caught drink driving what to do now?

ShiverinEskimo

Dudess wrote: »

Dragan, you're not going to hit a pedestrian on a dual carriageway. The type of situation does make a difference.
stevec is spot-on - it is possible to go over the limit safely.

Wrong - I can remember at least 2 or 3 young lads on seperate occasions were struck on the M1 near Dunleer trying to cross the road in the early hours. They were drunk and trying to cross the M1 to get home via the fields.

Looking for links now - but RTE's archive doesn't go far enough back.

Dudess

Dudess wrote: »

No, I haven't driven through Stillorgan. Do people hang out on the Stillorgan Dual Carriageway?

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Wrong - I can remember at least 2 or 3 young lads on seperate occasions were struck on the M1 near Dunleer trying to cross the road in the early hours. They were drunk and trying to cross the M1 to get home via the fields.

Looking for links now - but RTE's archive doesn't go far enough back.

Sorry to take the unpopular line here but:


Frankly any pedestrian who runs out onto a bloody motorway is as much responsible for consequences as the motorist. Granted if the motorist is flyin alongf he has no chance to react. However, there's a reason there are footbridges and pedestrain lights.

Case in point, I nearly milled a girl over a few weeks ago, 40 mph zone, i was doin 35mph so i was under the limit, wouldnt have made a damned bit of difference, i nearly crashed into a wall avoidin her the stupid b1tch. She ran out without even looking. Had I have hit the wall could I have claimed the increase in my insurance etc back off her? Could I ****. Had I have hit her, Id have lost my licence even though it was 100% her fault. No win.

Steve

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

And fair play - but people seem to be of the opinion that the speed limit is a target and say that "this road I know is minefield and has an 80km limit". The rules are you drive to the conditions or you don't go over the limit.

People seem to be taking advantage of the whole drive to the conditions thing and applying it to better conditions thinking that gives them the ok to speed. It doesn't. The speed limit is that a limit, not a recommendation, not a "please go this speed" its a legal limit and going over it is never justified no matter what the conditions.

The powers that be are brainwashing people into thinking that the posted limits are safe speeds and they are blindly following like sheep, this thread is a prime example.

As I've said, most of the limits are too high especially on rural R and L roads, and coincidentally thats where the majority of the fatalities are as well.

I guarantee that if *all* speed limits were abolished and drivers actually had to think about what was a safe speed then the accident rate would plummet.

I really wish the word 'speeding' in its current meaning could be abolished so we could focus on the real issue which is 'travelling at a speed which is dangerous given the conditions'.

ShiverinEskimo

Neil, anyone giving examples of people being hit or present on a motorway are not condoning the actions of the pedestrian - they are highlighting that it is not safe to assume you will never meet a pedestrian on a dual carraigeway/motorway.

stevec

stevec wrote: »

Our motorways are based on the UK design which, in the beginning, were unrestricted. Jaguar acually used to road test their cars at 150MPH on the motorways back then.

When the motorways first opened, too many tried to drive at speeds they had never experienced before usually in cars that were really not capable of doing those speeds safely, result = carnage.

Classic example of inappropiate speed, but some motorists DID drive safely at speeds in excess of 100mph as they had suitable vehicles & skill.

It would be much safer to have variable speed limits on all major roads, higher than 120 when the conditions are good and dropping downwards depending on how much the conditions have deteriated.

Seth Brundle

Dragan wrote: »

And what does WHERE you are speeding have to do with it? Speeding is speeding....plain and simple. I am finding it hard to see the distinction between when it is okay to break the law and when it is not in these circumstances.

Do you have any distinction between someone who goes 5km over the limit accidentally and someone who drives at 200km/h?

Dragan wrote: »

My uncle was killed by a speeder, my friend was not.

In my friends case, even though i was only a kid, i was sad but i wasn't angry. It was an accident, everyone had been acting within the law.

WHilst I sympathise with you for your losses, your uncle was killed by a feckin idiot in a situation quite different from my one (dual carriageway/motorway, etc.)
As for your friend, it being an accident and all within the law, what exactly happened as generally if there is an incident, someone is at fault whether its because of dangerous driving, inattention, etc.!

Steve

Dinter wrote: »

Really, why not?

Ever driven through Stillorgan?

The only pedestrians you're likely to encounter there are cops with speed guns...:pac:

delly

Just goes to show the positive impact of making certain crimes stigmatised. i.e. i'll happily speed, but would never touch a drop of alcohol if i was driving. Maybe in 10 years time speeding will have the same type of stigma drink driving has in terms of branding the people who do so as scum.

ShiverinEskimo

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Neil, anyone giving examples of people being hit or present on a motorway are not condoning the actions of the pedestrian - they are highlighting that it is not safe to assume you will never meet a pedestrian on a dual carraigeway/motorway.

I am aware of that, i alluded to it in the post. But pedestrians have as much of a responsibility.

