60KMPH on the M50, what's the point?

javaboy

Ta me anseo wrote: »

Exactly the same as some scumbag who sticks a knife in some other scumbag.

That's a fine rant there and I agree with a lot of it but even I have to take issue with this one. A scumbag stabbing another intends to do harm. A speeder generally does not.

Blk150

Dont pay any attention to it myself whatsoever.I drive at a speed i find suitable to the conditions

Ta me anseo

javaboy wrote: »

That's a fine rant there and I agree with a lot of it but even I have to take issue with this one. A scumbag stabbing another intends to do harm. A speeder generally does not.

(Soap Box safely stowed away)

Of course I agree with you entirely. But funnily enough that's kind of my point.

If a guy stands up in a crowd (not intending to hurt anyone) and takes out a handgun and fires randomly, he will kill people and will likely be charged and found guilty of murder.

Why?

Because he 1)Broke the law 2)While he couldn't have singled out anyone in particular, he dramatically increased the risk of loss of life to others by his actions. It seems beyond reasonable doubt that he must have been aware that death would likely result in many (although perhaps not all) cases if he accidentally hit anyone.

Guy deliberately drives car at 100kph in a 60kph zone or 160kph on a motorway or 80kph in a 50kph aone, etc, etc, etc. Inadvertently hits a pedestrian, other car, lamp post (killing his passenger), etc, etc, etc.

1)He broke the law 2)While he couldn't have singled out anyone in particular, he dramatically increased the risk of loss of life to others by his actions. It seems beyond reasonable doubt that he (and all the rest of us) was aware that death would likely result in many cases if an accident was to occur.

So, what's the difference? The guy with the gun seems obvious. He was shooting into a crowd for Gods sake, right? Of course people were going to get hurt, right? It's obvious.

The problem with driving is that nobody seems to be aware that EVERY TIME YOU GET INTO CAR YOU ARE PUTTING YOURSELF AND EVERYONE ELSE AT RISK. It has become such a natural and common thing that we have completely forgotten how dangerous it actually is. Ask anyone who has been in a serious accident and you will find their outlook on driving has changed completely. Think of your average backroad. Two heavy metal boxes approaching eachother with a closing speed of over 100 miles an hour pass eachother less than a foot apart. IT'S UTTER MADNESS!!!! yet we all react with shock and surprise when two people meet head on. Why are we surprised?

People need to realise that driving constantly has the potential to kill. Therefore, I can not find any excuse for deliberately and knowingly increasing the risk beyond that which is legally explainable. (I say legally explainable because in this democracy we live in, you are entitled by law to behave in a manner that is inside the law. Whether that law is sensible rarely comes into it, so don't argue that I'm effectively saying doing 80kph on an unlit winding backroad is de facto safe.) Surely you must all agree that we must all at this stage be aware that driving faster increases the risk to life. Why should you get away with increasing the risk of my death if you knowingly did it AND knowingly went outside the law in order to do it?

When you drive from A to B, there is no guarantee that you will reach B at all without killing or injuring yourself or someone else. We all need to grow up and be responsible and respect that fact.

So there may be no intent when speeding, but the facts remain that we should know better and could not argue that we were unaware there was an increased risk.

MCMLXXXIII

Ta me anseo wrote: »

Driving is a privilege NOT a right. That is why we are all licensed. And that is why your license can be taken off you whenever the government/court/spouse thinks it's appropriate. Stop driving like it is a birth right.

I don't see why people think that driving is a privilege, as opposed to a right. Is it just because the government said so? I don't ever remember voting based upon a politician's views on traffic laws. Where I live, those decisions are made at a high level - high enough that the only things debated at election time are abortion, gay marriage, and the "war on terror." Also, where I live, if you kill someone in a car accident it is considered involuntary manslaughter. If you are drunk and kill someone, it is considered murder. Besides that, I was taught (and someone else even mentioned it) that driving with the flow of traffic is safer than driving any other speed…even if it’s the limit. I can almost guarantee the car companies never wanted driving to be a privilege instead of a right. Taking public transit is a right. Flying isn’t a privilege. You don’t need to be certified to get into a boat. Why is it different for a passenger car? I can pull someone on water skis going 55mph in a motor boat, but it’s a privilege to drive, buckled up, going 40 mph on the M50?

…I still like going fast.

javaboy

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

I don't see why people think that driving is a privilege, as opposed to a right.

Really? You don't? Is it maybe because you don't need to earn your rights and you can't have them revoked whereas with a privilege you must earn it (the driving test) and it can be revoked (e.g. banned for dangerous driving). It's quite simple really.

