what happens if you are caught at over 160kpk

TheNog

ninty9er wrote: »

They can charge you with dangerous driving, but that's as far as it goes.

Speeding OR dangerous driving NOT both.

I almost got banned by a particular mod for suggesting it was safe to exceed the speed limit.

If people drive properly at 180km/h a Garda would find it VERY difficult to prove you were driving dangerously, but could dole out 2 penalty points. This is where the new ANPR cameras and recording devices will come into their own. Speeding and dangerous driving are not inextricably linked, though are linked in the main in this country due to the poor level of driver education.

Your information there is wrong. Dangerous driving in this country does include speed. For a dangerous driving charge to stick a Garda would have to prove that the speed was such that as being well over the limit (either using a speed gun or even by giving evidence of the speedometer reading in the patrol car) and that there was other members of the public/road user present.

So doing 160kph on a motorway would usually get you 2 points and fine but only if traffic was non existant to light. Doing 160kph in heavy traffic could technically get you into serious bother.

Doing anything above 160kph is taking the piss though and anyone doing so should face dangerous driving.

By the way for anyone who doesn't know, you can be arrested on the spot for dangerous driving.

eringobragh wrote: »

It will use VASCAR like the UK does a modified stopwatch with your speed between 2 points video'd

ANPR is a different system than VASCAR

Dartz

There's a difference between dangerous driving and speeding. There's a difference between the speed limit and safe maximum speed.

On an empty motorway, the safe maximum speed is probably a good deal higher than the actual speed limit. Just look at the German Autobahn. 2am on the M50 and not a soul in sight, you can't tell me 100mph isn't safe. Illegal maybe, but not unsafe.

On a winding rural backroad, barely wide enough for a single car, and never been resurfaces since 1956, the safe maximum speed is a good deal less than the offical speed limit of 80kph. You'd wan't to be an idiot to even try that. If you have an accident and kill someone, even if you were below the speedlimit, it'll still be death by dangerous/careless driving.

If you're exeeding the speed limit on a motorway/ N-road, you'll probably just get done for speeding. If your driving dangerously fast, you'll get done for dangerous driving. The definition of 'dangerously fast' is pretty much driving fast enough that it would seem incompetent or dangerous to an average/sensible driver.

Which in effect, leaves it up to the Guard who pulls you over, and your attitude towards him when he stops you. If you were belting between traffic and riding up peoples arse, expect an earful. Don't give him any bull**** and try and sound contrite, even if you're not.

If you were just cruising along on an empty road maintaining a steady speed... even up to around 140-150, you might just get a warning, if you're stopped at all.

Also, if you're going to speed... don''t do it in a riced car.

maidhc

ninty9er wrote: »

If people drive properly at 180km/h a Garda would find it VERY difficult to prove you were driving dangerously, but could dole out 2 penalty points.

Careless driving (driving a vehicle in a public place without due care and attention) would be a pretty damn easy one to run with, 5 points and a fine of up to €1,500

cyclopath2001

johndoc wrote: »

Bang on ninty9er..... There are certainly people out there who drive too fast for the conditions but I for one am fed up with the hysterics surrounding anyone breaking the speed limit. Speed doesn't do it..... inappropriate speed does.

By the same logic, breaking traffic lights is not wrong, just inappropriate driving through them? Some of my fellow cyclists might want to buy into your logic.

Your ability to drive at high speeds is only one part of the safety equation affecting us all. Just as relevant would be combination of mistakes made by others and with your speed if you collide with them even though you were driving with reasonable care.

Let's put this another way, there are food safety rules in places where I eat. The chef not washing his hands won't harm him, but I prefer that he did.

Eoin

I've not seen many cyclists or traffic lights on a motorway.

unkel

TheNog wrote: »

well over the limit (either using a speed gun or even by giving evidence of the speedometer reading in the patrol car) and that there was other members of the public/road user present

Seems fair enough to me.

