threah to the RSA site where they posted the accident figures, they do not match. Speed was no where near the biggest cause. It seems that their press releases contradict the figures they themselves release.

MrP

Gillie

testicle wrote: »

It was far from a country road. It was the Ballyshannon/Bundoran bypass, which, if I understand correctly is a dual carriageway.

It's not! Single carraige all the way except for a small portion going over a bridge past Ballyshannon where IIRC the Speed limit is not 100kph.

112mph on that road is excessive imo

tech77

peasant wrote: »

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.

I think Peasant's point is probably the most relevant in this thread. A speed of 112mph is not really the issue if you have near-perfect road conditions.
The issue is more that you cannot expect other road users to be accustomed to sharing the road with people doing that speed as is the case on Germany's Autobahn's (unfortunately not so in Ireland)

unnameduser wrote: »

Surely 112mph is excessive! No matter what the condition of the roads were!

So what do you say to someone legally doing 180kph plus on the German Autobahns then?

ned78 wrote: »

They're not. It's up for debate at the moment, no decision has been made. The fatality record on the Autobahns are actually quite low indeed, and he's correct in his stats. The only reason they're changing it, is to be politically correct and to be seen to be contributing to 'safety'. It's been up for debate in German time and time again, and each time it's been shot down. I hope it's shot down this time too. Germany is a pleasure to drive in.

That's sounds like a dumb decision. Even though the death toll is proven to be lower they change it to be "seen" to improve safety. Crazy!

DonJose

is_that_so wrote: »

But can everyone else? Remember the Autobahn trial.

Great link, speed doesn't kill :rolleyes:
"The overall autobahn death toll is difficult to determine, but a recent study on a stretch of the A66 in central Germany is giving ammunition to the speed limit proponents. Around 90,000 vehicles a day travel down this motorway. In August 2000 the guideline limit was raised from 62mph to 75mph — and the number of accidents rose from 100 in the year 2000 to 170 last year."

Owen

tech77 wrote: »

That's sounds like a dumb decision. Even though the death toll is proven to be lower they change it to be "seen" to improve safety. Crazy!

It's called Political Correctness, cars that are capable of speeding are seen as nasty, bold things. How many times have we witnessed this on Top Gear? The PC brigade want the show off the air due to Richard Hammond's crashes, and the general pro-speed attitude of the cast. Thankfully, those of us who love, eat, breathe, and sh*t cars/bikes seem to be able to ignore the persistent pedantic worriers.

gatecrash wrote:

Neddy neddy neddy neddy neddy............ 180kph is safe? Yes. In a fkn aeroplane, booting it off down the runway. Or in a racing car driven by someone trained to do it. On an N road, driven by an I.T. worker??? Big fat resounding NO.

See, you're reducing this debate to a single minded point. I'm arguing that 180kph can indeed be safe, on the right roads, and at the right time. Obviously, not all the time. Duh!

donjose wrote:

Great link, speed doesn't kill

It doesn't. It's inappropriate speed that kills.

cornbb

ned78 wrote: »

It's called Political Correctness, cars that are capable of speeding are seen as nasty, bold things. How many times have we witnessed this on Top Gear? The PC brigade want the show off the air due to Richard Hammond's crashes, and the general pro-speed attitude of the cast. Thankfully, those of us who love, eat, breathe, and sh*t cars/bikes seem to be able to ignore the persistent pedantic worriers.

Yet again on boards, responsibility and common sense are brushed aside as "political correctness".

It doesn't. It's inappropriate speed that kills.

I agree with you completely. Yet by what stretch of the imagination is 180kph on a public road an appropriate speed? If you wish to look to Top Gear for standards of acceptability, note that anything they do that could be called excessive is done off the public roads.

Owen

cornbb wrote: »

I agree with you completely. Yet by what stretch of the imagination is 180kph on a public road an appropriate speed? If you wish to look to Top Gear for standards of acceptability, note that anything they do that could be called excessive is done off the public roads.

Yet again, the negative crew in this thread is making the assumption that 180kph on a public road has to be in Ireland. 180kph is perfectly fine on most European roads, and I've yet to be killed on them. By the way, it's my opinion, that 160kph would be perfectly fine on a decent stretch of Motorway in Ireland too, as you have no oncoming traffic, but we'll never get to that situation, as the driver training in Ireland will never get to a situation where people are aware of their surroundings and capabilities.

And to counter your point about being off Public roads, you obviously don't watch much Top Gear. How about the Veyron race? The supercars around the South of France, and the Isle of Man? Or any of the challenges where the boys take public transport and Jeremey takes an exotic machine on the roads? He's yet to be killed on public roads too.