Summons for speeding

Renegade Mechanic

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Two things there, firstly it was on a motorway, secondly where there are no "meat and two veg" in a court case, softer punishments tend to be handed out..
We're dealing with meat and two veg here

Just to clarify. (And btw, the chap deserved it, and If/when I'm caught at that, I won't argue either..)
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/motorist-21-was-driving-at-one-of-the-highest-speeds-gardai-had-come-across-34695429.html

A thousand quid fine.
Licence revoked.
Disqualified four years, will have to resit test.
And jailed for three months.
Muh soggy knee

bladespin

Dax Kind Meteorology wrote:

This was not on a motorway. It was 170 in a 100 zone. That's 70% over. Being a Doctor or going to work is absolutely no excuse.

Not sure if the OP asked that.

Walter2016

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I hope you can explain the long hours you had been working and the pressure you are under if you have to speak before a judge

Try that with Zaidan in Kilcock or Naas and he'll throw the book at you.

Nighttime, 100kmh limit, long day, under pressure, tired. Caught doing 170kmh.

Not condusive to getting off lightly esp with Zaidan.

I'd go short day, was happy getting home early for a change and looking forward to a couple of days off to relax and didn't realise I had hit such speed.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

bladespin wrote: »

Not sure if the OP asked that.

I didn't say he did, but it was raised by others.

demanufactured

demanufactured wrote: »

Yes it's only roughly 110 mph

Exactly, cruising speed for many modern cars particularly anything half decent.

Dax Kind Meteorology wrote: »

This was not on a motorway. It was 170 in a 100 zone. That's 70% over. Being a Doctor or going to work is absolutely no excuse.

It's a motorway with a 100kmh speed limit which is crazy in itself.

bladespin

Walter2016 wrote:

Nighttime, 100kmh limit, long day, under pressure, tired. Caught doing 170kmh.

Add in tired and he'll suggest not fit to drive, caution advised, best leave that stuff to a solicitor, even then Zaidan is inconsistent.

sunnysoutheast

OP the only useful advice you have got or will get in here is to lawyer up, local specialist, first thing on Monday morning. Money no object.

70% over the limit is going to be problematic though I would say. What were road conditions like?

KwackerJack

joefuss1986 wrote: »

http://www.limerickpost.ie/2014/10/08/speeding-limerick-beauty-queen-praised-for-honesty/

The amount of people spouting ****e when they haven't a clue.

She didn't notice she was doing 187 kmph?? I suppose she thought that every other road user was just driving really really slowly!

Well in fairness she probably hasn't a clue how to read the instrument and as always our court system depends if the judge got laid last night or if his coffee was cold

Renegade Mechanic

Ah here, lads, FFS. I'll be the first to admit speeding but this ****e talk about how a hundred miles an hour is "nothing really" is a bit ridiculous.

It's nothing until you have to move the steering wheel.
Lose grip at 100 mph and come back to me, everything is exponential. Its not "25% worse than losing control at 75mph". It's an awful lot worse.

Renegade Mechanic

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Ah here, lads, FFS. I'll be the first to admit speeding but this ****e talk about how a hundred miles an hour is "nothing really" is a bit ridiculous.

It's nothing until you have to move the steering wheel.
Lose grip at 100 mph and come back to me, everything is exponential. Its not "25% worse than losing control at 75mph". It's an awful lot worse.

I'd say the opposite losing it at 75 and losing it at 100 will make damn all difference you are fcuked either way.

Why aren't hundreds being killed on autobhans if it's so dangerous keeping in mind our motorways and modern dual carriageways are actually better roads in many cases.

Renegade Mechanic

Aranza Obedient Mirror wrote: »

I'd say the opposite losing it at 75 and losing it at 100 will make damn all difference you are fcuked either way.

Why aren't hundreds being killed on autobhans if it's so dangerous keeping in mind our motorways and modern dual carriageways are actually better roads in many cases.

Ignoring the fact that hundreds actually are killed on the autobahns each year, I'll assume you to mean why aren't hundreds more killed?

It might be the long straight road with few turns... Given that most of the deaths occur on the few turns there, the argument I'm levelling that 100mhp is indeed nothing until you have to turn the wheel remains right.

I've often done "book" speeds myself, I'm far from perfect - or even close...
Drive on, but ye lot need to have a lot more respect for the number on the speedo that you're showing.

dr.fuzzenstein

Aranza Obedient Mirror wrote: »

I'd say the opposite losing it at 75 and losing it at 100 will make damn all difference you are fcuked either way.

Why aren't hundreds being killed on autobhans if it's so dangerous keeping in mind our motorways and modern dual carriageways are actually better roads in many cases.

