Why don't we have speed cameras everywhere?

gozunda

ED E wrote: »

Forget the speed component and simply look at insurance. If we can take most of the uninsured drivers off the road it will help everyones premiums. This is a win win. The speed controls are just a bonus to help fun AGSs useless traffic corps.

Why put all responsibility on the 'useless traffic corps'? Should drivers not have some responsibility for their actions and some social conscience for the consequences of their actions? Better driver education or greater penalties perhaps to prevent such behaviour in the first place.

Uninsured drivers should not be able to get a drivers licence or road tax. A cross complience check would ensure that anyone without insurance would be committing a more serious offence of driving illegally on all counts.

JC01

Despite what the RSA likes to babble on about speed is far from the biggest factor in fatal crashes. Human error is.

ED E

gozunda wrote: »

Why put all responsibility on the 'useless traffic corps'? Should drivers not have some responsibility for their actions and some social conscience for the consequences of their actions? Better driver education or greater penalties perhaps to prevent such behaviour in the first place.

Uninsured drivers should not be able to get a drivers licence or road tax. A cross complience check would ensure that anyone without insurance would be committing a more serious offence of driving illegally on all counts.

Responsible drivers would be great. Would love that. Not the world we live in. Watch one episode of "Road Wars" "No Tax, No Insurance, Disqualified...No Tax, No Insurance, Disqualified...No Tax, No Insurance, Disqualified...". A cross check doesnt stop those who are pulling the triple multiple times. Having their cars regularly impounded and not returned will help here as we all know they will not be jailed for an extended period. Cameras assisting policing is the viable way of doing this.

Not really the topic of this thread but AGS ignore minor offences which creates an ethos among some drivers that there's no harm unless you're drink driving or doing 120 in an 80.

marno21

It's no wonder insurance premiums are so high. The amount of crashes happening in this country is downright obscene. There needs to be a bigger clampdown on mobile phone usage, stupid driving such as illegal turns, late lane changes, and not driving appropriate to the conditions not just 'speeding'.

frozenfrozen

Indricotherium wrote: »

It absolutely is not a straw man argument.

The contention is that on some roads in Ireland, driving double the speed limit will cause no harm.

Speed limits exist to prevent accidents and to ameliorate the impacts, and harm of accidents that do happen.

Is driving 240km/h possible on a lot of the motorway network?, Absolutely.

Will an accident at that speed cause more harm than one at 120, or under? YES.

Straw man argument. Quote where exactly that was said.

gozunda wrote: »

Why put all responsibility on the 'useless traffic corps'? Should drivers not have some responsibility for their actions and some social conscience for the consequences of their actions? Better driver education or greater penalties perhaps to prevent such behaviour in the first place.

Uninsured drivers should not be able to get a drivers licence or road tax. A cross complience check would ensure that anyone without insurance would be committing a more serious offence of driving illegally on all counts.

Uninsured drivers should not be able to get a drivers license? What?

How do you reckon that will work? You have to get insurance when you apply for your theory test?


Until we get ANPR people will continue to drive without tax and insurance. There's no point having cameras everywhere because then only the otherwise law abiding citizens will get punished. How do people on fake plates with no tax or insurance or license get caught in that situation? They send a letter to the address on the log book?

Guards need to have anpr and pull anyone in who doesn't have tax or insurance or a license and tow the car and have it crushed the same day and give them a big fine and potential jail time depending on how severe the abuse was.

Strictly enforcing speed limits is an archaic way of trying to make the roads safer. It's just the easiest measurement.
What about the people who are day dreaming or tired or bad drivers or those who don't follow 'the system' or have any kind of forward planning or employ any advanced driving techniques.

Doing 100kmh in a housing estate is obviously dangerous. But doing 80 in a 50 zone at 5 in the morning which was only made a 50 zone for traffic flow reasons? I see no issue with that at all.

Bigger issues than casual speeding on irish roads: people on the phone, still drunk from the night before, drink driving, over tired, not paying attention, no forward planning, improper upkeep of car brakes and tyres, being forced into a tin can of a car because of insurance, road rage, improper lane usage, not knowing how to use roundabouts, not letting people merge from slip roads, and a million other things that I'd rank above casual speeding

Speed limits become stupid things when they're treated as this absolute line you can not cross. 110kmh in a 100 zone could be more safe than 100kmh on that same road on a wet day in winter, or if the hedges haven't been cut and you can't get the same view.

