"Donating" penalty points

Stark

massivemagumbos wrote:

Plus my dad is sound. Ha.

More like a spineless pushover.

bwardrop

Oooohh ranty ranty!

Listen, at the end of the day the speed limit is the speed limit. I use that stretch of the N11 a bit and it is frustrating trundling along at 60km/h, but what can you do? And recently, I have noticed that all the way from the motorway in to Donybrook, the vast majority of people have started obeying the limit more rigorously.

Your argument that 'everyone else does it' is a non-runner. 'Mob mentality' isn't a valid argument for following some rules an not others. For example, if you were in a group of people who were all a bit racist, does that make it ok for you to be a bit racist too?

I think you should contact all the media you mention - tell them that you got caught speeding, but it's not fair because everyone else was speeding too. Then get back to us here and let us know what they said...

Having a nice, powerful car is a privilege, not a right. You are not entitled to that car - you are lucky to have it. You should appreciate and have respect for that privilege and not bitch and moan because you were caught being naughty.

Like I said in the other thread - you are 22 and living away from home. Cut the apron strings and get your own policy - it will be more economical in the long run if you build up you own no claims bonus.

And finally, in my opinion if you can't afford the insurance, then you can't afford the car.

One other thing massivemagumbos, on a more serious note - did you see the posts re: your insurance in the thread you started? I seriously think the way you are going about things will invalidate your insurance. Worth following up on.

NUTLEY BOY

The mindset underlying the basic proposition is reprehensible but, alas, typically modern.:mad:

Is it a criminal offence to do what is proposed ? e.g. perverting or conspiring to pervert the course of justice for both the driver and the one taking the points.

PS If you are caught and convicted for conspiracy, perverting the course of justice and whatever all of that will have to be disclosed to your insurance company too. If you then fail to disclose that lot you will eventually end up in even deeper trouble and that would be exactly where you belong.

Pay up and learn your lesson.

peasant

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Is it a criminal offence to do what is proposed ? e.g. perverting or conspiring to pervert the course of justice for both the driver and the one taking the points.

Interesting question ..

Is it a criminal offence for the authorities to stick the registered owner of the vehicle for points and fines if someone else was driving but they (the owner) can't prove it ?

bwardrop

peasant wrote: »

Interesting question ..

Is it a criminal offence for the authorities to stick the registered owner of the vehicle for points and fines if someone else was driving but they (the owner) can't prove it ?

Not sure about that either. I would assume that it is the responsibility of the registered owner to know who is driving their car - in the vast majority of cases it has to be someone known to the owner because they are either a) on the insurance policy or b) someone with open driving who the owner has given permission to. Outside of that the car has probably been stolen :pac:

I'll hazard a guess that if the owner can't prove who was driving the car then the points revert to them. In fact it sounds as if tickets issued by these static camera are automatically sent to the owner and the onus is on them to inform the authorities that someone else was driving. I wonder how many times a parent has got points in the post, just assumed it was them for whatever reason when it was actually a named driver who committed the offense...

There are a couple of people who seem well up on traffic law posting around here - anyone care to clarify this one?

NUTLEY BOY

peasant wrote: »

Is it a criminal offence for the authorities to stick the registered owner of the vehicle for points and fines if someone else was driving but they (the owner) can't prove it ?

NO.

heyjude

Presumably the parents who are prepared to accept penalty points for their kids, will also accept responsibility when their offspring kill themselves or some innocent driver while speeding on their still clean licence ?

Or does it have to reach that stage before junior gets to carry the can for his/her own actions ?

Steve

bwardrop wrote: »

I have no problems with the fines - I think if you are in the wrong you should cough up. I'm not sure what happens to the fines at the moment - is it swallowed by the exchequer?

Yes, the exchequer gets it, there is no ringfencing.

the money should go directly back into funding road safety.

If only.

Has this been addressed with the privatized system? I remember hearing that the company awarded the tender would be paid a fixed amount by the government rather than allow them make outrageous profits from the system... Will the excess be swallowed up and lost also?