Was given a car at work to drop something to a colleague. I'm used to giving my Transit a good kicking to get any speed out of it, when I did the same in the Scoda I was at 160 when I looked at my speedo, happens before you know it and it doesn't have to be anything special to achieve that kind of speed. It cruised happily at 180 and I touched 200 a few times. It was relaxed cruising. This was in Germany before the "lord bless us and save us, jaysis, the car must have been exshplodin at that shpeed!" ride in.

KwackerJack

Aranza Obedient Mirror wrote: »

I'd say the opposite losing it at 75 and losing it at 100 will make damn all difference you are fcuked either way.

Why aren't hundreds being killed on autobhans if it's so dangerous keeping in mind our motorways and modern dual carriageways are actually better roads in many cases.

Because most Germans can actually drive....also ask an Irish driver about merging, lane changing and indicators and you will see a blank face.

Driving fast in a straight line is easy.........

Doc just needs s good Solicitor and to make sure he's not caught again!!

CreepingDeath

If anything being a doctor should be a negative here... working shifts and long hours means you'd be less alert/attentive on roads with poor sleep and irregular sleeping patterns interfering with your circadian rhythms.

fullstop

Aranza Obedient Mirror wrote: »

Have to laugh at people who think 170 is the equivalent of mass murder :rolleyes:. You were unlucky not to just get a fine and 2 points imo.

Took a whole 30 posts this time! Shocked. No mention of the Autobahn though

Nomis21

Too much 'Holier than Thou' on this thread.

That section of road at Athlone is almost motorway standard and is in fact between two sections of motorway. At midnight on a clear night and a dry road in a roadworthy car it is safe for 140 in my opinion, but 170 is pushing it a bit.

OP needs a solicitor to make his case of the need of licence for his job.

End result will probably be keeping his licence but a big fine (about 500 to1,000) and at least 6 points.

bladespin

Renegade Mechanic wrote:

It's nothing until you have to move the steering wheel. Lose grip at 100 mph and come back to me, everything is exponential. Its not "25% worse than losing control at 75mph". It's an awful lot worse.

Nope, that's 33%

Aranza Obedient Mirror

Aranza Obedient Mirror wrote: »

I'd say the opposite losing it at 75 and losing it at 100 will make damn all difference you are fcuked either way.

Why aren't hundreds being killed on autobhans if it's so dangerous keeping in mind our motorways and modern dual carriageways are actually better roads in many cases.

Hundreds are being killed every year on autobahn. About 400, every year.

road_high

Was the OP on the M6 motorway? Doesn't really specify, just 100 kmh zone- I know there's two such zones on the M6 around Athlone and that last bit near Galway.
If it was 170 kmh on a motorway I fail to see the big issue here. I'll freely admit I do 160 kmh regularly enough if the road conditions allow- I'm sure I've touched 170 kmh too!!
170 kmh on a 100 kmh N or R road I would see a big issUe with however.

pablo128

KwackerJack wrote: »

Its a ban.....anything over 100mph is an automatic ban!

You may have some hope if you could prove you rushed to a home case etc but anything less and you may hire a driver

I was stopped by an unmarked car after undertaking it at 100 mph on the Naas road. In a Transit.

Woman detective let me away with a serious bollocking. Followed by another bollocking when she asked for my licence and I didn't have it on me!

robyntmorton

The discussion as to whether the speed limit is suitable is irrelevant to this thread. We are all bound by the law of the land as they are now. Not as we want them to be.

Under the current law, the OP was caught doing 170 in a 100 zone, and will be prosecuted on that fact. Whether that particular stretch of road is suitable for a higher limit, or that modern cars are more suited to/safely capable of higher speeds is a completely different argument.

2forjoy

and even with solicitor you better turn up yourself on the day or it will be worse imo

Nomis21

robyntmorton wrote: »

The discussion as to whether the speed limit is suitable is irrelevant to this thread. We are all bound by the law of the land as they are now. Not as we want them to be.

Under the current law, the OP was caught doing 170 in a 100 zone, and will be prosecuted on that fact. Whether that particular stretch of road is suitable for a higher limit, or that modern cars are more suited to/safely capable of higher speeds is a completely different argument.

So why then is it safe for garda to drive at over 170 kph to catch the OP?

Special Circumstances

robyntmorton wrote: »

The discussion as to whether the speed limit is suitable is irrelevant to this thread. We are all bound by the law of the land as they are now. Not as we want them to be.

Under the current law, the OP was caught doing 170 in a 100 zone, and will be prosecuted on that fact. Whether that particular stretch of road is suitable for a higher limit, or that modern cars are more suited to/safely capable of higher speeds is a completely different argument.

Twas probably a 2 litre car. Treacherous yokes.

robyntmorton

Nomis21 wrote: »

So why then is it safe for garda to drive at over 170 kph to catch the OP?