Ta me anseo

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

I don't see why people think that driving is a privilege, as opposed to a right. Is it just because the government said so? I don't ever remember voting based upon a politician's views on traffic laws. Where I live, those decisions are made at a high level - high enough that the only things debated at election time are abortion, gay marriage, and the "war on terror."

I don't intend to pretend that I am an expert on politics, but when you vote, you vote for a party, not just a candidate. If you don't know what your party feels or thinks regarding road safety then that's your problem. Go and find out. Ignorance is no excuse.

Also, I think you are confusing the right to apply to drive with the right to drive itself. Everyone is entitled to want to drive. Only those who are considered responsible and skilled enough get a license. If you later prove to be neither, your license is taken away. How can it be a right if someone else decides if you get it or not?

Besides that, I was taught (and someone else even mentioned it) that driving with the flow of traffic is safer than driving any other speed…even if it’s the limit.

This sums up the absolutely typical Irish attitude. "Sure, if everyone else is doing it then it must be OK." If everyone else breaks the speed limit, then you might as well follow them. Ridiculous! Apparently, you're incapable of thinking for yourself.

The whole problem is that we need an entire culture change when it comes to driving. Why can you not see that when you break the speed limit just because everyone else does, you are part of the problem. You are not solving it by keeping up with them.

I can almost guarantee the car companies never wanted driving to be a privilege instead of a right.

I don't see how an industry who survive on and exploit the fact that you and me want to get from A to B could want anything else.

Taking public transit is a right. Flying isn’t a privilege. You don’t need to be certified to get into a boat. Why is it different for a passenger car? I can pull someone on water skis going 55mph in a motor boat, but it’s a privilege to drive, buckled up, going 40 mph on the M50?

Firstly, you're wrong. You pay for your bus or plane so you are receiving a service at a cost. It is a service provided by a company who are not obliged to carry you. Therefore, it is not a right.

Secondly, you need to be licensed to drive. You don't need a license to get on a fupping bus.

Thirdly, the boat analogy is a good one. Mostly because I can't think of any argument to counter it.

What I would say is that the law says you can buy a boat, throw it in a waterway and speed around to your hearts content. Or perhaps more correctly, no law says you can't. There are of course areas of water where speed limits exist, or where access is restricted, etc, etc. But driving your car is covered by a myriad of laws. You are obliged to follow them. Using an example where the law does not extend to cover it doesn't really argue any point at all. (how's that? :rolleyes:)

…I still like going fast.

Buy yourself a track day and get it out of your fupping system before you drive by me at stupid speeds and put me at risk then!!!

bonkey

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

I don't see why people think that driving is a privilege, as opposed to a right.

Tell me...would you apply the same reasononing to...say...practising medicine?

Like driving, its something where you can inadvertantly kill or seriously injure someone through inattentiveness, or lack of training.

Would you have any issue if you went to a doctor only to discover he was a brick-layer who was moonlighting as a doc to make a bit of cash...on the grounds that practicing medicine is a right, not a privilege?

Taking public transit is a right. Flying isn’t a privilege.

In both cases, you are allowing someone qualified to supply you with a service....just like when you go to the doctor.

Would you feel comfortable flying in a plane that was being flown by some bloke hired off the street yesterday who had no formal flight-training but claimed he felt confident behind the stick?

Would you let a brick-layer practice medicine on you?

You don't need to be certified to get into a boat.

Maybe not in Ireland. I would see that as a failing of Irish law, not as a success which we should change our other laws to reflect.

I still like going fast.

Me too. I've had my Mondeo at 190km/h.

It was, however, on a stretch of German autobahn without any upper limit. It was, in other words, done legally. And you know what....doing 80 (and below) on an Alpine road is far more fun.

Here in Switzerland, we don't have a points system. We do, however, have a set of laws which decide what happens when you get caught. Get caught break the speed-limit by more than 21 km/h and its going to cost you your license as well as a hefty fine. The more you're over, the longer they take your license, and the more they charge you.

Tell me...how many of you speed-lovers would do 90 on that 60 stretch if getting caught meant losing your license for 18 months, and a 3000 EUR fine?

MCMLXXXIII

javaboy wrote: »

Really? You don't? Is it maybe because you don't need to earn your rights and you can't have them revoked whereas with a privilege you must earn it (the driving test) and it can be revoked (e.g. banned for dangerous driving). It's quite simple really.

So what you are saying is that even walking down the street is a privelage? If I commit a crime, I can be put in jail...taking away my ability to walk down the street. If I kill someone in a car accident, I can't drive. If I kill someone while on foot, I can't walk down the street. Where is the line drawn?

Ta me anseo wrote: »

This sums up the absolutely typical Irish attitude. "Sure, if everyone else is doing it then it must be OK." If everyone else breaks the speed limit, then you might as well follow them. Ridiculous! Apparently, you're incapable of thinking for yourself.