Del2005

gozunda wrote: »

Uninsured drivers should not be able to get a drivers licence or road tax.

What about people who know how to drive but have no need for a car 24/7 so hire or borrow when required?

gozunda

ED E wrote: »

Responsible drivers would be great. Would love that. Not the world we live in. Watch one episode of "Road Wars" "No Tax, No Insurance, Disqualified...No Tax, No Insurance, Disqualified...No Tax, No Insurance, Disqualified...". A cross check doesnt stop those who are pulling the triple multiple times. Having their cars regularly impounded and not returned will help here as we all know they will not be jailed for an extended period. Cameras assisting policing is the viable way of doing this.

It would if they were convicted of this more serious offence and recieved appropriate custodial sentencing.

Television programmes don't prevent individuals learning lessons in responsibility.

ED E wrote: »

Not really the topic of this thread but AGS ignore minor offences which creates an ethos among some drivers that there's no harm unless you're drink driving or doing 120 in an 80.

I would assume that is more likley due to poor resources and level of resources provided for effective policing.

Plus getting away with a blown bulb does not give someone a green card to do 120 in a restricted speed zone.

Del2005

marno21 wrote: »

It's no wonder insurance premiums are so high. The amount of crashes happening in this country is downright obscene. There needs to be a bigger clampdown on mobile phone usage, stupid driving such as illegal turns, late lane changes, and not driving appropriate to the conditions not just 'speeding'.

I don't think we have more crashes than other countries, we just have judges who are extremely generous when giving away other people's money. €14k for an unprovable injury which gets €4k in our nearest neighbour is why our insurance is so expensive, then the legal profession ad a nice lump on top for all the hard work in getting money for an unprovable injury!

gozunda

frozenfrozen wrote:

Uninsured drivers should not be able to get a drivers license? What?

How do you reckon that will work? You have to get insurance when you apply for your theory test?

Following the "driver theory" test a successful applicant becomes a learner with a learners permit.

Insurance requirements would remain the same for qualified drivers

The current situation with insurance is that you must have a valid licence. To obtain NCT a driver needs to show their insurance. Full Cross complience is only a matter of time.

The nitty gritty is largely irrelevant as there are always exceptions.

frozenfrozen

gozunda wrote: »

Following the "driver theory" test a successful applicant becomes a learner with a learners permit.

Insurance requirements would remain the same for qualified drivers

The current situation with insurance is that you must have a valid licence. To obtain NCT a driver needs to show their insurance. Full Cross complience is only a matter of time.

The nitty gritty is largely irrelevant as there are always exceptions.

that makes no sense. How can someone be expected to get insurance before they get a license?

I don't care about the bold part, if I had an issue with that I would have quoted it from your original post.

JC01

gozunda wrote: »

Following the "driver theory" test a successful applicant becomes a learner with a learners permit.

Insurance requirements would remain the same for qualified drivers

The current situation with insurance is that you must have a valid licence. To obtain NCT a driver needs to show their insurance. Full Cross complience is only a matter of time.

The nitty gritty is largely irrelevant as there are always exceptions.

How do you test a car with no insurance policy in that situation? Eg a car driven on a fleet policy? A lot of cars on the road are insured to be so but do not have there own policy attached to them

gozunda

frozenfrozen wrote: »

that makes no sense. How can someone be expected to get insurance before they get a license?

I don't care about the bold part, if I had an issue with that I would have quoted it from your original post.

Why not have cross complience? You didn't give any actual reason why cross complience is not acceptable.

It's not that they would "be expexted get insurance before they get a license" rather you would have to show that you have insurance before your licenced was renewed / issued. If you have a car, motor tax, insurance and are going to drive then you will obviously need a licence as well.

Cross complience means that people are fully legal and other road users are protected against accidents potentially caused by you.

Theory test participants are a moot point in your example.

The examples of existing complience included my last post only show that cross complience is already being adopted and not the mountain that you presume.

Again the question is
Why not have cross complience?

bpmurray

I lived in Denmark 25 years ago, and then they had correlation between car and insurance so that if you didn't have insurance, the police turned up and snipped off your number plates. The advances in computing today could easily link insurance, NCT, road tax and whatever other tax they decide to add, making enforcement a simple administrative act rather than having to drag the gardai into non-criminal stuff.