TheNog wrote: »

Doing anything above 160kph is taking the piss though and anyone doing so should face dangerous driving.

But what's this 160km/h barrier? Is this Garda policy? What's the difference between doing 160km/h on a completely empty straight motorway where you can see miles ahead (and not once overtaking anyone) or doing 200km/h in the same circumstances. I take it from your comment that the latter would automaticaly be a charge with dangerous driving?

What's the typical penalty you have heard of for someone convicted of dangerous driving (because they were speeding >160km/h on an empty motorway?

Thanks for your input on this thread, BTW

eringobragh

TheNog wrote: »

Your information there is wrong. Dangerous driving in this country does include speed. For a dangerous driving charge to stick a Garda would have to prove that the speed was such that as being well over the limit (either using a speed gun or even by giving evidence of the speedometer reading in the patrol car) and that there was other members of the public/road user present.

So doing 160kph on a motorway would usually get you 2 points and fine but only if traffic was non existant to light. Doing 160kph in heavy traffic could technically get you into serious bother.

Doing anything above 160kph is taking the piss though and anyone doing so should face dangerous driving.

By the way for anyone who doesn't know, you can be arrested on the spot for dangerous driving.



ANPR is a different system than VASCAR

I'm aware of that! ANPR car's I presume will be VASCAR enabled as ANPR is nothing more than a number plate reading system (seen as they mention speed monitoring capabilities)

unkel

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Your ability to drive at high speeds is only one part of the safety equation affecting us all.

Not on a completely empty motorway. Now let's keep this topic pure.

eringobragh

unkel wrote: »

Not on a completely empty motorway. Now let's keep this topic pure.

I disagree!!! I'm need to find out for sure if the Chef where I eat uses Dettol instead of ordinary soap will it cut the national road death rate??

Victor

johndoc wrote: »

empty and straight M50, in the middle of the day

lol

peasant

unkel wrote: »

But what's this 160km/h barrier? Is this Garda policy? What's the difference between doing 160km/h on a completely empty straight motorway where you can see miles ahead (and not once overtaking anyone) or doing 200km/h in the same circumstances.

I doubt that this is the reason, but there is a marked difference between driving at 160 or 200 km/h

I can drive (and have driven) at 150-160 km/h all day*, doing so at 200 even on a practically empty motorway and in perfect conditions I found unsustainable for more than half an hour.

The extra amount of concentration, alertness and focus needed for that extra 40 km/h is sooo much bigger than a meagre 40 km/h should theoretically make it.


*perfectly legally on German motorways, I hasten to ad

johndoc

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

By the same logic, breaking traffic lights is not wrong, just inappropriate driving through them? snip
Your ability to drive at high speeds is only one part of the safety equation affecting us all. Just as relevant would be combination of mistakes made by others and with your speed if you collide with them even though you were driving with reasonable care.

You need to read my post(s) (both of them). My whole point is that speed is only part of it but remains the focus of the hysterics of those who choose to ignore the other parts of the equation.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Let's put this another way, there are food safety rules in places where I eat. The chef not washing his hands won't harm him, but I prefer that he did.

Likewise - I'd prefer that he washed his hands..... and cleaned the kitchen every so often.... and kept the fridge cold.... and didn't serve me that piece of chicken he just dropped on the floor.... and wasn't a danger on the road despite never exceeding the speed limit.

Back on topic... and in response to the OP on what happens at 160kph.... just one example of what might happen at 195kph to counter the usual myth that you'll get xx points/ban/jail if you exceed Xkph(Includes an an example of the hysterics)

To close out the new Garda equipment guessing game.... they'll be using a combination of some of these


.

eringobragh

peasant wrote: »

I doubt that this is the reason, but there is a marked difference between driving at 160 or 200 km/h

I can drive (and have driven) at 150-160 km/h all day, doing so at 200 even on a practically empty motorway and in perfect conditions I found unsustainable for more than half an hour.