The whole problem is that we need an entire culture change when it comes to driving. Why can you not see that when you break the speed limit just because everyone else does, you are part of the problem. You are not solving it by keeping up with them.

You are absolutely right when you say it does not help the problem, where you misunderstand is that I, along with all the other speeders, don't think that it's a problem in the first place. No one will try to fix anything unless they think it's broken. There are obviously much more people that like it the way things are, and don't think it needs any fixing.

Oh...just because I am Irish, and have an Irish attitude, does not mean that I am incapable of thinking for myself. However, have you asked yourself that question lately? Your attitude seems to reflect a thought of "do what the sign says, try to enforce it even thought it's not your job, and don't ask any questions...

Ta me anseo wrote: »

Firstly, you're wrong. You pay for your bus or plane so you are receiving a service at a cost. It is a service provided by a company who are not obliged to carry you. Therefore, it is not a right.

...

Thirdly, the boat analogy is a good one. Mostly because I can't think of any argument to counter it.

What I would say is that the law says you can buy a boat, throw it in a waterway and speed around to your hearts content. Or perhaps more correctly, no law says you can't. There are of course areas of water where speed limits exist, or where access is restricted, etc, etc. But driving your car is covered by a myriad of laws. You are obliged to follow them. Using an example where the law does not extend to cover it doesn't really argue any point at all. (how's that? :rolleyes:)

You got me on the service for a fee thing. I didn't really think about what I said until you pointed it out. But yeah - the boat is good, and that's how I compare it. I'm not out to get anyone killed on the motorway, but the laws allow for much easier killing to be done elsewhere.

bonkey wrote: »

Tell me...would you apply the same reasononing to...say...practising medicine?

No and I will tell you why. When I go to the doctor, I'm not paying for someone to give me a shot or even a pill. What I want is someone to tell me what is wrong with my body. Once we figure that out, the medecine is the easy part. Just as drivers such as myself are trained to know everything there is to know about driving, doctors are trained to know everything about our anatomy. One certainly takes longer than the other, but it is also much more complex. Oh, and the same goes for the pilot.

bonkey wrote: »

Tell me...how many of you speed-lovers would do 90 on that 60 stretch if getting caught meant losing your license for 18 months, and a 3000 EUR fine?

That might work in your country/government, but imho, it's terribly controlling. What's wrong with being controlled? No one likes it, they lash out as soon as they have the chance, and people stop trusting the higher powers. I agree with that though - why should the higher powers try to control you instead of aiding you to make that counrty the best possible place for the people that live there?

astraboy

Ya I forgot speed kills.:D

javaboy

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

So what you are saying is that even walking down the street is a privelage? If I commit a crime, I can be put in jail...taking away my ability to walk down the street. If I kill someone in a car accident, I can't drive. If I kill someone while on foot, I can't walk down the street. Where is the line drawn?

It's everybody's right to walk down the street. You throw that right away when you murder someone.

It is not everybody's right to drive. They have to earn the privilege.


I don't know if you're just trying to wind people up but you can't seriously believe that anyone should be allowed just hop into a car can you? As you said yourself:

drivers such as myself are trained to know everything there is to know about driving

. If it was everybody's right to drive, what training would there be? The analogy between walking down the street and driving is false. The analogy between boating and driving is better but as said before is more a case of boating law being behind the times than anything else.

Honestly this is like banging my head against a wall.

astraboy

Yes driving is a previlage. Many people cannot do it, many cannot do it well and these people do not have the "right" to drive on the road and put others in danger. But this constant focus on speed is ridiculous. Speed limits have many places, but please explain why the death rate is the same on the autobahns with out speed limits as those with them? I realize there are many roads in Ireland not comparable to the autobahns, and an upper limit needs to be set. However, our motorway limits and many limits on dual carriageways are too low. Yes, I know its the law. But I prefer to maintain a safe speed, it may or may not be above the legal limit. I realize also I'm going to get slated for that, but so what. I think I'm in a better position to judge the limit on a road I'm on then a politician in a co. council room with a map that has never driven the road. Stupidly accepting the limits as safe and any speed above them as inheritently dangerous is silly. Use of ones own judgment when driving is important, and I think that should apply to speed limits on CERTAIN roads.