Correct, the privatised system operators seemingly will get a fixed fee. The rest goes to the exchequer. There have been some interesting debates on the speed camers tax vs safety issue. My arguement is that if they thought cameras were going to stop 'speeding' then there would be little or no revenue (because nobody is speeding). The opposite is true, they (govt.) are expecting €5-10 million profit after operating costs.

peasant wrote: »

Interesting question ..

Is it a criminal offence for the authorities to stick the registered owner of the vehicle for points and fines if someone else was driving but they (the owner) can't prove it ?

No, the legislation says the registered owner gets the points unless they can prove (and nominate) someone else - guilty till proven innocent IMO.
IIRC, the legislation also allows for the penalty to be applied to both (maybe just the fine though, been a while since I looked at it).

bwardrop

SteveC wrote: »

My arguement is that if they thought cameras were going to stop 'speeding' then there would be little or no revenue (because nobody is speeding). The opposite is true, they (govt.) are expecting €5-10 million profit after operating costs.

I would argue the same. However, should cameras not be viewed as a diminishing revenue source? Initially there will be profit, but as people get the message this amount will decrease. I know this sounds very naive of me and the UK has proven the opposite to be true - it will continue to be a source of revenue. But surely if people are choosing to speed, then it is their choice to pay this 'tax'.

I think placement of the cameras is critical if safety is to be the primary focus. In situations like the one that led to the creation of this thread - the infamous camera on the N11 near UCD - it is like shooting fish in a barrel. It is easy to be cynical and say that this just the government looking to raise money. However, the fact still remains that the speed limit is 60km/h on this stretch of road. It has been common knowledge for years that the Gardai regularly speed check there... so, just obey the speed limit if you don't want to contribute to the 'tax'.

It will be interesting when the privatized system comes on stream. To the best of my knowledge, they have been instructed to target accident prone stretches of road at the times where accidents are most likely. If done correctly, this may have a significant impact on road deaths - it will be certainly more effective than the current situation.

I'm sure there will be still be cameras in controversial areas - like the one mentioned above - and that this argument will rage on. The operation needs to make money in order to function, which is supposedly for the 'greater good'. I'd rather the speedsters contributed the lions share as opposed to the rest of us. At the end of the day it is simple - if you don't want to cough up, don't speed (or drive drunk, off you face or like an idiot).

Despite all my points above, I am still on the fence about this. I'm willing to hear out any other (reasonable ) arguments...

Steve

bwardrop wrote: »

I would argue the same. However, should cameras not be viewed as a diminishing revenue source? Initially there will be profit, but as people get the message this amount will decrease. I know this sounds very naive of me and the UK has proven the opposite to be true - it will continue to be a source of revenue. But surely if people are choosing to speed, then it is their choice to pay this 'tax'.

The issue is not the revenue it generates, it is the means by which it is being forced upon us in the guise of 'road safety' when, in effect, it will have a negligible effect on safety and just end up as another tax on motorists. In the beginning of the rollout the cameras will allegedly be well advertised and visible with a move to covert cameras some time later.

I think placement of the cameras is critical if safety is to be the primary focus. In situations like the one that led to the creation of this thread - the infamous camera on the N11 near UCD - it is like shooting fish in a barrel. It is easy to be cynical and say that this just the government looking to raise money. However, the fact still remains that the speed limit is 60km/h on this stretch of road. It has been common knowledge for years that the Gardai regularly speed check there... so, just obey the speed limit if you don't want to contribute to the 'tax'.
It will be interesting when the privatized system comes on stream. To the best of my knowledge, they have been instructed to target accident prone stretches of road at the times where accidents are most likely. If done correctly, this may have a significant impact on road deaths - it will be certainly more effective than the current situation.

