Should A Jail Sentence Be Imposed On Someone For Speeding?

ninty9er

Only if the speed causes an accident.

MagicMarker wrote: »

The law says it is.

The law isn't built on sensibilities. It's built on ink and paper.

It is not a determinent in what is sensible and what is not.

MagicMarker

ninty9er wrote: »

The law isn't built on sensibilities. It's built on ink and paper.

It is not a determinent in what is sensible and what is not.

You think it's sensible to drive at 200km/h on a road with a 120km/h limit?

SoupyNorman

ninty9er wrote: »

The law isn't built on sensibilities. It's built on ink and paper.

It is not a determinent in what is sensible and what is not.

Have you ever heard of the reasonable man?

E.G. Would the reasonable man drive at 200kph when the posted speed limit is 120kph?


Your argument is on the road to failure....[edit]at 210kph

SoupyNorman

Overature wrote: »

The guy who was driving at 200K/h obvously needed to drive at that speed, he was proberly late for something or had just bought a new car and wanted to open it up and see what it could do. Both very reasonable excuses that the gaurds should have listened to, if nobody was hurt then he should not get into trouble. Simple as

Magic captured it perfectly but I really think it deserves this also

Victor_M

Only if the speed causes an accident.

Jesus I can't believe that some people are actually agreeing that these people deserve a custodial sentence.

Who is a greater potential danger? A car driven on a motorway by an alert driver at 200 Kmph or a person changing lanes at 120 Kmph on a motorway without checking mirrors and indicating? Both are breaking the law both are potentially dangerous. IMO the person changing lanes without indicating their intention and causing others to take evasive action are more of an immediate danger as they are everywhere every day, as opposed to the odd idiot that hits 200 Kmph for a brief amount of time on a motorway. If the 200Kmph guy gets jail, then so should the non indicating law breaker.

Or as Peasant said earlier, the people with the phone wedged between their ear and their shoulder whilst belting along.

It's preposterous, it goes to show how unbalanced the justice system is in this country, the murderers and rapists get a marginally longer sentence for crimes they actually committed, versus the driver breaks the speed limit but doesn't actually cause any damage.

By the rational of some of the people on here, the 90% of drivers on the M50 who disobey the ludicrous 60Kmph signs along some of the completed sections of the M50 where they just haven't bothered removing the work in progress speed limits should be jailed too as they usually doing around 100 Kmph in a 60 zone.

Seriously, by all means, points, fines whatever but a jail sentence, particularly with the amount of repeat offending scumbags out there roaming the streets causing misery to others on a daily basis that can't be jailed because there isn't enough room in the prisons, some people really need to get a grip and differentiate between irresponsible behaviour and proper criminal behaviour.

TheNog

Only if the speed causes an accident.

First off I voted no they shouldnt have received prison sentences. The hefty fine and ban was enough.

Saab Ed wrote: »

The original question refers to the case of someone doing 200 in a 120 zone. No accident, no death , nothing. Stop thinking what might have happened. Its what did happen that counts.

There was no accident and no injuries or death but what did happen is two of the drivers we can safely say were absolutely reckless in their driving.

ninty9er wrote: »

The same as it would be if it happened at the speed limit and dangerous driving was proven.

Again dangerous driving was proven which was the speed involved.

peasant wrote: »

Wrong again ...both judges were miles off reality in their judgements and both of them dispensed their own personal, warped "opinion" instead of justice

Not warped opinions, just their own opinions on each case as was presented to them. Very different outcomes which does show we need consistancy across the Judicial system.

ogre357 wrote: »

Wouldn't the country be better off if the guards targeted real criminals rather than clogging up the court and prison system with soft targets? Speed traps should only be outside schools etc not on motorways which are statistically safer

Stupid and off topic post tbh.

ninty9er wrote: »

It would be required to prove in a courtroom that it is insensible to drive at 200 km/h on the M7.

There is an argument to say that it is, but it is also possible to logically argue that it isn't.

I believe it is the general consensus here that out motorways are built for safe speeds of up to 160kph, not 200kph.

Overature wrote: »

The guy who was driving at 200K/h obvously needed to drive at that speed, he was proberly late for something or had just bought a new car and wanted to open it up and see what it could do. Both very reasonable excuses that the gaurds should have listened to, if nobody was hurt then he should not get into trouble. Simple as

Reasonable? Are you serious? I stopped a fella driving a 99 Astra doing 180kph and he had his newborn baby in the backseat. Would you consider that reasonable?