D_murph

astraboy wrote: »

Yes driving is a previlage. Many people cannot do it, many cannot do it well and these people do not have the "right" to drive on the road and put others in danger. But this constant focus on speed is ridiculous. Speed limits have many places, but please explain why the death rate is the same on the autobahns with out speed limits as those with them? I realize there are many roads in Ireland not comparable to the autobahns, and an upper limit needs to be set. However, our motorway limits and many limits on dual carriageways are too low. Yes, I know its the law. But I prefer to maintain a safe speed, it may or may not be above the legal limit. I realize also I'm going to get slated for that, but so what. I think I'm in a better position to judge the limit on a road I'm on then a politician in a co. council room with a map that has never driven the road. Stupidly accepting the limits as safe and any speed above them as inheritently dangerous is silly. Use of ones own judgment when driving is important, and I think that should apply to speed limits on CERTAIN roads.

X2^.

some back roads have ridiculously high limits that are equal to some main roads which i find ridiculous.

the workmen that erect the speed limit signs on these roads must be breaking their sides laughing IMO and rightly so too . the idiots that come up with the limits just looked at a map and assigned the road a limit off the top of their head it seems :rolleyes: thus proving their ineptitude.

who would take them seriously after that i ask you?

javaboy

astraboy wrote: »

Yes driving is a previlage. Many people cannot do it, many cannot do it well and these people do not have the "right" to drive on the road and put others in danger.

+1

But this constant focus on speed is ridiculous.

+1

Speed limits have many places, but please explain why the death rate is the same on the autobahns with out speed limits as those with them? I realize there are many roads in Ireland not comparable to the autobahns, and an upper limit needs to be set.

I can't explain the same death rates. I expect a different culture/attitude is a factor though.

However, our motorway limits and many limits on dual carriageways are too low. Yes, I know its the law. But I prefer to maintain a safe speed, it may or may not be above the legal limit. I realize also I'm going to get slated for that, but so what. I think I'm in a better position to judge the limit on a road I'm on then a politician in a co. council room with a map that has never driven the road.

Completely agree. Many are too low and on backroads they're often too high. If everybody could be trusted to both judge what a safe speed is for the conditions and not exceed it, there wouldnt be a need for speed limits. Obviously everybody cannot be trusted so we have them and people should obey them. Where they are too low, you need to badger your representatives.

Stupidly accepting the limits as safe and any speed above them as inheritently dangerous is silly. Use of ones own judgment when driving is important, and I think that should apply to speed limits on CERTAIN roads.

I don't stupidly accept the limits as safe. Most of the roads I drive on every day are too dangerous to drive at the limit on. Yes use of one's own judgement is important but my judgement is different from yours. Everybody's judgement is different. That's why we have an actual fixed limit. People use their judgement as to what speed is safe up until a specified maximum.

btw what do you mean when you say "that should apply to speed limits on CERTAIN roads"? What roads do you mean and are you suggesting the abolition of speed limits entirely on those roads?

astraboy

Javaboy, when I ,mentioned certain roads, I said it to ensure my point was not taken as directed at all roads. Certain roads such as Motorways and Dual carriageways have limits far too low for their design. Obviously road conditions and weather play a part in what speed is safe, but I think on some of these roads should have limits raised, and eventually with better driver training, abolished.(am i living in a dream world where people in Ireland will actually be able to drive on a motorway correctly!?) Other roads like urban areas require limits, and these I agree with.

MCMLXXXIII

I pretty much agree with astraboy. I have driven on all kinds of roads, and there isn't much difference between the interstates I live near, a dual carraige motorway, or the autobahn. I actually thought the autobahn was primitive the first time I was on it.

But also, you need to think - those speed limits were made a long time ago in an area where it can be warm and sunny, or cold and icy. The speed limit was also created taking into consideration that there are large trucks on the road. It's not a good solution to make everyone go as slow as a large truck on ice should be going. I should not be punished for others' timid driving habits.

javaboy wrote: »

I don't know if you're just trying to wind people up but you can't seriously believe that anyone should be allowed just hop into a car can you? As you said yourself: . If it was everybody's right to drive, what training would there be? The analogy between walking down the street and driving is false. The analogy between boating and driving is better but as said before is more a case of boating law being behind the times than anything else.

No, I don't honestly believe that, but I think that there should be training and that there needs to be a better system.

Also, I wouldn't consider boating to be behind the times. Boating has been around for thousands of years, where as driving has only been around for about 150 years. The boating should be much more developed if it took the same route. Maybe the sailors just better understand each other, so they don't need as many rules.

astraboy

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

I pretty much agree with astraboy. I have driven on all kinds of roads, and there isn't much difference between the interstates I live near, a dual carraige motorway, or the autobahn. I actually thought the autobahn was primitive the first time I was on it.

But also, you need to think - those speed limits were made a long time ago in an area where it can be warm and sunny, or cold and icy. The speed limit was also created taking into consideration that there are large trucks on the road. It's not a good solution to make everyone go as slow as a large truck on ice should be going. I should not be punished for others' timid driving habits.
No, I don't honestly believe that, but I think that there should be training and that there needs to be a better system.