On the original point, there's a strong focus on speed and road deaths. However, if you look at these as being extreme personal injuries, and include them with all personal injuries statistics, dangerous overtaking beats speeding by a long way as the primary cause. Placing cameras supported with clever analytics at black spots to capture dangerous overtaking would probably have a far greater iimpact on injuries, including fatalities.

JustTheOne

What I don't get is idiots putting up on Facebook where speed cameras are, or apps that tell you.

Or when people call a gard sneaky when he is hiding with a camera around a bend.

If you're speeding and breaking the law you should be caught and dealt with.

gozunda

JC01 wrote: »

How do you test a car with no insurance policy in that situation? Eg a car driven on a fleet policy? A lot of cars on the road are insured to be so but do not have there own policy attached to them

How does nct for similar vehicles work that require insurance? As showed cross complience is already being used by NCT and insurance. The majority of cars on the road are directly owned. Exceptions doesn't prevent this being implemented at some point in the future.

Its definitly better than having some mad world where everyone has a camera pointed at them 24/7.

What would you suggest then?

frozenfrozen

gozunda wrote: »

Why not have cross complience? You didn't give any actual reason why cross complience is not acceptable.

It's not that they would "be expexted get insurance before they get a license" rather you would have to show that you have insurance before your licenced was renewed / issued. If you have a car, motor tax, insurance and are going to drive then you will obviously need a licence as well.

Cross complience means that people are fully legal and other road users are protected against accidents potentially caused by you.

Theory test participants are a moot point.

The examples of existing complience in bold show that cross complience is already being adopted and not the mountain that you presume.

Again the question is
Why not have cross complience?

I never said anything about cross compliance so stop trying to say that I said anything about it.

I had an issue with you saying that people should not be able to get a license without insurance. That is not a plausible idea for many different reasons.

Jayop

JustTheOne wrote: »

What I don't get is idiots putting up on Facebook where speed cameras are, or apps that tell you.

Or when people call a gard sneaky when he is hiding with a camera around a bend.

If you're speeding and breaking the law you should be caught and dealt with.

I dunno about that really. If people think there's going to be a speed van then they will slow down so even by telling people there's a speed trap you're making the road safer.

Look at what the guards in Mayo did a few year ago by putting out cardboard cut out traffic cars to slow people down. I see that as no different.

ironclaw

JustTheOne wrote: »

What I don't get is idiots putting up on Facebook where speed cameras are, or apps that tell you.

Or when people call a gard sneaky when he is hiding with a camera around a bend.

If you're speeding and breaking the law you should be caught and dealt with.

Has a greater effect in my opinion the more people talk about it. People become aware, sparks a conversation. Think about a recent news story you heard from a friend, has a far better impact than a headline you read. Its social engagement and humans thrive on that. Its the basis of modern marketing.

How often would you lift off in an area you've been warned about? There are sections I do, every single time. Now, granted most are motorways or barrel straights, but it sparks a small thought as to my speed. For the brain dead Joe Soap, thats a good thing in my book.

I don't agree with speed cameras as they have so much scope that is not being used in a manner that in my mind would be far more effective. To name but a few, in the right conditions of course:

- Seat belt enforcement
- Incorrect light usage or lack of (Never again would be have a Fog Light thread)
- Tax, NCT & Insurance
- Defective or dangerous cars e.g. Overloaded, unsafe, unsecure loads.

People might actually stop and think about driving and take it somewhat seriously if they knew they weren't acting in the best interests of the others we share the road with and being heavily penalised for it, because none of the above are excusable.

Indricotherium

Jayop wrote: »

I dunno about that really. If people think there's going to be a speed van then they will slow down so even by telling people there's a speed trap you're making the road safer.

Look at what the guards in Mayo did a few year ago by putting out cardboard cut out traffic cars to slow people down. I see that as no different.

Exactly.

The purpose of the enforcement is to slow people down, not to catch people.

gozunda

frozenfrozen wrote: »

I never said anything about cross compliance so stop trying to say that I said anything about it.

I had an issue with you saying that people should not be able to get a license without insurance. That is not a plausible idea for many different reasons.

Well don't reply to my post about cross complience then

I said -

Uninsured drivers should not be able to get a drivers licence or road tax. A cross complience check would ensure that anyone without insurance would be committing a more serious offence of driving illegally on all counts.