The extra amount of concentration, alertness and focus needed for that extra 40 km/h is sooo much bigger than a meagre 40 km/h should theoretically make it.

^ I'd have to agree with the above statement I've driven the M6 empty to Galway early early one morning at at some points I was doing 115mph - 122mph, old money.. for brief durations, and it does require a greater degree of awareness. I prefer to cruise at 155 - 165k * (the ton marker) and its feels quite slow on the motorway (obviously traffic dependant!)

EDIT - * Perfectly Illegally on Irish motorways, I hasten to ad

peasant

johndoc wrote: »

just one example of what might happen at 195kph to counter the usual myth that you'll get xx points/ban/jail if you exceed Xkph(Includes an an example of the hysterics)

The "hysterics" in that case were justified though. That road is dangerous even at normal speed, (not a dual carriageway either) and that judgement was a disgrace.

L1011

TheNog wrote: »

Doing anything above 160kph is taking the piss though and anyone doing so should face dangerous driving.

I'll admit to doing >190km/h on a public road on this island - in the North.

It was an entirely empty motorway at 3am on a Sunday morning, middle of summer. Dry, clear night. Downhill, visibility of miles.

I don't see how that could be considered 'dangerous driving' - nobody else to be a risk to, and within the design specs of my car, which is maintained to a high level. I don't see how its 'taking the piss' either.

Any form of hard cut off point after which speeding turns to dangerous driving is ridiculous, there are many roads here where 160km/h under ideal circumstances isn't dangerous in the slightest; and many roads where 2/3rds of the speed limit is lethal in deal circumstances.

johndoc

Victor wrote: »

johndoc wrote: »

empty and straight M50 in the middle of the day

lol

ok ok - that may just be an unrealistic concept


.

L1011

peasant wrote: »

The "hysterics" in that case were justified though. That road is dangerous even at normal speed, (not a dual carriageway either) and that judgement was a disgrace.

I don't even know he could have sustained more than about 120km/h through the 'gap, when in a rather extreme hurry through there I only managed to average 80km/h; and this is after the millions of euro spent on the road in the past few years.

johndoc

peasant wrote: »

The "hysterics" in that case were justified though. That road is dangerous even at normal speed, (not a dual carriageway either) and that judgement was a disgrace.

Fair comment - the road is not suitable. I doubt that the condemnation would have been any different on a deserted motorway though.
I was trying to counter the idea that there is a 'cut off' for what is dangerous is all.



.

Chergar

TheNog wrote: »

For a dangerous driving charge to stick a Garda would have to prove that the speed was such that as being well over the limit (either using a speed gun or even by giving evidence of the speedometer reading in the patrol car) and that there was other members of the public/road user present.

I was pulled over many moons ago by an unmarked car i can't remember what speed i was doing, but i think it was about 100km coming off the red cow roundabout heading towards town. the limit there is 50km, The garda, asked "if i knew how fast i was going" couldnt keep up bla bla, he was sound enough, and said he couldnt do me with anything because he has to have gun reading, asked me was i in a hurry, i said no just didnt realise what speed i was doing, listening to the radio and all, he said, don't say that to me... i could do you for dangerous driving for that. So does that not mean that a read out from a car is not admissible, especially from a ford

TheNog

unkel wrote: »

But what's this 160km/h barrier? Is this Garda policy? What's the difference between doing 160km/h on a completely empty straight motorway where you can see miles ahead (and not once overtaking anyone) or doing 200km/h in the same circumstances. I take it from your comment that the latter would automaticaly be a charge with dangerous driving?

There is no policy on speed but it is up to the guard's discretion. I used to do a speed check on the M1 on weekday nights and I gave up to 160kph but again that was my choice cos it was 3-5am and little or no traffic on the road. One of the key proofs in a dangerous driving charge is there must a member of the public or other road user is actually on the road.