Also, I wouldn't consider boating to be behind the times. Boating has been around for thousands of years, where as driving has only been around for about 150 years. The boating should be much more developed if it took the same route. Maybe the sailors just better understand each other, so they don't need as many rules.

Ya I agree on the boating bit. While technically anyone can go out and buy a boat, if you are going to spend 10 or 20K on a half decent powerboat you are generally going to have some experience or training. Just wait until the politicians try and crack down on our fun and put speed limits on all harbors!:rolleyes: Just in case there is one idiot that can't drive his rib! I tend to find there are fewer idiots on the water, even people on jetskis tend to have some cop-on. Also, people are friendlier on the water!

javaboy

astraboy wrote: »

Javaboy, when I ,mentioned certain roads, I said it to ensure my point was not taken as directed at all roads. Certain roads such as Motorways and Dual carriageways have limits far too low for their design. Obviously road conditions and weather play a part in what speed is safe, but I think on some of these roads should have limits raised, and eventually with better driver training, abolished.(am i living in a dream world where people in Ireland will actually be able to drive on a motorway correctly!?) Other roads like urban areas require limits, and these I agree with.

Fair enough I was honestly just wondering what roads you meant. Yes the limits on dual c/ways and mways are too low in most places. The problem is that progress in this country is often painfully slow and many of the well intentioned measures implemented by politicians are ham-fisted efforts. e.g. the recent provisional licence debacle. I would love if all Irish drivers were good enough to judge what an appropriate speed is but at the moment they are not. We have no proper mandatory driver training. We will soon have a minimum number of lessons but that's not the same thing as actually undergoing proper training.

I hope you're not living in a dream world re Irish people driving correctly on motorways but it might be a good 20 years away unfortunately. As it stands I have not been trained in how to use a motorway yet I am allowed. I think I drive correctly on a motorway but that's all. Nobody trained me and nobody tested me on driving at speed on a 2/3 lane carriageway.

We need real driver training here before I would agree with Autobahn speeds on our motorways.

Sorry... gone off on a bit of a tangent there

astraboy

javaboy wrote: »

Fair enough I was honestly just wondering what roads you meant. Yes the limits on dual c/ways and mways are too low in most places. The problem is that progress in this country is often painfully slow and many of the well intentioned measures implemented by politicians are ham-fisted efforts. e.g. the recent provisional licence debacle. I would love if all Irish drivers were good enough to judge what an appropriate speed is but at the moment they are not. We have no proper mandatory driver training. We will soon have a minimum number of lessons but that's not the same thing as actually undergoing proper training.

I hope you're not living in a dream world re Irish people driving correctly on motorways but it might be a good 20 years away unfortunately. As it stands I have not been trained in how to use a motorway yet I am allowed. I think I drive correctly on a motorway but that's all. Nobody trained me and nobody tested me on driving at speed on a 2/3 lane carriageway.

We need real driver training here before I would agree with Autobahn speeds on our motorways.

Sorry... gone off on a bit of a tangent there

No I agree with you. I have been tested on theory on driving on a motorway, and have undergone an advanced driving course so I am trained on motorway driving. However, if I had not done the advanced driving course I would never have been trained in the use of motorways as such, the regular driving test does not take you out on a motorway and many test centers have no motorways near them!

javaboy

astraboy wrote: »

No I agree with you. I have been tested on theory on driving on a motorway, and have undergone an advanced driving course so I am trained on motorway driving. However, if I had not done the advanced driving course I would never have been trained in the use of motorways as such, the regular driving test does not take you out on a motorway and many test centers have no motorways near them!

It doesn't matter whether they've a motorway near them anyway. I did my test at Northpoint, Ballymun right beside the M50 but I still couldn't go on it during my test.

You did an advanced driving course and I commend you for it but the fact is that you didn't have to do it, so most people won't. Most people don't receive any further training or instruction once they pass their test and they spend a lot of their driving time in situations they did not encounter during the test. I don't want to see the country regulated to a standstill with overly restrictive laws/limits but until real driver training is introduced in this country, I'm more than happy to have 120km/h motorways.

bonkey

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

I understand there are rules,

But when I mentioned the strict penalties the Swiss have for breaking their rules, you complain that its "too controlling" for you. So you understand that there are rules, but don't think people should be treated harshly for breaking them.

When I was taught to drive, I was told to go as fast as everyone else...oh and go the speed limit if you think you might get into trouble.

But you also argue that you think you shouldn't get into too much trouble for breaking the speed limit.

Oh yeah, I have been in one accident - I was going about 20 MPH. So for me, it is statistacally safer to drive fast.