I agree.
Placement will be critical. Unfortunately the majority of fatalities happen on twisty secondary roads in poor conditions. The cameras will not work in a lot of these locations (a) because of the road layout and (b) because a lot of the accidents happen below the speed limit.
In my opinion, somebody driving too fast for the road and the prevailing conditions on the limit of their driving ability is 'speeding', even if they are 20kmh below the posted limit. In the eyes of the law (and the camera) they are not speeding and are perfectly entitled to go about their soon to be short lived business.
The other side of the arguement of course is that the cameras will free up garda resources to go and focus on the 'actual' blackspots. It remains to be seen though.

I'm sure there will be still be cameras in controversial areas - like the one mentioned above - and that this argument will rage on. The operation needs to make money in order to function, which is supposedly for the 'greater good'. I'd rather the speedsters contributed the lions share as opposed to the rest of us. At the end of the day it is simple - if you don't want to cough up, don't speed (or drive drunk, off you face or like an idiot).

I have a hard time believing that it is for the 'greater good'. I think they are doing this as it's an easy target group, can generate lots of false statistics about catching 'speeders' and moreover so they can be 'seen to be doing something'. My definition of 'speeding' is driving too fast for the prevailing conditions and / or the drivers ability to the point that they are endangering themselves or other road users. The cameras definition is going faster than a number painted on a sign regardless of the conditions.
I don't condone 'speeding' or grossly exceeding the posted limit but there are times when I feel it is justified and necessary - e.g. when overtaking, I like to minimise my time on the wrong side of the road. I also feel there are times where driving at speeds within the posted limit can be classed as 'speeding' e.g. in heavy rain on a motorway where visibility is compromised or in a quiet housing estate when there are children playing at the roadside and there are lots of parked cars for them to hide behind.

My other arguement is the delay between the offence and the punishment introduced by the camera system. If your dog shits on the sitting room carpet, you give him a slap on the nose to let him know what he did was bad. It doesn't take long before he realises he shouldn't do it anymore. If, on the other hand, you leave it unpunished and a two weeks later give him a scolding - does he learn anything? No. Does he still respect you? No.
The learning cycle in humans is not unlike this - you recieve points and a fine for something that you cannot even remember doing - have you learned anything? Perhaps, but not as much as you would have done if you were stopped by a guard and had the 'reason why what you just did was dangerous' explained to you. Do you resent the system and lose respect for the authorities at this point? Yes.

At this point anyone still reading is asking WTF has all of this got to do with the thread topic - Steves off on another camera rant again.... (thanks if you are still reading BTW).

I believe it's relevant because, IMO if I get caught by a dumb camera doing something on the road which was perfectly safe (but above the posted speed limit) and happen to recieve some points, I would have absolutely no hesitation or remorse 'donating' to them to 'my friend from south africa who was driving at the time but is now returned home'. In line with that, I voted as such in the poll.

Better stop now - I could go on all night.

cyclopath2001

SteveC wrote: »

My definition of 'speeding' is driving too fast for the prevailing conditions and / or the drivers ability to the point that they are endangering themselves or other road users.

The Ordinary Decent Speeder (ODS) lobby always try to confine the debate to this narrow definition. It's a like saying that anti-social behaviour which intimidates, menaces or annoys others is acceptable as long as nobody is physically hurt or injured.

Speed restrictions exist for social reasons, not just safety.

peasant

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Speed restrictions exist for social reasons, not just safety.

Huh?

Next you'll want to be handing out ASBO's for speeding offences
:D:D

Stark

He's got a point though. I've seen plenty of people struggle to get across the road to the shops, schools etc. in areas where people frequently speed through. There may be no injuries or fatalities but it still reduces the quality of life in that area.

L1011

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The Ordinary Decent Speeder (ODS) lobby always try to confine the debate to this narrow definition. It's a like saying that anti-social behaviour which intimidates, menaces or annoys others is acceptable as long as nobody is physically hurt or injured.

Speed restrictions exist for social reasons, not just safety.

Anti social behaviour which intimidates or menaces is unacceptable due to it intimidating or menacing, whether or not it hurts or injures someone - I thought that would have been blatantly clear from the name.

