187kph and only gets fined.

banie01

The system is a bloody joke!
The woman in question doing 187 in a 120, thats in excess of 50% over the speed limit with no sanction other than a fine....
I recently heard of a person who got 3 points and a fine for doing 57kph in a 50kph zone which while outside the margin of error on a speedo means that the person in questions speedo could have been reading fairly close to 50kph and while they were paying attention to their speed they did creep over the limit, yet they get the fine and the points!
While little Miss Limerick, openly admits to having no idea what speed she was doing?
Which surely is grounds for a careless driving or without due care and attention charge, yet she gets commended for her honesty?
How about reprimanding her for her bloody stupidity?
How about pointing out she is legally required to be competent to drive, and if she can't read a speedo to the degree that she exceeds the limit by 50% or follow posted speed limits.
She was not aware of her speed to the degree she exceeded the limit by more than 50% then she plainly is not competent to even hold a license and she admitted as much.

I've long been in favour of a graduated system of penalty points, i.e within 10% of the limit, a 1 point penalty and €80 fine.
Within 15% a 2 point fine and a €160 fine with anything in excess of 20% seeing a court appearance for speeding and possibly careless driving and fine

Barely There

Deleted User wrote: »

That speed on a motorway isn't that big of a deal IMO.

It's a fairly big deal.

Roads are designed to specific 'Design Speeds', in the case of a motorway, this is usually 120km/hr.
The primary factor influencing safety is called the 'stopping sight distance (SSD)'. This is the distance a driver can see in front of them to enable them to stop safely for a hazard in the carriageway. For a 120km/hr motorway this distance is 295m.

For the example in the OP, if you're travelling at that speed, you will not be able to come to a stop in time. If for example she had come upon a tail back of traffic which has come to a stop on the motorway, she would have slammed into the rear of the car in front of her at a considerable speed, likely causing injury to herself and the occupant of the other car - no question.

Mars Bar

That motorway isn't even straight. It's all bends! I wouldn't feel one bit safe doing 180km on that motorway.

bear1

Mars Bar wrote: »

That motorway isn't even straight. It's all bends! I wouldn't feel one bit safe doing 180km on that motorway.

And it has a quite a few crosswinds especially as you get closer to Shannon.

barry181091

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmRkPyuet_o

JustAddWater

VinLieger wrote: »

Clear case of the judge having the hots for her, not knowing your doing 187kph is a garbage excuse and if you don't know your doing that speed you should have your license taken away for sheer ignorance and stupidity at least

Especially as she said she had never been speeding before

But she was honest, right?

bear1

Stupid question here, but seeing as the story is making the rounds and slowly people around the country are realising this. Could the case be reviewed by another judge if enough people kicked up a fuss?

JustAddWater

Mars Bar wrote: »

That motorway isn't even straight. It's all bends! I wouldn't feel one bit safe doing 180km on that motorway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_gutT9Snwg

Barely There

bear1 wrote: »

Stupid question here, but seeing as the story is making the rounds and slowly people around the country are realising this. Could the case be reviewed by another judge if enough people kicked up a fuss?

Why?
I'm sure all the adverse publicly has served as a better deterrent than any penalty points/short-term ban would have.

Unless you think we should pander to the permanently-outraged baying mob brigade.

bear1

Barely There wrote: »

Why?
I'm sure all the adverse publicly has served as a better deterrent than any penalty points/short-term ban would have.

Unless you think we should pander to the permanently-outraged baying mob brigade.

I'm not saying we should, I was merely asking that if the public got angry enough at it would it prompt another review of the case.

Barely There

Barely There wrote: »

It's a fairly big deal.

Roads are designed to specific 'Design Speeds', in the case of a motorway, this is usually 120km/hr.
The primary factor influencing safety is called the 'stopping sight distance (SSD)'. This is the distance a driver can see in front of them to enable them to stop safely for a hazard in the carriageway. For a 120km/hr motorway this distance is 295m.