I've never been killed. Statistically, that makes me unkillable.

When I go to the doctor, I'm not paying for someone to give me a shot or even a pill. What I want is someone to tell me what is wrong with my body.

And when I pay road-tax etc. I am, in part, paying to make sure that the other people on the road who can put my life at risk are qualified and found capable, in order to minimise that risk.

Just as drivers such as myself are trained to know everything there is to know about driving, doctors are trained to know everything about our anatomy.

My point exactly. Drivers should be trained and pass a qualifying exam. Like doctors, if they repeatedly or seriously **** up, they should no longer be allowed the benefits of that qualification (driving, or practicing medicine).

Therefore, driving, like practicing medicine, is not a right. It is a privilege that you earn by qualifying, and keep by not ****ing up.

No one likes it, they lash out as soon as they have the chance, and people stop trusting the higher powers.

Frankly, if someone doesn't trust the higher powers, because they've implemented measures designed to reduce carnage on the roads, and which (as has been the case in Switz.) can be directly linked to reduced carnage on the roads, then I have to wonder where the problem lies?

If you want to trust the government to put your individual freedoms over other people's lives, then sure...you won't be happy. You won't be happy with a points system, or any other preventative measure. Indeed, you shouldn't even agree that drivers need to be taught anything before they be let on the roads because that's putting other people's safety over individual freedom.

I agree with that though - why should the higher powers try to control you instead of aiding you to make that counrty the best possible place for the people that live there?

By keeping me safe from people who are speeding excessively, they are aiding me and everyone else who isn't speeding excessively.

MCMLXXXIII

bonkey wrote: »

But when I mentioned the strict penalties the Swiss have for breaking their rules, you complain that its "too controlling" for you. So you understand that there are rules, but don't think people should be treated harshly for breaking them.

Wrong. I don't think people should have driving penalties. If you kill someone on the road - go to prison for killing someone. If you park incorrectly, get a fine. If you are speeding and are not affecting others, congradulations on getting there faster. If someone else gets nervous when you speed - suck it up and get used to it - some people are faster than others, it's a fact of life.

But you also argue that you think you shouldn't get into too much trouble for breaking the speed limit.

This time, you're right.

I've never been killed. Statistically, that makes me unkillable.

I never said it was impossible that I get into an accident. But I still remain, statistically I am safer when going fast.

And when I pay road-tax etc. I am, in part, paying to make sure that the other people on the road who can put my life at risk are qualified and found capable, in order to minimise that risk.

You pay road tax (and tolls) for road upkeep and maintenance. Trust me, I'm not getting any of that money you are paying the government. Maybe, the government can use those taxes to create a safe junction, instead of paying for signs that say "Unsafe Junction Ahead."

My point exactly. Drivers should be trained and pass a qualifying exam. Like doctors, if they repeatedly or seriously **** up, they should no longer be allowed the benefits of that qualification (driving, or practicing medicine).

I have the same thought as stated above. If a doctor messes up and kills someone, put the doctor in jail for some form of murder/homicide. Hopefully the doctor will learn from their mistake and won't do it again (after getting out of prison).

Therefore, driving, like practicing medicine, is not a right. It is a privilege that you earn by qualifying, and keep by not ****ing up.

I still disagree.

Frankly, if someone doesn't trust the higher powers, because they've implemented measures designed to reduce carnage on the roads, and which (as has been the case in Switz.) can be directly linked to reduced carnage on the roads, then I have to wonder where the problem lies?

Look - 40mph on the motorway is ridiculous. Any slower and I might as well walk. Reducing it to 30mph is not going to reduce carnage, it will just frustrate people.

If you want to trust the government to put your individual freedoms over other people's lives, then sure...you won't be happy. You won't be happy with a points system, or any other preventative measure. Indeed, you shouldn't even agree that drivers need to be taught anything before they be let on the roads because that's putting other people's safety over individual freedom.

I don't like points, and I don't think a lower speed limit is preventing anything. If someone isn't paying attention, it doesn't matter if they are going 40 or 50, they will still hit something.

By keeping me safe from people who are speeding excessively, they are aiding me and everyone else who isn't speeding excessively.

You might have misunderstood what I wrote. I was not agreeing with a controling government, I was agreeing with not trusting a controlling government.

Look, we obviously have two different oppinions. I'm cool with that. I don't complain because you (or anyone else) drives slowly, and I don't really expect you to complain about me.

Besides that, we both made our points. I see your side, and I think you can see mine. An arguement on boards.ie is not going to change either of us into thinking something different. There's no use in arguing.

javaboy

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

If someone isn't paying attention, it doesn't matter if they are going 40 or 50, they will still hit something.