You're like an old dog worrying a bone here - just drop it.

bwardrop

MYOB wrote: »

You're like an old dog worrying a bone here - just drop it.

Who needs to drop what?

L1011

bwardrop wrote: »

Who needs to drop what?

cyclopath2001 appears to find it impossible to make more than two posts without taking the subject over to speeding, and specifically the fact that he appears to think speed limits are too high and apparently speeding is the cause of every problem on the roads, basically.

bwardrop

MYOB wrote: »

cyclopath2001 appears to find it impossible to make more than two posts without taking the subject over to speeding, and specifically the fact that he appears to think speed limits are too high and apparently speeding is the cause of every problem on the roads, basically.

Ok, I wasn't aware of his / her 'backstory', but this thread does encapsulate some discussion on speeding so I think the comment is fair enough here.

I think this is a pretty good interpretation:

SteveC wrote: »

My definition of 'speeding' is driving too fast for the prevailing conditions and / or the drivers ability to the point that they are endangering themselves or other road users.

But it falls down after that when he mentions the camera's definition of speed limits. It is not the camera's definition - it is the law. I also agree with cyclopaths2001's comment re: narrowing the definition of speeding. There is no wiggle room in defining it, the speed limit is set plain and simple.

If a driver chooses to break it because they feel it is 'justified and necessary' (to quote another poster) then they are taking a calculated risk - and part of that calculated risk is that you will get caught speeding, get points on your license and have to cough up a fine.

As it stands, anyone breaking the speed limit is choosing to do so, and therefore they are choosing to pay the fine / contribute to the tax when they get caught. It is free will.

Chergar

Apologies in advance guys for the following rant, but massivemagumbos has really pissed me off and has also demonstrated how dangerous he is to other users of the road – both of which I feel warrant the following response . . .
]For starters what he is doing with his insurance, is massively irresponsible and dangerous to other road users (as well as to any passengers he might have in his car) – he is in fact driving uninsured as he has misrepresented key clauses within his insurance contract – i.e. that his dad is the primary user of the insured vehicle and the car is based at his dad’s address
Also, I have just taken a look back through his other posts, and have learnt that massivemagumbos’ car is a Mazda RX8 (190) – his claim that he managed to get 250kph out of that car on the autobahn may mean that perhaps we should all step back and let him do what he wants because clearly he is magic – the car is only capable of a max of 222kph as per the manufacturers technical specifications

Very worryingly however is massivemagumbos’ misconception with regard to the stopping distance of the car – believing that it can stop in half the distance of a ford focus. The variance in stopping distances @ 100kph between the two cars is less than 10% per manufacturers test figures.


I once had an RX8 190ps, and it's a good car. But it’s certainly not a car for this muppet, someone who does not understand and overestimates the capabilities of the car and is prepared to put other people at risk with it; driving uninsured with no regard for the rules of the road. Personally, I hope the insurance company find you out for this irresponsible behaviour as once they do you will be off our roads for as long time

I sincerely doubt that I am alone in my views .

Climate Expert

Its obvious speed limits need to increase.

THey were set decades ago when you would be a bit mad to do 60mph in some of the **** boxes of the day.

Modern cars can handle much higher speeds and brake in very short distances and the limits should reflect this. Town limits are one thing but everything else should be at least 100kph if not more.

Stark

Getting hit at 100kph by a nice car hurts just as much as getting hit by a ****box at 100kph. I'd be in favour of increasing the limits on motorways, but not an across-the-board increase elsewhere (that's not to say I'm not in favour of reviewing the limit if the limit is stupidly low on a particular road).

peasant

Chergar

All credit to righteousness, but this is taking it a bit far. You are not judge and jury. You're condemning/attacking poster over "facts" which may or may not be true and deeds which he may or may not have commited.

Plus you insulted him.

Consider yourself warned and I don't want to hear any more of this ranting


Thread closed before it descends into mayhem