Tragedy

Only if the speed causes an accident.

The most dangerous and distracting thing I've personally encountered while driving is: Fiddling with the radio.

I deliberately bought a car with steering wheel controls so I can listen to music without endangering myself or others by having to take my eyes/concentration away from the road

peasant

Only if the speed causes an accident.

copacetic wrote: »

it's laughable to call for 'rational' detabe after that post and the rest of your posts on this thread.:rolleyes:

prey tell ...why?

Just because your definition of "rational" includes jail sentences for speeding and mine doesn't?

If that was indeed "rational" than most of the offences in my list should also carry a jail sentence.

Just to get this clear: I'm all for proper policing of driving offences. I'm even more in favour of proper policing of dangerous driving. After all I see more than enough of that on a daily basis just driving along.

But jailing those which are easiest to catch (speeders) while letting countless others get away with all sorts of muppetry certainly isn't the solution.

Wertz

When compared with the thread on here last week about a bike rider being killed by someone accused of careless driving and then the guilty party walking away with a fine, imprisoning people for excessive speeding (and it is excessive, I make no bones about it) is unbalanced. Revoking licenses for periods relating to the excess would be somewhat more realistic and would still present a deterrent above and beyond the points ssytem...given the effect loosing a license can have on employment and social opportunity, it's as good as custody without adding to the dsiabilty a jail sentence inevitably brings...

LookBehindYou

Only if the speed causes an accident.

MagicMarker wrote: »

You might want to look up ''criminals'' in the dictionary.

Oh, you are a very technical minded person ? What is your point ?

I am not looking to get in to a slagging match, i am giving my point of view on the topic.
its nice to see the different ways of thinking.

MagicMarker

LookBehindYou wrote: »

Oh, you are a very technical minded person ? What is your point ?

I am not looking to get in to a slagging match, i am giving my point of view on the topic.
its nice to see the different ways of thinking.

If we only threw in jail the ''real'' criminals then society would gradually turn to shoite, that's my point.

NewDubliner

No.

Saab Ed wrote: »

Which again is exactly the point. 200 in an 120 zone is 40% over the limit. 100 in a 50 zone is 100% over the limit. The likely hood of an accident happening increases doing 200kmh thats for sure but the point is no accident happened. .... If I park outside said bank with a perfectly legal shotgun in the boot of my car should I go to prison because I might have robbed the bank? The answer is no. This guy broke the speed limit by 40% and you want to send him to prison...forget about 200kmh and look at the offence.

Indeed. The driver just decided "Hey, I'm going to ignore the law and do what I want."

A young Dublin man who terrified staff and patrons at a pub with a gun because he was refused entry has been sentenced to nine years in jail with two suspended. Conor Beacom of Kilmahuddrick Lawns, Bawnogue, Clondalkin, told Gardai he just wanted to frighten the doorman when he returned to The Swallow Pub in Clondalkin in November 2007. He was armed with an unloaded sawn-off shotgun. Beacom, who was on bail for an assault at the time, pleaded guilty to both possession of a firearm and two assaults at the pub.

Now the shotgun was unloaded, so there was no chance of anyone actually getting shot. So maybe he should have gotten off with a fine?

LookBehindYou

Only if the speed causes an accident.

MagicMarker wrote: »

If we only threw in jail the ''real'' criminals then society would gradually turn to shoite, that's my point.

I am all for throwing the real criminals in to prison,, but i dont see the logic of the second part of your statement

Victor_M

Only if the speed causes an accident.

NewDubliner wrote: »

Indeed. The driver just decided "Hey, I'm going to ignore the law and do what I want."

Now the shotgun was unloaded, so there was no chance of anyone actually getting shot. So maybe he should have gotten off with a fine?

Ludicrous sensationalist example/comparison.

Mena

I'm refraining from voting on this. The options are too sparse.

For one, 200Kph on a quite motorway is in now way dangerous all things being equal. However, doing 70Kph in a 50 or 60Kph zone where there are kids running about could be tantamount to murder if things go awry.