It might matter to you if you're the thing they hit.

ateam

I get on at Blanch and go north til the n32 and since January this part of the M50 is undergoing it's upgrade and the speed limit has been reduced.

It's been dreadful ever since. The amount of drivers that think that they can drive in the overtaking lane going 60km. I respect the speed limit but drivers coasting at that pace should be in the LEFT lane, just as they should be if the speed limit was 120km. The amount of undertaking is unreal as ignorant drivers feel their in the right.

astraboy

javaboy wrote: »

It might matter to you if you're the thing they hit.

Well lets just lower the limit to 15kph so, and imprison anyone doing over that. Its the same tired old argument. The main point is, if people believe a speed limit to be fair and justified, they will obey it. Stupidly low limits on a motorway make a mockery of speed limits in general. If construction is ongoing, fine, lower the limit and raise it again once work is done. But this constant focus on speed, speed speed, everyone breaking the limit is going to kill my family malarkey is making me sick. Look up the figures and see how many accidents were caused because the driver was OVER the limit. Not many, if any. Excessive speed for conditions is another thing altogether, and that can only be reduced by education and training, not cameras or draconian speed measures.

Ta me anseo

While I find the whole discussion very interesting, I do think the question of whether our speed limits in this country are sensible or not is a circular one. Meaning that most of here will have to agree to disagree.

I certainly admit that many speed limits we have are both ridiculously fast in some cases like outside schools, and ridiculously slow in other places (like the M50 roadworks area at night with no workmen around) but I genuinely believe that is not the point.

I have seen campaigns for increases in limits work in the past, as have campaigns for limits to be reduced. It takes a bloody long time, but it can happen.

What annoys me is simply this: I feel (just my opinion and nothing more) it is incredibly arrogant and cocky for anyone to say that they feel they have the superior knowledge of road safety statistics, political influences, driving skill, average vehicle maintenance standards, driver demographics, etc, etc, to decide that they can safely drive faster than the legal limit. It is pure, irresponsible, over-confident, bulls**t and puts other people at risk.

Why?

Firstly,

Arguing that you have completed an advanced driving course (and fair play to you if you have) means nothing when it comes to PUBLIC roads. You may have completed a course, but it wasn't involving every other lunatic driver out there who has the mobile phone in one hand, BigMac in the other and steering with their knees while the kids are trying to reach the radio controls from the back seat.

What I mean is you may be able to drive at higher speeds than say, me, and still maintain the same level of safety - when talking an isolated stretch of empty road. But you can never ensure that safety when you involve the unpredictable behaviour of others. The looney that pulls out of a junction without looking. The loony that changes lanes without looking. The kid chasing his football across the road, the f**king donkey that got loose from the halting site around the corner - the list goes on forever.

What you are doing when you say you believe you can drive safely at higher speeds is displaying you utter apathy and ignorance that other people might do unexpected things. You are displaying the fact that you either too young to realise that life is full of people who will surprise you at the most inopportune moment, or you are too thick to have retained that fact during your long and happy life.

Secondly,

If you come across a speed limit that is too low (and I accept fully that many are) you decide quietly that you should be allowed drive faster than that. Forty other people decide that they don't want points or a fine so they stick to the limit, realising perhaps, as they quickly do the maths, that in almost every single case of limits being too low in this country, if you stuck to the limit anyway it would cost you nothing more than seconds added to your journey time. Most already agree that everyone driving at similar speeds is safer than not. So you arrogantly demand that everyone else speed up too to keep the whole operation safe. We should all accept the penalty points if we get caught just so that we keep the whole thing safe and allow you to wet yourself while you giggle at the thrill of doing 100 in a 60 zone. So, I decide I don't want the fine or the points so I stay at 60 and now somehow it's my fault when you hit the south end of my northbound car? Sorry, I really can't see the logic at all. It's a speed limit for fupps sake. I don't like them either but why is it so hard to stick to them?

It is utter impatience, irresponsibility, ignorance, contempt, stupidity.......

ateam

astraboy wrote: »

Well lets just lower the limit to 15kph so, and imprison anyone doing over that. Its the same tired old argument. The main point is, if people believe a speed limit to be fair and justified, they will obey it. Stupidly low limits on a motorway make a mockery of speed limits in general. If construction is ongoing, fine, lower the limit and raise it again once work is done. But this constant focus on speed, speed speed, everyone breaking the limit is going to kill my family malarkey is making me sick. Look up the figures and see how many accidents were caused because the driver was OVER the limit. Not many, if any. Excessive speed for conditions is another thing altogether, and that can only be reduced by education and training, not cameras or draconian speed measures.