Btw those two sentences are not to meant to be read separately get it?

You said in reply

Uninsured drivers should not be able to get a drivers license? What?

I don't care for your unmentioned 'other reasons' I was talking about 'cross complience' of all legal driver /vehicle requirements.

I think you're on another thread there. :rolleyes:

h3000

Mobile phone use, texting and social media in particular while driving must be one of the biggest causes of accidents recently. I live in a semi rural area with fairly narrow roads and everyday (i really do mean everyday) going to or from work I will meet at least one driver drifting to the wrong side of the road often on or just before/after bends due to paying more attention to the phone than the road.
There are too long straight stretches of road half a mile to one mile in length on my commute. There has already been three accidents (that I've seen) there this year... How does on have an accident on a straight road?? Not ****ing looking at it is probably right up there anyway.

frozenfrozen

gozunda wrote: »

Well don't reply to my post about cross complience[sic] then


I don't care for your unmentioned 'other reasons' I was talking about 'cross complience' of all legal driver /vehicle requirements.

I think your on another thread there. :rolleyes:

so you're in agreement that it's a stupid idea to say it shouldn't be possible to get a licence without having insurance? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:;)

gozunda

frozenfrozen wrote: »

so you're in agreement that it's a stupid idea to say it shouldn't be possible to get a licence without having insurance? ...

Poor try - but your argument re licence and insurance was bogus because it's not even on the same page.

You could at least try to detail some of your 'different reasons' next time

Do keep up (sic)

paddythe goat

would like to see much more cctv in all town centres, since cops went off beat on the street many years ago....due to several reasons.....i think more cctv on streets close to banks, post offices....etc etc....would help reduce robberies and personal attacks.....................and keep eye on cars., vans, moving about maybe in places where they should not be.....or maybe they are having a good look with a view to return later to do damage

JustTheOne

Jayop wrote: »

I dunno about that really. If people think there's going to be a speed van then they will slow down so even by telling people there's a speed trap you're making the road safer.

Look at what the guards in Mayo did a few year ago by putting out cardboard cut out traffic cars to slow people down. I see that as no different.

Slow down for a minute then back to speeding once past it?

How will that stop people speeding?

Is it not better to actually catch people and punish them instead.

That will make people think twice.

frozenfrozen

gozunda wrote: »

Poor try - but your argument re licence and insurance was bogus because it's not even on the same page.

Do keep up (sic)

Nice try. You said something silly and I called you out on it. You tried to change the subject but it's not happening. Better luck next time

Sam Kade

There's a new camera at the traffic lights in mallow because drivers were constantly running red lights, they obeyed the lights for about a week and are back to their usual driving style again.

Jayop

JustTheOne wrote: »

Slow down for a minute then back to speeding once past it?

How will that stop people speeding?

Is it not better to actually catch people and punish them instead.

That will make people think twice.

Who knows. It's just guess work either way unless you have some evidence that points to one being more effective than the other.

Again, for me people would have more respect for speed camera vans if they weren't simply placed in locations to maximize revenue rather than prevent accidents. Like a lot of decisions made by recent governments they are pushing ordinary people to have less respect for the Guards and for things like speed vans.

gozunda

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Nice try. You said something silly and I called you out on it. You tried to change the subject but it's not happening. Better luck next time

Yeah sure

For sone daft reason you decided to cherry pick and argue out of context. Then you wouldnt even admit that you did that even when it was pointed out. At least read what is written. That tends to help.

frozenfrozen

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah sure

For sone daft reason you decided to cherry pick and argue out of context. Then you wouldnt even admit that you did that even when it was pointed out. At least read what is written. That tends to help.

What are you still trying to do? Stop whatever it is

gozunda

frozenfrozen wrote: »

What are you still trying to do? Stop whatever it is

? ? ? ...

frozenfrozen

gozunda wrote: »

? ? ? ...

We were done after you agreed that the text I apparently took out of context was bollox. No need to keep replying trying to be smart.

NiallBoo

A couple of things that I'd like to see are:

1. Increased motorway speed limits with strict enforcement of limits
   - Why not increase the limits to 130 (standard in Europe) or even 140. I'ts what plenty of people do anyway but strictly enforce limits so people don't go over that.
2. Variable speed limits on the M50
   - Engineers will tell you that lower speed limits at peak times will actually lead to less congestion and shorter journey times, but it seems that it could easily handle 120 for off-peak times without problem. There are lots of places that use variable limits successfully, so why not us?