Road Traffic Act 2004

27.—Requirements under the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2004 relating to vehicles and requirements, restrictions and prohibitions relating to the driving and use of vehicles, other than those provided under sections 49 and 50 (inserted by sections 10 and 11, respectively, of the Act of 1994), 51A and 52 (inserted by sections 49 and 50, respectively, of the Act of 1968) and 53 of the Principal Act and sections 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Act of 1994, do not apply to a driver of a fire brigade vehicle, an ambulance or the use by a member of the Garda Síochána of a vehicle in the performance of the duties of that member or a person driving or using a vehicle under the direction of a member of the Garda Síochána, where such use does not endanger the safety of road users.

Obviously safety of road users is a subjective term, and thus could be challenged, but it would not negate the OP's breaking the law.

Special Circumstances

robyntmorton wrote: »

Road Traffic Act 2004



Obviously safety of road users is a subjective term, and thus could be challenged, but it would not negate the OP's breaking the law.

I don't think nomis means safe in a legal sense, I think he means in the "certain death once you pass 140kph" sense maybe.

I've actually been reincarnated more often than the dalai lama. You'd think I would have learned to drive safely by now wouldn't you - to trundle past people at the minimum possible speed difference, greatly extending the time spent on the wrong side of the road.

Nomis21

Speed limits are subjective.

Is 100 kph on a wet road as safe as on a dry road? Of course not, so if it is the limit on a wet road, being the most dangerous condition, wouldn't it be safe to drive faster on the same road when it was dry?

Ginger83

abdullah87 wrote: »

Hello,

Just wondering if anyone has had a similar case or would advise me. I was stopped by garda for speeding at 170km/hr on a 100km/hr zone going from dublin to galway. ( it was midnight..i work as a doctor and had to start a long shift at 8 in the morning..still insane i agree).I wasnt given any fine and instead i was issued a court summons which i have recieved. Any one knows what will happn in the court? Should i hire a lawyer? Will it make a difference?

A doctor of all people should know the mess a high speed accident can cause.

I'd say you're facing a ban, and rightly so.

thadg

Nomis21 wrote: »

Speed limits are subjective.

Is 100 kph on a wet road as safe as on a dry road? Of course not, so if it is the limit on a wet road, being the most dangerous condition, wouldn't it be safe to drive faster on the same road when it was dry?

in france motorways are 130 in dry and 110 in wet
national roads are 100 dry and 90 wet or something along them lines

bladespin

2forjoy wrote:

and even with solicitor you better turn up yourself on the day or it will be worse imo

Unless you're too important

foggy_lad

Truckermal wrote: »

I'm surprised he didn't arrest you on the spot, either way you need a good solicitor..

Doctor, needing to be in work at 8am, great get out of jail free card.

blindside88 wrote: »

Car doesn't need to be anything special to get to 170kms any of the new Garda cars wouldn't have an issue doing it either. Definitly get a solicitor OP, Id say it'll be a hefty ban anyway but a good solicitor may be able to get you a lesser ban due to how important your car is to your job

Doctors are nothing special as far as driving or needing a car goes, sounds like the OP is a hospital doctor so he can move to Galway and get public transport and taxis to and from work, or cycle!

ScouseMouse wrote: »

It appears you realise you fecked up.

I suggest first thing you do is get a good solicitor familiar with that court and judge. Then........ grovel, plead and be humble. You need your licence.

OP needs to lose the licence for a considerable time to learn that driving is not a right but a privilege!

bladespin wrote: »

Add in tired and he'll suggest not fit to drive, caution advised, best leave that stuff to a solicitor, even then Zaidan is inconsistent.

Judge Zaidan is perfectly consistent with people who should know better!

bladespin

foggy_lad wrote:

Judge Zaidan is perfectly consistent with people who should know better!

Referring to solicitor's arguments, unless something has changed drastically.

gman2k

2 cars side by side, one doing 100mph, the other at 70mph.
Both cars brake to stop. When the 70mph car is at a standstill, the 100mph car is now travelling at 70mph.
That's why speed kills.

Gashmuncher

I think is 100% a ban for 170

conor2469

Ginger83 wrote: »

A doctor of all people should know the mess a high speed accident can cause.

Not necessarily, he could be a proctologist.

road_high

gman2k wrote: »

2 cars side by side, one doing 100mph, the other at 70mph.
Both cars brake to stop. When the 70mph car is at a standstill, the 100mph car is now travelling at 70mph.
That's why speed kills.

So by that "logic" then why not reduce it to say 80 kmh? Even less of a stopping distance!
What's called for at higher speeds is good spatial awareness and judgement. Braking and stopping distances on cars have improved enormously since the 1960s yet we have motorway limits still rooted in that era that make no sense anymore.

bladespin

gman2k wrote:

That's why speed kills.