For the example in the OP, if you're travelling at that speed, you will not be able to come to a stop in time. If for example she had come upon a tail back of traffic which has come to a stop on the motorway, she would have slammed into the rear of the car in front of her at a considerable speed, likely causing injury to herself and the occupant of the other car - no question.

You're a bit wrong as it happens, Irish motorways are actually built to a design speed of 160km/h. They're over-specced for the speed limit. And those design speeds refer to very out of date numbers for stopping distance, modern cars can stop in a much shorter distance than the highway code etc. suggests as well and with ABS etc. they're controllable at medium speeds while braking.

Slot Machine

bear1 wrote: »

I'm not saying we should, I was merely asking that if the public got angry enough at it would it prompt another review of the case.

That would be setting a very dangerous precedent so I doubt it.

Barely There

Deleted User wrote: »

You're a bit wrong as it happens, Irish motorways are actually built to a design speed of 160km/h. They're over-specced for the speed limit. And those design speeds refer to very out of date numbers for stopping distance, modern cars can stop in a much shorter distance than the highway code etc. suggests as well and with ABS etc. they're controllable at medium speeds while braking.

I'm not wrong.
I've been working as a road design engineer for over 15 years, so I'm pretty sure about my facts - thanks anyway.

The highway code has nothing to do with SSD's by the way - they have been calculated based on test data.

There's also no such thing as a 160km/hr Design Speed.

Always amazes/amuses me the conviction with which people can spout nonsense on the old interweb.

RobbieTheRobber

bear1 wrote: »

I'm not saying we should, I was merely asking that if the public got angry enough at it would it prompt another review of the case.

Yes the DPP can appeal against the leniency of a sentence
https://www.dppireland.ie/filestore/documents/Chapter_6_Aspects_of_Sentencing.htm

Slot Machine wrote: »

That would be setting a very dangerous precedent so I doubt it.

How would this set a dangerous precedent?

CiniO

VinLieger wrote: »

Theres speeding by doing 10-20kph over the limit that MAYBE you could get away with saying you didn't know that's how fast you were going, but speeding and doing 67kph over the limit and claiming you didn't know you were going that fast is ****ing ridiculous

What should matter is not amount of km/h over the limit but percentage.
Doing 50km/h in 30km/h zone is as you say speeding by 20km/h but its as well speeding by 66%. Thats a lot imo.
Doing 180km/h on motorway is speeding by 60km/h but its only speeding by 50% so smaller grade offence than former one.

josip

CiniO wrote: »

What should matter is not amount of km/h over the limit but percentage.
Doing 50km/h in 30km/h zone is as you say speeding by 20km/h but its as well speeding by 66%. Thats a lot imo.
Doing 180km/h on motorway is speeding by 60km/h but its only speeding by 50% so smaller grade offence than former one.

How would the percentages cater for

Road surface condition?
Lighting and weather conditions?
Traffic volumes?

and some controversial ones

Car stopping ability?
Driver experience?
Likelihood of driver distraction - eg. number of passsengers

banie01

josip wrote: »

How would the percentages cater for

Road surface condition?
Lighting and weather conditions?
Traffic volumes?

and some controversial ones

Car stopping ability?
Driver experience?
Likelihood of driver distraction - eg. number of passsengers

How does the current one size fits all approach fit those situations?
Exceed the limit currently by 5% or 60% and the sanction is the same regardless of exterior conditions.
With the percentage system the level of sanction can reflect the level of infringement, giving someone 3 points and a fine for 57 in a 50 is frankly ridiculous when if a person does 90 on the same same stretch of road they get the exact same sanction.

homerjay2005

people seem to be more obsessed over her looks than the crime itself.

in fact, the entire story is playing off the fact she won a beauty crown a few years ago. if this was some random dude from moyross or castletroy, it wouldnt have even made it outside the courthouse.

am sure theres dozens of people every day who aint disqualified in similar circumstances.

Barely There

Barely There wrote: »

I'm not wrong.
I've been working as a road design engineer for over 15 years, so I'm pretty sure about my facts - thanks anyway.

Isn't that on the "new" NRA design manual which was published after we built the inter-urbans?