For example - if I was driving a patrol with a VASCAR (or similar) system and clocked you doing 300kph but there was no one on the road, it is simply speeding. But if you overtook a car at 300kph, then its dangerous driving.

unkel wrote: »

What's the typical penalty you have heard of for someone convicted of dangerous driving (because they were speeding >160km/h on an empty motorway?

Well the district court judge in my area is fairly anti-speed but the worst I have witnessed was one fella getting 9 yrs disqualification and €2,500 fine. That was for a fella travelling at 160kph in an 80kph at 2am, overtaking 2 cars and what really drove it home was that it took our 2l mondeo 6 miles to catch up with him. He also had alot of traffic previous.

I recently had one man prosecuted for dangerous driving, first time offence, and it was €1,500 and one year off the road.

eringobragh wrote: »

I'm aware of that! ANPR car's I presume will be VASCAR enabled as ANPR is nothing more than a number plate reading system (seen as they mention speed monitoring capabilities)

Never heard that now. Any link?

MYOB wrote: »

I'll admit to doing >190km/h on a public road on this island - in the North.

It was an entirely empty motorway at 3am on a Sunday morning, middle of summer. Dry, clear night. Downhill, visibility of miles.

I don't see how its 'taking the piss' either.

Now you are taking the piss!!! How can you see for miles at 3am?

I'm not gonna get dragged into the whole speeding thing again 'cos it won't get us anywhere. Just trying to make clear the difference between speeding and dangerous driving.

TheNog

Chergar wrote: »

I was pulled over many moons ago by an unmarked car i can't remember what speed i was doing, but i think it was about 100km coming off the red cow roundabout heading towards town. the limit there is 50km, The garda, asked "if i knew how fast i was going" couldnt keep up bla bla, he was sound enough, and said he couldnt do me with anything because he has to have gun reading, asked me was i in a hurry, i said no just didnt realise what speed i was doing, listening to the radio and all, he said, don't say that to me... i could do you for dangerous driving for that. So does that not mean that a read out from a car is not admissible, especially from a ford

No, a guard can give evidence of the speed on the patrol car keeping pace with the car in front. Granted the evidence should be given as "approxiamate" rather than "true speed" as would be got from a laser gun.

In your case the guard used his discretion while even though you were twice the limit, your speed was just 100kph on a relatively good road surface. Was the road still 3 lanes that time?

L1011

TheNog wrote: »

Now you are taking the piss!!! How can you see for miles at 3am?

Beams, other cars lights (had there been any), and its surprisingly bright at 3am in July in Northern Ireland - dawn in Derry is as early as 3:40.

TheNog wrote: »

I used to do a speed check on the M1 on weekday nights and I gave up to 160kph but again that was my choice cos it was 3-5am and little or no traffic on the road.

Sound, did you catch many at more than 160 though?

johndoc

@TheNog

TheNog wrote: »

Never heard that now. Any link?

As I said above, the DoJ has been promoting this since 2005 but....

A contract has just been awarded to the value of 690,000 as anounced here http://www.e-tenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=DEC110495

To these guys http://www.cleartoneuk.com/index.html

Consisting of this http://telproplus.com/pdf/55641_cleartone%20mobile%20data%20systems.pdf (I think)

.

unkel

peasant wrote: »

I doubt that this is the reason, but there is a marked difference between driving at 160 or 200 km/h

I can drive (and have driven) at 150-160 km/h all day*, doing so at 200 even on a practically empty motorway and in perfect conditions I found unsustainable for more than half an hour.

The extra amount of concentration, alertness and focus needed for that extra 40 km/h is sooo much bigger than a meagre 40 km/h should theoretically make it.