The case in point is ridiculous. No way should jail sentences have been handed out, and I think on appeal (can they appeal?) it will be dropped rather quickly.

Omcd

Saab Ed wrote: »

Following on from another Thread here Im asking the question " Do people think a prison sentence should be imposed on someone for speeding ? " The offence here is someone doing 200kmh in a 120kmh zone and they've just been landed with a 3 months prison sentence. My own opinion for what its worth is that 200 kmh is 80kmh above the limit and by our laws that is far in excess of what should be tolerated. IMO a very very large fine should be imposed. BUT it still has to be said that nobody was hurt, nobody was killed, no accident happened and it all ended on the side of the road in a hail of blue flashing lights. Yes of course it could have went very wrong but it didnt. You dont get 3 months in prison for leaving a bottle of petrol on the path but you probably would if some child drank it and died.

That's the point in the prison sentence is it not ? So, do we use our judical system to make the roads a safer place, or just for mopping up after the occassions where it has gone horribly wrong ? For wildly excessive speeds I think its appropriate.

It's not what speed a road can take that's the issue in my mind, it's the speed differential with other road users that I would see as the issue.

Example, motorways are not always straight, they have curves, and if you're hairing along at 200k, and joe average Irish driver ahead is in the process of changing into your lane ahead on a shallow curve at 80/100k cos he has met slower traffic and thinks he can see enough road to be clear behind him to legislate for anyone coming up at any reasonable speed, and then as he moves you suddenly appear like a rocket, still a good bit back, but with a 100 - 120 k speed advantage...

and also of course you have the possibility of joe average muppet who comes onto the M50, sees a gap across three lanes of traffic and launches his car through it, and meets you coming along in the outside lane at 200ks, he hasn't seen you coming as he could not see far enough back down the road as he making his way across the traffic and he's counting on it all going at more or less the same speed, - now this would be two muppets sowing the seeds of their own misfortune, but after a 200k impact a one and half tonne ball of flying metal can travel a great distance and take out numerous other vehicles in the process (not to mention the pile up risk afterwards) - I've seen the mess left by a car going out of control at (allegedly) 100mph, 200 yards of flattened street furniture, railings, busstops, lamp posts, traffic lights, etc, it was like a bomb blast scene from the TV, and while that wasn't on a motorway, if it had have been on a motorway there is the likehood it could have flown over the central reservation into the oncoming carraigeway - crash barriers might deflect a skidding car, but maybe not a cartwheeling one.

A car is car, its not a missile. Anyone who treats it as missile in the presence of other road users, no matter what the road, should be jailed IMO. Before some gets killed. Rather than after. It's a bit difficult to jail a corpse.

I blame the current road safely ad that the RSA have got stuck on for the attitude amongst Irish motorists that the authorities case against speeding is flawed. IMO that ad does not present a realistic example situation that is consistant with the message that the ad concludes on. The mistake that driver made in the dramatisation was to react inappropriately to the furry animal running out in front of him, instead of swerving he should have just contined straight over it. Other than that, its not clear to me what he did wrong, the road was straight, when you overtake you generally want to do as fast as you can to minimise time spent on the other side of the road, and on most roads in Ireland there's always a risk a dog/cat/fox/mouse/rabbit/deer/sheep/stag/cow/horse/badger/llama or whatever may run out from nowhere, so what to we do, crawl along at 30kph like grannys all the time in case a dog decides to commit suicide from behind the next gate post, or the next, or the next... ? No where in it can I see the connect between the judges conclusion that the driver was 'clearly going too fast to cope with the circumstances' and the situation portrayed in the dramatisation. And I think this disconnect is fuelling the the disconnect between the habitually stubborn Irish motorist and the RSA road safety campaign. All this ad is is irritating noise - revving engines, screeching tyres and manic screaming - that just wakes you up (every 20 minutes) as you are trying to doze off late in the evening in front of the TV. The RSA should ditch it and come up with something clearer. Or go back to some of the earlier ads - at least they made sense between their dramatisations and their messages. I'm not against road safety ads in general, but I think they've lost their way with this one. It's like a red rag to a bull.

Adam Selene

In that particular ad the lady in the red corolla appears to accellerate when he tries to overtake as well.

NewDubliner

No.

Mena wrote: »

For one, 200Kph on a quite motorway is in now way dangerous all things being equal.

Was the motorway quiet? Was that part of the evidence?

Pointing an unloaded shotgun at people is not as dangerous as driving at 200kph, the former gets you 9 years, the latter, much less.

TheNog

Only if the speed causes an accident.

NewDubliner wrote: »

Was the motorway quiet? Was that part of the evidence?

Part of the case to prove for dangerous driving is members of the public/other road users would have to be present so in essence all three drivers would have had to have overtaken other vehicles.

If there wasnt anyone else on the motorway then a dangerous driving charge could not have been prefered

Omcd

IMO at those speeds doesnt matter if the motorway is quiet or not, if you lose control on a curve you could cartwheel over the other side and hit something coming the other way, who you probably would not have known was coming the other way anyway (because of your speed and the curve etc) - the motorway might be quiet, but you still pose a risk to anyone on either side

Mena

NewDubliner wrote: »

Was the motorway quiet? Was that part of the evidence?

Pointing an unloaded shotgun at people is not as dangerous as driving at 200kph, the former gets you 9 years, the latter, much less.

Logical fallacies won't further your argument.

Having driven that stretch of motorway many times at similar times to the incident in question, I could argue that it probably was pretty quiet.

NewDubliner

No.

Mena wrote: »

Logical fallacies won't further your argument.

Where's the logical fallacy?

Mena wrote: »

I could argue that it probably was pretty quiet.

'probably pretty quiet' - this is quite vague. If you're into logic/facts, how do you factor these in?

trad

No.

Has anyone on here been at the scene of an accident where excessive speed was involved? Well I have and it isn't pretty. Perhaps if some of you speed freaks were to go to the scene of high speed accidents and see the carnage they cause you might just reconsider your opinions. Try looking into a car and trying to decide if it's boiled rice or brain matter you are looking at.

IMG_0256.jpg

This is a photo of an accident I came upon on an Irish motorway. Unusual in that it was a head on collision where one driver came on an off ramp. You can asume the closing speed to be in the region of 200km/h. One driver survived, the other didn't. The damage and loss of life would be simular in a one car accident where, on an Irish motorway, you stand a very good chance of hitting a lampost or other pole if you leave the road.

Spare a thought for those in the emergency services who will have to extract your remains from what's left of your car and have the unenvieable task of telling next of kin that their loved one is on a cold slab.

Tragedy

Only if the speed causes an accident.

trad wrote: »

Has anyone on here been at the scene of an accident where excessive speed was involved? Well I have and it isn't pretty. Perhaps if some of you speed freaks were to go to the scene of high speed accidents and see the carnage they cause you might just reconsider your opinions. Try looking into a car and trying to decide if it's boiled rice or brain matter you are looking at.

IMG_0256.jpg

This is a photo of an accident I came upon on an Irish motorway. Unusual in that it was a head on collision where one driver came on an off ramp. You can asume the closing speed to be in the region of 200km/h. One driver survived, the other didn't. The damage and loss of life would be simular in a one car accident where, on an Irish motorway, you stand a very good chance of hitting a lampost or other pole if you leave the road.

Spare a thought for those in the emergency services who will have to extract your remains from what's left of your car and have the unenvieable task of telling next of kin that their loved one is on a cold slab.

Last year over one weekend, there were two crashes down the country which involved children being critically injured and brought to the hospital I work in(Crumlin) while I was working.

Both of them died the same day next week.

Neither accident had anything to do with illegal speeding.

TheNog

Only if the speed causes an accident.

Tragedy wrote: »

Last year over one weekend, there were two crashes down the country which involved children being critically injured and brought to the hospital I work in(Crumlin) while I was working.

Both of them died the same day next week.

Neither accident had anything to do with illegal speeding.

And that proves what? Absolutely nothing except the kids passed away where speed was not concerned.

NewDubliner

No.

Tragedy wrote: »

Neither accident had anything to do with illegal speeding.

Interesting choice of words.

Do you just mean that the drivers were not exceeding the posted speed limit?

Tragedy

Only if the speed causes an accident.

TheNog wrote: »

And that proves what? Absolutely nothing except the kids passed away where speed was not concerned.

That trads post is yet more emotive bull****, that in a modern society should be disregarded as both illogical and immoral.

He talks about excessive speed but never elaborates on what it is, and then goes into accidents and brain matter and hitting lamp posts.
What logical relevance does that have to anything?

My sister slipped climbing a metal fence once and the top of the fence went up through her chin into her mouth, it was horrible to see and to spare people seeing that all fences that might cause some harm to someone, anywhere, should be banned to save people from seeing that.

It's ridiculous and borderline offensive to use arguments like that.

NewDubliner, I mean that in both speed was not what caused the accidents. Bad driving in one and one very drunk person in the other.

NewDubliner

No.

Tragedy wrote: »

NewDubliner, I mean that in both speed was not what caused the accidents. Bad driving in one and one very drunk person in the other.

Was speed a factor in the severity of the injuries?

Tragedy

Only if the speed causes an accident.

NewDubliner wrote: »

Was speed a factor in the severity of the injuries?

Any speed over 0km/h is a factor in the severity of someones injuries. Including when someones walking and trips.

Should walking be banned?

NewDubliner

No.

Tragedy wrote: »

Any speed over 0km/h is a factor in the severity of someones injuries. Including when someones walking and trips. Should walking be banned?

Any speed that is dangerous is also illegal.

Why introduce an irrelevant anecdote?

TheNog

Only if the speed causes an accident.

Tragedy wrote: »

That trads post is yet more emotive bull****, that in a modern society should be disregarded as both illogical and immoral.

He talks about excessive speed but never elaborates on what it is, and then goes into accidents and brain matter and hitting lamp posts.
What logical relevance does that have to anything?

Yes and he has a point because thats what happens to the human body which is subjected to at traffic collisions where speed is suspected or at the very least a contributory factor.

I get the impression you feel that "Ah sure it was that persons time to die" as opposed to what it should be "how could this be prevented"

My sister slipped climbing a metal fence once and the top of the fence went up through her chin into her mouth, it was horrible to see and to spare people seeing that all fences that might cause some harm to someone, anywhere, should be banned to save people from seeing that.

It's ridiculous and borderline offensive to use arguments like that.

Your sister was involved in an accident. Accidents rarely occur on our roads because accidents occur where no one is at fault.

trad

No.

Tragedy, we are all entitled to our opinions, I've given mine and you yours. In the British House of Commons during a debate on the compulsary wearing of seatbelt Clement Freud MP spoke against the motion agrueing "that we all have the right to decide how we die".

If you are going to drive at excessively high speeds on poorly designed Irish motorways you are going to come a cropper sooner or later. If you want to drive on roads with no limits Germany has superb motorways designed specifically to handel high speeds. There's a stretch of the M50 between Junction 12 and 17 where there were 2 fatal accidents where cars left the road and one hit a lamp post and the other hit a fence. Irish motorways are not designed for high speeds, the ultimate deterant is death.

Saab Ed

trad wrote: »

In the British House of Commons during a debate on the compulsary wearing of seatbelt Clement Freud MP spoke against the motion agrueing "that we all have the right to decide how we die"

If you are going to drive at excessively high speeds on poorly designed Irish motorways you are going to come a cropper sooner or later

Yeah but nobody goes to jail for not wearing a seat belt

Omcd

Tragedy wrote: »

That trads post is yet more emotive bull****, that in a modern society should be disregarded as both illogical and immoral.

He talks about excessive speed but never elaborates on what it is, and then goes into accidents and brain matter and hitting lamp posts.
What logical relevance does that have to anything?

My sister slipped climbing a metal fence once and the top of the fence went up through her chin into her mouth, it was horrible to see and to spare people seeing that all fences that might cause some harm to someone, anywhere, should be banned to save people from seeing that.

It's ridiculous and borderline offensive to use arguments like that.

NewDubliner, I mean that in both speed was not what caused the accidents. Bad driving in one and one very drunk person in the other.

Whether or not speed has caused which accident or whichever other accident is largely down to opinion. In contrast, what happens when an accident occurs where speed is involved is fact. Whatever about the impact on yourself, the faster you are going when you have an accident, the more likely it is that others will be caught up in it. A car rarely stops dead on the spot when it hits something at high speed.

Omcd

Saab Ed wrote: »

Yeah but nobody goes to jail for not wearing a seat belt

Probably because not wearing a seatbelt doesn't have the potential impact on others that speeding does.

Saab Ed

Omcd wrote: »

Probably because not wearing a seatbelt doesn't have the potential impact on others that speeding does.

Like flying forward from a back seat into the front of the car at say a 50kmh impact and lumping every passenger in the car with a headbutt killing everybody but yourself. If speeding and nothing else gets you jail for 3 months ( as I said in this case way in excess of the limit and IMO not on ) then why should not wearing a seatbelt be exempt from this line of thought. Infact by not wearing a seatbelt you might end up killing more people depending on the variables. Im telling you its the 200 in the sentence that has everybody up in arms.

Omcd

Saab Ed wrote: »

Like flying forward from a back seat into the front of the car at say a 50kmh impact and lumping every passenger in the car with a headbutt killing everybody but yourself. If speeding and nothing else gets you jail for 3 months ( as I said in this case way in excess of the limit and IMO not on ) then why should not wearing a seatbelt be exempt from this line of thought. Infact by not wearing a seatbelt you might end up killing more people depending on the variables. Im telling you its the 200 in the sentence that has everybody up in arms.

If you go out of control at 200kmh (because of hitting something, blowout, or just sheer stupidity) how many other cars, buses, etc might you hit before you come to a stop ? What about the occupants in them ? In addition to the occupants in your vehicle. There's more potential to kill a greater number of people through crashing at speed than with not wearing a seatbelt. If you crash at 5 mph, it won't make a difference whether or not a seatbelt is worn as people are probably not going to be killed (unless you've hit someone having a snooze in the road). If you crash at 200ks it probably also wont make a difference if a seatbelt is worn or not...for a different reason, ie speed.

Of course its the 200 in the sentence that has everyone up in arms. Because its so much greater than the speed that motorists are legally limited to, and as I've said before, in practise on Irish roads the resulting speed differential with other road users is a problem, not to mention the fact that 200k is not a good speed to be going if you encounter a problem. I do think, up to a certain speed over the limit, fines, points, and/or bans would suffice, and over that, jail, and that is the way the system is being enforced.

TheNog

Only if the speed causes an accident.

Saab Ed wrote: »

Im telling you its the 200 in the sentence that has everybody up in arms.

According to the poll there is only 20% of the posters who agree with the jail time. Hardly a "everybody up in arms" type of situation.

What has been questioned is whether 200kph is excessive or not.

trad

No.

Saab Ed wrote: »

Yeah but nobody goes to jail for not wearing a seat belt

You are right, but the graveyards are full of them.

highjinx28

It would definitely be a deterrent for some but are there simply arent enough cops out there enforcing the torrent of new laws that are being signed in every year as it is. The fear of getting caught simply does not exist.

ninty9er

Only if the speed causes an accident.

SoupyNorman wrote: »

Have you ever heard of the reasonable man?

Heard of him yes...met him...hmmm: nope!

NewDubliner wrote: »

Any speed that is dangerous is also illegal.

Correlation/causation fallacy there.

trad wrote: »

Tragedy, we are all entitled to our opinions, I've given mine and you yours. In the British House of Commons during a debate on the compulsary wearing of seatbelt Clement Freud MP spoke against the motion agrueing "that we all have the right to decide how we die".

If you are going to drive at excessively high speeds on poorly designed Irish motorways you are going to come a cropper sooner or later. If you want to drive on roads with no limits Germany has superb motorways designed specifically to handel high speeds. There's a stretch of the M50 between Junction 12 and 17 where there were 2 fatal accidents where cars left the road and one hit a lamp post and the other hit a fence. Irish motorways are not designed for high speeds, the ultimate deterant is death.

How did you come to that conclusion?

UhOh

f**kig ridiculous. Personally I'd rather see every drunk driver put in jail.

Total waste of a prison space that the tax payer has to shell out for. If I'm going to contribute taxes to putting people in prison it should be all those a**hole bankers that have flushed the country dwon the jacks rather than someone doing 200km/h

trad

No.

ninty9er, I have come to that conclusion based on my observations of Irish motorways from a safety point of view. Here are a few examples.

Where the motorway is lit there are unprotected lamposts, by that I mean if you leave the motorway to the left you stand a very good chance of hitting a lampost at speed, often with fatal consequences. In some instances there are concrete walls behind the lamposts which will guide you into the next one if you happen to miss one (M50S between J14 & 15) yet all motorway bridges are protected by armco barriers

Some on ramps have speed limits of 50 km/h at the end of which you are expected to join the flow of traffic at motorway speed.