The highway code has nothing to do with SSD's by the way - they have been calculated based on test data.

What test data? From when? What cars? When were design speed specs last updated?

Since you edited your post about there being no 160km/h design speed, what speed are non-speed-limited German Autobahns designed to handle?

Barely There

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn't that on the "new" NRA design manual which was published after we built the inter-urbans?


What test data? From when? What cars? When were design speed specs last updated?

Since you edited your post about there being no 160km/h design speed, what speed are non-speed-limited German Autobahns designed to handle?

Well that's a lot of questions from someone who was confident enough to tell me I was wrong a couple of posts ago.

The NRA Design Manual for Roads and Bridges is continuously updated. TD9 of this manual covers road link design and is available on the internet should you wish to read up more for yourself on the subject.
http://nrastandards.nra.ie/road-design-construction-standards/func-startdown/168



Stopping Sight Distance is not just a function of the car make or model, it's calculated from the sum of the 'Perception Distance' (distance travelled for the time the driver sees the hazard and realises it is necessary to stop), the 'Reaction Distance' (distance travelled during the time taken for the driver to apply the brakes and Braking Distance.
In order to calculate braking Distance a maximum rate of deceleration (without loss of control) is applied.


I have no idea about German Road Design standards, which given we're discussing excessive speed on an Irish Motorway designed to Irish standards doesn't really seem relevant to me anyway.

munchkin_utd

josip wrote: »

Easy to find if one wanted to

http://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/local-news/judge-zaidan-loses-his-cool-over-speeding-1-1937948

for those who dont click on links, heres what 2 folks got for almost identical speeds on a motorway (and turns out it was a few years back rather than last year as I previously said, but nevertheless.....):

at Kildare District Court last Thursday, Ceprail Birgin, 25, of 4 the Willows, Abbeywoods, Clane, was given three months in custody for speeding at 192 km/h on August 31 last. Mr Birgin was not in court.

the previous day Judge Desmond Zaidan said he could not believe his ears when told that on July 27 last at 1.28am in Kill West, Kosovan chef Shaqo Laska was detected driving his black Mercedes car at 190 km/h (on M7).
He jailed the defendant for three months, banned him from driving for four years and fined him E2,000.

foggy_lad

I think she knew exactly how fast she was going and wanted to go even faster because she was late and doesn't get enough hours in a day to deal with her busy schedule! In my court she would have got jail.

tritium

munchkin_utd wrote: »

for those who dont click on links, heres what 2 folks got for almost identical speeds on a motorway (and turns out it was a few years back rather than last year as I previously said, but nevertheless.....):

Ah but you forget the fundamental issue that neither of them were young pretty females.

AnonoBoy

foggy_lad wrote: »

In my court she would have got jail.

Here ye! Here ye! All rise for his right honourable Justice Foggy Lad.

Court is now in session.

Serve to Ms. Speedy McSpeederton.

Advantage Foggy Lad.

New balls please.





I think I've become a bit confused.

gimmick

Not all offences should be custodial or punitive.

I think its good that a pretty girl like her just got a fine. It might entice some of the larger women out there to look after their appearance a bit more.

CiniO

josip wrote: »

How would the percentages cater for

Road surface condition?
Lighting and weather conditions?
Traffic volumes?

and some controversial ones

Car stopping ability?
Driver experience?
Likelihood of driver distraction - eg. number of passsengers

I would love a situation where speed limits would cater for the above.
But in practice it's nearly impossible.
You would need to adjust speed limits not only to road condition and traffic volume (this can be done with electronic signs), but also to driver experience, and his car condition, etc...

Warper

The judge said thanks to her??

what a laugh, it shows how the wealthy are treated compared to everyone else

DEFTLEFTHAND

500 sovs. Mum won't be giving her the merc again.

hullaballoo

This is hilarious.

She was convicted and fined and had the mandatory penalty points applied to her licence. The newspaper leaves those details out just to stir the outrage. Look at the number of you who take the bait!