Depends very much on the car too imho.

peasant wrote: »

I can drive (and have driven) at 150-160 km/h all day

Same here. I considered that the typical cruising speed I did going on 1,000km+ holiday trips (mainly during the night) on the continent in low end cars like a FIAT Uno back in the day

peasant wrote: »

there is a marked difference between driving at 160 or 200 km/h

In the same car, yes! But not really when you're comparing a FIAT Uno with no drivers aids on tiny wheels with drum brakes doing 160km/h to a powerful high end executive saloon or sports car (ABS, big wide wheels, PS, airbags, TC, huge disc brakes, etc. etc.) doing 200km/h.

peasant wrote: »

doing so at 200 even on a practically empty motorway and in perfect conditions I found unsustainable for more than half an hour

I've found that unsustainable in this country for more than a few minutes. Any car at all coming up on the horizon and I'd back off double quick. Drivers here just cannot be trusted to drive appropriately on motorways...

eringobragh

TheNog wrote: »

Never heard that now. Any link?

johndoc wrote: »

@TheNog


As I said above, the DoJ has been promoting this since 2005 but....

A contract has just been awarded to the value of 690,000 as anounced here http://www.e-tenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=DEC110495

To these guys http://www.cleartoneuk.com/index.html

Consisting of this http://telproplus.com/pdf/55641_cleartone%20mobile%20data%20systems.pdf (I think)

.

^ What he said

unkel wrote: »

I've found that unsustainable in this country for more than a few minutes. Any car at all coming up on the horizon and I'd back off double quick. Drivers here just cannot be trusted to drive appropriately on motorways...

^ X2

unkel

TheNog wrote: »

if I was driving a patrol with a VASCAR (or similar) system and clocked you doing 300kph but there was no one on the road, it is simply speeding. But if you overtook a car at 300kph, then its dangerous driving.

That too makes sense. And if the Garda decides it is simply speeding, it will simply be a fixed €80 and 2 points, right? Accept and pay up and it will never go to court?

TheNog wrote: »

I'm not gonna get dragged into the whole speeding thing again 'cos it won't get us anywhere. Just trying to make clear the difference between speeding and dangerous driving.

Much appreciated.

ninty9er

This has actually generated some good debate.

But travelling at 160/180 and being done for lack of due care and attention would seriously be taking the piss. Any decent solicitor would point out that nobody was injured and how the driver managed to stop the car for the officer without injuring anyone, and I hasten to add*, that the driver noticed the Gardaí in the rearview.

The amount of due care and attention warranted by my car at 160km/h is beyond the realms of unflinching. I've been sitting in a passenger seat twice where the drivers nearly rear ended people, 80 on a dual-carriageway and 40 in the city centre where due care and attention was lacking apart from me roaring "STOOOOP". Generally you concentrate MORE not less at higher speeds.

Where driving at 160km/h becomes tiring is when you have to jam on the brakes about 1km behind some kind, clever person pseudo Miss-Daisy who pulls out to the overtaking lane to overtake a truck and does so at 100km/h on a motorway.

Given a nice - for example - 3.7l S350 with a 7speed gearbox and brakes like fine cut diamond, 200km/h wouldn't be half as tiring, but would still require the attention. The closer a car comes to its limit the more attention it requires, not the closer any car comes to speed x.

*:pac::pac:

TheNog

johndoc wrote: »

@TheNog


As I said above, the DoJ has been promoting this since 2005 but....

A contract has just been awarded to the value of 690,000 as anounced here http://www.e-tenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=DEC110495

To these guys http://www.cleartoneuk.com/index.html

Consisting of this http://telproplus.com/pdf/55641_cleartone%20mobile%20data%20systems.pdf (I think)

.

+1

Me thinks €690k will not buy a whole lot of units. Still its a step in the right direction

TheNog

unkel wrote: »

That too makes sense. And if the Garda decides it is simply speeding, it will simply be a fixed €80 and 2 points, right? Accept and pay up and it will never go to court?

Yep.

Unless you don't pay but that would be stooopid

eringobragh

TheNog wrote: »

Yep.

Unless you don't pay but that would be stooopid

"Stupid is as stupid does" :pac: