Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Should A Jail Sentence Be Imposed On Someone For Speeding?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
You're the person using on/off logic. Re-read what you posted. How is that reasoned? How is it logic? How is it anything but black and white?
TheNog, I don't agree with many of your views but at least you put them across in a coherent manner. You believe the laws as set are a reasonable compromise between going faster, and being safer and it's up to every individual to adhere to them as best as possible.
(I actually agree with you on the last part, I just disagree with the punishment in some cases).
However, OMCD is arguing that if even one accident has happened because of a certain type of driving or speeding(whether illegal or legal), it should be banned in case it happens again.
That isn't rational, logical or coherent. It's the frenzied typing of someone who would fit in perfectly with Reverend Lovejoy's wife in The Simpsons screeching "Won't somebody please think of the children??"
It's sensationalist nonsense.
Oh wow, take snippets out of their context and make up a storey, why dont you.
I'll try again, one last time, seeing as how you obviously cant see or deduce my point with the short version.
The accident I quoted in my example, which you failed to requote in your slagging above, I would hope any reasonable person would think things like it should not happen, and steps should be taken to prevent it happening again, which would include deterrance of the behaviour (in part, speeding) that lead to it and its severity . The debate if I recall correctly was about how severe that deterrance should be (ie prison/not prison specifically) The debate to assess how severe penalties should be in order to provide an adequate amount of deterrance has to be a least partly based at some point on the potential consequences of such behaviour. Lets be clear and put my remarks back into the context from which you have pulled them. The 'certain type of driving' we are talking about here is very excessive speeding legally constituting dangerous driving. It is the 'legally constituting dangerous driving bit' that got these folk their sentences. One fatal accident where someone was behaving in this manner
is enough for most people not to want it to happen again, because it's avoidable, people dont have to drive at 200km/h.
Tragedy, it was you, not me, who started on the accident frequency as an arguement in this debate, and while there is certain validity in including an assessment of accident rate in the assessment of risk as one of the criteria on which to base assessment of the severity of penalties required to provide an adequate deterrance of the debated behaviour, I dont agree with your implied assertion that, just because an accident of the nature we were discussing happens very rarely, then appyling harsh penalties to deter behaviour (remember we are discussing unnecessarily high speed constituting dangerous driving) which increases the risk of such an accident happening is invalid, and that the low frequency of occurances of accidents of such nature invalidates debate on the potential consequences of such accidents should they occur. But, since this aspect of the debate is obviously something you have strong opinions on, let me ask you a specific question - how much of a body count do reckon there should be before the debated type of behaviour should be taken seriously (by seriously I mean preventative deterrance by jail) ?
There is a strong argument in the debate here that the fact the people we are discussing didnt have an accident and/or kill someone means that they should be let off relatively lightly. My opinion is that that should be neither here nor there to the severity of the baseline for penalties imposed for the behaviour we are debating. Had any of these people had had an accident at, or close to 200 kmh, then it's entirely possible (but of course not certain - careful phrasing to avoid offending someone) that rather than appearing before a judge, they would instead have been appearing before an undertaker, with very little to say for themselves (and I wont say it's not beyond the bounds of possibility they might have had some company as I suspect it'll not go down well with someone).
FYI, I am of the opinion jail (for a few months, no point IMO in long term unless they have killed someone) is not the only ultimate deterrant that could be imposed. As an alternative, I would see a very long, up to life time, ban (depending on excessiveness of behaviour and/or repeat offending) on driving as maybe even a stronger and more effective deterrance, but that also has a very severe impact on ones livelihood. Maybe offenders should have a choice, jail or very long up to lifetime ban. I think these three individuals who are the subjects of this debate were dealt with harshly as they had jail, fines and bans thrown at them, and with no precident (that I'm aware of) to give them an inkling that this was likely to happen - I'm sure it came as quite a shock to them. Specifically I think the fines in addition to jail time was harsh.
Tragedy, you say it's actually ridiculously rare to have multi-car crashes in Ireland. I'll respond to that in that exact context, not in the context of someone doing 200kmh or in the evasive context of crashes that happened this year. It happens. Often just don't get reported unless someone is killed, even then it could be a minor storey that few people spot. I saw a pile up on the new Naas Road involving around 12 - 15 vehicles, some of them very badly damaged, to the best of knowledge that wasn't reported. What about the pile up on the M7/M9 a couple of Summers back (which was extensively reported) ? How many cars and trucks were involved in that ? I might have been too only I'd driven that route the evening before and was scared by the insane speeds people were doing blindly in that thick fog, so I decided to take a different route that morning. Also, that pile up on the M50 involving the army trucks ?
Awww.. Tragedy, I see you've dragged poor ould Mrs Reverand Lovejoy into this:( What did she do to deserve that ? I'm thinking someone needs to try stay away from the telly more often or they'll start going yellow - like this little chap -> :pac:
0 -
-
I didn't take snippets out of their context, I took parts of your posts, put them in order, and showed them back to back.
It's a pity you didn't take the time to word your posts as you did the last one, but too little too late.
I would argue that one death isn;t enough. One death could be a freak accident, one death could be down to anything.
Identify the risk, assess it, make a decision on it, implement new laws/regulations and monitor it.
That's risk management world wide, applied to as varied situations as public health or financial trading.
You argue for simply identifying what could happen, banning it and punishing people as harshly as possible.
There's no give and take, no room for change.
People here should be able to read between the lines with regards to the context of the issues being discussed, without it being necessary for posters to write essays to put across rather elementary points.
Snippets / parts - and the difference ?
And no, if you had taken the time to carefully digest the post I took the time to very carefully write, you would see that I am argueing to the effect that identifying what could happen is one of the criteria to be assessed when assessing the harshness of an appropriate deterrent policy. One that I think is important, as I guess you have gathered by now. Another major factor influencing my opinion, as I have alluded to in previous posts, is the clearly voluntary nature of the committing of the behaviour concerned, the speeds are way too high for it to be considered as unintentional, and therefore its not the same thing as committing dangerous driving through a momentary lapse of concentration or judgement.
But all three books (jail, fine, ban) should not have been thrown at the three particular drivers we are discussing - that was too harsh in my opinion.
As I've also said before, I think drivers who have been convicted of these offences should also have to undergo driver education in order to be let back on the roads (after the deterrant part of their punishments have be played out)
I agree with you though, it is all about assessment and risk management. An authorised and trained driver, such as police driver, could do those speeds and it would be deemed as ok, so long as the driver was following the guidelines of their training and valid reasons for doing so - there's also a risk the trained driver may crash, but the risk is not deemed to be as much as that which is involved with an untrained casual driver doing those speeds.
Your example of risk management as applied to financial trading is a glaringly unfortunate one given what has happened and is happening in the financial world - resulting from certain financial organisations failing to assess and adequately legislate for the potential consequences of their risks - its not only the financial institutions that are paying the consequences of that, we all are, joe public et al
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
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.
Speeding at 80 kms/hr is not just speeding its also dangerous driving too so yes one should go to jail0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Yes an people in India cling onto the trains over there. Thats about as relevant as your post above.
Lets talk about driving at 200kph in Ireland instead, yeah?
my bad, Nog. Only noticed that you said "our public roads".
However, there's a fair few roads in Ireland that could handel them kind of speeds methinks.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Just a bit of maths but it seems to be 60%(3/5) over speed limit if my percentages in school was worth anythingWhich 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. On the other hand 2 cars hitting each other a 120kmh is going to end in pain anyway. 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.
And crashing your vehicle at 100km/h is one thing but at twice that speed, il leave you to imagine...0
Advertisement