No two ramps are the same length so it is difficult to get your speed right when joining motorway traffic.

Some off ramps have a tee junction at the end of a short off ramp M11 exit for Bray.

Barriers that are subject to an impact are not replaced immediately.

Omcd

trad wrote: »

ninty9er, I have come to that conclusion based on my observations of Irish motorways from a safety point of view. Here are a few examples.

Where the motorway is lit there are unprotected lamposts, by that I mean if you leave the motorway to the left you stand a very good chance of hitting a lampost at speed, often with fatal consequences. In some instances there are concrete walls behind the lamposts which will guide you into the next one if you happen to miss one (M50S between J14 & 15) yet all motorway bridges are protected by armco barriers

Some on ramps have speed limits of 50 km/h at the end of which you are expected to join the flow of traffic at motorway speed.

No two ramps are the same length so it is difficult to get your speed right when joining motorway traffic.

Some off ramps have a tee junction at the end of a short off ramp M11 exit for Bray.

Barriers that are subject to an impact are not replaced immediately.

Irelands motorway system has been slow to adopt crash barriers, but I think the new motorways are being build with adequate barriers. Damaged barrier replacement seems to still take months though.

I think however, driver discipline is the main problem, not the roads themselves, if the accident doesn't happen in the first place then the barrier / no barrier/ lamp post etc is not a problem. This isn't a comment against the barriers being there though, I saw a car almost cut in half by a sign post on the M50 years ago.

TheNog

Only if the speed causes an accident.

Omcd wrote: »

Irelands motorway system has been slow to adopt crash barriers, but I think the new motorways are being build with adequate barriers. Damaged barrier replacement seems to still take months though.

I think however, driver discipline is the main problem, not the roads themselves, if the accident doesn't happen in the first place then the barrier / no barrier/ lamp post etc is not a problem. This isn't a comment against the barriers being there though, I saw a car almost cut in half by a sign post on the M50 years ago.

I saw a car on the M4 that crashed into one of them wired barriers. The roof was sheered off and was recovered on the hard shoulder of the opposite lanes. I dont know how the woman managed it but she kept her head down on the passenger seat.

Saab Ed

Omcd wrote: »

If you go out of control at 200kmh (because of hitting something, blowout, or just sheer stupidity) how many other cars, buses, etc might you hit before you come to a stop ? What about the occupants in them ? In addition to the occupants in your vehicle. There's more potential to kill a greater number of people through crashing at speed than with not wearing a seatbelt. If you crash at 5 mph, it won't make a difference whether or not a seatbelt is worn as people are probably not going to be killed (unless you've hit someone having a snooze in the road). If you crash at 200ks it probably also wont make a difference if a seatbelt is worn or not...for a different reason, ie speed.

Of course its the 200 in the sentence that has everyone up in arms. Because its so much greater than the speed that motorists are legally limited to, and as I've said before, in practise on Irish roads the resulting speed differential with other road users is a problem, not to mention the fact that 200k is not a good speed to be going if you encounter a problem. I do think, up to a certain speed over the limit, fines, points, and/or bans would suffice, and over that, jail, and that is the way the system is being enforced.

Just how many "IF's" did you put in there...... "If you go out of control at 200kmh ", "If you crash at 5 mph" , "If you crash at 200ks it probably also wont make a difference if a seatbelt is worn or not."

Now the point of the original question is not if 200kmh is too fast, the question is should you go to Prison for it. And just so you might get your head around this, the question is not should people go to prison because of what might happen "IF" something went wrong at 200kmh the question is just simply does the punishment fit the crime. By your logic you'll lock alot of people up for what they might do and not what they've actualy done. I dont disagree with you that 200kmh excesive, infact I'd say its down right crazy and IMO totaly un-safe but Prison! Loose your licence for 10 years, huge fine relative to the wealth of the person like in Finland, I dont know but I know its not a good idea to give people who speed a criminal record.

Tragedy

Only if the speed causes an accident.

NewDubliner wrote: »

Any speed that is dangerous is also illegal.

Why introduce an irrelevant anecdote?

