Check point on M1 this afternoon.

moxin

Alias G wrote: »

So there is no relationship between the speed of a collision and the survival rate of those involved?

As you say that "speed has proven time and again to be the most catastrophic factor in road deaths.", should the speed limit on the M1 be reduced to perhaps 60kmh instead?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Alias G

visual wrote: »

In the last 3 months two houses a few doors from me, both robbed with the owners being woken up one was threatened with a knive as they demmanded car keys. Its fine have a motor tax check point at bottom of road weekly but not much use unless your stolen car has no tax to draw attention of garda.

A friend who lives in a small rural town last in last couple of months 7 houses where broken into.

Thats real crime happening every day to real people because its not on the news or captured in someones selective statistics. Its more than enough for me to realise a motor tax check isnt my biggest concern.

Anecdotel

mitosis

visual wrote: »

In the last 3 months two houses a few doors from me, both robbed with the owners being woken up one was threatened with a knive as they demmanded car keys. Its fine have a motor tax check point at bottom of road weekly but not much use unless your stolen car has no tax to draw attention of garda.

A friend who lives in a small rural town last in last couple of months 7 houses where broken into.

Thats real crime happening every day to real people because its not on the news or captured in someones selective statistics. Its more than enough for me to realise a motor tax check isnt my biggest concern.

Is that a no, then? You can't support your statement?

Alias G

moxin wrote: »

As you say that "speed has proven time and again to be the most catastrophic factor in road deaths.", should the speed limit on the M1 be reduced to perhaps 60kmh instead?

No because it can obviously handle higher speeds safely That being said, in the event of an accident , the extent of any injuries will depend on the speed of the vehicles in question.

moxin

Alias G wrote: »

No because it can obviously handle higher speeds safely That being said, in the event of an accident , the extent of any injuries will depend on the speed of the vehicles in question.

As we know the M1 has an extremely low fatality rate, the Gardai disagree with you about the safety aspect by targeting the M1 with this checkpoint. I agree with you that the checkpoint had nothing to do with safety at all

From https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151932101528001.1073742003.167613868000&type=1

The main objective of this operation is to increase the awareness of fatal and serious injury road traffic collisions.

Alias G

How does increasing awareness of fatal and serious injuries in road traffic collisions have nothing to do with safety?

If it was only a PR excercise, it was successful one. But since we had a failed breath test then it served more of a function than that.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Alias G

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't think the Gardai have claimed anyone is guilty of anything yet. What are you on about. There was one failed breath test.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Jesus.

Alias G wrote: »

I'm a motorist aren't I. This issue directly effects me.

You sound more like a "concerned citizen" type. I knew you weren't a car guy from the moment you posted on this thread. Your opinions are valid though even if I believe them to be a bit daft.

moxin

Alias G wrote: »

How does increasing awareness of fatal and serious injuries in road traffic collisions have nothing to do with safety?

If it was only a PR excercise, it was successful one. But since we had a failed breath test then it served more of a function than that.

Did you read the post at all? There is no safety issue on the M1, its a safe road.

And yes its simply a PR exercise with the media there holding up about 3000 cars for a couple of hours with zero return(sorry 1 arrest :rolleyes: )

Alias G

moxin wrote: »

Did you read the post at all? There is no safety issue on the M1, its a safe road.

And yes its simply a PR exercise with the media there holding up about 3000 cars for a couple of hours with zero return(sorry 1 arrest :rolleyes: )

Have you read any of my posts. I have explained numerous times why it was a perfectly valid PR exercise. Motorists will travel via other routes to get onto the M1 won't they. It was an operation which processed 200 vehicles in only an hour. Those vehicles didn't spend their entire journeys on the M1 solely. I never claimed the M1 was an unsafe road. The checkpoint is there to detect non-compliant motorists.

Alias G

Jesus. wrote: »

You sound more like a "concerned citizen" type. I knew you weren't a car guy from the moment you posted on this thread. Your opinions are valid though even if I believe them to be a bit daft.

Apologies for not being a "car guy". I can find better uses of my time than defacing my car with spoiler. Enjoy driving around in your penis extension however.

Jesus.

Alias G wrote: »

Apologies for not being a "car guy". I can find better uses of my time than defacing my car with spoiler. Enjoy driving around in your penis extension however.

Fair enough but once again I have to ask, are you sure you're on the right Forum mate?

Alias G

Jesus. wrote: »

Fair enough but once again I have to ask, are you sure you're on the right Forum mate?