I mean we've already veered off the topic of how the OP can help his mate who's lost his licence and as such his livlihood into speeding.

What about pedestrians who run out and cause accidents?

What about cyclists who disobey traffic lights?

What about taxi drivers thinking they are a law onto themselveS?

What about guards usin their sirens just to get through traffic lights cos theyre not bothered waiting?

What about people driving too SLOWLY causing pile ups?

Or the motorbikes who drive in between lanes and sometimes veer in on top of you?

Or the great one I saw on the M50 a month ago, guy in a van stopped his feckin van dead in the middle of the road, and did a U-turn so he could go up the exit he;d missed. He wasnt speeding, he just sauntered across lanes doin 10kmph but what he did was infinitely more dangerous than somebody doing 125kmph ie 5kmph over the limit. Given the choice of what to encounter on any given day and ill take the guy who's 5kmph over thank you very much.

Or the plank that Irishbird mentioned about the gobsh1te who drove on the path to overtak her?

Tailgating, not having your lights on at night......speed kilsl but Jesus theres a LOT more to road safety than taking the high ground and slamming shame on someone who creeps 2-3kmph above the speed limit.


If someone while looking for a sign runs a red light accidentally would they be linched here like some people have linched people who occasionally creep over the speed limit? Probably not even though theyre infinitely mre likely to run over a pedestrain. Its called human error. Not condoning it, but some people on here have brought their high horses and its pathetic. Thos ewho have their views based on past tragedies I offer my condolances. In an ideal world nobody should die on our roads but it is a big problem here, and all Im saying is speed is not the only contributor.


Personally, I go out of my way to try to keep within the speed limits. And I happily agree to those who drive at outrageous speeds being taken to the cleaners here. But those like myself and Dudess who do what i suspect anyone who drives, or has been driving a long time, does and occasionally goes above the limits, do not deserve some of the sh1te some idiots have given them on this thread. If only we were all so perfect. Labelling me a speeder because I spend about 2% of my driving time above the limit is unfair.


/ rant

ShiverinEskimo

Deleted User wrote: »

Classic example of inappropiate speed, but some motorists DID drive safely at speeds in excess of 100mph as they had suitable vehicles & skill.

There's no such thing as suitable vehicles or skills on a public road - you're only as good as the car/truck/cyclist/pedestrian you're sharing the road with.

Its simple physics - faster means longer stopping distance and harder hits. There are no circumstances in the world that justify an increase in either. And there's no such thing as acceptable increae in risk in doing so.

Deleted User wrote:

Tailgating, not having your lights on at night......speed kilsl but Jesus theres a LOT more to road safety than taking the high ground and slamming shame on someone who creeps 2-3kmph above the speed limit.

I completely agree. But when the majority of accidents are adjudged to have been caused by excess speed then your campaign budget to improve road safety should be allocated accordingly. The emphasis is on speed because the only difference between bumps and bruises and a fatality in a collision is speed.

Steve

Deleted User wrote: »

rant

You forgot foglights



/runs

Dudess

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Wrong - I can remember at least 2 or 3 young lads on seperate occasions were struck on the M1 near Dunleer trying to cross the road in the early hours. They were drunk and trying to cross the M1 to get home via the fields.

They shouldn't have been there - and they were drunk and it was very early. Not representative of the norm. And were the drivers speeding? Even if they weren't, they'd have killed them.
Again, not comparable to a busy residential road or street.

javaboy

stevec wrote: »

You forgot foglights



/runs

Banned. Oh wait. This is AH and I'm not a mod.

Speeding is speeding....plain and simple.

How would some posters here cope if variable speed limits were introduced on to the M50 (I believe that it's a possibility)?

If yoou drive along it on a monday afternoon and the signs flash 80kmh for example ,what do you do the next time you go along and see the same sign now saying 120kmh! would they continue to go at 80 because yesterday they were told not to exceed that speed or would they aim for 120, or would they read the road and drive at the most appropiate speed!

ShiverinEskimo

Dudess wrote: »

They shouldn't have been there - and they were drunk and it was very early. Not representative of the norm. And were the drivers speeding? Even if they weren't, they'd have killed them.
Again, not comparable to a busy residential road or street.

I'm sorry. You said "you are never going to hit someone on the dual carraigeway".

I didn't agree and gave you an example of when someone HAS hit someone on a dual carraigeway.

Just because they shouldn't be there doesn't mean they can't be knocked down.

Steve

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

I completely agree. But when the majority of accidents are adjudged to have been caused by excess speed then your campaign budget to improve road safety should be allocated accordingly. The emphasis is on speed because the only difference between bumps and bruises and a fatality in a collision is speed.

IIRC, driving on the wrong side of the road is the #1 cause of fatalities according to the RSA.