Any speed is dangerous, whether legal or illegal. Whats your point exactly?

If a tyre blowout happens at 60km/h on an N road, that can be deadly. It's still perfectly legal. Likewise, you can be doing 100km/h on a motorway and an idiot driver ploughs into you. Your speed is dangerous, but it isn't illegal.

What kind of weird logic are you trying to use?

TheNog wrote:

Yes and he has a point because thats what happens to the human body which is subjected to at traffic collisions where speed is suspected or at the very least a contributory factor.

I get the impression you feel that "Ah sure it was that persons time to die" as opposed to what it should be "how could this be prevented"

He doesn't have a point, because by his logic, any speed whatsoever is a contributary factor to injuries. It is, but it's not necessarily a contributary factor to accidents. Hence why Motorways the world over are statistically proven again and again to be the safest roads, despite having the highest speed limits.

I was pootling along on the M7 just before Naas doing 120km/h two weekends ago late at night when I saw a car rapidly approaching in the rear view. It was an 09 5 series doing about 170-180km/h. I saw another set of lights rapidly approaching behind me, when I spotted it was an 07 Red Mondeo I fecking prayed that it was an unmarked Garda car.
It was, and when I saw the Beemer pulled in ahead it literally made my day.

I still don't think he should go to Prison or get a 4 year ban though.

Your sister was involved in an accident. Accidents rarely occur on our roads because accidents occur where no one is at fault.

Accidents occur all the time, look at the case of the killed motorcyclist and the driver who got handed a €1,000 fine.

Trad wrote:

If you are going to drive at excessively high speeds on poorly designed Irish motorways you are going to come a cropper sooner or later. If you want to drive on roads with no limits Germany has superb motorways designed specifically to handel high speeds. There's a stretch of the M50 between Junction 12 and 17 where there were 2 fatal accidents where cars left the road and one hit a lamp post and the other hit a fence. Irish motorways are not designed for high speeds, the ultimate deterant is death.

Most Irish motorway is of a high standard, except for lacking ArmCo barriers in certain places. Driving 400miles in England last weekend showed the major difference between irish and english motorways was simply drivers using the overtaking lane properly.

Also, they have sensible speedlimits on roadworks which are enforced by average speed cameras - a brilliant idea.

OMCD wrote:

Whether or not speed has caused which accident or whichever other accident is largely down to opinion. In contrast, what happens when an accident occurs where speed is involved is fact. Whatever about the impact on yourself, the faster you are going when you have an accident, the more likely it is that others will be caught up in it. A car rarely stops dead on the spot when it hits something at high speed.

It's actually ridiculously rare to have multi-car crashes in ireland. Can you think of many this year? Find news stories to them? Because I could link you to 50 news stories on RTE to single vehicle collisions, or head on collisions from this year alone. How many stories of a car going out of control over the limit and hitting multiple vehicles/objects?
Go on, I dare ya

SV

NewDubliner wrote: »

Any speed that is dangerous is also illegal.

Why introduce an irrelevant anecdote?

How do you know when the speed is dangerous?
When it goes past some magical number?

Voodoomelon

I'll prepare for a slamming here, but 2 points and eur80.00 fine is punishment enough I think.
He was taking the piss in an Astra, but any powerful car can hit 200kph and come back down to 120kph in surprisingly little time. I agree that the big 2 0 0 figure is making people think this guy is a murderer and a rapist.

TheNog

Only if the speed causes an accident.

Tragedy wrote: »

He doesn't have a point, because by his logic, any speed whatsoever is a contributary factor to injuries. It is, but it's not necessarily a contributary factor to accidents. Hence why Motorways the world over are statistically proven again and again to be the safest roads, despite having the highest speed limits.

Can you explain the text I have in Italics cos to me its contradictory

I was pootling along on the M7 just before Naas doing 120km/h two weekends ago late at night when I saw a car rapidly approaching in the rear view. It was an 09 5 series doing about 170-180km/h. I saw another set of lights rapidly approaching behind me, when I spotted it was an 07 Red Mondeo I fecking prayed that it was an unmarked Garda car.
It was, and when I saw the Beemer pulled in ahead it literally made my day.

I still don't think he should go to Prison or get a 4 year ban though.

+1. I never said I agreed with the prison sentence, I said the opposite