I mean, someone even posted other cases showing that this is the standard penalty in cases like this. A ban is the maximum penalty.

hullaballoo

Sorry, I meant to say that I am also outraged by the good-looking person.

Faing

Sorry your Honour, I never realised how fast I was going, I was on the phone at the time :-)

kowloon

hullaballoo wrote: »

The newspaper leaves those details out just to stir the outrage. Look at the number of you who take the bait!

I think that's a fair point, but she did get off very lightly. I expect someone less able to play the disney princess would have landed something harsher.

hullaballoo

kowloon wrote: »

I think that's a fair point, but she did get off very lightly. I expect someone less able to play the disney princess would have landed something harsher.

But it's the standard penalty for speeding offences of that kind. She didn't get off lightly. She got the same penalty most people get in that situation.

I genuinely think this is a case of tabloid journalism doing one over people who are probably otherwise well able to think for themselves.

josip

hullaballoo wrote: »

But it's the standard penalty for speeding offences of that kind. She didn't get off lightly. She got the same penalty most people get in that situation.

I genuinely think this is a case of tabloid journalism doing one over people who are probably otherwise well able to think for themselves.

Have you read the earlier posts in this thread?
There are at least 10 examples that show she did NOT got the same penalty as similar people in her situation and DID get off lightly.

Please provide examples to back up your claim.

hullaballoo

cronin_j wrote: »

An absolute joke, only in the paper the previous week there was a write up about a judge convicting people for dangerous driving for speeds less than this in a motorway around limerick.

Billy Jones of Ballinagoul was convicted of careless driving arising from driving at 172kmp in a 120kph zone. The incident took place at 11.25am last March 3 at Cloghacloka, Patrickswell.

• William McCarthy, Shady Nook, Carribane, Carrigtwohill was fined €750, having been clocked driving at 162kph in a 120kph zone on March 3.
• Arturs Stefenbergs, 14 Dun na Rí, Ennis was conivted of careless driving after speeds of 164kph in a 120kph zone on June 19 and fined €750.
• Raymond Ryan, Ballinakill West, Newtown, Charleville was also convicted of careless driving, having been clocked at a speed of 154kph in a 120kph zone last February 4 and fined €650. The judge refused an application by his solicitor John Lynch to reduce the charge.
• Conor McCormack, 47 O’Connell Street Limerick was fined €650 on a speeding charge of driving at 140kph in a 120kph zone last January 22. He was fined a further €300 for having no acertificate of road worthiness.
  
• Krzystof Kudlacik, 124 Glenside, Annacotty was convicted of careless driving while speeding at 169kph in a 120kph zone at Cloghacloka last April 3. He was fined €750.
  
• A Cork driver – Patrick Beechinor, Carhoogariff, Clonakily – was speeding at 161kph in a 120kph zone and was fined €750 when convicted of careless driving last April 6.
• Another Cork driver, George Alastair Durant, of Bannon House, Lee Rd, Carrigbrohane was similarly convicted of careless driving last March 15 when doing 160kph in a 120kph zone.
• “It is very high,” Judge Larkin noted to Mr Durant’s solicitor, Michael O’Donnell, when he pleaded for his client. and she imposed a €650 fined.
• A Newport man responding to a sudden death in the family was clocked at a speed of 159kph in a 120kph zone at Ballybrouge South, Patrickswell last March 23. John Crofton, 20 Mulcaire Manor, Newport was fined €500 on conviction of careless driving.

None of the above were "beauty queens"

josip wrote: »

Have you read the earlier posts in this thread?
There are at least 10 examples that show she did NOT got the same penalty as similar people in her situation and DID get off lightly.

Please provide examples to back up your claim.

This girl was convicted of careless driving, fined €500 and the points automatically apply on conviction. It's the same as those examples above.

Slot Machine

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

How would this set a dangerous precedent?

Because the judicial system should not be at the mercy of rabble-rousing mobs. If someone is found innocent but the injured party finds enough people to kick up a fuss, why should the case be reviewed? Or even some random group of people.

Its whole basis is in impartiality.