If there was a forum specifically for petrol heads, you would have a point, however this forum covers all aspects of motoring.

Jesus.

Alias G wrote: »

If there was a forum specifically for petrol heads, you would have a point, however this forum covers all aspects of motoring.

I think that perhaps you're on a troll. Coming onto a Motor-head forum just to say there should be more Cops with more checkpoints and more tailbacks etc, is suspicious to say the least. This would be the most fertile ground for you to get bites and you've gotten a fair few so far. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

Happy fishing

Alias G

Jesus. wrote: »

I think that perhaps you're on a troll. Coming onto a Motor-head forum just to say there should be more Cops with more checkpoints and more tailbacks etc, is suspicious to say the least. This would be the most fertile ground for you to get bites and you've gotten a fair few so far. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

Happy fishing

If that is your opinion of me then you are simply blinkered. Discussions tend to persist when you have differing views. No trolling in that. Anyway, I'm done replying to you since you haven't contributed to the thread in any way other than to ask me what I'm doing here. Good night and good luck.

Bullseye1

Alias G wrote: »

If everyone was law abiding then it wouldn't have been necessary.

So punish 99% of the population because of the 1% law breakers. How is that efficient use of resources? And what of the loss of business to the other 99 % of road users that morning. Will they be compensated? I think not.

As you yourself have confirmed you have broken the speed limit so your part of that 1% responsible.

RustyNut

Bullseye1 wrote: »

So punish 99% of the population because of the 1% law breakers. How is that efficient use of resources? And what of the loss of business to the other 99 % of road users that morning. Will they be compensated? I think not.

As you yourself have confirmed you have broken the speed limit so your part of that 1% responsible.

Actually it would appear to be 0.5%. 200 checked 1 law breaker.

Alias G

Bullseye1 wrote: »

So punish 99% of the population because of the 1% law breakers. How is that efficient use of resources? And what of the loss of business to the other 99 % of road users that morning. Will they be compensated? I think not.

As you yourself have confirmed you have broken the speed limit so your part of that 1% responsible.

Nobody will be punished for anything except those guilty if an offence. The rest suffered a minor inconvenience at best. I'm sure they will all recover from the trauma of it.

blackwhite

SpaceTime wrote: »

Surely the logical place to do the stop and check would be on the slower moving parts of the road like just before the Dublin Port Tunnel or something like that?

I can't for the life of me understand why they didn't do it at the toll plaza? At least people expect to be slowing down there.

Max001

blackwhite wrote: »

I can't for the life of me understand why they didn't do it at the toll plaza? At least people expect to be slowing down there.

You see, where you're going wrong with your thought process is, you're applying logic and or common sense

Mycroft H

You'd still have traffic backing up the motorway at a toll plaza so you'd have people complaining nevertheless.

R.O.R

Looks like they are setting up for some more PR tonight.

visual

R.O.R wrote: »

Looks like they are setting up for some more PR tonight.

They are hardly going to do another M1 check point or are they ?

challengemaster

visual wrote: »

They are hardly going to do another M1 check point or are they ?

Yup, setting up since an hour ago going by facebook posts

Jesus.

challengemaster wrote: »

Yup, setting up since an hour ago going by facebook posts

Fu*king assholes

TestTransmission

Jesus. wrote: »

Fu*king assholes

There's really no need to refer to the Gardai as assholes.Don't do it again.

veetwin

R.O.R wrote: »

Looks like they are setting up for some more PR tonight.

Thought all the experts:rolleyes: here said that they wouldn't do these check points anymore. I'm confused Ted. Boards experts can't be wrong can they?

Jesus.

TestTransmission wrote: »

There's really no need to refer to the Gardai as assholes.Don't do it again.

Was that a joke?

If so, in future, remember to insert one of those smiley face thingies at the end because otherwise its hard to determine seriousness or sarcasm on a Forum such as this.

As you were

visual

Stopping traffic on motorway isnt going to end well sooner or later it will result in accidents

TestTransmission

Jesus. wrote: »

Was that a joke?

If so, in future, remember to insert one of those smiley face thingies at the end because otherwise its hard to determine seriousness or sarcasm on a Forum such as this.

As you were

Please don't question a moderator instruction on thread.It serves no purpose.

As you were

Jesus.

TestTransmission wrote: »

Please don't question a moderator instruction on thread.It serves no purpose.

As you were

Sorry mate, I didn't know you were a Moderator. My apologies.