Deleted User wrote: »

If you put cameras on every road at all times, and put cameras on every entry and exit ramp on a motorway, it would never pay for itself. The only reason GoSafe catch anyone is because they get them off-guard (most of the time they're halfway behind a bush, or on a turn on the road).

If they were on every road, no one would speed. And if I knew my untaxed, uninsured car with no NCT would be flagged the minute I put it on a motorway, it'd never be put on a motorway.

Funny thing is, if both of these things were to happen, they system would pay for itself in saved infrastructure costs and time saving for road users due to falling demand. Worth remembering that the biggest benefits for Government spending are usually indirect.

deandean wrote: »

My one and only "speeding" fine was for driving at 56 in a 50 zone in Dublin at 6.30am of a
Sunday morning. This was a pure revenue raiser for the government.

6kmh doesn't look like much, but if you hit a pedestrian (which is a big risk in a 50zone), you'll be doing it with 25% harder.

It's much more than a pocket-filler.

gozunda

frozenfrozen wrote: »

We were done after you agreed that the text I apparently took out of context was bollox. No need to keep replying trying to be smart.

"I agreed" with whom? Seriously you do know it takes 2 people to agree on something. I pointed that your comment was out of context after you dismissed the main part of what I was saying about cross compliance.

I have no idea what you were on about in the last post tbh. Hence the question marks. Tbh It still makes absolutely no sense. Anyway mind yourself.

pablo128

gozunda wrote: »

Following the "driver theory" test a successful applicant becomes a learner with a learners permit.

Insurance requirements would remain the same for qualified drivers

The current situation with insurance is that you must have a valid licence. To obtain NCT a driver needs to show their insurance. Full Cross complience is only a matter of time.

The nitty gritty is largely irrelevant as there are always exceptions.

You don't need to show insurance in order to obtain an NCT. Just your licence.

Del2005

paddythe goat wrote: »

would like to see much more cctv in all town centres, since cops went off beat on the street many years ago....due to several reasons.....i think more cctv on streets close to banks, post offices....etc etc....would help reduce robberies and personal attacks.....................and keep eye on cars., vans, moving about maybe in places where they should not be.....or maybe they are having a good look with a view to return later to do damage

Look at how well CCTV did for catching the 3rd Brussels airport bomber, everyone knows that CCTV can be defeated by using a hat. Unless there is somebody to act on the CCTV immediately it's useless. All CCTV will do is catch honest people committing misdemeanors, while serious crimes remain unresolved.

Del2005

pablo128 wrote: »

You don't need to show insurance in order to obtain an NCT. Just your licence.

You don't even need a licence, which is a document that you are legally required to carry when driving, you can show your passport. So an uninsured unlicensed driver can drive a failed vehicle away from an NCT.

CiniO

JustTheOne wrote: »

What I don't get is idiots putting up on Facebook where speed cameras are, or apps that tell you.

There's hardly any apps that tell you current camera location, but there are indeed apps in some countries, where this works very well.
Any speed check is marked by app users, so everyone else using the app knows instantly that camera is there. I've been using one, and it saved me from being caught many times.

CB radio is good for that as well in places where many people use it and can communicate in relation to speed traps.

Even old fashioned flashing the lights work good.

Any way to save yourself being caught is good and desireable.

In the end of the day, most drivers don't give a sh1t about speed limits and just drive what they think is safe - which very often works good.
Speed traps are only money making rackets... absolutely nothing else.

quadrifoglio verde

Del2005 wrote: »

You don't even need a licence, which is a document that you are legally required to carry when driving, you can show your passport. So an uninsured unlicensed driver can drive a failed vehicle away from an NCT.

The nct's job is to test whether the car is 100% roadworthy on the day of test. Not if the person presenting at the test centre is the owner, has insurance or has paid tax.
Just that the car is 100 % roadworthy.
The car can still fail but be safe to drive on the road

Del2005

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

The nct's job is to test whether the car is 100% roadworthy on the day of test. Not if the person presenting at the test centre is the owner, has insurance or has paid tax.
Just that the car is 100 % roadworthy.
The car can still fail but be safe to drive on the road

So it's OK for a driver who isn't roadworthy to drive a vehicle to and from a roadworthiness test?

pablo128

Del2005 wrote: »

So it's OK for a driver who isn't roadworthy to drive a vehicle to and from a roadworthiness test?