I agree to a certain extent. There are some idiots who will exploit a softer approach to speed and go way too fast, but I do think 60km on the m50 is too low, it should be increased to 80km. I think what you're saying is that speed doesn't kill, it's bad driving.

javaboy

astraboy wrote: »

Well lets just lower the limit to 15kph so, and imprison anyone doing over that. Its the same tired old argument. The main point is, if people believe a speed limit to be fair and justified, they will obey it. Stupidly low limits on a motorway make a mockery of speed limits in general. If construction is ongoing, fine, lower the limit and raise it again once work is done. But this constant focus on speed, speed speed, everyone breaking the limit is going to kill my family malarkey is making me sick. Look up the figures and see how many accidents were caused because the driver was OVER the limit. Not many, if any. Excessive speed for conditions is another thing altogether, and that can only be reduced by education and training, not cameras or draconian speed measures.

That's ridiculous. I wasn't suggesting that cars shouldn't be going 60 at all, I was just taking issue with MCMLXXXIII's apparent attitude that speed doesn't matter at all:

MCMLXXXIII wrote:

If you are speeding and are not affecting others, congradulations on getting there faster. If someone else gets nervous when you speed - suck it up and get used to it - some people are faster than others, it's a fact of life.

Speeding over the limit is probably not a major contributing cause of accidents. I don't have the figures but I'll accept that. But it does impact greatly on the severity of a crash when one does happen.

I've already said on this thread and the other recent speed camera threads that I disagree with the emphasis on speed, speed, speed. Don't lump me in with the hysterical 81km/h in an 80 zone will kill my family.

The thing is that in a perfect world we could trust drivers to go at an appropriate speed for the conditions. Most people can make that judgement correctly. Based on MCMLXXXIII's quote above, I would not trust him to drive at an appropriate speed for the conditions. There are many others out there who I know don't drive at appropriate speeds. That's why we need limits. People cannot just choose to obey the limits they consider to be fair and justified because not everyone has good enough judgement.


On a more specific note, the 60km/h limit on large sections of the M50 is ridiculously where there is not actually roadworks going on. I agree with you that it makes a mockery of speed limits. tbh the Government is shooting itself in the foot on road safety issues by having that silly limit in place. I think this is an exceptional case though.



Anyway..... I think astraboy that we're not exactly poles apart on our opinions on this. I was really just annoyed by MCMLXXXIII's attitude. In his post he was basically suggesting that there should be no road penalties unless they actually go as far as killing someone. That's just madness.

MCMLXXXIII

javaboy wrote: »

Anyway..... I think astraboy that we're not exactly poles apart on our opinions on this. I was really just annoyed by MCMLXXXIII's attitude. In his post he was basically suggesting that there should be no road penalties unless they actually go as far as killing someone. That's just madness.

I am sorry, I did not spell out every single scenario in order to make myself understood. Kill someone on the road? Go to prison for killing someone. Badly hurt someone on the road? Get locked up for the same as if you jumped a guy at the bar. Slightly hurt someone on the road? Get punished with a lighter sentence. Whatever happens to the other person, get the same punishment as if it happened on foot. Insurance pays for a lot, but in case there are any other damages, the "faulty" party should be charged. Faulty is in quotes because a guard probably needs to determine who is at fault, not the people in the accident. I'm not saying people should go unpunished at all. I'm just saying that putting laws in place to make it seem safer doesn't do the job. Put real punishments in place for real crimes. I can run down a crowded path if I am in a hurry, and walk other times. I don't see why the punishment is different if we are on the road.

Also, I slow down when they are upgrading, and I wouldn't mind a limit saying "60 where workers present," but it doesn't. So the same exact road that's usually 80+ is still down to 60 - even at night, or when there is no one there. The reason the limit is lowered is for the workers (I agree with that). What's the reason for the lower limit if the workers are not there?

javaboy

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

I can run down a crowded path if I am in a hurry, and walk other times. I don't see why the punishment is different if we are on the road.

You really can't see why going a lot faster than the surrounding 'traffic' on a roadway is different to doing the same on a path? I give up. I'm bowing out of this thread.

MCMLXXXIII

javaboy wrote: »

You really can't see why going a lot faster than the surrounding 'traffic' on a roadway is different to doing the same on a path? I give up. I'm bowing out of this thread.

;)I knew you'd look one more time.

Dude, maybe I came on a little strong, but I'm not that bad. If I'm running down a path and it gets too crowded, I start walking again. I don't hit anyone, touch anyone, or even brush up against them. I'm not saying that if there is a back-up, that I'm just going to plow through all the cars until I get in front...I slow down until there is an opening again.

I'm serious, I don't see anything wrong with that, and I have never seen any harm caused by me, or anyone else, doing that.