Cuddlesworth

hullaballoo wrote: »

This girl was convicted of careless driving, fined €500 and the points automatically apply on conviction. It's the same as those examples above.

Closest example is 15kph off. Usually past 50% of the limit gets the worst penalties.

Galwayguy35

I wonder does the judge drive himself?

No way could someone be doing nearly 190 km/h and not know it.

josip

hullaballoo wrote: »

This girl was convicted of careless driving, fined €500 and the points automatically apply on conviction. It's the same as those examples above.

It is not. Only one incurred the same fine and the rest all got €150 or €250 higher fines even though they were going slower.

2 cases also mentioned in this thread which were doing more similar speeds to her, albeit marginally higher, got custodial sentences.

and there are others

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/judge-driver-must-have-been-in-airborne-vehicle-at-178kmh-268996.html

A judge said that a man driving 178km/h on a motorway must have been driving an "airborne vehicle".
Thomas Donovan, of 29 Crowe St, Gort, Co Galway, narrowly avoided jail yesterday when Judge Patrick Durcan imposed a two-month suspended jail term after hearing details of the speed Mr Donovan was doing in his 131-D registered car on Aug 6 last.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Is it really that terrible? The only time I was ever pulled over for speeding, I was doing 163kph, I got a stern talking to, I was told I wouldn't make it home alive and to slow down. I waited for weeks for penalty points, and got nothing.

What she did doesn't seem much worse

RDM_83 again

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Is it really that terrible? The only time I was ever pulled over for speeding, I was doing 163kph, I got a stern talking to, I was told I wouldn't make it home alive and to slow down. I waited for weeks for penalty points, and got nothing.

What she did doesn't seem much worse

Simple AH tick box survey

A) Are you an attractive woman
Are you not an attractive woman
A) Was it a male Garda that pulled you over
Was it female Garda that pulled you over

If you answered mainly A's I think the answer to why this happened is buried somewhere in the 10+ pages of this thread

If you answered mainly B's maybe the cop was busy with other stuff that day or in a very forgiving mood

conorh91

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Is it really that terrible? The only time I was ever pulled over for speeding, I was doing 163kph, I got a stern talking to, I was told I wouldn't make it home alive and to slow down. I waited for weeks for penalty points, and got nothing.

You were after chugging your nightly bottle of wine, and the only thing you were driving was the shopping trolley in which you keep your possessions.

Admit it.

Shakespeare's Sister

Staplor wrote: »

Is this the same judge that bans people from driving for 6 months for parking in handicapped spots?

People as in one person?

gramar

The judge has been duped by a pretty apologetic face.

Praising her for her honesty when she was obviously lying.
Of course she knew how fast she was going.

cletus van damme

AnonoBoy wrote: »

She's a model not a prostitute.

I never said she was.
I was merely pointing out how corrupt the system is and the thought process of some of the judges.

She may not have been a prostitute but that doesn't mean the judge didn't fancy his chances of a piece.

sh1tstirrer

CiniO wrote: »

What should matter is not amount of km/h over the limit but percentage.
Doing 50km/h in 30km/h zone is as you say speeding by 20km/h but its as well speeding by 66%. Thats a lot imo.
Doing 180km/h on motorway is speeding by 60km/h but its only speeding by 50% so smaller grade offence than former one.

What a load of nonsense.

CiniO

sh1tstirrer wrote: »

What a load of nonsense.

Why? Explain please.

VinLieger

CiniO wrote: »

Why? Explain please.

Because looking at this from a percentage point of view is ridiculous.

It's simple how much damage will an out of control car at 50kph do compared to an out of control car at 167kph

Riskymove

hullaballoo wrote: »

This girl was convicted of careless driving, fined €500 and the points automatically apply on conviction. It's the same as those examples above.

Out of interest can you point to anything showing she was convicted of careless driving.

All the articles mention she pleaded guilty to "speeding"

There is no mention of careless driving

EazyD

CiniO wrote: »

Why? Explain please.

In fairness, it doesn't take a genius to realise that the impact damage from a crash at over 100mph will be significantly higher than at 50 or even 70. Percentages mean nothing really