Excessive speed is #3 (AFAIK it's meaning is literal, i.e. not necessarily in excess of the posted limit).

humanji

stevec wrote: »

IIRC, driving on the wrong side of the road is the #1 cause of fatalities according to the RSA.

Excessive speed is #3 (AFAIK it's meaning is literal, i.e. not necessarily in excess of the posted limit).

That doesn't exactly make it ok to speed, though.

peasant

There is one thing a lot of posters don't seem to get:

Every single time you decide to drive your car you're putting lives at risk.

You could run over a child while backing out of your driveway, someone could step out right in front of your car and get killed while you're crawling along at 20 km/h. You could sneeze in traffic and end up on the wrong side of the road and kill someone in a collission.

All those believers in speed limits, please do not kid yourselves into believing that just because you never exceed the speed limit none of the above could ever happen to you.

ShiverinEskimo

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

There's no such thing as suitable vehicles or skills on a public road - you're only as good as the car/truck/cyclist/pedestrian you're sharing the road with.

Its simple physics - faster means longer stopping distance and harder hits. There are no circumstances in the world that justify an increase in either. And there's no such thing as acceptable increae in risk in doing so.
.

The point was, at the time they were not "speeding" as there was no limit!

Dragan

Dudess wrote: »

Dragan, you're not going to hit a pedestrian on a dual carriageway. The type of situation does make a difference.
stevec is spot-on - it is possible to go over the limit safely.

And what about other vehicles? Look, i understand i was probably a bit vehement in my earlier post but the simple fact is that stuff goes wrong and it can be hard to react to.

For the driver, and the other people involved, often the only thing that can make a horrible situation a bit better is knowing that those involved were going the right speed.

ShiverinEskimo

stevec wrote: »

IIRC, driving on the wrong side of the road is the #1 cause of fatalities according to the RSA.

Excessive speed is #3 (AFAIK it's meaning is literal, i.e. not necessarily in excess of the posted limit).

Yes but in all the various ways accidents can happen the severity of them can be changed by the speed at which they occur. Take any accident scenario and vary the speed at which it occurs and the outcome will be different.

Steve

humanji wrote: »

That doesn't exactly make it ok to speed, though.

I wasn't saying that, people incorrectly label 'speeding' as the highest cause of fatalities, it's not.

SheroN

Has anyone driven the Carlow Bypass?...how in God's name is the speed limit 100kph. It should be 120kph.

ShiverinEskimo

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Yes but in all the various ways accidents can happen the severity of them can be changed by the speed at which they occur. Take any accident scenario and vary the speed at which it occurs and the outcome will be different.

True! A head-on with both vehicles doing 100kmh will almost certainly result in fatalities.

ShiverinEskimo

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Yes but in all the various ways accidents can happen the severity of them can be changed by the speed at which they occur. Take any accident scenario and vary the speed at which it occurs and the outcome will be different.

obviously speed is a factor? If both vehicles were standing still there;d be no accident. Speed is ALWAYS a factor but a lot of times the speed is irrelevent (unless static) to whther or not an accident occurs. It does dictate the severity of the accident I agree but blaming the CAUSE of the accident on speed can be misguided.

SheroN

SheroN wrote: »

Has anyone driven the Carlow Bypass?...how in God's name is the speed limit 100kph. It should be 120kph.

It will soon be, as soon as the papers that make it officially a motorway are signed! This is of course a classic example of an inappropiate speed limit!

ShiverinEskimo

Deleted User wrote: »

obviously speed is a factor? If both vehicles were standing still there;d be no accident. Speed is ALWAYS a factor but a lot of times the speed is irrelevent (unless static) to whther or not an accident occurs. It does dictate the severity of the accident I agree but blaming the CAUSE of the accident on speed can be misguided.

Fair enough - but I think most people who are arguing the case of "its never safe to speed" aren't saying speed is the cause of accidents, but perhaps the cause of how severe those accidents are.

As you said - there will always be accidents, always. But what the people on here who are saying that sometimes its ok to speed are not considering is that when something does go bad, its the additional speed that dictates what the outcome will be.

The only real way to make the roads safe is to remove the drivers.

Steve

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Yes but in all the various ways accidents can happen the severity of them can be changed by the speed at which they occur. Take any accident scenario and vary the speed at which it occurs and the outcome will be different.

There is no defence to that argument, if everyone slowed down to 10kph then yes, there would be extremely few fatalities.

Here's an idea, every car should require a bloke with waving a red flag to walk in front of it...... wait, that may have been tried already.

ShiverinEskimo

stevec wrote: »

There is no defence to that argument, if everyone slowed down to 10kph then yes, there would be extremely few fatalities.

Here's an idea, every car should require a bloke with waving a red flag to walk in front of it...... wait, that may have been tried already.

Sorry - You're missing my point completely. I'm not saying everyone should go slow - I'm saying its never suitable or justifyable to go over the limits regardless of road condition.