No-one said it's OK. But it's not something the nct is concerned with. They test the car, not the driver.

Jesus.

I'm of a mind to think the OP is trolling

Wibbs

Vic_08 wrote: »

Is this the thread for people who read 1984 and thought it all sounded like a great idea?

Some cultures seem to have a quite large element within that need constant oversight and they're only happy when they have it and for all the "rebel Irish" talk, we're most certainly one of them. There's also a puritanical hair shirt element to our culture too. Mix them together and you get Maude Flanders all over the place. I'm most certainly not some American prepper living in a shack going on about "big government", but the amount of people calling for more responsibility to be taken from them beggars belief. For that kind of personality 1984 isn't a horror, it's a Disney flic.

Del2005 wrote: »

If that is the case why are boreens with grass down the middle 80km/h and some sections of N roads 60km/h? What happened to the N4 when it changed to an R that it had to drop from a 100 to an 80?

Most of our speed limits are completely out of whack for the road with some being way to high and others stupidity low.

+1000 I can think of a few back roads that unless your last name happened to be Fangio, no way would you be safe driving near the posted limit, whereas others even a hamfisted gobdaw like me could comfortably exceed the posted limit with little danger of twisted metal death.

Jesus. wrote: »

I'm of a mind to think the OP is trolling

I doubt it and this kinda thing will be on our roads and soon enough too. IIRC under EU law(big shock) all cars from last year(again IIRC) have to be fitted with GPS. Wouldn't take much for them to transmit that data when "required by the state". And then we have the coming iPhones on wheels self driving with apps cars. The car is going the way of the horse. A pet only used for recreation in specific areas. Which isn't entirely an awful thing but the big brother shizzle I could do without.

NiallBoo

Del2005 wrote: »

So it's OK for a driver who isn't roadworthy to drive a vehicle to and from a roadworthiness test?

An off-the-road car could be brought on a trailer and everything would be legit.

duffman3833

i think the op's post isn't a good solution because basically s**t happens. People make actions. Unless you can replace all of us with robots, road deaths will always happen

gozunda

pablo128 wrote: »

You don't need to show insurance in order to obtain an NCT. Just your licence.

My bad that should have been insurance and motor tax ie where you need to have a current Certificate of Insurance to obtain motor tax.

In relation to the the nct the guidelines state

Remember to bring ID

Anybody who is presenting a vehicle for an NCT is required to produce their Driving Licence (or Passport) as a form of identification. Please ensure you bring your Driving Licence (or Passport) with you when presenting a vehicle, otherwise the NCTS may not be able to carry out the test. This is required to prevent fraud and to help facilitate investigations and appeals. All data checking is carried out in accordance with Data Protection requirements.

For bookings made at the test centre, only driving licences or a Trade Management Fob will be accepted from 28th July 2014.

ohnonotgmail

gozunda wrote: »

My bad that should have been insurance and motor tax ie where you need to have a current Certificate of Insurance to obtain motor tax.

In relation to the the nct the guidelines state

You dont need a current certificate of insurance to tax a car. you can do it online and put in any info at all in the insurance cert no field and it will accept. it doesnt check if the policy is valid or even that the policy exists.

Indricotherium

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You dont need a current certificate of insurance to tax a car. you can do it online and put in any info at all in the insurance cert no field and it will accept. it doesnt check if the policy is valid or even that the policy exists.

But that is fraud?

Del2005

Indricotherium wrote: »

But that is fraud?

They never took any details when I used to tax in the office, sometimes they never even looked at the cert. The database isn't used for anything and if my insurance expires the day after I tax online then the policy information is out of date with no ability to update the information.

gozunda

Del2005 wrote: »

They never took any details when I used to tax in the office, sometimes they never even looked at the cert. The database isn't used for anything and if my insurance expires the day after I tax online then the policy information is out of date with no ability to update the information.

Not so sure sure tbh

From an article on at the time when the online system was set up

While tax offices will not be checking the insurance details logged on-line, the information will be passed over to gardai, it was revealed yesterday.

The information is then forwarded to the Garda Pulse computer network and will link up with separate computer systems containing penalty points and the courts service. It will provide the first ever integrated information link.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/online-system-will-tax-cars-without-proof-of-insurance-26015949.html