R.O.R

visual wrote: »

Stopping traffic on motorway isnt going to end well sooner or later it will result in accidents

Few crappy little roadworks and lane closing signs, in a totally unlit section, sounds like a recipe for disaster to me, but hopefully nothing happens.

Glad I made it through before they started stopping traffic, after a 20 minute delay due to the M50 accident this evening I was in no humour to be held up even further.

The Bishop Basher

Once was bad enough and could be put down to an error of judgement. Twice is insane. Do these people not have the slightest notion about the basic concepts of how a motorway works ????

High volume, fast moving traffic. The MO in most civilised countries is to keep that traffic moving for financial and safety reasons.

These lads come along and stick a ****ing roadblock in the middle ???

Jesus wept.....

tatli_lokma

Hubby just passed through the checkpoint just before the Applegreen northbound. Checking tax, insurance and alcohol levels. Took him ages to get from the airport to exit 6 and most of it in first gear.

bcmf

Yeah I passed them setting up at about 6.30
If they keep doing it the safest road in the country will have the biggest pileup.

MugMugs

Just waiting on the "go out and catch some real criminals" line.

Dammed if you do and Dammed if you don't really.

Jesus.

Shiny Christmas Mugs wrote: »

Just waiting on the "go out and catch some real criminals" line. Dammed if you do and Dammed if you don't really.

Not really. Can't see anyone saying its a good idea to put checkpoints on Motorways

MugMugs

Jesus. wrote: »

Not really. Can't see anyone saying its a good idea to put checkpoints on Motorways

Why not? There's ample warning and if you're driving with any sort of care or attention then it's a non issue. If you're not then you're a fool. Simple really.

Jesus.

Shiny Christmas Mugs wrote: »

Why not? There's ample warning and if you're driving with any sort of care or attention then it's a non issue. If you're not then you're a fool. Simple really.

Correction. There's one person saying its a good idea....

MugMugs

Jesus. wrote: »

Correction. There's one person saying its a good idea....

I'm saying that I'm competent enough to negotiate a full stop on a motorway without shortening my car or somebody else's car by a few feet.

bcmf

Shiny Christmas Mugs wrote: »

Why not? There's ample warning and if you're driving with any sort of care or attention then it's a non issue. If you're not then you're a fool. Simple really.

Yeah but that one fool could destroy dozens of lives.

Jesus.

Shiny Christmas Mugs wrote: »

I'm saying that I'm competent enough to negotiate a full stop on a motorway without shortening my car or somebody else's car by a few feet.

You might be but that still doesn't mean its the safe and proper thing to do.

Besides, they'd catch far more miscreants if they set up on strategic points on regional roads and would hold up people far less.

MugMugs

Jesus. wrote: »

You might be but that still doesn't mean its the safe and proper thing to do.

Besides, they'd catch far more miscreants if they set up on strategic points on regional roads and would hold up people far less.

Would they? I take solace the day after (and I don't drink drive) that I'm safe on a motorway "just in case" I'm clearly not safe on a motorway I travel the length of daily anymore.

mfceiling

Shiny Christmas Mugs wrote: »

I'm saying that I'm competent enough to negotiate a full stop on a motorway without shortening my car or somebody else's car by a few feet.

You're obviously a good driver.....however it only takes 1 not to be paying full attention and then it's serious carnage.

Look what happens when there's an accident on the m50 - invariably there will be an accident on the opposite carriageway due to rubber neckers....it will happen at 1 of these garda checkpoints on a motorway.

MugMugs

So what's the alternative? By that logic any action taken on the motorway will cause havoc. Let people feel safe breaking the law on Motorways forever? If traffic is controlled well enough then there should be no speed. The m1 to the airport is 80km/h. Slow it down well enough and if there are any tools then it'll be low speed collisions and dented Avensis and corolla bumpers and not high speed mouldy drunk fatalities.

Alias G

Alias G wrote: »

They also managed to process 200 vehicles in an hour. Now that is a very good return on the use of their resources.

For the number of Gardai used it really isn't.

moxin

Its easier to set one up on the M1 due to the greater distance between exits than lets say the M50. As we know once there is a slight backlog on the M50, hundreds of cars scramble for the nearest exit to get off it, impossible for the Garda to control that mayhem.

Someone said the M1 checkpoint tonight was at about 6:30pm, I wonder will they set one up at peak hour perhaps 5pm or maybe 8:30am? They would want manners of a saint to deal with an irate public heading home to and from work at that hour especially delaying people going to work.