In that instance it's faulty brakes that are responsible (or your math is off).

Damien360

road_high wrote: »

So by that "logic" then why not reduce it to say 80 kmh? Even less of a stopping distance!
What's called for at higher speeds is good spatial awareness and judgement. Braking and stopping distances on cars have improved enormously since the 1960s yet we have motorway limits still rooted in that era that make no sense anymore.

We have a driving test that is probably unchanged since that time also. We have a great number of rubbish drivers on the road and the limits will probably have to stay there until driver education improves vastly and the current crop of young and old drivers disappear off our roads.

Damien360

gman2k wrote: »

2 cars side by side, one doing 100mph, the other at 70mph.
Both cars brake to stop. When the 70mph car is at a standstill, the 100mph car is now travelling at 70mph.
That's why speed kills.

Think you may check your maths. When one is at zero the other is at 30.

KwackerJack

pablo128 wrote: »

I was stopped by an unmarked car after undertaking it at 100 mph on the Naas road. In a Transit.

Woman detective let me away with a serious bollocking. Followed by another bollocking when she asked for my licence and I didn't have it on me!

Would you like a medal?

A detective had better things to be doing......different outcome if it was traffic corps

pablo128

KwackerJack wrote: »

Would you like a medal?

A detective had better things to be doing......different outcome if it was traffic corps

I honestly really wanted to ask her how it was possible for me to be able to undertake her. You know, the fact she was hogging the overtaking lane and all. I kept my mouth shut though, and my licence intact. I consider myself really lucky.

ShadowHearth

Okay, I am not going through the whole thread, but is it already confirmed that it's a troll?

J.pilkington

The only useful advice on this thread is lawyer up. Should you get a summons the solicitor will -advise you / present an argument and advice on what to do / say / dress etc.

I guess that the road in question is the end of the m6. Poor decision to reduce the speed limit to 100kph so far before the junction. The road is motorway standard and only purpose seems to be to catch out speeders who have lot slowed down

J.pilkington

foggy_lad wrote: »

Doctor, needing to be in work at 8am, great get out of jail free card.

Doctors are nothing special as far as driving or needing a car goes, sounds like the OP is a hospital doctor so he can move to Galway and get public transport and taxis to and from work, or cycle!

OP needs to lose the licence for a considerable time to learn that driving is not a right but a privilege!

Judge Zaidan is perfectly consistent with people who should know better!

Are you sure you have read the thread properly this time? You have a bit of a name for skimming threads and making incorrect assumptions and from these incorrect assumptions then making seriously incorrect hardline accusations from high above like you have in your post above

Ginger83

conor2469 wrote: »

Not necessarily, he could be a proctologist.

he'll need to see 1 when the judge is done with him, possible ban and re-sit test

Special Circumstances

Ginger83 wrote: »

A doctor of all people should know the mess a high speed accident can cause.

I'd say you're facing a ban, and rightly so.

Do they have a special slow lane for doctors, paramedics etc on the autobahn?

The OP must be the tenth person this month on here who has admitted to speeds in excess of the "killed shtone dead instantly no ifs no buts no maybes" threshold! Is this how the Xmen first show themselves, seemingly ordinary humans with incredible gifts such as being able to survive 140kph+?

fullstop

Aranza Obedient Mirror wrote: »

I'd say the opposite losing it at 75 and losing it at 100 will make damn all difference you are fcuked either way.

Why aren't hundreds being killed on autobhans if it's so dangerous keeping in mind our motorways and modern dual carriageways are actually better roads in many cases.

Good lad, knew you'd get the autobahn in there

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/motoring/news/article.cfm?c_id=9&objectid=11217190

Only 400-odd deaths per year...does that count as hundreds? :rolleyes:

Nomis21 wrote: »

Speed limits are subjective.

Nah they're not, it's written on a little round sign.

Special Circumstances

fullstop wrote: »

Good lad, knew you'd get the autobahn in there

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/motoring/news/article.cfm?c_id=9&objectid=11217190

Only 400-odd deaths per year...does that count as hundreds? :rolleyes:


Nah they're not, it's written on a little round sign.

We'd surely be talking in the hundreds of thousands though, considering how deadly dangerous shpeed is?

400 a day maybe? That would be more in line with the expectations here?

fullstop

Special Circumstances wrote: »

We'd surely be talking in the hundreds of thousands though, considering how deadly dangerous shpeed is?

400 a day maybe? That would be more in line with the expectations here?

Is that what was said in the post I replied to :rolleyes:

Special Circumstances

fullstop wrote: »

Is that what was said in the post I replied to :rolleyes:

No your article doesn't seem to suggest that high speeds guarantee carnage at all. From the shrieking on here you'd certainly expect 400 a week at "those sort of speeds".

Do you have one with higher figures maybe and posted that one above by mistake?